Thursday, January 19, 2017

Why Him?: The Hit New Comedy, Starring Hamlet and Fortinbras

“I cannot live to hear the news from England. But I do prophesy th’ election lights on Fortinbras; he has my dying voice. So tell him, with th’ occurrents, more and less, which have solicited--the rest is silence.” -page 283

When I first read this passage, I was confused--why would Hamlet want Fortinbras to lead his country? The two characters have never met, and Fortinbras has been leading a military charge on Denmark for the entire play. Why, then, suddenly make him king? It makes no sense, but then again, neither does Hamlet, most of the time.

The first thing worth noting is that Hamlet really doesn’t care about the state of Denmark. He thinks it an awful prison, and, although he has been a man for some time, he has no desire to rise to the throne. Furthermore, he finds the people involved in government (namely Polonius) are stupid and weak-spined. In this respect, it does make sense that he would assign someone so seemingly inept for the job.

However, there is more to it than that. We do have one scene where Hamlet encounters the captain of Fortinbras’ army, and it inspires him to further his plans. There is, therefore, some admiration for Fortinbras within Hamlet. However, I feel it is more than that. I keep coming back to “tell him, with th’ occurrents, more and less, which have solicited--the rest is silence”. The occurrents, of course, are violent. Awful things have happened since Hamlet’s father died; many others died, a war raged on outside, and betrayals were rampant within the castle walls. And then “the rest is silence”: clearly, Hamlet is disgusted by all that has happened, just as much as the people around him appeared to be disgusted with him. His choice, then, makes perfect sense: he has chosen someone who has been far removed from all that has happened, someone who will not make choices biased by anything that has occurred. Someone like Fortinbras.

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?

Hamlet:
To what base uses we may return, Horatio!
Why may not imagination trace the noble dust of
Alexander till he find it stopping a bunghole?
Horatio:
'Twere to consider too curiously to consider
so.
Hamlet:
  No, faith, not a jot; but to follow him thither,
  with modesty enough and likelihood to lead it, <as
  thus:> Alexander died, Alexander was buried,
  Alexander returneth to dust; the dust is earth; of earth
  we make loam; and why of that loam whereto he
  was converted might they not stop a beer barrel?
Imperious Caesar, dead and turned to clay,
Might stop a hole to keep the wind away.
O, that that earth which kept the world in awe
Should patch a wall t' expel the <winter's> flaw!

    Death is constantly on Hamlet's mind. Be it in a good light, such as when he is fantasizing about suicide, or a bad light, such as thinking about his father's death: it is always there. Here, Hamlet discusses the degradation of corpses and their reintegration into the environment. This is something Hamlet has been preoccupied with before, and it is similar to philosophy employed by existentialist writers. He has mentioned previously to Claudius that kings will become worm food, just as everyone else. Here he uses rulers as examples as well, albeit rulers more famous that Claudius or King Hamlet.
    Hamlet starts by chronicling the processes of dying and decomposing. He previously made a statement about Alexander the Great "stopping a bunghole," so he now goes on to explain how Alexander got there. First, he dies, then is buried, and he "returneth to dust;" at this point, Alexander is completely decomposed. As Hamlet sees it, this dust is earth, and it can be put to any use, such as a stop in a beer barrel.
    Next, Hamlet discusses the case of the Roman emperor Julius Caesar. He claims that Caesar is "dead and turned to clay," which might be used to patch a hole in a home, to keep the wind out. He then adds some emotion to his explanation. He cries out, cursing the irony of Caesar's once great position being shifted to a patch in a wall.
    This passage is incredibly similar to existentialist writings. First, Hamlet muses about death and its implications. Thinking about death or nothingness is commonly found in existentialist writings. The passage ends with Hamlet crying out to the universe or God, presumably, about the cruel irony of this process. If it only it were raining and he were on his knees, this passage would all-the-more recognizable to the modern film fanatic.


Monday, January 16, 2017

Who Dis?

Act 5, Scene 1, lines 100-119

Hamlet:  There's another.  Why may not that be the
skull of a lawyer?  Where be his quiddities now, his
quillities, his cases, his tenures, and his tricks?  Why
does he suffer this mad knave now to knock him
about the sconce with a dirty shovel and will not tell
him of his action of battery?  Hum, this fellow might
be in 's time a great buyer of land, with his statutes,
his recognizances, his fines, his double vouchers,
his recoveries.  <Is this the fine of his fines and the
recovery of his recoveries,> to have his fine pate full
of fine dirt?  Will <his> wouchers vouch him no more
of his purchases, and <double ones too,> than the
length and breadth of a pair of indentures?  The very
conveyances of his lands will scarcely lie in this box,
and must th' inheritor himself have no more, ha?

Horatio:  Not a jot more, my lord.

Hamlet:  Is not parchment made of sheepskins?

Horatio:  Ay, my lord, and of calves' skins too.

Hamlet:  They are sheep and calves which seek out
assurance in that.



Hamlet contemplates who this skull belonged to in another life, thinking that it could have plausibly belonged to a lawyer or a land owner.  This may have very well been the case, but more likely it was someone of lesser importance, someone like a chef, a farmer, or a laborer.  The skull could have belonged to anyone, and Hamlet knows this.  He contemplates the futility of the lawyer or land owner's actions during their lifetime; that whether or not their decisions and behavior affected the world in any way past their passing.  Hamlet does not quite come up with a concrete answer, but he does hint that the skull's actions mean nothing now that the person once living inside it is dead.

A person may have been someone important in the law or the land, but both return to the earth at some point.  Once again, their actions during their lifetime may or may not still hold significance now that they are six feet under.  The possible lawyer is without "his quiddities now, his quillities" (lines 101-102) and the land owner without "his fines, his double vouchers" (line 107), leaving them with nothing but worms and dirt.  Everyone ends up this way, and what they leave behind may or may not stick in the world.  It all depends on how useful their legacy is to the living.

