Part two

A Doll's house- Henrik Ibsen's play, commenting on the role of women in the household. Torvald, Nora's husband, treats her like a doll and his little pet, never truly understanding her. Years ago when he is sick Nora takes him to Italy and forges her father's signature. This criminal act becomes her darkest secret and when Mrs. Linde comes to town and Krogstad is in danger of losing his job, a series of events unfold leading to Torvald finding out. Instead of being a caring husband he immediately lashes out against her, quickly apologizing when he realizes that the situation can be fixed because Krogstad is not blackmailing them. Even though Torvald is willing to move past the incident, his reaction sparks something within Nora, causing her to see life as it truly is. She is no longer a doll and this exposure to reality causes her to abandon her family to find herself, a selfish but necessary act. 

Hamlet- William Shakespeare's play where Hamlet's uncle Claudius kills his father and marries his mother. This invasion in Hamlet's life drives him mad as all those around him plot his destruction. His friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern spy on him for payment and his love Ophelia ends their relationship in order to obey her father. This play demonstrates the infection that Claudius is to Denmark, his devil acts of murder and incest causing the country to rot and eventually collapse. The end of the novel ends with all of the characters dead except for Horatio, the voice of reason throughout the play. 

Invisible Man- Ralph Ellison's novel written about an unnamed narrator who moves to Harlem after being tricked by Dr. Bledsoe into thinking he would find a nice job because of his experience with Mr. Norton. The narrator eventually joins the Brotherhood, giving speeches to encourage people about unity. This novel goes much deeper than just the racial struggle in the time period, it also demonstrates oppression from authority and the struggle to acquire power. The narrator retreats and descends into a cave where he cleanses himself from society and all that he once valued, losing morality and his sanity along the way, still making his point valid because there is truth in madness. 

The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao (contemporary work)- Junot Diaz's novel narrated by Yunior commenting on Trujillo's corrupted reign over the Dominican Republic and the long lasting effects as seen through the de Leon family. A curse, fuku, brought on Abelard Cabral because of his resistance to submit to Trujillo's desire to see his daughter. Oscar, Lola, and Belicia suffer miserable lives at the hands of this curse, fighting against those who try to oppress them. 

The Importance of Being Ernest- This comical play written by Oscar Wilde is a "trivial comedy for serious people". Algernon and Jack act as doubles, paralleling eachother along with Ernest and Bunburry. Cecily and Gwendolyn also act as doubles in this play which repeats scenes between various doubles to increase the comical effect and to draw comparisons. This play criticizes the upper class's fixation on appearances. Wilde uses code and various puns to demonstrate his views on freedom of sexual orientation, religion, and marriage. 

Quick novel review. Part one

A quick review of the major works we've read this year in AP Lit- so that I don't space out on my exam...

Frankenstein- Mary Shelley's novel about Victor Frankenstein's abandoned creation demonstrates the relationship between victim/victimizer, creator/creation, and society/isolation. An allusion to the creation story, the creature and Adam turns vengeful against his creator and destroys Frankenstein's family because of his lonely and wretched life. Victor, a flawed character who creates the monster for his own prideful purposes, cowardly runs away and doesn't take responsibility for it, causing the consequence of the deaths of his friends and family. He refuses to build his creation a mate because he is ashamed of what he has done and because he wishes to continue holding the power in that relationship, rebelling against being under the control of his creation. He is chased to icy climes, eventually dying because of his arrogant actions in the beginning of the novel. The book is told as a story within the story of Walton, Victor's foil, writing letters to his sister. The DeLacey family, brief characters in the story of the creation, are parallels to the Frankenstein family and to the failed father/son relationship between Victor and his creation. Shelley demonstrates how society values the exterior, yet the lines for good and evil are not so obvious as Victor is the flawed creator and his creation is the wronged victim turned vengeful. 

Beowulf- This Anglo- Saxon epic poem translated by Seamus Heaney is the original story that Grendel is based off of. This poem demonstrates the cultural aspects of the people in that time period, the Chiatus, and the interlocking seen within the text as with within their culture. 

Grendel- John Gardner's novel about an angsty monster that murders humans in a nearby village demonstrates a battle between good and evil along with the shades of gray. While Grendel may be considered evil because of his actions, his unfortunate and isolated youth and his sense of not belonging lead to a deeper understanding of his conflict. He simply wishes to find a place in the world in which he feels to be an outsider, a superior onlooker, and the dragon provides this for him when he offers him a role as the humans' torturer. Although Grendel seems to give in to the evil dragon, his death leaves an ambiguous message as he tells the animals that he's had an accident and "so may you all". This is either a blessing or a curse as Grendel dies, wishing the same for those who watch. 

