My Opinion of the End of 1984

I found the End of 1984 to be quite inconclusive and disappointing. It might sound strange, but I would have preferred to see Winston die rather than succumb to the party. As the “hero” of the novel, I don’t find this very heroic. In fact, he is the opposite of heroic. If he had died, or even been killed in the duration of the book, it would have been better and made him more heroic rather than a victim who succumbs to circumstances.  It hints to Winston being killed at some time in the future but in a way, Winston has already been killed. His mind has been replaced with that of a party member and his body is merely another number in support of it. Winston truly lives up to his title of the walking dead. I found it frustrating that the last words of the book are “I love Big Brother”. The simplicity and bluntness of the statement shows the party’s victory: their victory in war, over Winston, and over society as a whole. They always win and Big brother will eternally live one, as a victor and protector amongst its people. This conclusion is dismal and bleak, with no hope for a better future.

    In a sense, I believe that this ending evokes exactly the reaction that Orwell intended. We, as readers, wanted a definite be killed or live happily in defiance, sort of ending but in reality, these two options are very idealistic. By ending with Winston saying that he loves big brother, he implies that Big Brother had won the fight. That, after all, Winston never had a chance. I believe that in its symbolism, Orwell is implicating that we, the individual, have no chance when it comes to an all mighty power such as the government.

Goldstein's book, 1984

Goldstein’s book is baffling to me. Its symbolic purpose is rebellion yet I see little purpose in its physical cause, especially in Winston’s case. It basically goes over the party’s history and reasons for its actions which Winston already knows. Its long descriptions merely confirm what Winston already suspects. For this very reason, I am suspicious about the book and O’Brien. The book seems to fit Winston almost too perfectly. What are the odds that it confirms every one of Winston’s beliefs, no more and no less? Why is it that the book offers neither real conclusions nor instructions? It sounds more like a history text book rather than a high-crime offence. This may just be the reason why it is so detrimental to the party; it is comprised of pure, unchanging and unaltered facts. However, after reading it, what is a rebeller supposed to take away from it? If he or she had made it this far into the brotherhood, they would already have these thoughts. This brings me to my next point; does the brotherhood actually exist?

                If the brotherhood were to exist, wouldn’t it achieve some sort of goal rather than remain secretive? To be victorious, there needs to be a winner and a loser but who’s to know whether the brotherhood is victorious or not if they are so secret about their doings? In other words, someone outside the brotherhood, has to be aware of a victory for it to count as so. Otherwise, it does not matter whether they make advances or not because there is no effect. I am suspicious that they even exist and I believe that O’Brien may have set up the whole hoax to catch Winston and Julia. On the other hand, there really could be a brotherhood but it obviously isn’t doing too well for they haven’t made any advances and even if they had, they are unknown of and therefore nonexistent.  

Barbie Doll by Marge Piercy explication

                   Barbie Doll by Marge Piercy exemplifies a hyperbole but she gets her point across very clearly. Her message bluntly states that girls will do anything to achieve the perfect image. Barbie dolls have more recently been scrutinized for their “perfectness”. A Barbie is what most girls desire to look like and in this desire, girls have gone to great lengths. This does not mean they would “cut off [their] nose and [their] legs” but girls would and do get plastic surgery, undergo weight loss procedures along with dieting and exercising which can often lead to eating disorders.

                The image of the perfect woman is displayed in magazines as well by edited models. Its unrealistic features compare to Barbie and are mirrored by the poem’s ridiculousness. A sly bit of irony is used to show just how ridiculous methods of achieving the Barbie look can be. In fact, Piercy implies that it is impossible to attain perfection until one is dead.  For after she was dead “[everyone said:] doesn’t she look pretty?” This particular line shows how messed up society is, for their definition of pretty is Barbie.

                By using the term “girlchild” Piercy sets up her whole poem to criticize the stereotypes about women. The first stanza in particular describes what girls are expected to do, “as usual”. The shift in tone mirrors the shift in age, for at puberty the “girlchild” becomes abnormal. This is when she deviates from what is expected of girls. This is the moment she becomes a woman. The image of a real, imperfect, girl with a “big nose and fat legs” contradicts that of a Barbie. In the end, it did not matter that she “was healthy, tested intelligent” excreta, all that mattered was that her looks were imperfect. When she did become “perfect”, that all people commented on. 