Humans serve another purpose after death, just like all living beings.  While the purpose each creature serves is slightly different, all dead things may be used in some way or another by a different, living creature.  Humans provide meal for worms and insects to decompose and return to soil.  Humans use dead animals as food, clothing, and stationary.  Hamlet and Horatio comment on the use of sheep and calf skin, from deceased animals, for parchment.  We all ultimately serve an ulterior purpose to that of when we were alive.

But That Was the Old Me

“Hamlet: Give me your pardon, sir. I’ve done you wrong.
But pardon ’t, as you are a gentleman.
This presence knows,
And you must needs have heard, how I am punished
With sore distraction. What I have done,
That might your nature, honor, and exception
Roughly awake, I here proclaim was madness.
Was ’t Hamlet wronged Laertes? Never Hamlet.
If Hamlet from himself be ta'en away,
And when he’s not himself does wrong Laertes,
Then Hamlet does it not. Hamlet denies it.
Who does it, then? His madness. If’t be so,
Hamlet is of the faction that is wronged.
His madness is poor Hamlet’s enemy.
Sir, in this audience,
Let my disclaiming from a purposed evil
Free me so far in your most generous thoughts
That I have shot mine arrow o'er the house
And hurt my brother.”
Page 273

Hamlet has not been showing any regret or second thoughts on how his actions are affecting others. His only focus, as he promised to the ghost of his father, is to seek revenge. In doing so, he has not paid attention to any of the repercussions of his acting mad. He murdered Polonius, and consequently influenced Ophelia’s suicide. When confronted with how his actions have caused harm, he blames his madness, something he created. Hamlet’s instinct to blame something other than himself and use of madness as a scapegoat for his behavior reveal Hamlet’s immaturity and apathy toward anything that doesn’t immediately impact him.
For the first time since murdering Polonius and having just heard of Ophelia’s death, Hamlet is now addressing Laertes. Rather than be apologetic, Hamlet acts as if he has done nothing wrong. Instead, he personifies his madness and blames it. He continues that act of madness by repeating himself as if lamenting his actions, but instead it seems as if he is making light of his actions. He even goes so far as to say that his actions hurt him as much as if he had “shot mine arrow o'er the house And hurt my brother.” which is ironic as he had been with Ophelia, who was Laertes’s sister.
Hamlet never gave reasoning before acting mad. He was confronted by his father’s ghost, and then Ophelia reported that he was acting strangely. His act had allowed him to get away with things before, such as his outburst at Ophelia. Up until now, he had never stated that his madness had caused him to act a certain way. It could be that his madness was at first fear of seeing his father’s ghost, but after realising that it allowed him to get away with otherwise inexcusable actions, he continued the disguise. Now he seems to give up the act and say that his actions were not actions performed by Hamlet but performed by his madness. This response is well crafted, as Hamlet has noticed others creating similar conclusions to describe Hamlet’s behavior.
When put in a situation where Hamlet should be humble and apologetic for causing the death of half of Laertes’s family, Hamlet instead shoves the blame on a mental illness created by himself and shows no regret, instead trying to make himself out as the victim. He noticed how others reacted to his madness, and used this to fabricate reasoning for his outbursts. Hamlet demonstrates an inability to act responsibly or display empathy to those he has wronged.

This Skull Could Sing Once

page 243
scene 1 lines 76-82

Hamlet:

"That skull had a tongue in it and could sing
once. How the knave jowls it to the ground as if
'twere Cain's jawbone, that did the first murder!
This might be the pate of a politician which this ass
now o'erraches, one that would circumvent God,
might it not?"

The context surrounding this passage is incredibly important. This is the scene where Hamlet and Horatio wander into the graveyard and the Gravedigger is singing while he goes about his job. Hamlet finds this offensive and heartless. This passage stems from him feeling as if the Gravedigger is disrespecting the lives of the skulls because every skull was someone at some point.

In this passage Hamlet is extremely unhappy with the Gravedigger and the way he conducts business. Hamlet mocks the singing Gravedigger by saying "that skull had a tongue in it and could sing once". This is Hamlet implying that the skull could do what the Gravedigger is doing when it was alive. Hamlet calls the Gravedigger a "knave", which is a dishonest or unscrupulous man. That shows how unimpressed Hamlet is with him. Hamlet describes the Gravedigger's action of putting the skull in the grave as "jowls" or dashing it. A "pate" is a person's head. He says of the skull that it might have been a "politician". Hamlet is taking guesses of who the dead body was when it was alive and he is trying to point out that it could have been anyone for all he knows. He calls the Gravedigger an "ass" which highlights his utter disgust with the worker. He says that the  "ass now o'erraches", or gets the better of, the "politician". Hamlet is really not pleased that the Gravedigger is taking advantage of the dead by disrespecting them.

Hamlet references God twice in this short passage. He alludes to the Bible and says that the Gravedigger is handling the skull "as if 'twere Cain's jawbone, that did the first murder. The story of Cain and Abel is also known as the first murder because in the Bible it is the first recording of a human killing a fellow human. Cain kills his brother Abel out of jealousy and God punishes him by making the soil that Cain has to yield no crops. He also marks Cain so that no one can kill Cain for killing his brother. When Hamlet references this, he is saying that the Gravedigger treats the skull with extreme disregard and disgust because any moral person would not treat Cain, a murderer, well. The second time God is referenced is when Hamlet says "one that would circumvent God". Hamlet is trying to say that this dead person could have been a smart enough politician to outwit God and the Gravedigger still treats it with carelessness.