Age of Innocence- Edith Wharton's novel takes place in an era where society values appearances and form above sincerity and true love. She writes a story in which Newland Archer, a young lawyer, is to marry May Welland when her cousin Ellen Olenska comes to the city. Ellen is a rebellion against the society in many ways, from wishing for a divorce from her husband to the way she dresses, and Archer falls passionately in love with her. They carry a secret emotional affair, each attracted to the freedom the other represents. Archer, afraid of his future and of the commitment and oppression of society, runs to Ellen as an act of rebellion. Their passion differs greatly from his agreement with May, who he eventually marries and stays faithful to. She is manipulative in getting Archer to stay with her, but he chooses to remain there for many years after. At the end of the novel when no obstacles exist between Archer and Ellen he still chooses not to see her, preferring instead his fantasy world to the reality of being with her. Archer choosing May over Ellen demonstrates the importance of social responsibility. 

So I guess life's not a fairytale.

Throughout Junot Diaz's The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, a fuku cast by Trujillo prevents the de Leon family from acquiring freedom. All the characters search for a source of power and control over their own lives, wishing to find independence. The women search for their own identities, getting trapped by the men in their lives, and Oscar is trapped within himself, unable to find freedom because of inner conflict and a need to please others. 

Belicia Cabral, the "bad omen" baby, the "negrita", suffers an unfortunate fate that is predestined for her. The family curse is cast before she is even born, leaving her life to be a miserable consequence of her father Abelard's actions. She seeks out men in her youth to give her the luxurious life she desires and the freedom she craves. Her relationship with the gangster leaves her almost dead and forces Beli into exile. Her next relationship with the father of her children does not last long either. These failures in her love life force her to work for herself, never fully free in the world. She suffers from breast cancer and eventually does from it, slowly killed by the curse of unfortunate relationships. 

Lola, Oscar's sister, struggles to establish her own identity and find individuality, especially since her mother oppresses her and leaves her voiceless. She too turns to men to find a freedom from her controlling mother, never truly getting anywhere. Although Lola survives at the end of the novel, Yunior prophesies the curse to continue on in her daughter, never leaving her truly free. 

Lastly, Oscar's journey to overcome his internal struggle and establish his independence is long and seemingly without progress. Many try to shape Oscar into who they think he should be, unsuccessful in their attempts because he can only change if he wants to change. Yunior's mission to get him fit and find him women is self- centered and since Oscar doesn't want to do it for himself, he is physically unable to go on. Later on in the novel he is able to lose weight because of his choice to do so. Also, his desire to not be a virgin anymore is representative of him wishing to establish his manhood, breaking free from the control of others. Oscar finally does this at the end of the novel when he defies his entire family to go back to Ybon. Although this rash act does lead to him fullfilling his wishes and losing his virginity and therefore gaining independence in his life, it kills him. 

There can never be too much of a good thing, and Junot Diaz demonstrates this in each of the character's search for freedom in a time period where oppression was the norm. Trujillo's reign influences every aspect of the family's lives, demonstrating how a curse is not always resolved. Zafa is not always achieved, good does not always win, and people don't always get the opportunity to go to their dream school. So I guess life's not a fairytale. 

Rebirth in Invisible Man

Thoughout Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man, the narrator struggles with his identity. His inner turmoil is caused by a lack of freedom that he experiences as he is constantly controlled by outside forces.

In the middle of the novel the narrator goes through a period of rebirth after his explosion in the paint factory. This rebirth readies him to be manipulated and controlled by more forces, and instead of a natural birth, it is a mechanical one. A birth powered by electricity, representing the power that the forces in his life use to manipulate others. The explosion which causes his symbolic death happens because the pressure builds up, literally and symbolically, as the "needle on one of the gauges swinging madly, like a beacon gone out of control" (229). The pressure that weighs down on the narrator from the expectations and constant control of others causes him to explode. He wakes up in a hospital, with a doctor staring at him. He is referred to as an infant, with infant eyes as he recounts the experience. While he undergoes the procedure and he slips in and out of consciousness he mentions Beethoven's fifth symphony. The rhythmic beat of the song that he discusses almost sounds like a heartbeat. The song is even described to mean "fate knocking on the door", his rebirth. Next, the narrator is in a state of confusion about his identity, he thinks he is Brer Rabbit, a character from a children's story, and he confuses the machine as his mother, "mother, who was my mother? Mother, the one who screams when you suffer- but who?... But the scream came from the machine. A machine my mother?...Clearly, I was out of my head" (240). This machine-like birth demonstrates how society mechanized individuals, using them for specific purposes. Before the rebirth the narrator even describes himself as "We the machines inside the machines". Mechanizing his birth demonstrates that he is a product of unnatural means. He is only a part to be used in society, not meant to stand out. After his rebirth he is the perfect clean slate to be recruited by the brotherhood, needing a mentor in his state of infancy. 

