Deang’s AP English Lang/Comp blog

Why does Hamlet wait so long to kill Claudius? What are the reasons for his hesitation? How valid are they? How many times does he have the opportunity to attack Claudius? What are his reasons for not doing so?
Hamlet feels as if he has to find the perfect timing to kill Claudius… In the beginning, he has doubts about the credibility of the ghost so he doesn’t immediately carry out his plan. Then, he has the opportunity to kill Claudius again but because he wanted his uncle to immediately go to hell, he held himself back from killing Claudius who, at that time, was in the middle of praying.

Hamlet claims that his madness is feigned, an “antic disposition” which he puts on for his own purposes (I.v.172). Why would Hamlet want to feign madness? How can an appearance of insanity help him achieve his ends? Is he really sane throughout the play, or does he ever cross the line into madness? What about Ophelia’s mad scene? Is it real or feigned? Is there “method in her madness” as well, or is she entirely irrational? Why has she gone mad? (What two reasons do her songs suggest?)
Considering that the things he were about to carry out were based on supernatural instructions and things he could not prove, Hamlet probably felt that he might as well act insane. His madness game him the freedom to be odd and say things that only an insane person would say anyway. I think that he was feigning madness but, at some point, we can’t deny that he might have gone mad over trying to pretend to be mad.

Pay attention to the treatment of the women characters Gertrude and Ophelia. Is there any basis for the Freudian interpretation of an Oedipal attraction between Hamlet and his mother? Hamlet does seem obsessed with his mother’s sexuality. How old is Hamlet? How old do you think Gertrude is? Is Hamlet’s disgust at Gertrude’s sexuality justified? To what extent is Gertrude guilty? Was she “in on” her husband’s murder? Has Claudius confided in her since the murder? How does Hamlet’s perception of his mother affect his behavior or attitude toward Ophelia? Why does he tell Ophelia to go to a nunnery? Does Hamlet really love Ophelia? If so, why is he cruel to her?
I think the scene with Hamlet and Gertrude that suggests that an Oedipal attraction existed between them was interpreted by the director to mean that when, in fact, Shakespeare’s script did not seem to suggest that at all. Hamlet was obsessed about his mother’s sexuality because back then, a woman’s sexuality was one of her most prized possessions. The idea that his mother is fraternizing with the man who killed his father must have been extremely painful for Hamlet.
Gertrude must not have been guilty at all of her husband’s murder. I don’t think Claudius had spoken to her about the murder at all. I know this based on the fact that the ghost of Hamlet’s Dad himself asks Hamlet to be gentle with his mother as if suggesting that she is not one of the enemies.
Hamlet really did seem to love Ophelia but he was cruel to her because he had too many things in mind. As I mentioned earlier, a woman’s sexuality was essentially her only possession back in those days so he probably wanted Ophelia to go to a nunnery to preserve what she had and to keep her from ending up in a fate similar to his mother’s.

Suicide is an important theme in Hamlet. Discuss how the play treats the idea of suicide morally, religiously, and aesthetically, with particular attention to Hamlet’s two important statements about suicide: the “O, that this too too solid flesh would melt” soliloquy (I.ii.129–158) and the “To be, or not to be” soliloquy (III.i.56–88). Why does Hamlet believe that, although capable of suicide, most human beings choose to live, despite the cruelty, pain, and injustice of the world?
I think suicide is made to seem like a very religiously-centered thing. Throughout the whole play, death is portrayed as not the end of everything but rather the beginning of a new life — an afterlife. It seemed as if the manner of death has a lot to do with what will happen next. Also, despite te cruelty of the world, there is a sense that Hamlet realizes that in order to have a better life after death (which was what mattered more), one must live and die in an honorable way.
Choose a soliloquy in the play to look more closely at. Paraphrase it and then connect it to the larger themes in the play.

Chesterton uses a quote from Cyrano de Bergerac to make himself sound like a learned man and to basically give him more authority and credibility as a writer. In the second paragraph, he begins talking about an anecdote and makes him seem more relatable to the reader. He also uses a sense of humor especially in the second paragraph where he mentions that he does not know what a Turkish Delight is. He could have obviously looked up the word before writing this article; however, he chose to use this to bring some humor into this. He also uses a number of absolutes such as “the Bible must be referring to wallpapers”, etc.

