Cecilia’s AP Language Blog :)

1. Why does Hamlet wait so long to kill Claudius? What are the reasons for his hesitation? How valid are they? How many times does he have the opportunity to attack Claudius? What are his reasons for not doing so?
Hamlet waited so long to kill Claudius because he first wanted to make sure of Claudius’s sin hence the play in the castle. His reason seems very valid since he didn’t know whether or not the ghost could be trusted. It could have been a devil in disguise for all he know. He could have attacked Claudius when he was praying, but he reasoned that Claudius, a sinner, would have gone to heaven if killed while praying. Hamlet wanted to catch Claudius doing some sinful acts to make sure that he will go to hell. I wanted to say that Hamlet wanted to show Claudius’s acts to the world and thus ruin his reputation and justify Hamlet’s revenge. But when he thought that Polenius was Claudius, he didn’t hesitate to stab him.

2. Hamlet claims that his madness is feigned, an “antic disposition” which he puts on for his own purposes (I.v.172). Why would Hamlet want to feign madness? How can an appearance of insanity help him achieve his ends? Is he really sane throughout the play, or does he ever cross the line into madness? What about Ophelia’s mad scene? Is it real or feigned? Is there “method in her madness” as well, or is she entirely irrational? Why has she gone mad? (What two reasons do her songs suggest?)

Hamlet wants to feign madness because it supposedly makes him less of a threat to Claudius. While everyone is busy thinking about his madness, he can have more freedom to plot his revenge. Yet Hamlet isn’t very good at playing insane – throughout the play, many characters doubt his “madness” especially Claudius. The jabs that he sends to his uncle and mother, the way he treats Ophelia, the play that he sets – all point to a scheming, cunning person. In this way, Hamlet seems to have cross the line into madness. His lack of control doesn’t fit with his scheming plot. It is strange that Hamlet is not plotting to expose Claudius and makes him face justice or trying to kill Claudius and getting away with it. He stabs Polenius (when he thinks that he is Claudius) without a second thought. Ophelia’s madness is definitely real. Her muttered nonsense and strange acts are different than the calculated madness of Hamlet. Yet the songs that she sings and her actions contain in it ironies and true feelings that makes sense to the readers. Her first song about true love points to Hamlet as her reason for madness. Ophelia takes Hamlet’s madness as face value and believes that her action causes his madness and also that he does not truly love her as her brother and father has warned her (which is the second song she sings about Valentine’s day). Also we learned later that Ophelia died when the willow tree she was sitting on broke. Willow is a symbol for unrequited and undying love.

3. Pay attention to the treatment of the women characters Gertrude and Ophelia. Is there any basis for the Freudian interpretation of an Oedipal attraction between Hamlet and his mother? Hamlet does seem obsessed with his mother’s sexuality. How old is Hamlet? How old do you think Gertrude is? Is Hamlet’s disgust at Gertrude’s sexuality justified? To what extent is Gertrude guilty? Was she “in on” her husband’s murder? Has Claudius confided in her since the murder? How does Hamlet’s perception of his mother affect his behavior or attitude toward Ophelia? Why does he tell Ophelia to go to a nunnery? Does Hamlet really love Ophelia? If so, why is he cruel to her?
We know that Gertrude is not guilty of old Hamlet’s death since the King to Hamlet to leave his mother alone and let her goes to heaven. Claudius haven’t confided in her either since the murder or else she wouldn’t take that cup of poison. The chief reason why Hamlet is angered at his mother is for her marriage with Claudius. “Frailty thy name is woman” the famous quotation Hamlet said during his early soliloquy. Indeed, throughout the play, the only two women characters seems to be led around by the men for their selfish purposes. Claudius, even Polenius boss the queen around. She is depicted as this sexual, carefree woman who is blinded to the danger that she married. I don’t believe that there is an Oedipus complex presented in the play. Hamlet doesn’t hate his father, he wants to revenge his death. He doesn’t want to sleep with his mother either, instead he thinks of her sexuality as beastly and disgusting. He takes this perception and applies it to Ophelia. Ophelia is also controlled being. She was told by her father to give up Hamlet and willingly obeyed. It is only when she lost her sanity that she could act as she wished.