Born again, the narrator is an infant susceptible to the control and manipulation of others. "he'll experience no major conflict of motives, and what is even better, society will suffer no traumata on his account". Perfect for him

to fall under the control of the brotherhood and not question society's authority and utter control. When he gives his first speech at the elderly couple's eviction, he picks up various objects from the ground that are aged objects about children. Baby's boots, a grandchild's postcard, and more are thrown onto the street as the narrator himself is going through his childhood. In this state of youth, the Brotherhood lures him in and teaches him, gives him a place to belong. They tell him that the old have fallen outside of history and convince him that he is their future. His rebirth carved the path for this to be able to happen. 

My college rant... Why not?

My little rant on the conflict caused by high tuition rates. 

The college process is a grueling one, and the past few months have been filled with stressful applications, an extraordinary amount of essays, and a lesson in patience. And ironically enough, result of this rollercoaster of emotions is another rollercoaster of emotions. 

After the utter euphoria that came with receiving a college acceptance, reality kicked in as I stared at the cruel, mocking numbers on my computer screen. Apparently, going to college costs a lot of money. With parents who dont believe in college funds and don't want me to take out student loans, all that's left for me to do is hope for the best. When discussing my future, I've heard from almost every adult in my life that I must "be practical", and that I don't yet understand what a burden it is to have to pay back thousands of dollars in loans. While I do see their point, and I do concede that their experience may lead them to be wise in this area, I simply cannot let go of my dreams. In a society where money is valued above all other things, some people can't comprehend why I would choose a tremendous amount of debt over  attending a school for practically nothing AND stay closer to home. 

But dreams are called dreams for a reason, they haunt us in the best way possible, and I feel passionate about achieving what I've worked for. The costs of attending the school I want to attend do not outweigh the higher level of education that I would receive compared to going to a local school. Even if I have to go through massive culture shock, be distanced from family and friends, and eat ramen noodles for the rest of my life, I would still rather go to the university I desire. Perhaps I see it differently because I'm not going to college to earn a degree in order to score a high paying job. I'm truly passionate about my education, I'm thirsty to learn and apply my knowledge somewhere where it counts, and this to me is more valuable than the money in my pocket. We only live on this earth for a limited number of days, and so many people live for green little printed sheets of paper. People surround their careers around it, make decisions by it, even kill for it. Maybe I'm still young and naive (granted, I've never had a job), but I'd like to believe that my life is going to be about more than superficial aspects such as money. I hope I'll be following my dreams, living in a way that makes an impact in the world, taking advantage of every moment I have on this earth and living it to the fullest.  

My conclusion is that if you're truly passionate about something, you sort out your priorities, and make the necessary sacrifices. Life is short, and there's no do-over where we can do all that we miss, so as cheesy as it sounds, follow your heart. 

Sonnet 67

Like as a huntsman after weary chase,
  Seeing the game from him escaped away,
  sits down to rest him in some shady place,
  with panting hounds, beguiled of their prey:
So, after long pursuit and vain assay,
  when I all weary had the chase forsook,
  the gentle deer returned the self-same way,
  thinking to quench her thirst at the next brooke.
There she, beholding me with milder look,
  sought not to fly, but fearless still did bide,
  till I in hand her yet half trembling took,
  and with her own good will her firmly tied.
Strange thing, me seemed, to see a beast so wild,

  so goodly won, with her own will beguiled.

Spenserian sonnets are based on Edmund Spenser's courtship of Elizabeth Boyle. They are written in a very intricate form, with an interlocking rhyme scheme. In sonnet 67, the speaker portrays the pursuit of love as a chase, comparing his adventures to a hunt. This Spenserian sonnet describes the object of his affections as his prey, comparing himself to the effortless hunter who ultimately claims victory by putting forth no effort at all. The intricate rhyme scheme in this sonnet demonstrates how intertwined our actions and efforts are, with one person's circumstances and efforts affecting another's choices.  