This passage shows that Hamlet actually values human life. He is upset with the way the Gravedigger handles dead people because their lives could have mattered before. He speculates on who the skull could have been before. It could have been anyone and thus deserves respect.

Forgiveness or Fear of Hell?

LAERTES
It is here, Hamlet: Hamlet, thou art slain;
No medicine in the world can do thee good;
In thee there is not half an hour of life;
The treacherous instrument is in thy hand,
Unbated and envenom'd: the foul practise
Hath turn'd itself on me lo, here I lie,
Never to rise again: thy mother's poison'd:
I can no more: the king, the king's to blame....
HAMLET
Here, thou incestuous, murderous, damned Dane,
Drink off this potion. Is thy union here?
Follow my mother.
KING CLAUDIUS dies
LAERTES
He is justly served;
It is a poison temper'd by himself.
Exchange forgiveness with me, noble Hamlet:
Mine and my father's death come not upon thee,
Nor thine on me. (Act V, Scene II)

     The final scene of Hamlet is very intense and involves many sudden deaths and changes of heart. Laertes knew about the whole plan and was going along with it until he was stabbed with the poisoned blade and was dying along with Hamlet. Laertes seems to have a change of heart when the queen drinks poison meant for Hamlet and is killed by mistake. After mortally wounding Hamlet, he tells him "thou art slain," and warns him that he has "not a half hour of life" left. Laertes says that the blade had "turned itself on [him]" and suggests that his death is a type of karma. However, he is very quick to put all the blame for Gertrude's and Hamlet's deaths completely on Claudius.
     Laertes is very quick to say that "the king's to blame," even though he himself had a large part in creating the plan. He even insisted that he wanted to be the one to kill Hamlet. When he actually does kill Hamlet and he himself is mortally wounded, he blames Claudius and immediately asks for Hamlet's forgiveness. The sudden and complete change of heart makes the audience wonder if his request for forgiveness is genuine or if he is simply trying to confess his sins and avoid going to Hell. Of course, when Hamlet hears that Claudius is to blame, he is enraged and kills him. Laertes responds by saying "he is justly served," which is really ironic because he was just helping Claudius plan to kill Hamlet only a couple scenes ago. Damn, Laertes, I'm getting whip-lash from how quickly you're changing your mind about things.
     Perhaps Laertes does genuinely feel guilty about what he has done to Hamlet. He begs for forgiveness and his last words are to say "mine and my father's death come not upon thee, nor thine on me". Since the theme of the afterlife is very prevalent in this play, it makes a lot of sense that Laertes would be concerned about the fate of his soul after dying. This seems like a sort of last-ditch effort to save his soul before he dies. Hamlet responds "heaven make thee free of it," as a final way to forgive Laertes.



"Good night, sweet prince"

Hamlet's Death

Act 5. Scene 2. 364-384 

"HAMLET: Heaven make thee free of it. I follow thee. ---
I am dead, Horatio. ---Wretched queen, adieu. ---
You that look pale and tremble at this chance,
That are but mutes or audience to this act,
Had I but time (as this fell sergeant, Death,
Is strict in his arrest), O, I could tell you ---
But let it be. --- Horatio, I am dead.
Thou livest; report me and my cause aright
To the unsatisfied.

HORATIO: Never believe it.
I am more antique Roman than a Dane.
Here's yet some liquor left.

HAMLET: Give me the cup. Let go! By heaven, I'll ha't.
O God, Horatio, what a wounded name,
Things standing thus unknown, shall I leave behind me!
If tho didst ever hold me in thy heart,
Absent thee from felicity awhile
And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain
To tell my story."

While slowing dying, Hamlet had some final words that were unique and poignant. In this piece of the play, Hamlet is fencing Laertes and both have been wounded and are dying. While the fencing is taking place, poisoning of beverages has taken place and the Queen is also dying. With all of this sudden fatality, Shakespeare's final scene of his play becomes a scene of last words and thoughts on life and everyone in it.
 This passage begins with Hamlet addressing Laertes, who just died. He states, "heaven make thee free of it," meaning that God will not hold Laertes accountable to his actions against Hamlet since they were misguided and forced on him by Claudius. Hamlet then states that he will be joining Laertes soon in heaven. The next interesting line that comes from Hamlet is, "wretched queen, adieu". With this line, it is clear that Hamlet has absolutely no respect left for his mother as she dies as well. Hamlet goes on by alluding to the idea that death is cutting his life short and he wishes he could tell the bystanders of what he had hoped to accomplish but knows that he will not have the time. Hamlet then looks to Horatio and tells him to keep his story alive and tell everyone everything that he didn't have the chance to. In response to Hamlet while his death is quickly approaching, Horatio cautions him to "never believe it," as in he should not think in such a pessimistic and upsetting manner. He then offers Hamlet the rest of the poisoned liquor in the goblet in hopes that death will come quicker and end his suffering.  Hamlet is quick to shout, "Give me the cup!", and plead Horatio for his mercy and understanding. He continues to say that the confusion and unfinished business he is to "leave behind [him]," will tarnish his reputation in some ways. Hamlet's last pleading wish to Horatio in this passage is for him to stay alive and "tell [his] story," hoping that he won't have to die with a tarnished reputation and telling Horatio that "if tho didst ever hold me in thy heart," he would fulfill this final request for his dear friend, Hamlet.
 This passage reveals a lot about Hamlet and his true feelings towards his peers and his life in general. He reveals that he still and always will detest his mother for her choice to marry her husband's murderer and brother, Claudius. He also reveals that he does genuinely care about his reputation and doesn't want to die with people having a tarnished view on him. Hamlet also comes to a sort of truce with Laertes before he dies and demonstrates his deep care for his friendship with Horatio. Hamlet expresses a lot of emotions throughout this play, however, in his last dying moments, he exposes the most about his true feelings than ever before.