Impressions of Julia

Julia both contrasts and mirrors Winston. She contrasts him in that she is ignorant to the meaning of the small details of the party. For example, she is uninterested in the purpose of newspeak and its effects. She also does not care about the erasing and remaking of history. She sums up her indifference by claiming that if “one knew it was rubbish, […] why let oneself be worried by it?” (156) this is a very narrow viewpoint. It shows that she is mostly concerned with herself, not the greater good.  If she knows the truth, it will suffice but even the truth that Winston reveals to her bores her to the point of putting her to sleep. I find her lack of interest surprising, considering how against the party she is. She, however, would rather act out through means of sex and the black market. This makes her a doer, for she feels as though she is physically breaking the law. This contrasts Winston’s wimpy attempt with his diary which seems obsolete compared to the actions Julia has committed.

Although Julia is daring, she is naive. I cannot seem to get over her ignorance towards the party’s lies. Although it is not surprising to her, I would expect her to at least be interested. I find it frustrating that she is so selfish when it comes to this. I wonder whether she is truly attracted to Winston like he is to her or whether she is merely using him. She perks up when Winston seems to insult her. Their dynamic is quite strange. I am weary of Julia. She seems preoccupied with defying the law in the only two ways she knows how: sex and the black market. Otherwise, she seems as though she could care less about defying the party. She benefits from both these actions, further emphasizing her selfishness. 

Winston's Future

Winston's actions have been extremely risky and rebellious. He is aware of this and yet it does not stop him. In some sense, it seems as though Winston wants to get caught. By pulling out the diary onto the table in front of the telescreen, Winston is playing a game of Russian roulette- he could be being watched but on the other hand he might not be. In a more serious sense, if he gets caught, it is likely he will be killed.

            I presume he will eventually get caught but I think that is his goal. I believe some part of Winston wants to know what exactly goes on behind closed doors to those that disappear. He will probably be exiled before being vaporized. His choices indicate no desire for safety yet his thoughts say otherwise. These contrasting thoughts and actions make Winston a very contradicting character.  On the other hand, Winston could just be paranoid. Regardless, he is headed “downhill”, somewhere unsafe and unknown to him.

            As structured as his world may seem, it is soon about to crumble around him. He will become more of a prisoner than he already is, for he has purposively committed wrong. I do not believe he will be alone, for the dark haired girl shows promise. I believe the dark haired girl might not actually be against him, rather she may secretly be on the same boat as Winston. I predict that they will end up together and she may eve vogue for him which could save his life. Both may ultimately be vaporized. 

King Lear Tweet #Newspeak

1984- The Ministry of Truth

               The Ministry of Truth is quite ironic, for it displays everything but the truth.  Instead, this should be called the ministry of falsification. Winston’s job is to literally change history so that Big Brother will always seem correct to the past, present, and future. What baffles me is that the people, like Winston, who work these jobs, continue working them. They complete their tasks yet seem blind to what they are actually doing. I wonder if other workers other than Winston realize just how contradicting and destructive their job is.  The result of the ministry of truth is to make Big Brother the one, absolute power which everyone not only supports, but is proud of.

                 Orwell’s society is ultimately portrayed as contradicting. It’s as if the government has a double standard for its self and its citizens; on one hand, the government can change its past so that the future can perceive Big Brother as perfect, yet the citizens live in a less than perfect world. In fact, they live in a dystopia.  The devotion perfection trying to be achieved by Big Brother only benefits the government. Isn’t the government supposed to benefit its people? Oceania is quite the backwards society.

               In context with our own government, I think the ministry of truth symbolizes its corruptness. As seen in history classes throughout the country, we focus on wars won, rather than battles lost. Arguably one of America’s greatest downfalls is barely talked about in school. The eugenics movement was not covered in my required history class, rather an elective which not all students take. Isn’t it interesting what school curriculums choose to focus on? For, our downfalls as a country are quickly overlooked while our losses and victories are taught repeatedly. 

Weighing the Dog Explication

At first, the poem seems to be about the simple, common task of weighing a dog.  However, the last stanza expresses its hidden symbolism. Billy Collins ultimately portrays weighing a dog as a failed relationship between the speaker and his partner.  This portrayal is awkward and strange to relate back to a relationship, but that might just be Collins’ intention.  

