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.