Swear Not by the Crocodile, th'Inconstant Crocodile

HAMLET:
"I loved Ophelia. Forty thousand brothers
Could not with all their quantity of love
Make up my sum. What wilt thou do for her? . . .
'Swounds, show me what thou't do.
Woo't weep, woo't fight, woo't fast, woo't tear thyself,
Woo't drink up eisel, eat a crocodile?
I'll do it. Dost thou come here to whine?
To outface me with leaping in her grave?
Be buried quick with her, and so will I.
And if thou prate of mountains, let them throw
Millions of acres on us, till our ground,
Singeing his pate against the burning zone,
Make Ossa like a wart. Nay, and thou'lt mouth,
I'll rant as well as thou."
(5.1.285-301)

As we know, Hamlet is a very complicated man. He is quite obviously depressed, he pretends to be crazy for about half of the play, and it is inconclusive as to whether or not he is actually deranged. It seems sometimes as if his reality is not the same of that of the other characters, and, more often that not, Hamlet's sincerity is murkily expressed. There is no relationship that exhibits these qualities more than the relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia. Hamlet's messages to her are mixed, at best, and he bounces between sending her love letters and telling her that he never loved her. When Ophelia dies, however, Hamlet finally expresses his true love for her in truth or jest, or in sanity or madness.

On the one hand, Hamlet seems to have remarkable clarity in this moment. He is not acting mad, as indicated by the use of blank verse in this scene. Hamlet's intent is to be seen as sane by those around him, and he clearly and simply announces, "I loved Ophelia" (285). This entire speech is very straightforward, and I imagine it being played seriously and intensely, rather than wildly and uncontrolled. The syntax used is simple; Hamlet asks short questions, as seen in lines 291-292, and he makes clear points. His main argument is that Laertes cannot possibly love Ophelia as Hamlet loves her, and that Laertes is dishonoring Ophelia by expressing his false or undeserved affections in the ways that he is.

On the other hand, Hamlet is attacking Laertes with no provocation. In fact, Laertes is much more entitled to be attacking Hamlet, a.k.a. the murderer of Laertes' father. Laertes, also, probably has more cause to love Ophelia than Hamlet does. Hamlet says that "forty thousand brothers / Could not with all their quantity of love / Make up [his] sum" (285-287); yet, family could be said to be closer to a person than a lover could, especially in the setting of a Shakespearean play centered around the subject of familial obligation and dedication. Hamlet is also using his grief for Ophelia to prove that he is better than Laertes, rather than using it to reconcile the two fatherless men. Hamlet asks ridiculous questions of Laertes: "Woo't drink up eisel, eat a crocodile? I'll do it" (292). All of these things that Hamlet is doing and saying, like suggesting that both Hamlet and Laertes join Ophelia in her grave forever, are not things that a sane person mourning a lost lover would do. Once again, we are bound to question the truth of what Hamlet is saying of his love for Ophelia.

Hamlet really is almost unintelligible. His madness, both real and feigned, combined with his clear depression, make him wild and combustible, but he also has very real feelings and loyalties that are unbreakable. This passage presents even more fodder for the mysteries that are his love for Ophelia and his sanity. I don't believe that there is a correct conclusion to draw concerning either issue.

Where Do You Go When You Die ?

Hamlet:
"Has this fellow no feeling of his business ? He
sings in grace-making.
Horatio:
Custom hath made it in him a property of 
easiness.
Hamlet: 
'Tis e'en so.  The hand of little employment
hath the daintier sense.
Gravedigger: (sings)
But age which his stealing steps
Hath clawed e in his clutch,
And hath shipped me into the land,
As if I had never been such.
(He digs up a skull.)
Hamlet:
That skull had a tongue in it and could sing
once.  How the knave jowls it to the ground as if 
'twere Cain's jawbone, that did the first murder!
This might be the pate of a politician which this ass
now o'erreaches, one that would circumvent God,
might it not ?
Horatio: 
It might my lord.
Hamlet: 
Or of a courtier, which could say "Good
morrow sweet lord! How dost thou, sweet lord?"
This might be my Lord Such-a-one that praised my 
Lord such-a-one's horse when he went to beg it,
might it not ?
Horatio:
Ay my lord" (5.1, 67-89).

Hamlet is infatuated with all things death.  After his encounter with the apparition of his father, his obsession with death increased extensively.  He took a philosophical stance and began to question what the point of life was if eventually everyone ended up dead.  When thoughts of suicide crept into his head, he began to question whether one still dreams during their forever sleep and, if not, was suicide worth it ?  When Hamlet and Horatio are strolling through the grave yard, Hamlet's infatuation with and curiosity about death and the after life is evident.  To many, including the Gravedigger and Horatio, death means that you are put in the ground and that is the end, but to others, such as Hamlet it is difficult to accept the end as it is.

While walking through the graveyard, Hamlet is intrigued by each skull he sees.  He wants to know the story behind each one.  He wants to know what kind of person the skull belongs to.  To one skull he says "that skull had a tongue in it and could sing once" (78-79) and to another, "this might be the plate of a politician which this ass now o'erreaches (81-82), and to another "or of a courtier that could say "Good morrow sweet lord! How dost thou, sweet lord?" (84-85).  These comments show that Hamlet cannot accept that death is the end and now these skulls, although once they were a person, are now just bones.  He is paying attention to the personalities and skills each of the skulls once had from singing to politics to advising.  By calling the gravedigger an "ass" (81), Hamlet not only displays his disdain for the disrespect of the bones, but he also characterizes how the gravedigger regards death. 

