We are now reading Hamlet. I find it interesting that Hamlet is pretending to be crazy, because I don't think that would hide his behavior or make Claudius confess to murdering Hamlet's father. I guess I just don't understand the advantages of pretending to be crazy. I would think that it would make people watch Hamlet more, making it harder for him to get revenge for his fathers murder.
I also think that Hamlet is a good moral play in the fact that it shows what can happen if you seek revenge. Hamlet's intentions were sort of honorable in the beginning, being that he want the man who murdered his father to be punished. Yet Hamlet takes it too far. He has the chance to kill Claudius, but doesn't because he thinks Claudius is praying and doesn't want him to have a good afterlife. Hamlet not only wants to punish Claudius on earth but in the afterlife as well. I think the play also shows how revenge can get out of hand. Hamlet only wanted Claudius to suffer and in the end everyone involved dies. Beacuse of his thurst for revenge Hamlet is ultimately responsible for the deaths of Ophelia, Claudius, his mother, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Polonius, and Laertes.
The play also shows what happens when people become involved in plots to kill others. The king plots to kill Hamlet because he thinks that Hamlet is crazy and must be gotten rid of. He involves Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in getting Hamlet to England where he will be beheaded, but Hamlet discovers the plan and Guildenstern and Rosencrantz end up dead. Then the king allows Laertes to challenge Hamlet to a duel with a poisoned sword. During the duel Hamlet is wounded with the poisoned sword, but so is Laertes. The king also has a drink that is poisoned, which I think he has just in case Hamlet was to win the duel. The problem with the poisoned drink is that Gertrude, the Queen, drinks it and dies. When Hamlet sees that his mother is dead and learns that he and Laertes are also going to die, he stabs Claudius. Even though Hamlet did get his revenge in the end, everyone he loved, including himself, had to die for it.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Monster Babies
We have finished with The Faerie Queene and are now starting on monsters. This weekend we read a packet with original pamphlets about monster babies. Each pamphalet contained many stories about babies being born as monsters and the first one had many cases of purely monster births such as snakes and half-human half-horse. The first pamphlet seemed to focus on a girl born with a pigs nose and how she lived her life. She ate like a pig, was well educated by her parents, and I think she even got married; I'm not sure about the marriage part because the pamphlet is hard to follow at times. I found it interesting that this publication tends to blame the deformities on witches and their evil curses. The other two pamphlets tend to blame the mothers, but this one blames external causes. The parents of the children here are all made out to be good gentlemen and gentlewomen who some unfortunate cross with a witch deformed their children.
The second pamphlet seems to be more a religious warning. The mother is this story gave birth to a headless baby because she said she would rather have a headless baby than a roundhead (Protestant). The pamphlet goes on and on about how the mother was a Paptist (Catholic), the mother's parents were Paptists, and the father was a Paptist. They are portrayed as wicked people who pick fights with good neighbors and who say horrible things to the good Protestant people. The blame for the headless baby lies solely on the mother in this case, unlike in the one before when it was blamed on the witches. This story seems to me to be more of a warning of the evils of Catholism than of a story about a monster birth. This pamphlet also contained a story from Chaucer (The Canterbury Tales). It was the story about a knight who rapped a girl and in exchange for not being killed he had a year (in this pamphlet three months) to find out what women valued most. An old ugly woman says she will tell him if he agrees to marry her and the knight agrees. He is saved from death but now has to marry the old woman, who turns out to be a young beautiful woman in disguise. Because he gave her power over him, which is the thing women want most, the spell making her a ugly old woman was broken. I found it strange that this story was included with the ones about monster babies, but I think it might have been almost hidden in there so that the people of the times could have access to literature. It's almost like a side story meant to teach and amuse, but to just be a side story to the main one the pamphlet is on.
