Madison+Szathmary

Funny Stuff! media type="youtube" key="9uuqXXT7VYo" height="315" width="420" align="center"

Hamlet Blog #4 (February 18, 2012)

Hamlet contemplates the psychological aspects of death throughout the play ("To be or not to be?") and in Act 5, this fascination with death transfers over to a fascination with the physcial aspects of death as well. The graveyard scene was my personal favorite part of this play and in it, Hamlet makes some very compelling assertions about what happens to us after we die: To what base uses we may return, Horatio. Why may not imagination trace the noble dust of Alexander till he find it stopping a bunghole? Here, Hamlet suggest that in our "not to be", we are infact still "be-ing" somewhere. In this case, even the noblest of us will end up as the dirt used to fix a hole in the walll, protecting some person from the wind. (Talk about your Circle of Life!) Hamlet demonstates extreme courage when faced with the psyical manifestations of a death that is familiar to him (Yorick's skull). If he is able to confront the skull of someone he once adored and speak of what he was like in life and where he is now, he is clearly more than comfortable with death in all of it's forms, living up to his promise not to fear death from the "To be or not to be?" sololiquoy. In life, he has a clear purpose - to kill Claudius (how interesting that death started Hamlet's quest and death is the way to end it!), but he does not fear death, which makes him stronger.

**To be or not be?: Hamlet don't care!**

Hamlet Blog #3 (February 11, 2012) Since our essential question is To be, or not to be... What better passage to check out than the famous speech itself? **To be or not to be? ** It's the saying that everyone knows, but not everyone uses correctly. Surprisingly it goes a little farther than "to do my homework... to //not// do my homework?" This particular soliloquy starts out in quite a grim light. Hamlet compares life to wonderful things like "slings and arrows", a "sea of troubles" and "a thousand natural shocks." He feels like he has to "grunt and sweat under a weary life" and says that death should be wished for because it would end the pain. In fact, death would be fantastic because you can dream in death! That's quite a leap there, Hamlet. He wonders if he should deal with the pain or man up to death and end his suffering. He wonders why someone would want to suffer through life when you could so easily end it all. Up to this point, Hamlet seems to have answered our essential question: not to be, thank you very much. However, the end of this soliloquy is a game changer: //Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; // //And thus the native hue of resolution// //Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,// //And enterprises of great pitch and moment// //With this regard their currents turn awry,// //And lose the name of action.// Hamlet states that the fear of death is what leads us to live through the suffering. People go on with their crappy lives because they are aware of their own deaths. Hamlet believes that our //awareness// of death alone, makes us afraid and inhibits us from reaching out true potential. So...
 * To be or not to be?** - Hamlet clearly chooses 'to be' - he just decides to not fear the 'not to be'!

Hamlet Blog #2 (February 5, 2012) **To be or not to be?** At this point, Hamlet's 'to be' might not be much better than his 'not to be'. Hamlet sees his daddy's ghost and from then on, there's no turning back for him! The 'ghost' was the justification he needed to unleash the anger and hatred that already existed inside him. Hamlet may be the most sane one of them all. At least his intentions are in the right. He wants justice. Claudius just wants power and Gertrude want some of those 'incestuous sheets'! //Haste me to know ’t, that I, with wings as swift// //As meditation or the thoughts of love,// //May sweep to my revenge.// Here, Hamlet says he's already ready to jump into revenge even though he knows nothing of the situation yet. His life is consumed by his daddy issue. It prevents him from living a normal life (aka he has to act crazy), it screws up all of his relationships (particularly with Ophelia), and it manages to kill //almost// everyone in the whole play. That particular 'to be' doesn't sound better than a 'not to be'

=

= Hamlet Blog #1 (January 29, 2012)

 *Unfortunately, I watched the Mel Gibson version of Hamlet this weekend, so I will have that image in my head for the duration of this play. I find it quite hilarious that Horatio enters the first scene completely doubting the existence of the king's ghost and by the end he practically makes an apocalyptic prediction : //"The graves stood tenantless and the sheeted dead// //Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets//  //As stars with trains of fire and dews of blood,"// This seems like too much of an extreme switch for that ghost not to be there!



=
 **To be or not to be?** That is the question for 2nd period (Trust me, you wish you were in 2nd period). Anyway, Gertrude seems to believe that nature decides somebody's death- ======

// Thou know’st ’tis common. All that lives must die, // // Passing through nature to eternity. //

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Claudius tells Hamlet that he's being a wimp and needs to get over his father's death already-

// 'Tis unmanly grief. // // It shows a will most incorrect to heaven, // // A heart unfortified, a mind impatient, // // An understanding simple and unschooled. // // For what we know must be and is as common // // As any the most vulgar thing to sense, // // Why should we in our peevish opposition // // Take it to heart? //

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Claudius states that he doesn't believe that the dead king deserves so much mourning, - "Tis' unmanly grief" - hinting at his dislike for the former king. He wants Hamlet to feel guilty about grieving his father's death, saying that his will is "incorrect to heaven" and that his understanding is "simple and unschooled". Claudius is revealing that he believed that it was time for the king 'not to be'. Did he have that right? Perhaps he did. After all, we don't know much about the former king yet. Maybe he was a total //jerk!// We glorify some people that kill to take power. If somebody had killed Hitler, would we be mad at him? We would say that he had the right to kill that leader so it's not entirely wrong to disregard the idea that another person (even a potential successor) has the right to murder a ruler.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Haha... it looks like he's having green eggs and //Hamlet// for dinner!