To the gravedigger, skulls are just a part of his everyday life.  They are no more important to him than nails are to a carpenter.  The reason he sings as he works (73-76) is not to be disrespectful but instead, is to simply keep him from being consumed by boredom.  However, to Hamlet, the fact that he sings is preposterous and causes him to immediately devalue the gravedigger.  When Hamlet first hears the gravedigger singing he is appalled as shown by his comments of "has this fellow no feeling of his business? He sings in grave-making" (67-68).  He assumes that one must have "feeling[s]" (67) when it comes to dealing with the skulls of those who once lived. In response to all of Hamlet's questions, Horatio is calm and rather emotionless.

Horatio, like the gravedigger, seems to regard death as a natural process.  In response to Hamlet's inquiry about the gravedigger, Horatio says "custom hath made him a property of easiness" (69-70). As Hamlet ponders the former occupations of the skulls, Horatio replies with "it might be my lord" (83) and "ay, my lord" (89).  Horatio is not flustered by the treatment of the skulls.  He understands that when life is over it is over.  Hamlet cannot accept death for what it is and cannot help but think, is that it ?

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Death is a Five Letter Word

There's been a Death, in the Opposite House,
As lately as Today --
I know it, by the numb look
Such Houses have -- alway --

The Neighbors rustle in and out --
The Doctor -- drives away --
A Window opens like a Pod --
Abrupt -- mechanically --

Somebody flings a Mattress out --
The Children hurry by --
They wonder if it died -- on that --
I used to -- when a Boy --

The Minister -- goes stiffly in --
As if the House were His --
And He owned all the Mourners -- now --
And little Boys -- besides --

And then the Milliner -- and the Man
Of the Appalling Trade --
To take the measure of the House --
There'll be that Dark Parade --
    
Of Tassels -- and of Coaches -- soon --
It's easy as a Sign --
The Intuition of the News --
In just a Country Town --
-Emily Dickinson

     This poem has a very matter-of-fact feel and discusses death in a very objective way. Since the speaker does not seem to know the deceased or the family of the deceased, the poem is very distanced and tells the story through observation. The speaker is basically just a nosy neighbor watching what is going on from across the street. However, through the line "I know it by the numb look" Dickinson shows that the speaker has dealt with death before and knows what the signs are. She also personifies the house, calling it numb, as if it is still dealing with the shock of the death.
     Then the speaker described the neighbors coming in and out of the house, but the speaker is decidedly not one of them. This is presumably because he did not actually know the people living in the house. The doctor is seen leaving, as he is no longer needed after the death. The abruptness of the window opening can be connected to the abrupt nature of death itself, and mechanically might refer to the way people feel and operate after a death has occurred. The mattress is "flung out" and discarded much as the body of the deceased person will be. The speaker even refers to the deceased as "it", not even referring to a gender and completely dehumanizing them. This implies that death turns a person into an object, just a body. Even though the poet is a woman, the speaker is definitely a man, which is made clear from the last line of the second stanza. 
     The speaker watches the minister enter the house and describes him as "stiff". This connects to the imagery of a stiff dead body and the stark mood of the house. The minister seems to be very egotistical and full of himself because he enters the house "as if it were his, and he owned all the mourners now". This gives a feeling that is very different from the rest of the poem. Most of the poem is very objective, but this stanza very clearly makes judgments about the minister. 
     People keep coming and going from the house. The milliner (hat maker) and a man "of the appalling trade" who appears to be an undertaker both enter the house as well. The man of the appalling trade is there to "take measure of the house" which presumably means that he is beginning to plan the funeral and casket arrangements for the "dark parade of tassels and of coaches". The speaker assumes that the funeral will be very normal and similar to most other funerals. Then he basically says that it is easy to figure out when a death has occurred if you know what signs to look for. He calls it a matter of "intuition". 
     "There's Been a Death in the Opposite House" by Emily Dickinson portrays death in a very unique and mostly apathetic way. It doesn't really describe any emotions following death apart from shock and numbness, it mainly describes the different signs of a death and the constant motion that is left behind. Dickinson very clearly captures how death ceremonies and traditions are not so much about the person who has died, but more about the people who are left behind afterwards.

Saturday, January 14, 2017

Man the Books!

19.  There is No Frigate Like a Book

There is no frigate like a book
To take us away,
Nor any coursers like a page
Of prancing poetry:
This traverse may the poorest take
Without oppress of toll;
How frugal is the chariot
That bears the human soul!

Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)

This poem is in the third chapter, the one dedicated to Denotation and Connotation.  In it's lines, Dickinson connotates that a book is akin to an armored warship, lending the impression that words hold great power.  Even though this poem fits quite well into the theme of this certain chapter, it also provides great insight into the entire world of poetry.  Dickinson utilizes many rhetorical devices, including allusion, alliteration, and metaphor- all of which greatly support her main argument on the importance of books.  Dickinson also chooses her diction carefully, paying attention to both what the words mean and what they sound like to arrive at the epitome of beauty in poetry.

Two aspects of the poem to consider is the speaker and the audience.  There is no immediately clear speaker, one that jumps out at the reader and proclaims its presence.  However, if you read more deeply into the text, one may find a hint of someone who is definitely well-read.  The speaker may be quite learned, with a lot of years of experience reading and analyzing text.  For example,  Dickinson uses "this traverse may the poorest take without oppress of toll" (lines 5 and 6) to convey the journey a reader might take when reading a book.  This is most likely learned from at least a bit of experience.  As far as an audience, the intended readers may be students or people not so likely to read without being given a push first.  This poem emphasizes the importance and beauty of reading, the "prancing poetry" (line 4) flowing like a river into the reader's ears and mind.  This poem is meant for an audience that may otherwise not choose to read for pleasure.  The central, presiding purpose of "There is No Frigate" is to lure in these types of readers and entice each to change their ways.