In sonnet 67, the first quadrant describes the "weary chase", where the hunter would sit down "with panting hounds, beguiled of their prey". At this point in the sonnet the hunter's chase seems hopeless and full of meaningless effort since the prey continues to escape from him. The prey in the poem is the woman which Spenser is courting, at first showing no interest in his pursuit and escaping from him. The hunter is discouraged from his chase, sitting under the shade to rest after a long, weary journey.  The second quadrant then illustrates how the prey, a deer, returns to where he sits to "quench her thirst". This demonstrates how after the hunter has given up his pursuit and sits down to rest, the deer comes back to him to fulfill its own needs. This compares to a loving pursuit between humans. Spenser is portraying this scene to show that when a person ceases to effortfully pursue someone else, the object of their affections will come to them, realizing how much they themselves care for the pursuer.  The last quadrant depicts a scene where the deer is captured "half trembling" yet "fearless". This image demonstrates the victory that the speaker holds in his chase for the prey, who has walked up to him and given itself over to him. The prey comes to the hunter by its own free will, ironic since this is at a point where the hunter has given up his pursuit. The same victory is seen between Spenser and the woman he courted, Elizabeth Boyle, who later on in life became his wife. Spenser must have ultimately stopped "chasing" her for her to realize how much she cared for him. 

The last couplet in the sonnet reads "strange thing, me seemed, to see a beast so wild/ So goodly won, with her own will beguiled". This demostrates the speaker's victory in his pursuit of the "game from him escaped away" earlier in the poem. The chase was won when the hunter finally ceased his efforts, leading the prey to realize how much it "thirsted" for him. These interlocked situations, a reaction from one action leading to another, are emphasized with Spenser's intricate rhyme scheme. Also, the idea of wanting what one cannot attain is seen clearly throughout the poem, first with the hunter, and then with the prey once it realizes it is no longer being chased, returning to the hands of the hunter. 

Something's Rotten in the State of Denmark

The amount of times that the motif "rotten" appears in Shakespeare's Hamlet is astounding. The word carries an incredible amount of meaning and can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. First of all, all the dead bodies in the play are "rank", dirty, and infested with worms. This can be seen in Polonius's death. As soon as Hamlet stabbed Polonius, his downward spiral began. It was the climax of the play and the next few acts were his undoing. When Hamlet commits this sin he begins to seem more mad, driven by a passionate rage. He jokes about Polonius's body being rotten to Claudius, but I think he could also be hinting at the underlying meaning of the word body. The body of Denmark, the political state itself, is rotting. As soon as Hamlet the "royal judge", the "savior" took the drastic step of murder, all hope was lost, and the political state began to unravel. It was rotten, ruined, and dead. This was demonstrated by the end of the play when almost all of the nobles, except for Horatio, are dead, and Fortinbras takes over. The final scene shows the consequences for Hamlet's actions. Why do Hamlet's actions have such catastrophic results? Hamlet's constant internal struggle between good and evil concluded as soon as he stabbed the fool behind the curtain, and evil wins within him. There is no turning back once he kills Polonius, causing him to commit to the purpose given to him from Hell. Evil won within his heart and took over Denmark. The infection spread rapidly from within and caused the destruction of the whole political state. The "something" rotten in the state of Denmark was definitely Hamlet.

"We Grow Accustomed to the Dark"

We grow accustomed to the Dark -
When light is put away -
As when the Neighbor holds the Lamp
To witness her Goodbye -

A Moment - We uncertain step
For newness of the night -
Then - fit our Vision to the Dark -
And meet the Road - erect -

And so of larger - Darknesses -
Those Evenings of the Brain -
When not a Moon disclose a sign -
Or Star - come out - within -

The Bravest - grope a little -
And sometimes hit a Tree
Directly in the Forehead -
But as they learn to see -

Either the Darkness alters -
Or something in the sight
Adjusts itself to Midnight -
And Life steps almost straight.