                I interpret that the speaker is like the dog, for the speaker says “you held me in your arms more than I held you”, mirroring that the dog owner cares more for the dog than the dog does in return. The “shaky blue scale” is what their relationship teetered on, for it is a balance they tried, and ultimately failed, to find.  When he “subtracted [himself] from [the] combination” on the scale, she became lighter, suggesting that he was weighing her down.  This concept of being an unwanted weight is present with literally weighing the dog, for the speaker must hold the dog down in order to get the weight.

                For anyone who has ever had to weigh a large dog, you know it can be an awkward, sometimes frustrating process. The tone of this poem however, does not reflect that. The tone is comprised of regret and sorrow. The last line really reflects this tone; “and now we are both lost in strange and distant neighborhoods”. If we relate this back to the analogy of dogs, it can be viewed as if the two lovers are now astray, for this quote projects the image of two stray dogs. This makes sense for the two lovers no longer have the other to take care of them and they live separately, trying to find a new spouse. 

Harlem Explication

Langston Hughes was a writer during the Harlem Renaissance. The name represents the movement, although at the time it was not called the Harlem renaissance, this literary movement of black culture into pop culture created a new, or rather, different respect for black culture. The poem is made up of rhetorical questions, suggesting the narrator’s questionable attitude towards this movement. Or maybe the opposite; that the author finally will get his chance to make his “dream deferred” come true. Hughes uses many similes including the infamous “like a raisin in the sun”, which suggests that the “dream deferred” could be put off too long. That, like a raisin, it will dry up, losing all its pizzazz. Using the comparison to other food, “rotten meat” and “syrupy sweet” suggests that one’s talent and dreams have a critical period of which they are ripe or well, but after that they may become “rotten” or “crust and sugar over”.

By saying it might “just [sag] / like a heavy load” could be meant to say it drags one down. It could even mean that not achieving ones dream can cause a sense of depression. This is its own stanza toward the bottom of the poem and is secured by a period, the only period in the poem. All this further symbolized the weight of a “dream deferred”.

This could have occurred for many black artists before the time period however, during the Harlem renaissance, their deferred dreams could be made into a reality and “explode” much like Langston Hughes’.  This last rhetorical question suggests a hopeful outcome, unlike the previous part of the poem which was quite bleak. It could also be interpreted as negative, that the dream was built up for so long that when it comes to a head, it “explode[s]” which could result in calamity. However, I interpret it in a positive way, in which Hughes gives hope to other artists chasing their dreams, for the Harlem Renaissance was the ultimate time for blacks to display their talents. 

The Most Villianous Character in King Lear

It is difficult to determine who the most villainous character is, for many characters are evil. The wicked characters are Goneril, Edmund, and Regan. However, out of the three of them, I’d say Edmund is the most infamous. He deceives every person he comes in contact with; Gloucester, Regan, Edgar, Cornwall, and Albany. The most obvious betrayal of Gloucester ultimately leaves him blind and suffering.  By deceiving his brother, he forced him to live the life as a peasant. However his disguise as poor tom ultimately led him to save his father from suicide. Turning against his blood makes Edmund especially evil. His greed for power and wealth outweighs the bond of his family. If his is willing to betray his own blood, Edmund seems willing to deceive anyone who stands between him and his power.

                Edmund pits Regan and Goneril against each other by being flirtatious with both girls. By trying to sleep and ultimately marry either sister, he will achieve royalty; his ultimate goal. Going after one sister for her money is one thing, however being promiscuous with both exploits his greed. He can be compared to a prostitute, sleeping with women in order to gain wealth.

                By flirting with both Goneril and Regan, Edmund ultimately undermines their husbands, Albany and Cornwall. Cornwall dies in a fight over Gloucester which, at the root, is caused by Edmund in the first place. Edmund’s attempt to get with Regan betrays Cornwall, who so willingly accepted him after Edmund threw his father under the bus.  By engaging with Goneril, he hoes against Albany. So far, He has misled everyone who has trusted him, making him very dangerous. This is especially because the characters seem pretty gullible and Edmund portrays himself as trustable.  The two combined make a very villainous character. 

Bereft Explication

     Frost opens the poem with a simple rhetorical question, suggesting his questioning of his current position.  The definition of Bereft is deprived which mirrors the narrator in this poem, for he deprived of the one he loves.  He compares his lover to summer and day which “was past” (6). This could also mean that the best times, or his youth is now behind him. The narrator has passed his peak of life and is headed “down hill”. The use of the words “somber” and “sagging” suggests that the narrator is displeased by this; not only is he alone but it’s almost as if he has no hope in finding a lover for he thinks he is too old. This leads to a depressing tone. Frost also alludes to other aspects of nature. The roaring wind echoes his loneliness and grief while the frothy shore is not ideal, as one would like to picture a shoreline.