I personally agree with the poem a lot, in that books provide and distribute knowledge no matter if you want to obtain it or not.  If you are reading, you are learning what that particular book has to say.  There's no way around it.  Yes, you may ignore what you're taught, but you were still taught it and that can never be reneged.  Dickinson makes her point about the importance of books well in "There is No Frigate", providing the reader with flowing diction and a strong purpose.

Honor and Respect

Base Details - Siegfried Sassoon

If I were fierce, and bald, and short of breath,
I’d live with scarlet Majors at the Base,
And speed glum heroes up the line to death.
You’d see me with my puffy petulant face,
Guzzling and gulping in the best hotel,
Reading the Roll of Honour. “Poor young chap,”
I’d say--“I used to know his father well;
Yes, we’ve lost heavily in this last scrap.”
And when the war is done and youth stone dead,
I’d toddle safely home and die--in bed.

This poem is extremely blunt and accusing, attacking majors in a war. Obviously, the author is anti-war, but there is more to it than that. He does have respect for regular soldiers, but when it comes to their leaders, he holds no regard for them.

A lot of this attitude be seen in the chosen diction. “Puffy”, “petulant”, “guzzling and gulping”, and “toddle” all bring to mind some bumbling, lumbering animal, not a man of great skill and esteem. “Bald, and short of breath” suggest someone frail and on the verge of death, making the action of sending youth to their deaths a tragic and ironic one. However, the most heart-wrenching word choice (to me) comes in this line: “Yes, we’ve lost heavily in this last scrap.” The majors are so disconnected from the battle at hand that they think of it as a scrap. What kind of a scrap comes with a death toll?

Another haunting aspect is that soldiers die with honor, but majors die in safety. Is one better than the other? Well, “honor” isn’t really as honored as it seems. “Poor young chap--I used to know his father well.” This is all a soldier gets as a requiem. There is nothing personal here, only a quick sentiment about his last name. He is forced to death, then denied a proper mourning. Meanwhile, majors dine and drink in “the best hotel” and are rewarded with a safe death. This is unfair and unjust, and for that, Sassoon holds no respect for them.

A Different Story Within, In-

“Out, Out-”
By Robert Frost
The buzz saw snarled and rattled in the yard
And made dust and dropped stove-length sticks of wood,
Sweet-scented stuff when the breeze drew across it.
And from there those that lifted eyes could count
Five mountain ranges one behind the other
Under the sunset far into Vermont.
And the saw snarled and rattled, snarled and rattled,
As it ran light, or had to bear a load.
And nothing happened: day was all but done.
Call it a day, I wish they might have said
To please the boy by giving him the half hour
That a boy counts so much when saved from work.
His sister stood beside him in her apron
To tell them ‘Supper.’ At the word, the saw,
As if to prove saws knew what supper meant,
Leaped out at the boy’s hand, or seemed to leap—
He must have given the hand. However it was,
Neither refused the meeting. But the hand!
The boy’s first outcry was a rueful laugh,
As he swung toward them holding up the hand
Half in appeal, but half as if to keep
The life from spilling. Then the boy saw all—
Since he was old enough to know, big boy
Doing a man’s work, though a child at heart—
He saw all spoiled. ‘Don’t let him cut my hand off—
The doctor, when he comes. Don’t let him, sister!’
So. But the hand was gone already.
The doctor put him in the dark of ether.
He lay and puffed his lips out with his breath.
And then—the watcher at his pulse took fright.
No one believed. They listened at his heart.
Little—less—nothing!—and that ended it.
No more to build on there. And they, since they
Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs.

This poem is written like a short story, it begins with the setting of a boy cutting wood, rises to when his hand gets caught, and then ends with his death. However, behind the simple plot there is a deeper message about death, and how the world continues when one person leaves. To create these two stories, Robert Frost uses multiple poetic devices including personification, imagery, and other auditory devices. In using all of these aspects, he is able to portray his theme on the ephemerality of life and how its end doesn’t cause the end of other’s life.
The poem begins with the personification of the saw. It “buzzed” and “snarled” making it seem like a large, vicious beast. It then contrasts the saw’s harsh image with a description of the beautiful landscape surrounding it. He uses both visual and olfactory imagery to place the reader in the setting. Continuing the personification of the saw, Frost says the sister told “them” it was dinner. In this way, both her brother and the saw knew. The saw, as if acting upon hearing that it was dinner, is then written to have “leaped out” and cut the boy’s hand. Having written the incident as the saw’s fault instead of a mistake made by the boy gives the reader more pity toward him. Frost has painted the incident not to be an accident that happened during chores, but that a vicious saw purposely attacked the hand of the boy. Later on, Frost uses the word “life” instead of blood to be pouring out of his hand. This places more value on his blood, as it gives the feeling that each drop of blood leaving is taking a month away from him. Through the poetic devices used, Frost is able to change an incident into a more dramatic and meaningful image.
Besides recounting the death of a boy, Frost is also giving an opinion on the value of life. His poem begins as if it is just another day for the boy. Frost has created a setting that is recognizable to most, creating a sense of companionship with the boy. He also describes how the boy’s work generally goes, describing the different amounts of wood the saw must cut and how the boy enjoys having a half hour break. Then, unexpectedly, the saw cuts his hand. The boy asks for his hand to be saved, and in a way he is asking that his life be saved. However, whether due to blood loss or an overdose of anesthetic, the boy dies. Rather than describe the family’s grievance, Frost describes how the family went back to living. He even goes so far as to say “No more to build on there” after the boy dies, as if the death of the body is the death of memory connected him as well.
Frost’s “Out, Out-” has both a poignant story about the death of a boy and a message about how other’s lives will continue after you die. He achieves this through specific wording that allow dual meanings to be placed and connotations that infer his theme. Though shocking to read about amputation, Frost’s poem is also thought provoking on how your own death will impact the world of those you were close to.