 

            It is speculated that Emily Dickenson suffered from an anxiety disorder called agoraphobia, which is a psychological disorder characterized by someone being unable to interact in society because of an extreme anxiety. This might filled her with panic and rendered her to live a secluded life. She wrote over a thousand poems, many of them reflecting about the deeper thoughts that plagued her during her years as a recluse. In her poem “We Grow Accustomed to the Dark”, Dickenson explores the difficult adaption to a lonely life by comparing her isolation to the darkness.

            In the poem, darkness, the loss of light, is symbolic of the emptiness the speaker feels when she loses her friendships. In the first stanza the speaker says “as when the Neighbor holds the Lamp/ To witness her Goodbye” to highlight the loss of her neighbor’s light in her life (lines 3-4). She attributes the light to the companionship of another person, and the loss of it to darkness. The “goodbye” experienced leaves the speaker feeling empty, without the “lamp” of her neighbor in her life.  The speaker’s eyes adjust to the darkness, allowing them to step “and meet the Road erect” (line 8). This symbolizes the transition into accepting that loneliness. The comparison of one’s eyes adjusting to the dark to the adjustment into isolation makes the process seem more bearable and possible. Perhaps Emily Dickinson was trying to convince herself that she could survive alone, a recluse from the rest of the world. The tone of the poem is gloomy yet almost hopeful in the last stanza as she writes that “Either the Darkness alters-/ Or something in the sight/Adjusts itself to Midnight-/ And Life steps almost straight” (17-20). This demonstrates her ability to cope with her distressing disorder. The adjustment to the lack of light shows how one can become habituated to any circumstance. While at first the lack of light may seem worrisome, eventually the darkness becomes the norm, and life adjusts to the new situation. This analogy compares with Emily Dickinson’s life and supposed disorder. If she was truly unable to leave her household because of her anxiety, then loneliness would have become her new norm,  her life adjusting to the lack of companionship.

            Dickinson uses the contrasting light and darkness throughout the poem to convey the effects of isolation. Light is commonly known to symbolize purity and goodness, enlightenment, and truth. Darkness on the other hand has a gloomier connotation, and is used to symbolize the unknown, evil, and hopeless. Dickenson uses a contrast between the two to explore how vital human relationships are to the soul. They are the lamps, stars, and moons that bring light into our lives. This is significant when examining Emily Dickinson’s life because she suffered a very lonely existence. If she truly did have agoraphobia, then it would explain her anguish at not being able to leave her household and interact with others. We can only hope that she truly became accustomed to the darkness, the loneliness, where she resided.

Hamlet as the moral judge

Throughout the play we have seen him my act as a morally superior Individual, always judging the actions of others. Although he does have his own faults and is very self-aware of those faults as seen in his self pitying soliloquies, the focus is always on what others around him are doing wrong. From the murder of his father to the purity of Ophelia, Hamlet is consumed by his obsession with others sins. His preoccupation with their transgressions and the consequences that they must pay makes him seem like a judge or a priest. For example, he tells Ophelia "get thee to a nunnery", either meaning to go to a convent or a brothel. Either way, he is sentencing her to a consequence for living promiscuously. Even though it is not his place, Hamlet thinks he knows best what should be done. This is similar to the situation with his mother, Gertrude. After her husband's death, she quickly remarried Claudius, angering Hamlet because in his eyes this symbolized betrayal. Hamlet often refers to his mother's "incestuous sheets" and even advises his mother to "go not to [his] uncle's bed" (3.4.160). He tells her what to do and makes her heart heavy with guilt, all because he feels the need to condemn others, even though he is flawed himself. Hamlet was even present while Claudius confessed his sin of murdering the king, ironically acting like a priest who was hearing his confession. However, unlike a priest, Hamlet wants to not only kill Claudius, but he wants to damn him to an eternity in Hell, the opposite of what a priest helps an individual achieve. 

Hamlet constantly references God and heaven, and the play is filled with religious diction, yet his purpose seems to contradict his morals. First of all, his task was bestowed to him by a spirit from below, symbolically meaning Hell. This task is to murder his uncle, sending him to Hell in eternity. This seems like an evil task for someone who holds themself at such a high moral level. Perhaps that is the reason that Hamlet cannot find it within himself to carry out the act. While he does call himself a coward many times, the true reason that holds him back may be his unwillingness to fully abandon his values. To kill Claudius and damn him for an eternity would morally destroy him and go against everything he believes in. In fact, the reason he even wants revenge is because Claudius did the same exact thing. So while Hamlet does act like the moral judge for others, telling them what to do and how to pay for what they've done, he's hypocritical and fighting a moral battle within himself.  The battle between good in evil within him leaves him stagnant, unable to choose a purpose and act purposefully. He distracts himself and pretends that life is simply a game, where you can cleverly play everyone and speak in witty riddles, so that he doesn't have to deal with the fact that he has to make a decision. Whether Hamlet chooses to kill Claudius or not will be his choice of following good or evil, being moral or immoral. 