4. Suicide is an important theme in Hamlet. Discuss how the play treats the idea of suicide morally, religiously, and aesthetically, with particular attention to Hamlet’s two important statements about suicide: the “O, that this too too solid flesh would melt” soliloquy (I.ii.129–158) and the “To be, or not to be” soliloquy (III.i.56–88). Why does Hamlet believe that, although capable of suicide, most human beings choose to live, despite the cruelty, pain, and injustice of the world?

Hamlet believes that, although capable of suicide, most human beings choose to live, despite the cruelty, pain, and injustice of the world because of fear of eternal suffering in Hell. Even though suicide will release them from suffering, it leads to even more suffering in hell (eternity!) so of course they do not want to accept it. Religiously suicide is viewed as a sin. But aesthetically suicide is actually romantic. Ophelia who commits suicide is allowed a grave because she is mad when she kills herself.

5. Choose a soliloquy in the play to look more closely at. Paraphrase it and then connect it to the larger themes in the play.

(1.2.131-61)

Paraphrase
Ah, I wish my dirty flesh could melt away into a vapor, or that God had not made a law against suicide. Oh God, God! How tired, stale, and pointless life is to me. Damn it! It’s like a garden that no one’s taking care of, and that’s growing wild. Only nasty weeds grow in it now. I can’t believe it’s come to this. My father’s only been dead for two months—no, not even two. Such an excellent king, as superior to my uncle as a god is to a beast, and so loving toward my mother that he kept the wind from blowing too hard on her face. Oh God, do I have to remember that? She would hang on to him, and the more she was with him the more she wanted to be with him; she couldn’t get enough of him. Yet even so, within a month of my father’s death (I don’t even want to think about it. Oh women! You are so weak!), even before she had broken in the shoes she wore to his funeral, crying like crazy—even an animal would have mourned its mate longer than she did!—there she was marrying my uncle, my father’s brother, who’s about as much like my father as I’m like Hercules. Less than a month after my father’s death, even before the tears on her cheeks had dried, she remarried. Oh, so quick to jump into a bed of incest! That’s not good, and no good can come of it either. But my heart must break in silence, since I can’t mention my feelings aloud.

Theme: Suicide/Incestuous Marriage
One of the most important theme in the play and a key point to why Hamlet is so angry with Gertrude is her quick marriage to Claudius. This is the beginning of Hamlet’s distrust against women and viewing women as “frail creature.”

What I learned from reading the Preparing for the 2007 Synthesis Question: Six Moves Toward Success are really nothing new. Obviously, when you are given six sources to use for your essay, you have to analyze and draw information from them. The key point, the author wants to made was to have source converse, which again is obvious. In writing a research essay, your evidence have to be work together. I find his advice on giving more time to thinking about the claim very helpful. I want the advice of imagining that the author of each source is the audience is helpful, but not practical since students don’t have enough time to really think about each author’s argument and counter argument. The advice that students must incorporate their own views into the essay is again a “duh.” Although most of what he wrote, I already know, it was nice to hear a summarized version and also be able to see the emphasis on how important it is that we do these things to get a nine on the essay.

One obvious rhetorical strategy he used is an anecdote/example. Chesterton begins his essay with a story about the inspiration he comes up with from lying in bed, one that he believes Michaelangelo must had also came up with. Not knowing exactly what his claim is the readers are sort of lulled into this trap where they accept the evidence before them and then boom, the author comes down with a claim. Another strategy is to draw ridiculous comparison between “the strengthening of minor morals” and relaxing habits. “I have met Ibesenite pessimists who thought it wrong to take beer but right to take prussic acid.” Chesterton also notes toward the end of the essay that he is not expecting people to just lie in bed all day. Those with jobs that cannot be done in bed must take this as an occasional indulgence. By writing this he strengthen his ethos of being reasonable. The use of descriptive language when describing the inspiration of being able to indulge sometime versus the slightly mocking tone used to describe people who are putting to much effort into little rules also help enforce his view.