 The rhyme scheme, AAAAABBACCDDDEDE, is very interesting. It is unconventional yet it flows nicely. In a sense, it mirrors the narrator; although he is upset about his loneliness, life goes on. Although he is alone, Frost uses personification to make it seem as though nature is stays by the narrator’s side. The leaves sound like a snake when he says, “leaves got up in a coil and hissed,/ blindly struck at my knee and missed” (9-10).  Nature is portrayed in a negative light, and the idea of a serpent is emphasized by the repeated “s” sounds. This is negative for perhaps, like King Lear, the narrator blames nature for his misfortune; his old age and loss of his love. The snake is portrayed as “sinister” (11) yet as company none the less. It is however, paradoxed with his belief that god is there for him. Believing in the powers of nature and the powers of god seem contrasting yet Frost puts them hand in hand, balancing each other out. 

King Lear's Relationship with Nature

King Lear’s relationship with nature is bizarre. He interacts with nature at night, in harsh conditions, not typical of when people normally indulge themselves in the outdoors.  The crazy weather mirrors Lear’s temperament, mood and thought process; he is losing it! He sees nature differently, for he thinks that, like his daughters, it is going against him. Like his ever increasing age, he cannot control the weather. This lack of control is what drives Lear crazy.  

                It can be argued that his ultimate enemy is nature, for that is what makes him old. He has no power over it; one of few things Lear cannot control. He is unaccustomed to this lack of control and does not like how age is affecting him. Age, which can also be considered nature, has taken his sanity, his kingdom, and ultimately his daughters. By blaming nature, he does not have to blame himself. In a sense, this blame makes nature a scapegoat for Lear, which is not surprising considering his large ego.

                Rain means change, yet Lear has had no change of heart. This could foreshadow an action to come in which Lear might take action against his daughters. The fact that he finds protection in this storm is strange, for most people seek protection from storms, quite the opposite of how Lear feels about the storm.

                Personally, I enjoy nature especially during the summer, when it is bright, warm, and gorgeous weather. I wouldn't dare go out in a storm as bad as the one King Lear faced.  The mere act of him braving the storm suggests how he is trying to prove himself as an able body, capable of fighting off the toughest of storms.  This may be foreshadowing a future event.

                                                                                                                                      

The Deceitful Edmund

Edmund primarily deceives his father and his brother; however, by doing so he gains the pity and trust of others. By setting up his brother in a way in which it looks like he is trying to protect Edgar, he make himself appear trustworthy and like a good sibling to Edgar. This is, in fact, quite the opposite of the truth. In reality, his deceitful manner exposes how his selfishness and his greed. His willingness to sacrifice his brother for material items shows just how little affection and empathy he has.

            By deceiving his father, he gains Gloucester‘s trust, affection, and ultimately a larger inheritance. Gloucester cared little for either of his sons but after Edmund displays his act of “loyalty”, Gloucester favors him. This is interesting, especially considering the fact that Edmund is the illegitimate son. However, being illegitimate gives Edmund more motive to betray his brother, for Edgar would most likely get a higher inheritance for being legitimate. His acts are not justified and although he was first pitied by the audience he is no longer a favorable character of mine. His acts are greedy and spiteful. His seemingly respectable demeanor cannot be upheld for long.

            All the people he tricks are quick to judge and reluctant to question. All praise Edmund as a hero and none question his story. This is true for both his father, brother, and those that interact with them.  It shows how gullible they are and just how sneaky Edmund is.  Cornwall is an excellent example in how much trust all the characters have in Edmund. This is especially true when he praises Edmund, saying, “For you, Edmund,/ Whose virtue and obedience doth this instant /So much commend itself, you shall be ours./ Natures of such deep trust we shall much need./ You we first seize on” (2. 1. 116-120).  