What does Hamlet really mean?

“To be or not to be” is arguably the most famous Shakespearean line of all time. In this speech Hamlet can be interpreted to be a depressed young man, contemplating ending his tumultuous life, or he can be contemplating the common theme of authenticity versus appearances. Throughout the play there has been a constant question as to whether someone is “is-ing” or “seem-ing”, and everyone seems to be caught up in the latter, secretly plotting against each other. Claudius seems righteous, but in reality is an “incestuous and adulterate beast” (1.5.32), keeping an eye on Hamlet by hiring Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to spy on him. Hamlet’s old friends, easily bought by the promise of thanks fit for “a king’s remembrance” (2.2.26) agree to pretend to be on a social visit; seeming to be something they’re not.  Then the players arrive, who “seem” for a living. Later on, Polonius instructs Ophelia to have a planned encounter with Hamlet where she pretends to be reading, wanting to gauge his reaction and see if he is truly in love with her. Even Hamlet secretly plots his own play within a play, hoping to “catch the conscience of the king” (2.2.617). All the characters secretly plot against each other and seem to be something they’re not, unable to say what they want to say or ask the questions they want to know the answers to.

                In Hamlet’s “to be or not to be” speech he compares the end of all “seeming” to death, not knowing “what dreams may come” afterwards (3.1.66). While this can be interpreted to be a speech full of suicidal thoughts, Hamlet questioning the point of his life, it could also have a second meaning, where Hamlet is wondering what life would consist of if everyone around him dropped appearances and became genuine and honest. After his speech, he even questions Ophelia, “Are you honest?” (3.1.103)-which can mean either modest of truthful. He continues to use the word honest multiple times within their conversation, the meaning of the word depending on the interpretation of the play. If read from the perspective that Hamlet is questioning why everyone lacks authenticity then we can see why he is so torn to be genuine himself. He says that “conscience does make cowards of us all”, meaning that we are all too self- conscious to be forthright with each other (3.1.82). He references to himself as a coward many times in his self-pitying spiral, contemplating his own role in the “is-ing” and “seem-ing” phenomenon.

                Hamlet’s “to be or not to be” speech can be interpreted in many different ways. Although he could be confused about his role in society and lonely, weary of the people who surround him, Hamlet could also mean that he sees the whole other layer that exists under the appearances everyone puts up, wishing to see some truth. And while his speech could just be Hamlet’s way of sorting out all the thoughts in his head, there are many perspectives on what he truly means- I mean, that is the question. 

It came with the threat of a waning moon

It came with the threat of a waning moon
And the wail of an ebbing tide,
But many a woman has lived for less,
And many a man has died;
For life upon life took hold and passed,
Strong in a fate set free,
Out of the deep into the dark
On for the years to be.

Between the gloom of a waning moon
And the song of an ebbing tide,
Chance upon chance of love and death
Took wing for the world so wide.
O, leaf out of leaf is the way of the land,
Wave out of wave of the sea
And who shall reckon what lives may live
In the life that we bade to be?

William Ernest Henley

In William Ernest Henley’s poem “It came with the Threat of a Waning Moon” the speaker explores the looming inevitability of death with a dismal attitude. Henley uses diction and imagery to display the speaker’s shift in his focus about death between the two stanzas. While the first stanza looks at death as inescapable and unknown, the second stanza questions who determines life and the loss of it.

The first stanza presents death as an inevitable phenomenon to be feared. The speaker uses words with a fearful connotation to describe the fate that they cannot escape. He describes death as a "threat"(line 1) and speaks of the "wail of an ebbing tide"(line 2). Personifying nature has the effect of making the looming death seem like a tangible entity. The speaker continues to remark that "many a woman has lived for less” (line 3) and that “many a man has died"(line 4). The use of the word “many” and the phrase “life upon life” (line 5) makes death seem impersonal, able to conquer anyone. The speaker continues to say that it sets free, but instead of into better places he writes “out of the deep and into the dark” (line 7). This adds to the mysterious quality of death and the depressing attitude the speaker holds.