A land that knows no poverty will certainly be attractive to the people who have lived and struggled for so long in destitution. Although the financial state of the Down family was not stated, the fact that Downe did not have enough money to secure the passage for his wife and children to America speaks for itself. The key rhetorical strategy Downe uses is the description of the riches and equality in America. He describes a meal with the farmer who is so friendly that he will not take any money. Downe note that the farmer and servants eat together. The meal is filled with all type of vegetables, fruits, and meat. He goes on to describe the things he can buy at a very affordable rate such as 10lb. of meat or a barrel of wine. The point Downe wants to make is that America is filled with riches and anyone who is willing to work will be able to afford those riches. “This is a country where a man can live as a man and where he can enjoy the fruit of his own exertions, with rational liberty to its extent, ” writes the weaver. Downe hopes to entice his wife with not only promises of a stable income and bountiful material, but also the ability to be free and equal.

Soldiers who have been on the battlefield, watches hundreds of people dying each day. Doctors see patients after patients lost the battle to diseases. These people become desensitized to death under dire circumstances. They feel less and less, otherwise it would impossible for them to maintain their jobs and stay sane. But many teens in US are becoming desensitized to violence and it is not do to any special circumstances. The reason for that is probably in your living room right now, or even bedroom: television. Children spend more time watching TV than they spend in school. In the late 20th century, children watch on average 80000 TV murders and 100,000 other acts of violence before finishing elementary school (Hudson & others, 1992). A number that is only increasing. For many people, learning comes through observation. Children observe violence done by attractive-looking people who do not suffer any consequence. They come to imitate those people and we witness the statistics of homicide and other crime rates rising.

There has been statistic showing that elementary school children who have a high exposre to media violence also tend to be involved in more fights themselves. This and countless other statistics are result of correlation studies. They scared people into believing that the black box in their living room is a menace. But it is important to remember that correlation studies do not prove causation. The increase in violence along with the increase in exposure to the media can be explain by the kids who are more prone to violence also like to watch more violence show, or that an external factor (such as abusive parent, distressing events, or biological predisposition) causes children to do both. TV compares to the influence of parents and other significant people in the child’s life is very little. Perhaps watching more violence show can desensitize children, but if they parents are able to explain to them why violence is bad and enforce a moral code for them — they are less likely to “beat anyone up.” But TV does become violence’ s weapon when it is allow to bend children’ s mind without the interference of parents.

Canaday begins by listing the members of the Peale Family and some background details, as shown in the portrait, to the readers. He analyzes the composition of the painting — where the figures are located and what their locations relative to each other demonstrates about the unity of the family. He writes about the nurse who is expressed as removed from the other. Canaday notes her physical location in the painting, as well as the subdue tones used to paint her, which is different than the tones used on the others. Although the family members are divided into two groups, they are united by “a slight overlapping and a scattering of fruit across the table.” The unity is important because it is the main point that the painter is trying to be made. The family is united and happily interact with each other. The Bellelli family by Edgar Degas, on the other hand, does not express a very happy family. Unlike the other portrait, Canaday shows that each member is psychologically different than the next. The older daughter stands properly next to her mother who has an arm wrapped around her. The mother herself stands tall, dignified, and proper. The viewers’ eyes are naturally draw to her and her dark figure claims their attention. The father on the other hand is not even facing the viewers. He takes up one third of the painting, yet the viewers can barely see his face.