An argument is more effective when it takes exact words from the text and responding to those with great detail rather than just summarizing and responding to the text as a whole. As Graff/Birkenstein wrote in their article As He Himself Puts It: The Art of Quoting, “One of the best ways to [launch an effective argument] is by not only summarizing what “they say”… but by quoting their exact words. Quoting someone else’s words gives a tremendous amount of credibility to your summary and helps ensure that it is fair and accurate.” Much like in debates, an argument is strengthened when it pays attention to the specifics of the arguments of the other side and this can be done through quoting. Quotes lend credibility to your argument because not only do they show that you’re arguing WITH them instead of AT them, they also show tha you’re not just twisting the ideas of their words to attack them unjustly.

As a minority, I know what it’s like to not be given the same opportunities that other established white Americans automatically have. Because of this, I believe that it is only necessary for the government to grant affirmative action to help out the less fortunate groups of society. Even for those who are not minorities, a great deal of apologies are owed by the nation based on its past maltreatments based solely on factors such as race and ethnicity. As a result, over the years, this has created a domino effect and, as many people, regardless of race and gender, will lament, “The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.” And who makes up the poor? Generally minorities who have been discriminated against and given a very limited amount of opportunity to achieve the American dream. These are the grandchildren of the people who were moved to the ghettos due to racist housing divisions in the past — the people who ended up being born to crime-laden streets and who had to go to packed inner city schools where going to college and advancing oneself are close to impossible. It is high time that the US government took responsibility for the fixed social order that its history of racism has created. It must make amends through helping distribute opportunities to those who would normally not be given the chance.

——–

As a minority, it is an insult to me when I hear people say that affirmative action is necessary to balance out the order in American society. To me, this comes off as a way of saying that without crutches, the government believes that I will not be able to find success on my own. Ensuring that the top 10 picks for a job include minorities and that the SAT scores of minorities are automatically added a few extra points undermine people’s inherent intellectual equality and reaffirms the bias that white Americans are intellectually predisposed to succeed. The discrimination from the past can’t be healed and fixed with this so-called positive discrimination. Discrimination, whether it may seem positive or negative, is still discrimination. If we want to repair the fixed order in society, we need to get to the root of the problem and fund inner city schools better and programs to keep minority children out of the streets and away from illegal trades. It would be better to equip disadvantaged children with the knowledge that they will need to compete in the real world than to put them out there and expect better equipped and learned people to let go of their prejudices against the intellectual capabilities of these minorities who have been educationally disadvantaged from the start. This is not to say that these poorly educated people must not be given top notch jobs but each position must be gained through merit and not through affirmative action and, for those born to the wealthy, not through family legacies.

As part of a pilgrimage of prayer, Catholics meditate upon images or sculptures of the most symbolic moments of Jesus Christ’s Passion. One of the more famous depictions of a station is that of Michelangelo Buonarroti’s sculpture based on the 13th station of the cross – the part when Jesus’ body is taken down from the cross. This sculpture is more commonly referred to as La Pietà. The word “pietà” literally translates to pity in Italian. The name has been suspected to have to do with the fact that this station is often portrayed with a feel of elicitation for pity for Mary and her sufferings.

Even just a photograph of the actual sculpture is almost enough for anyone – artist or not – to experience the grandeur of the Pietà. The intricacy yet smoothness of Mary’s robe nearly vies for the attention given to the surprisingly smooth and flawless yet obviously carefully carved body of Jesus. Although there are proportional aspects of the artwork that are erroneous such as the size of the body of Jesus which is rather small in comparison to his mother, such errors do not deter from Michelangelo’s attempt at a dimensionally realistic representation. The form of Jesus’ body is both a celebration of the human male body (which Michelangelo was known for) through its emphasis on all the anatomical details from the veins in the hands to the protruding bones in the ribcage. The artwork was sculpted in such a way that real shadows are formed when the sculpture is exposed to light thus adding to the realistic three-dimensional portrayal of this piece.