In the second stanza the speaker still has a dismal attitude towards the end of life, but he begins to question its purpose. Life is made to seem replaceable, making each life seem insignificant. He writes that “leaf out of leaf is the way of the land” (line 13) and that “wave out of wave of the sea” (line 14).  The continual nature of life, and its ability to replace one leaf and one wave with another makes each ephemeral existence seem unimportant. The last two lines of the poem question who decides life and death, asking “and who shall reckon what lives may live/ In the life that we bade to be?” (lines 15-16). The speaker questions what higher authority decides what life may live, indignant about the insensitive nature of death. His disdainful attitude towards death’s inescapable and cruel purpose leads him to question who decides death, upset at whichever higher being has the power to take someone “out of the deep and into the dark”.

In this poem, William Henley explores the ephemeral nature of life which is randomly torn away by death, a mysterious and dark entity. The speaker is upset about this concept and questions the authority of death and its purpose, viewing life and death with a gloomy attitude. There is continual repetition of the sea and its “ebbing tide”. The receding water compares to the shortening amount of time left to live. Yet after the tide ebbs, it rises again and the cycle continues. This is similar to life because after one existence ends, another is born. This repetition makes the speaker feel insignificant and powerless against the inevitability of his life ending.  

Frailty thy name is woman!

Promiscuity, an issue especially looked down upon in Elizabethan times, seems to be a problem that Ophelia is facing. While many parents are comforting to their young daughters during this period of life, Polonius does not feel this way. He's cruel and hateful to his daughter, calling her a slut by using financial language and words with double meanings hinting at prostitution. The way her father treats her drives Ophelia to end her relationship with Hamlet and shift her life. The result of cutting off his daughter’s communication with Hamlet not only isolated Ophelia, but it cut off Hamlet from the only person still talking to him. This left him isolated, lonely, and perhaps even contributed to him going mad.

In Act 1scene 3 of Hamlet, William Shakespeare writes a scene between Polonius and his daughter. While this scene does provide information about Hamlet and Ophelia's relationship, more is learned about the strained relationship between Ophelia and Polonius. The conversation is filled with financial language and double meanings hinting at prostitution. The word “tender” is used repeatedly, having many different meanings ranging from weak or immature to delicately affectionate. Polonius cautions Ophelia to "tender [herself] more dearly" (line 107) and uses financial words such as “rate”, “brokers”, and “investments”   . This can be interpreted to mean that she should value herself more, advising his daughter to be cautious, or he could be hinting at an accusation of being a whore.

Polonius’s has a disdainful attitude towards his daughter and even Hamlet hints at Ophelia being a prostitute. This might be the result of how men viewed women in that time period. Earlier in the play Hamlet remarks “frailty thy name is woman!”  In Act 2 scene 2 Hamlet says “excellent well you are a fishmonger” to Polonius (line 174). While this is another word for fisherman, it can also mean someone who sells out prostitutes, or a pimp. A multitude of words with connotations about fishing are seen throughout the play. For example, in act two scene one, Polonius is speaking to Reynaldo and he says “your bait of falsehood take this carp of truth”. All these hints at calling Ophelia a prostitute may be the result of men’s view of women, especially due to their personal experiences. Hamlet has a reason to be distrustful of women, especially since his mother entered into an incestuous relationship soon after his father’s death. This incident along with Ophelia’s sudden withdrawal due to her father’s warning may have caused him great pain and loneliness, resulting in him basically calling Ophelia a prostitute. While we do not see or hear of a reason for Polonius to be hateful towards women, his wife has not been mentioned or introduced. He may not have one, or his wife may have died, perhaps the cause of his disdain. Polonius is also extremely concerned with appearance and his obsession with reputation may be the cause of his strict expectations for his children.

The play has many situations where the issue of promiscuity among women is implied. Hamlet’s mother is scarcely mentioned without a comment about incest or betrayal, and Ophelia is looked down upon by all the men around her. Ophelia’s relationships are discussed by her brother, her father, and Hamlet all within the first two acts of the play.

I, Frankenstein

(Warning: May contain spoilers)

This past Saturday I went to see the supposed sequel to Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein and left the theater feeling unsure about the movie. I was hoping that the movie would meet my expectations, but it seemed like a lost cause from the beginning. To start, the only people seated in the theater were my fellow classmates, a young couple, two brothers (who I doubted were 13), and a lone middle aged man. Even though it was a bit bare, I chalked the empty audience up to bad advertising and still continued in my hopes of a good movie. However, as soon as the lights dimmed and demon- fighting gargoyles came to life on the screen, my hopes for an accurate sequel flew out the window.