The widow’s Lament springtime by William Carlos Williams

Springtime and a “widow’s lament” are quite contradicting.  Springtime symbolizes new life and happiness, the opposite feelings evoked by the loss of a husband. Williams uses imagery to express the beauty of spring, possibly suggesting life after death.  She alludes to white objects such as the “plumtree” and “trees of white flowers”, two plants blossoming with the start of spring, which represents purity among new life. The focus on nature further accentuates the idea that there is new life after death and that life goes on. Choosing the colors yellow and red, Williams expresses the narrator’s confusion and anger towards her husband’s departing. Yellow symbolizes corruption, suggesting that his death was untimely and unjust while red correlates with her alarm that he is diseased.  Describing the new grass as “[flaming] as it had flamed” suggests the idea that hope, symbolized by green grass, is engulfed, leaving despair. Towards the end of the poem, this sense of despair turns into a peaceful form of nostalgia n which the narrator alludes to committing suicide by “[sinking] into the marsh”. She “[feels like [she] would like/ to go there in the “[distant]” future. The word choice suggests that she sees herself committing suicide in the horizon. The fact that her son told her about this could mean that her son is suicidal as well or that he is aware of the fact that his mom is sad and tries to give her a way out.  Although suicide is not a pretty, calm, nor peaceful action, the Williams makes it seem pretty and almost natural, for she would “sink” into the march, surrounded by white flowers, suggesting that her suicide would be just the overarching theme of spring makes gives the poem an appealing, nostalgic feeling, highlighted by the use of imagery about the nature blossoming during this time. 

Preference of Characters from Hamlet

Horatio- I don't have an opinion of Horatio, he does nothing to change the plot and barely affects the play.  I see him in a positive light but that's about as much of an opinion as I have of him.
1. Laertes- Laertes does nothing to deserve his fate. His reaction to his father’s death is considered typical and he seems just a victim of circumstance.
2. Ophelia- Ophelia is a victim of being on both sides- on one side she loves hamlet and on the other she goes against him in support of her dad. Committing suicide could be considered cowardly or heroic, making Ophelia an intriguing character because of her ambiguity and the fact that she did not commit any crimes herself.
3. Ghost- the ghost influences Hamlet to take his revenge. He is the main reason Hamlet feels as though he has to act- the main plot of the play.
4. Hamlet - Hamlet committed unnecessary acts of murder that made him reach a low comparable to Claudius. His cowardly way of going about the murder of Claudius does not deserve heroic respect because it was not intention to kill him going into the scene. I believe he had no real intention of ever killing.
5. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern- these two men come in faith because they betray Hamlet for the king’s benefit. They do not support their longtime childhood friend but rather go against him to earn approval. Betraying Hamlet backfires, leading them to their ultimate death which does not seem fair to them.
6. Polonius- he is contradicting and fake towards other characters, choosing Claudius' approval over everything. I don't think his death was just but in another respect he did not deserve to continue being a snake.
7. Gertrude- I am not Gertrude's biggest fan. I believe she is aware of the poison and purposefully commits suicide. I think this is cowardly on her part. She deserves to live with her sins.
8. Claudius- Claudius is by far my least favorite character. I think he is selfish, indirect, and cannot deal with the consequences of his actions. Furthermore he is never satisfied nothing will ever be enough for his greedy personality. He doesn't deserve to live.

Explication of Desert Places by Robert Frost

      Its mere title has a play on connotation and denotation. A desert is barren, dry and lifeless- quite the opposite of “ground [that is] almost covered smooth in snow”. Snow and desert-area contrast, making it clear that by desert, Frost implies barren, empty, and alone, ultimately deserted. Words and phrases like “absent-spirited”, “loneliness”, and the repetition of “lonely” solidify the solitude he is describing. Even a snowy field suggests this because looking at a field covered in snow, there is nothing. It is almost an eerie feeling. Even the animals are hidden away, “smothered in their lairs”. These animals could be both in the wilderness or humans, for both conceal themselves during winter.

                In reality, what effect do these empty, deserted places have on Frost? He feels a sense of loneliness and isolation, true, but it is not everlasting. I believe this is why he uses snow, for all winter is creates a bareness but it can change: once it melts, it gives way to new life.

The overall tone of the poem is peaceful. However, Frost implies being overwhelmed in his last stanza. He uses the pronoun “they”, personifying whatever it is that is trying to “scare [him] with their empty spaces”. I don’t think Frost is truly afraid, but instead he has a hard time comprehending all that is out there in the earth. People tend to be afraid of the unknown, which is the suggested connotation of scared. Talking about empty spaces, he brings up space it’s self which is unimaginable when thinking about its size and what fills it. We can only see stars from earth, and these stars are little lights surrounded by darkness. Their light amongst darkness is hopeful however Frost dismisses this for it is intangible and it is too vast, and too far away to worry about. He has other “desert[ed] places”, close to home, which intimidate him.