There we were – eating dinner in each other’s company, in utter silence. My parents were deeply immersed into the screen of lit electricity and attention doom, better known as the television, and I was daintily dribbling soup down the front of my shirt as I made my best attempt at eating and getting the highest score possible on my latest obsession, Tetris. It was pathetic, really. As ridiculous as it was that we, as a family, were spending the one time set aside in the day to spend with one another engrossed in our individual technological obsessions, that wasn’t the most heinous part. What was really dismal about this picture was that we noticed nothing out of the ordinary. Throughout whatever time that had gone by, this had sadly become a daily, normal occurrence.
The twenty first century has been the most technologically advancing period in history. With the combination of brilliant minds and innovative imaginations, technology now aids us daily with a mind-blowing capacity. Through time, society has learned to rely on technology for nearly everything: travel, entertainment, self-expression, and now, even relationships. Thanks to means such as facebook, text messaging, and instant messenger, people have learned the ease of keeping in touch with distant loved ones with just a few taps of their fingertips. However, technology has yet again upped its game; with devices such as Skype Journal and iVideoChat, technological means have transformed from just one option of communication, to the only option. Society has slowly lost its value of person-to-person and more than embraced the idea that people can “be together,” without “being together.”
Norman Rockwell’s Freedom from Want, a famous painting from the early 1940’s depicts a traditional family meal around the holiday season. The piece shows numerous generations of what looks to be family members surrounding a nicely set dinner table, all with genuinely joyous faces. For the era that this painting depicts, the image isn’t in anyway ideal to the point of unrealistic. Family was an extremely prevalent value in society, and personal contact was a definite given. Now, comparing that era to the one of today, things have changed – to say the least. The photograph by Brian Kersey highlighted in the USA Today article, “Technology to serve up virtual family dinners for elderly, caregivers,” depicts a peak into the future of the once socially valued family dinners.
At first glance, both images are aesthetically pleasing. In Freedom from Want, Rockwell uses the golden triangle, as well as the rule of thirds to highlight the main focus of the painting: tradition. The golden triangle is visible towards the top of the painting from the elderly man’s bent elbow, to the elderly woman’s elbow, to the top of both figures’ heads. Rockwell’s use of the golden triangle emphasizes the two elderly figures at the head of the table as clearly the most important characters in the entire painting. The rule of thirds is also visible to further emphasize the two figures – the vertical edges of the table dividing the three sections and placing focus on the middle panel, whose edges embrace the elderly couple. This couple is emphasized for a reason. Like many sets of grandparents in multi-generational families, this couple represents tradition and the core of that family’s values, such as gathered dinners.
Kersey’s photograph uses a slightly different approach. The image is slightly slanted, putting the scene at a minor slant. He also takes full advantage of the colors in the photograph, using bold hues and intermixing various shades of light. He puts the main emphasis the man setting up the table by using an obviously dramatic shade of black for his suit, and placing him in the middle of the foreground of the photograph. This image is also intriguing because the man on the screen in the background isn’t emphasized, so viewers are surprised when they realize that the man in the foreground is actually having dinner “with” the man in the background.
Context wise, these two images have almost nothing in common, except for the dinner place setting. Kersey’s photograph contains only two people, while Rockwell’s painting contains at least a dozen, but the biggest difference lies in the way these people are interacting- or not interacting, in Kersey’s case. Both images emphasize the importance of communication, or human contact, but the photograph just spins human contact, into cyber contact. The comparison between these two images is a perfect visual example of the change in societal values of family contact. They show that communication between loved ones is to this day an ideal that is valued, just not in the way that Rockwell depicted. With innovative progress in technology came a societal change in attitude: if you can’t share a meal with the one you love, “share a meal” with the one you love.

She didn’t have to open her eyes to know that she had slept through her alarm clock…again. The sun gleamed through her unopened eyelids, and she was more awake than she should have been.
“9:30,” the alam read. School was just not an option today. Clumsily reaching for her freshly charged cellphone lost in her tangled mat of sheets, she dialed.
“…You slept through your alarm again, didn’t you.” A voice rang through the speaker.
“Yeah. Can you call in sick for me?” She replied sheepishly. She could hear her mother sigh on the other end.
“Pleeeeeeeeeease mom? I promise I won’t do it again…” She started, “this week.”

Some of these photographs were absolutely shocking. It’s incredible what images, emotions, and events that photographers can capture with just one click of their cameras. The two photos that really shook me (no surprise) were the picture of the collapsed fire escape, and the black man being stabbed with an American flag. Both are earth shattering. The picture taken at the anti-bus rally left me speechless. It’s not only moving because of the American flag being used as a weapon of death, but because of the races of the two people. The black man is being held up by another man, clearly capturing the desperation of the situation, and proving the black man as a victim. The white man shows pure rage in not only his action, but his face. It’s obvious that he’s angry, and is out for revenge. Why this particular black man was targeted is unclear.

The photograph of the collapsed fire escape makes me really anxious, only because the picture anticipates the victims’ inevitable defeats. Catching these victims in the  midst of their freefall to death is definitely a moving scene- to say the least. Reading the slide show made me that much more upset. They were to be saved from the fire, but as the fire escape came tumbling down, the fireman was only able to save himself. How upsetting is that? Just imagine how the man felt, watching the two victims he were to save fall to their death.  Seriously life altering.