It was not a complete disappointment, but I couldn’t help remembering that it was supposed to be based off of Mary Shelley’s novel. Some quotes from the book were used, which I was pleasantly surprised about. I was also relieved to see that they accurately stated that Frankenstein was the creator, not the creature- which was named Adam in the movie.  Other than a few correct facts, such as the setting of victor’s death, the movie felt like a random plot twist on the novel. Adam, a creature still shunned by society and full of hatred towards his wretched self, is told by the gargoyles that he is sought after by an evil demon prince. He runs away to become a recluse and fights demons on his own until he comes to the city and is again thrust into the battle between gargoyles and demons. Adam falls in love with a human in his quest to stop demon souls from possessing thousands of human bodies and discover his higher purpose, both of which ultimately end up happening. It was very predictable- the self-pitying outcast discovers that he is not a monster, kills the antagonist, and ends up with the girl.  If it weren’t supposed to be based off of Shelley’s novel, then it would have almost been bearable. At least he wasn’t green and displayed some of the same character traits as in the book- lost, vengeful, and desperate for a companion.

                Overall, movies based off of books never do end well for anyone- so why do we bother seeing them? I know that if a book I have read is transformed into a novel, an unquenchable desire to see the motion picture takes over me. Perhaps it is to see how the image on the screen compares with the images in my head. Even though the spin-off movie of Frankenstein was successful in introducing some accurate background, it was simply not captivating enough to be considered a success.  The maker of the movie gave a good effort- interestingly naming the character Adam and putting him in a situation that made him choose between good and evil, heaven and hell. But even with the constant action scenes and the dramatic music, I found myself distracted and even bored-which rarely happens during movies. On a scale of 1 to must-see, I would give I, Frankenstein a 2.5.

William Shakespeare... or should I say Williamnot...

Please excuse the bad joke above...

William Shakespeare. How could a playwright with only an eighth grade education have such an extensive vocabulary? Know so much about the court? Write amazing works only to leave close to no evidence behind?

These questions have led me to join those who question the legitimacy of Shakespeare. There is a debate between those who call themselves “Stratfordians”, who believe that William Shakespeare actually did write the plays, and the conspiracy theorist “Anti-Stratfordians”. Those who oppose the thought that Shakespeare did write the plays favor the idea that the real author was a member of the royal court, too high up on the social ladder to expose his true identity. This would explain the superior vocabulary and knowledge of the court system. To also add to their argument, the Anti- Stratfordians bring up the point that little to no evidence remains of Shakespeare’s life as a writer. The few signatures that remain are said to be illegible, thus leaving nothing to tie Shakespeare to the plays he supposedly wrote. That then leaves the question- who did write Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, and so many others? People such as Edward de Vere (the 17^th Earl of Oxford), Francis Bacon, and Christopher Marlowe are being considered as possibilities, as more and more people begin to doubt the bard. English professors at universities have begun to speak out their thoughts in agreement with those of Charles Dickens, Sigmund Freud, and Mark Twain- it isn’t logical to think that Shakespeare wrote these works.

On the other hand, the Stratfordians argue that although little evidence remains, what does remain is compelling enough to end scrutiny. Many actors and writers from that time acknowledged Shakespeare as a writer, and his close friend Ben Johnson’s eulogy convinces even more of his identity. Eye witnesses are extremely convincing, and although it is impossible to speak with anyone of this period, Shakespeare was often mentioned as a writer in their works and letters. Furthermore, those faithful to Will’s identity also argue that his lack of education is not a reason to doubt him, stating that it wasn’t uncommon for writers of that period to have a lower education. Many of his plays were based on already written works, so little imagination was necessary in writing them. Yet, even if a lacking education was common, it does not explain the superior knowledge of the court and of foreign lands that Shakespeare seems to posses.

Neither side seems to have any solid evidence supporting either theory, but someone had to have written the timeless works we will read for ages. However, the incredible wit and talent of whoever wrote those plays is studied by students across nations, and they are one of the most influential writers in history. Both the Stratfordians and Anti-Stratfordians make very convincing points, and while I am not sure if I believe that the Earl of Oxford wrote A Midsummer Night’s Dream, I join the conspiracy theorists in speculating about a truth that will likely never be found.