Thinker or Doer?

Am I a thinker or a doer? I do not believe I can pick one. I do not consider myself to fall on one side or the other, rather somewhere in between. So maybe that makes me a thinker- the fact that I will not choose one specific answer. But in another sense it makes me a doer because I have come to the conclusion that I am neither yet uphold both at the same time.

                As a thinker, I see both sides of situations and conflicts before I act. I think about who is affected, what my options are, and the possible outcomes. As a thinker I think before I act. But I cannot say this is always the case. I am in a grey area where sometimes it is darker and sometimes it is lighter, never do I choose the same shade.

                As a doer, I am often cautious or the opposite. Making decisions is not my forte, I would rather be told what to do rather than to be given the option to choose. These decisions can lead me to go back and forth between my options or can cause me to choose one blindly. Although rare, choosing blindly has often proven as a poor decision. I would rather think things through first.

                So in that case I am a thinker. As you can tell I cannot choose exactly where I fall. This in itself may prove that yet it could also be argued that by thinking things through, I am “doing”. I could sway back and forth endlessly on the matter and still come to the same conclusion: I am neither a thinker nor a doer, yet I am made up of qualities of each.

Explication of “Mirror” by Sylvia Plath

The poem’s purpose is to reflect on how people’s, particularly women’s perception of themselves changes with age. The tone shifts from light to melancholy between the first and second stanza.

The first depiction of reflection is through a mirror. With the mirror as the speaker, it portrays itself in a god-like manner describing itself as “silver”, with “no preconceptions”, and as the “eye of a little god”. This description suggests that the mirror, like a god, judges truthfully but is “not cruel”. With the light tone, the author depicts this as a positive aspect. Therefore, the mirror reflects an image that the author is content with. The “pink[…speckled]” wall could represent a child’s room, which is a “part of [its] heart” suggesting that the author will always be young at heart. The perception of one’s self through a mirror is clear, however in a lake it is permeable and ever changing.

Using a lake as a mirror symbolizes a change in the author’s or women’s perception of themselves which is reinforced by the shift in tone. Although it is unclear of who views themselves in the mirror, Plath specifies that a “woman bends over” the lake. This suggests that with age, women view themselves differently. This stanza of the poem is much darker than the first one. The lake criticized the light which the woman turns to for truth calling the candles and the moon liars. These two objects provide light in otherwise dark situations, suggesting that the lake upholds a godly manner like the mirror. To the lake, the woman provides it light because she “replaces the darkness”. This could mean that the lake is almost territorial of her. In a simile, the woman is compared to a “terrible fish” which suggests that she views her aging negatively- as if coming nearer to death every day. By personifying both the lake and the mirror, Plath makes the reflectors seem like the physical representation of the conscious of a woman.

To Be Or Not To Be?

                To buy the expensive sweater or not to buy? To buy would mean another option of clothing to wear to school which could lead to taking a longer time in the morning deciding on what to wear. Or it could quicken the process, for if it is worth its cost, there should be few options to contest with it. To buy would mean to own another clothing item suitable for winter, which is a necessity with the cold quickly approaching. If it is just right in size, shape, material, and color I could wear it with multiple outfits in many ways, using it to its fullest extent. However, is the large expense worth the product?  What I would splurge on one sweater could buy a tank of gas to last a week, groceries that last for days, and who knows what else. The money I would save could be put towards so many useful necessities of life which could benefit me any time of the year.  But a good sweater can last many years, providing warmth to an otherwise freezing torso. If the money were to be used for something I need, it would only go to a temporary cause.  So it ultimately turns into a competition of need versus want: of necessities versus desires. I want nothing more than to have a fashionable and functional sweater but at the cost of my hard earned money? Working minimum wage, it would take at least seven and a half hour  to afford the sweater I so desire. So the sweater, in reality, is costing me more time than money. Instead of being, say, 60 dollars, it costs over seven hours of time which is over two shifts at my job and I can only work one shift a day. So is that sweater really worth two days of my time? Probably not. But will I end up buying it? probably.