To be perfectly honest, the sight was a little repulsive. It was a family of four, two little boys, both looked younger than ten; a dainty mother with an almost Audrey Hepburn air to her; and a father, who looked as though his shapely suit was glued to him. They were sitting around a small Wendy’s table, unfazed by each other’s presence. The two boys were wide eyed at their individual gameboys, or some other gaming devices, while each parent held cell phones to their ears, light heartedly enjoying their separate conversations.
When comparing the era in which Willie Morris sets his classic, My Dog Skip and the 21st century, the morals of society have changed – to say the least. The family dinners and reliance on nature – strong values of the 1940’s, have been replaced with electronic gizmos and reliance on fast food. However, one value that hasn’t changed is the never-ending hope of idealism. Because of this value, Willie Morris’ autobiographical recollection called My Dog Skip has captured the hearts of its readers ever since, and become a timeless classic.
Morris’ story takes place in the midst of the 1940’s in a small, Southern town in Mississippi called Yazoo-city. Through a series of anecdotes, Morris takes readers through his journey of attachment as he and his best friend, a vivacious fox terrier mature from the joys of childhood to early adulthood.  Though simplistic and rather juvenile, the author’s writing style and techniques aid in the connections that readers make with this endearing story of man, and man’s best friend.
At the beginning of the novel, Morris introduces readers to a bright-eyed, nine year old boy, who meets a young pup, later named Skip. At first, my initial impression of the novel was that the plot set-up was charming, but Morris’ all-too simple sentence structure was in no way impressive. All of his sentences seemed short, and overly to-the-point. For example, “It was 1943. I was nine years old and in the third grade when I saw him for the very first time. I had known we were getting him.” My first impression of the author was that he took the “subject-verb” sentence structure too seriously. As the story continued, however, I slowly began to realize what effect it was having on me. His writing style wasn’t just simple, but insightful. His “too simple” sentences brought readers into the mindset of the main character, a nine-year-old boy. Morris’ sentence structure wasn’t the only appealing literary technique he used. He also used very vivid and picture-esque descriptions throughout the entire novel.
“I came across a photograph of him not long ago, his face black with the long snout sniffling at something in the air, his tail straight and pointing, his eyes flashing in some momentary excitement.” Starting off the story with such a clear description really gives readers a hook to hold onto. Without even giving any of the plot away, Morris’ details of an old photograph instantaneously places the minds of readers into the setting, next to the narrator, observing the same picture. With no knowledge of the character being described, readers already make a connection to the excited dog, Skip.
Although the story’s setting is charming, and the author’s writing style engaging, not all aspects of this novel are praise-worthy. As I got myself further and further into Morris’ anecdotes, each story began feeling repetitive, even if they were different. There was no constant backbone behind all of the anecdotes, and though each anecdote had some sliver of conflict, the general plot lacked it. The conflicts that arose within each anecdote were visible by far, but Morris never put much emphasis on them. For example, in chapter 6, young Willie and Skip experience “hazards, dangers, and a very close call” in a neighborhood graveyard when they encounter a gang of grave robbers. As enticing as this story was, Morris spent only a few paragraphs describing the conflict, and the rest taking a light hearted tone to the scene. An eleven-year-old being forced to drink alcohol and robbed dry by strangers is, what society would view, a dramatic offense, but the way Morris described the struggle in an almost amiable fashion: “I will tell you what else was gone too: my pup tent, blankets, pillow, water canteen…but with all my losses that night, I calculated I was down by three dollars at least.” By focusing on the financial investments lost to the grave robbers that evening, Morris fails to address the seriousness of the matter. Yes, his belongings were gone, but the he and Skip could have gotten seriously hurt. It was through this discovery of the author’s lack of focus on conflict that that Morris’ targeted audience and overall theme of idealism came indubitably clear.
My Dog Skip has been dubbed a heart-warming classic since its publishing date in the 60’s. Being set in such an “ancient” era, such as the 40’s, some believe that readers of the modern day cannot relate to such a story, however, they can. The hope for idealism used throughout the story makes the novel timeless, because no matter what age, culture, or era, every person holds hope for unfazed contentment, an obvious part of Morris’ anecdotes. Through every adventure, conflict, and discomfort, both Skip and young Morris keep lighthearted attitudes through the narrator’s equally optimistic tone.