Saving Time

"A Late Aubade"
Richard Wilbur

   You could be sitting now in a carrel
   Turning some liver-spotted page,
   Or rising in an elevator-cage
   Toward Ladies' Apparel.


   You could be planting a raucous bed
   Of salvia, in rubber gloves,
   Or lunching through a screed of someone's loves
   With pitying head.


   Or making some unhappy setter
   Heel, or listening to a bleak
   Lecture on Schoenberg's serial technique.
   Isn't this better?


   Think of all the time you are not
   Wasting, and would not care to waste,
   Such things, thank God, not being to your taste.
   Think what a lot


   Of time, by woman's reckoning,
   You've saved, and so may spend on this,
   You who had rather lie in bed and kiss
   Than anything.


   It's almost noon, you say? If so,
   Time flies, and I need not rehearse
   The rosebuds-theme of centuries of verse.
   If you must go,


   Wait for a while, then slip downstairs
   And bring us up some chilled white wine,
   And some blue cheese, and crackers, and some fine
   Ruddy-skinned pears.


   The majority of this poem takes place in the imagination, and not reality. Richard Wilbur illustrates several hypothetical situations before commenting on the present state of the speaker. When the reader finally learn the speaker's purpose in creating all of these hypotheticals, this poem can be seen as a love poem: albeit one that criticizes other love poems. In "A Late Aubade" Wilbur twists the traditional love poem and exchanges passion for gratitude.
   It is obvious that this poem is going to be a lot of visualization on the speaker's part when he begins by addressing an unknown you with various activities that she could be doing. First, it's reading in a sort of study space, then riding an elevator to the women's section of some store. This is how we learn the ambiguous "you" is presumably a woman. Next he moves on to planting a "raucous", or rowdy, bed of salvia, an ornamental type of sage. Here, the first hint is made towards the literal situation of the speaker, which is later revealed to be in bed. Wilbur's use of "raucous bed" at the end of a line more than likely holds sexual implications. Then he moves back to studying, mentioning a "screed" of someone's loves, a discourse or an essay. She could also be walking a dog, an unhappy and disobedient dog. After this hypothetical, the poem changes tone. The speaker poses the question "Isn't this better?"
   Now he implores the woman to think of how much time she could be wasting on such activities. He then reveals that none of these are in fact activities she enjoys. He thanks God they aren't "to her taste." Next, he claims that all of the time she could have wasted is spent on something better: laying in bed, kissing him. Which is, apparently, her favorite activity, as she'd rather be doing it than anything else. This is the current state of both the speaker and the addressed. 
   The woman then speaks for the first time. It's not written explicitly, but the speaker repeats a comment made by her, questioning it. It is almost noon. This is where the criticism of the classic love poem comes in. The speaker claims he has no need to copy "centuries of verse" comparing love or who is loved to roses. Just the fact that she has stayed so long, that she chooses to be in bed rather than participating in any of the aforementioned activities, proves her love. 
   In the last stanza, the speaker makes a suggestion. If the woman really has to leave, he suggests staying just a little longer. He wants her to stay as long as she can. When she leaves, he only wants her to "slip downstairs", where she'll prepare some food and wine for consumption when she returns to bed. Here, they will most likely spend the rest of the afternoon. The last line, "Ruddy-skinned pears," seems to be another sexual innuendo. The female figure is often compared to pears, and he comments on the texture of the skin of said pears. With this last line, one can speculate about what will take place in their bed.
   


"A Hummingbird"

"A Hummingbird"
Emily Dickinson

A route of evanescence
With a revolving wheel;
A resonance of emerald,
A rush of cochineal;
And every blossom on the bush
Adjusts its tumbled head, ---
The mail from Tunis, probably,
An easy morning's ride.

This poem is one of the few that Dickinson gives a title. This is because she does not explicitly say what the poem is about in the lines so the title provides insight to what she writes about. She is specific about the type of bird, as well. This proves she wanted the reader to know exactly what he or she would be reading about.

 This poem describes a hummingbird in all its glory and uses metaphors to describe how a hummingbird looks. The "revolving wheel" describes how hummingbirds' wings look when they flap them. The "resonance" is the sound that the flapping of wings makes and "of emerald" is one of the pretty colors on the bird's body. The "rush" is the movement of the bird past everything it flies by and as it rushes one sees "cochineal", which is a deep scarlet red color on a hummingbird. The head of the hummingbird is described as a "tumbled head", or a head with a long pointy part protruding from it. Using specific, descriptive, words Dickinson provides an image of a hummingbird.

The poem also describes the journey of the hummingbird. Hummingbirds' wings beat too fast for anyone to see, hence giving them a "route of evanescence". Wherever they fly to, whatever "route" they take, they rapidly fade from sight. Dickinson shows where the hummingbird flies. They go to "every blossom on the bush". Finally, Dickinson calls the journey "an easy morning's ride", which also tells what time of day the bird is most active. Dickinson provides a description of a hummingbird's journey in a few lines.

This short poem incorporates an allusion. "Tunis" is the capital of Tunisia in Africa. The city is a symbol for remoteness. This alludes to lines in Shakespeare's The Tempest. Tunis is a long distance from where Dickinson lived in Amherst, Massachusetts. This implies that the hummingbird seems like it comes from a far away, unknown place and it came to Massachusetts as "mail." Her allusion illuminates the hummingbird's mystery sent to where she is.