Parenting Methods- Hamlet (2.1-2.2)

Polonius seems very insightful when it comes to his children. However, this is only true on the surface, for underneath it is much different. Polonius sends Reynaldo to basically spy on his son. Polonius is contradicting of himself when he instructs Reynaldo to ask around about Laertes yet “observe [Laertes’] inclination in [himself]” (2.1.78). This parenting method is strange on current standards. If he truly desired to find out how his son was doing, he could visit him himself or write him a letter.  It contradicts his initial speech to Laertes before he leaves when he advises him not to talk to anyone yet not to be shy. Well, if Laertes truly listens to his father, he shouldn’t talk to Reynaldo in the first place. Even so, if Reynaldo asks acquaintances of Laertes about him, they may not be reliable sources. Polonius acknowledges this yet disregards it at the same time.

Meanwhile, Polonius’ reaction to Ophelia can be considered normal. I find it interesting that he blames his own advice for hamlet going crazy. If this had truly been the cause of his craziness, why would Polonius go to the king instead of Hamlet himself? I find it standard for a father to look out for his daughter. Polonius is sorry that his advice potentially caused this and blames himself. This whole scene shows just how much Ophelia respects and listens to the wishes of her father. This mirrors Hamlet’s devotion to his father and contrasts his lack of loyalty to his uncle-father.

On the other hand, Gertrude and Claudius order Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to find out what is wrong with Hamlet. This corresponds to the indirect parenting method of Polonius. The difference is that Gertrude and Claudius are sending Hamlet’s friends, which seems much more dependable and not as strange.

"The last Night She Lived" by Emily Dickinson

After reading the poem for the first, my initial impression was that it is about a girl who commits suicide. She uses the pronoun “us” and “we” to include the reader. What I found interesting about this is that she capitalizes these words, as if categorizing herself and the reader as one being. Through capitalizing many nouns, Dickinson turns them into pronouns. In doing so she personifies many elements of the poem, suggesting that things that are non-living are in fact living in some way.

After reading it a second time, I no longer believe that “She” commits suicide. Instead, it might be about dying in general however not by choice. I think the water reference in the poem is a symbol of change; the change from life to death and/ or the change the living experiences. She uses light to describe the hope “upon our Minds” (7) which suggests that we hope for the best in the worst case scenarios. By capitalizing “Minds” Dickinson makes it appear like another person or character in the poem which attributes to overlooking “Her” death.  She uses the simile “lightly as a Reed” (22) to portray death as a gentle thing. This new tone of gentleness flows through the rest of the poem, almost hauntingly. This is especially true when she says: “And We-We placed the Hair/And drew the Head erect-/ And then an awful leisure was/ Belief to regulate-” (25-28). I believe this quote is referring to a funeral and how “she” appears leisurely, how things are “supposed” to be. Using “the” right before the pronoun contradicts the fact that “hair” and “head”, physical human parts, are portrayed as living when “She” is actually dead. The repetition of “we” sounds like a stutter, symbolizing that the reader is a part of this experience, and that both the reader and the author are hesitant about death. The dashes used throughout the last part of the poem further emphasize Dickinson’s hesitation about death which contradicts the jealousy she feels towards “her”.

Lastly, I find the title interesting. It mirrors the first line and uses “live” in the past tense even though the poem is about her death. This alters my perception of the poem but I can’t pinpoint how. However, another theory I have is that it might be a feminist perspective due to the use of “she” throughout the poem.

             

 

Reflection: Initial impression of Hamlet

My initial impression of King Claudius is that he greatly enjoys his newfound power. He keeps referring to himself as various forms of “the king” which suggests that he is trying to prove to himself and to others that he really is the new king now. It also suggests that he is trying to convince those around him that he is fit for the job, if not better than his predecessor. He seems arrogant and he is up to something by the way he pushes Hamlet. By insulting Hamlet’s manhood in order to show him that he should stop grieving over his dead father, Claudius reveals just how suspicious his whole new role truly is. Claudius is trying so hard to make it seem as though he is the new King Hamlet who he seems to desire to be better than. Neither Claudius nor Queen Gertrude seems as phased by the former King’s death as Hamlet does. Gertrude even encourages Hamlet to get over his father’s death.  I would think both Gertrude and Claudius would be more mournful than they are, especially considering their great loss. It is suspicious and Hamlet is aware of this. He is very observant and seems to be catching on to his mother and new step-father when he speaks of the closeness in timing of the funeral and the wedding.  He seems like the victim of circumstances in the case of his father however by the way Laertes and Ophelia portray about him, he seems full of poor intentions. Each character and situation appears to have two sides and only one has been fully revealed thus far.