The third pamphlet is also about religion. In this case the mother claimed to be the Holy Virgin and said that she sould give birth to the messiah. The woman is thrown in prison and when she has her baby it is stillborn and had the hand and feet like a toad. The mother killed herself in prison with a knife, and the story goes on to say that her parents were good people who should not be blamed for their daughter's sins. There are two more stories in this pamphlet; one warning not to work on the Sabbath and one warning against being an evil person to others. This pamphlet also seems to be one of religious warning and not one soley about moster babies. The men from the last two stories both died and they both forgot to ask God to have mercy on them and forgive them, which is pointed out so that the reader may not make the same mistake. The last thing this pamphlet talks about is how the mother who said she was the Holy Virgin was against the Protestant people. It seems to me that these pamphlets are more of a warning against people of any other faith besides Protestant and not really about the monster baby birthes. They may at first seem to be about the monster babies, but I think that may just be a ploy to get the people to read the pamphlet and then the religious aspect of the pamphlet shows up when the people are already reading.
The second pamphlet seems to be more a religious warning. The mother is this story gave birth to a headless baby because she said she would rather have a headless baby than a roundhead (Protestant). The pamphlet goes on and on about how the mother was a Paptist (Catholic), the mother's parents were Paptists, and the father was a Paptist. They are portrayed as wicked people who pick fights with good neighbors and who say horrible things to the good Protestant people. The blame for the headless baby lies solely on the mother in this case, unlike in the one before when it was blamed on the witches. This story seems to me to be more of a warning of the evils of Catholism than of a story about a monster birth. This pamphlet also contained a story from Chaucer (The Canterbury Tales). It was the story about a knight who rapped a girl and in exchange for not being killed he had a year (in this pamphlet three months) to find out what women valued most. An old ugly woman says she will tell him if he agrees to marry her and the knight agrees. He is saved from death but now has to marry the old woman, who turns out to be a young beautiful woman in disguise. Because he gave her power over him, which is the thing women want most, the spell making her a ugly old woman was broken. I found it strange that this story was included with the ones about monster babies, but I think it might have been almost hidden in there so that the people of the times could have access to literature. It's almost like a side story meant to teach and amuse, but to just be a side story to the main one the pamphlet is on.
The third pamphlet is also about religion. In this case the mother claimed to be the Holy Virgin and said that she sould give birth to the messiah. The woman is thrown in prison and when she has her baby it is stillborn and had the hand and feet like a toad. The mother killed herself in prison with a knife, and the story goes on to say that her parents were good people who should not be blamed for their daughter's sins. There are two more stories in this pamphlet; one warning not to work on the Sabbath and one warning against being an evil person to others. This pamphlet also seems to be one of religious warning and not one soley about moster babies. The men from the last two stories both died and they both forgot to ask God to have mercy on them and forgive them, which is pointed out so that the reader may not make the same mistake. The last thing this pamphlet talks about is how the mother who said she was the Holy Virgin was against the Protestant people. It seems to me that these pamphlets are more of a warning against people of any other faith besides Protestant and not really about the monster baby birthes. They may at first seem to be about the monster babies, but I think that may just be a ploy to get the people to read the pamphlet and then the religious aspect of the pamphlet shows up when the people are already reading.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The Faerie Queene
In The Faerie Queene some things have caught my interest. For one, how did the blind woman and the deaf woman come to know the church robber? I know that they are supposed to represent the Catholic Church and that the association of them with the robber is represented in that the people of the time thought the Catholic Church were robbing people of iternal life because the Catholic Church was supposed to be wrong. But where did these woman meet this man? Did he just happen to find two women who don't really live their home or land and decided to make friends? I know that Spenser does not write about things that typically happen, but I still wonder. Also when Duessa get kidnapped by the giant, does she really get kidnapped? She seems to go rather peacefully and it also seems that she is the one who suggests that the fighting stop and they go with him. And then when King Arthur saves them from the giant by killing it, Duessa seems to mourn the death of the giant. Was this Duessa's plan all the time? If it was, then she is pretty smart (evil, but smart). The giant would be a good way to kill Redcrosse without revealing the fact that she was a witch because she could say that it was the giant, not her, that actually killed him. Another question is where did King Arthur get a horn that would call the giant? Is it a horn that will call any giant in the area, or is it a specific horn for that particular giant? If it is a general giant calling horn, then it makes more sense. But if it is a specific horn, then why did King Arthur not kill the giant earlier. He seemed to know exactly what to do to kill the giant, so why did he wait until now. I know that this post will seem to be a little like rambling, but these are the questions that we did not talk about in class that I had. 
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)