Even with the simplicity of this poem, the reader is opened to vivid images and is taken along side a hummingbird as it flies. In only eight lines Dickinson shows what a hummingbird looks like, the journey it takes every morning, and alludes to it coming from a far away mysterious place. A hummingbird is a beautiful, tiny bird that Dickinson appreciates with her writing.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Sponges

Page 193
lines 15-21
Hamlet:
"Ay, sir, that soaks up the King's countenance,
his rewards, his authorities. But such officers do the
King best service in the end. He keeps them like <an
ape> an apple in the corner of his jaw, first mouthed,
to be last swallowed. When he needs what you have
gleaned, it is but squeezing you, and, sponge, you
shall be dry again."

Hamlet's dry, sarcastic nature shows itself in this passage. His superior education is also highlighted. Hamlet has, in past scenes, talked around Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and this is no different. He insults them.

In this passage, Hamlet tells Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that they are like "sponges". They "soak up the King's countenance, his rewards, his authorities" as in they just absorb all of the King's money and praise. He says they are "an ape", which shows how barbaric and stupid he views them. They are "an apple in the corner of his jaw" and that implies the King has total control and can just chomp on them any time he wants. When the King needs what they have "gleaned", or done for him then the King will use him. But once he's done "squeezing" them, or using them, he will leave them and they will be "dry", or not needed.

This passage shows Hamlet's true disgust for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's antics and their blind obedience to the King. He uses his upper education to use a metaphor comparing them to a sponge. He has called them out in the past and this time is no different.

The Cats & The Dogs

"Curiosity"
Alastair Reed
may have killed the cat; more likely
the cat was just unlucky, or else curious
to see what death was like, having no cause
to go on licking paws, or fathering
litter on litter of kittens, predictably.


Nevertheless, to be curious
is dangerous enough. To distrust
what is always said, what seems
to ask odd questions, interfere in dreams,
leave home, smell rats, have hunches
do not endear cats to those doggy circles
where well-smelt baskets, suitable wives, good lunches
are the order of things, and where prevails
much wagging of incurious heads and tails.

Face it. Curiosity
will not cause us to die--
only lack of it will.
Never to want to see
the other side of the hill
or that improbable country
where living is an idyll
(although a probable hell)
would kill us all.
Only the curious
have, if they live, a tale
worth telling at all.


Dogs say cats love too much, are irresponsible,
are changeable, marry too many wives,
desert their children, chill all dinner tables
with tales of their nine lives.
Well, they are lucky. Let them be
nine-lived and contradictory,
curious enough to change, prepared to pay
the cat price, which is to die
and die again and again,
each time with no less pain.
A cat minority of one
is all that can be counted on
to tell the truth. And what cats have to tell
on each return from hell
is this: that dying is what the living do,
that dying is what the loving do,
and that dead dogs are those who do not know

that dying is what, to live, each has to do.

Curiosity killed the cat. This phrase is perhaps one of the most widely recognizable idiom in the English language. Traditionally, this idiom has rather negative connotation. It is used to dissuade children from rummaging through other people's things and to prevent mischievous teenagers from trespassing late at night. Poet Alastair Reid presents the idea of curiosity in a different light, more positive light. "Curiosity" by Alastair Reid turns the well-known idiom on its head portraying it not only as a positive quality but also as one that is vital to life.

It can be deduced from reading the poem that the speaker in "Curiosity" is an upper middle aged man who is looking back on life and its meaning and purpose. His audience is younger people who are struggling to find themselves and discover the path they are meant to follow through life. The poem's tone is a clever mixture of passionate and cynical.

At the start of the first stanza of the poem, one would assume they are about to read a cute poem about a curious cat. Phrases such as "licking paws" (4) and "fathering litter on litter of kitten" (4-5) indicate that the subject of the poem is simply a cat. However, if the reader looks a bit deeper into the words he or she will realize that the curious cat is a symbol for a man. The final word of the first stanza, "predictably" (5), is notable as it inflicts the speaker's opinion into the sentence it concludes.

As the first stanza becomes the second, the idea of curiosity is explored. The heart of stanza two includes a listing of things that those with curiosity do and a listing of what those who are curious avoid. It is stated that those who are curious do not participate is "doggy circles where well-smelt baskets, suitable wives, good lunches are the order of things" (11-12). This sentence includes the first mention of dogs. In this poem dogs are symbolic for people who are not curious; those who are satisfied with mundane lives. The phrases "suitable wives" (12) and "good lunches" (12) give off a kind of 1950s suburban housewife feel which contributes to the claim that curious cats live more interesting lives.

"Face it. Curiosity will not cause us to die -- only lack of it will" (15-17) perfectly describes the central purpose of the poem in one sentence. In addition to solidifying the purpose of the poem, it also connects the ideas of the first two stanzas and last two stanzas. The first two stanzas are rather ambiguous about whether the poem is actually about cats and dogs or if cats and dogs are symbolic for people who are curious and people who are not. The last two stanzas are clearly about people. The third stanza includes the idea that cats, or those who are curious, are not afraid to explore that "improbable country" (20). The speaker makes the claim that not being curious will "kill us all" (23). By using the phrase would kill instead of alternatives such as would hurt or would induce boredom, the speaker makes the powerful statement that a life without curiosity will literally kill a person.

Dogs think that cats are crazy and unrealistic. They say that "cats love too much, are irresponsible are changeable, marry too many wives, desert their children, chill dinner tables with tales of their nine lives" (26-30). Following this lists of grievances about the whims of cats, is a statement which reflects the opinion of the speaker and voices his support for cats. He says that cats are lucky because they live lives of purpose. The speaker says that cats are prepared "to die and die again and again each time with no less pain" (34-36). The repetition of the word die and the inclusion of the word pain indicates how intensely cats live their lives thus creating lives that are full.

At the conclusion of the poem, the idea of death is emphasized. Stylistically, this is interesting as death indicates the end of life and the idea of it is presented at the end of the poem. The final statement is that in order to live, one must be willing to die. Curiosity killed the cat, but that is what made him live.