Having been directed and produced by Mel Gibson, a Catholic, the movie The Passion of the Christ incorporated every single Station of the Cross into the film. Its depiction of the entire Passion has been noted for its gruesomeness and bloodiness and the same can be said for its interpretation of the 13th station. Although the entire scene is made up mostly of dark and dull colors, Jesus’ body stands out with the color of his blood plastered all over his body. The emphasis, however, is not on Jesus alone. In fact, because her face is the most visible to the audience, it is Mary’s countenance that immediately captures attention.

Much like Michelangelo’s Pietà, Gibson’s Pietà also makes it difficult to figure out if concentration should be given to either Mary or Jesus first. In the sculpture, our focus is immediately caught my Mary’s face which is a lot easier to see that Jesus’. Additionally, Mary’s robe is flowing from her body in such an ornate way that it is hard not to be drawn to it even though Michelangelo’s sculpture of the body of Christ is also a thing of beauty (as well as an unparalleled sculpture of a human body at that time). In The Passion of the Christ, on the other hand, Mary’s movement and profile appeal for attention even though the red blood all over Jesus’ body greatly emphasizes his presence as well. The religious backgrounds of both artists explain why this is. The reverence that many Catholics feel towards Mary has been expressed even in the first portrayals of the thirteenth station of the cross. Although the station is, in fact, solely about the removal of Christ’s body from the cross, it has grown into a depiction of Mary’s involvement in the suffering of her son. As Jesus carried the burden of the sin of the world, here is Mary who cradles the body of her son that has been emptied of its life. This is her burden or, as Christians would figuratively suggest, this is her cross. Jesus Christ undeniably suffered immensely; however, both Michelangelo and Gibson sought to shed some light into Mary’s role in the Passion. Both are, in a way, soliciting for reverence for her.

Additionally, both artworks show a sad but surprisingly solemn instead of tragically hysterical look on Mary’s face. There is a sort of acquiescent calm in Mary’s face in both portrayals. In addition to the facial expression, each depiction shows her with one open hand as if to say that this is her offering. She shares Jesus’ sacrifice because as he had sacrificed his life, she had sacrificed the life of her son. Jesus’ face also shares a similar characteristic in each artwork. In both of them, he is facing up towards the heavens. In the manner of Catholic priests making sacrifices to God, Jesus is portrayed as facing the receiver of his offering.

Another notable characteristic of Christ in both representations is the lightness of his limp body. Realistically, with only one hand supporting his body, Christ’s body would have slipped off his mother’s cradle in Michelangelo’s Pietà. Similarly, Jesus seemed to be unbelievably light in Gibson’s Pietà wherein his mother is supporting his upper back with only one hand that does not seem to be supporting the weight that it should be holding. Both can be explained with the belief that when Jesus died, he took with him the burden of the sin of the world. As soon as his sacrifice is finished, however, his body becomes empty and therefore light. It is finally free from its heavy burden.

As similar as they are – there are a number of stark differences in the portrayals. Compared to the bloodstained body of Christ in the Passion, the sculpture’s depiction of Christ is basically devoid of the evidence of his true suffering. The nail marks in his hands are the only testaments to both his scourging and crucifixion. His body is practically immaculate perhaps because Michelangelo believed that because the sacrifice is over, everything has been lifted from the body of Christ – the sins of the world as well as the marks of Christ’s suffering. In Gibson’s Pietà, however, the bloodied body of Christ remains as the testimony of what he had to go through. Lastly, while Michelangelo’s Mary is portrayed as a young woman with an unstained face, Gibson’s Mary is an older woman with the blood of her son in her own face. Whereas Michelangelo seemed to have tried to focus more on the fact that Mary was as pristine on the day of Jesus’ death as she was on the day of his birth, Gibson decided to focus more on the blood relation between the two characters. As Mary was quoted saying, “Flesh of my flesh, blood of my blood.” This was shown physically in Gibson’s portrayal as Jesus’ blood is smeared on Mary’s face after she kisses him.

In both, as much as there is an air of sadness, there is also an air of acquiescence. It is a solemn moment but, as any Christian would recognize, there is calm after the sacrifice is finally over. Even Mary, the closest relative of Jesus, is no longer crying. Both artists succeed in portraying the role of Mary in the death of her son as well as the heartache that it has brought along with her acceptance of the oblation. This is the ultimate essence of the Catholic story of the Passion of Christ and Lady of Sorrows.

McNamara was presented in this documentary in a very interesting light. He is an anti-hero and a wise war veteran. He knows what war is like since he has seen the backstage of it and has run the front stage. Because of his anti-hero image, the audience see him differently. Many times throughout the movie, he is questioned about his personality which he is known for. He is known for being shrewd, quick-tempered and sometimes even arrogant. Yet, here in this movie, he admits that he has made mistakes. He made money from himself but he is portrayed as having to step down to accept the position which was given to him. In his many attempts to step down in status, he is seen as a genuine, honest man who is just trying to share his knowledge about war, tactics and ethics.

Roger Ebert says that the movie was only trying to show us that our leaders are just human — with their weaknesses and mistakes. Although this may make sense, I think that this was not the point of the movie. Instead, this was just a strategy employed to express the point of the movie which is that a great deal of thinking and consideration should be done when entering and fighting a war.

In my opinion, Rosenbaum is right. McNamara seems to have tried to hard to redeem himself. As Rosenbaum says, “Denial should be the man’s middle name, not Strange.” I can’t agree more. I liked the message that McNamara was trying to preach but I think that he went too far in trying to rationalize what he had done. As a matter of fact, he even talks about how he was the one who introduced seat belts to US cars when he was still working at Ford — it seemed to be a desperate way to amend the lives that had been taken during the Vietnam war.

Basically, Shelley was saying that poets are the “chosen” media of change. They are just the instruments that convey the collective wants and hopes of the people although they may not necessarily be the best people. As he said, “poets are hierophants of an unapprehended inspiration.” In other words, he does not think that poets necessarily think for themselves. He just thinks that they just mirror the inspiration all around them — they are the herald of the people.

Before he gets to his point which, in fact, could have been summarized in one sentences, he uses a lot of words. He tried to include his audience (the English) in the context of his entire argument. He also uses a lot of big (sometimes nonexistent) words.

I don’t buy his argument. I think that people definitely contribute to the inspiration that poets use but poets are not mindless media.

The black and white lighting of the picture makes it more dramatic because the shadows are really interesting. Although the shadow is coming from the right side, the face of the person’s on the left side is impossible to see. Although the person in the foreground has a defensive stance and looks like she is almost being harassed because of her seemingly helpless position, the face of the person on the right side is visible and she has a smile on her face. She is sitting down on the ground like the person in the foreground; however, her face changes the mood of the picture which would otherwise be really dramatic. Because of the parallel of her sitting position with the person in the foreground, I felt like the person covering her face must also be smiling. Just because of the expression of the face in the background, it changes the atmosphere of this picture which could be haunting.

He wakes up early in the morning — but not early enough to make it to class on time. As soon as he gets to class, he rubs his eyes but leaves his hair ruffled. Everything the teacher says goes over his head — even her questioning of why he can’t make it to school on time. He finally notices her mean stare but cannot thing of anything better to say other than, “I’m sorry.” He doesn’t mean to make her feel disrespected. That wasn’t what he was trying to do. But what can he do? He tries to go right on time the following day. One minutes, two minutes… He arrives three minutes late. Better but not quite on time. It goes on for a few more months. Graduation day finally comes and the nagging stop, the lateness stops. Everyone is happy.

The Pieta, a marble sculpture by Michelangelo, was recreated as a scene in the Passion of the Christ. The Pieta is well-known for realistically depicting Mary holding the dead body of her Jesus, her son, during the Renaissance artistic era when beauty and naturalism were emphasized. The main focus of the picture is Mary. She is the one whose entire face is seen whereas we only get a limited look at the face of Jesus because of the angle of his face and body. In this sculpture, Mary’s face has always been noted for being that of a really young woman. She looks sad but she is not in anguish. Her left hand points away from the body in submission.

The new depiction of the Pieta, on the other hand, portrays Mary and Jesus in the same pyramidial shape. However, Mary in this picture is older and, instead of looking at the body of her dead son, she looks into the camera with a haunted look on her face. Her eyes stare at us as though she can sense our guilt. She is not crying and there’s not a line on her face that denotes her sadness; however, we can still get a sense of how numbed with pain she is.