Response to Course Materials (2/16/14)

Rosencrantz and Guildernstern Are Dead by Stoppard was quite the step away from Hamlet, and was what took most of the time between this post and the last "Response to Course Materials" post. The witty, fast dialogue was quite refreshing and the ambiguity of the events that unfolded was a step away from what was expected. However, if watching the movie form of this play was to enlighten us about the work, it seemed to fail. The movie version, directed by Stoppard himself, differed from the text to a degree that I don't think it would be fair to use as a tool to interpret the text. Sure, it can be used to enlighten us about what Stoppard wanted us to understand, but that would be completely irrelevant. As Ms Holmes said again and again in class, what the author may want us to derive from a piece of work could be completely different from what the work really means. The text itself. So when we discuss the meaning of Rosencrantz and Guildernstern Are Dead and using textual evidence to back our claims, what use is the movie if we are using textual evidence, like, what was really written. Again, although I appreciate the different stance the movie brings in to the play, when we analyze the text, it would it not be illogical to use assumptions from a medium that is so different? Should we use one of the many Frankenstein movies to help interpret Frankenstein? No.

I am sure that you remember that short series of assignment given to us by Ms Holmes regarding prompts. Although I felt a lot of negative reactions and frustration regarding the assignment, I found it rather useful. I performed better than I had expected, and learned the flaws in my previous style of writing. For example, I am usually a perfectionist when it comes to writing. Even this blog had me gridlocked, constantly creating and then tossing sentences. However, during the AP test we won't have the luxury of time, and thus what we write needs to be efficient and get the job done. Answer all the questions. Concise and devoid of what we would normally want to see in a great essay. 

Our discussions about Rosencrantz and Guildernstern Are Dead are interesting, nothing to complain about. The direction is fine, the probing is interesting. We are peeling away at the layers of this play. So, nothing to complain about other than the continual lack of input from 50% of the class. I don't know every single reason why people don't say anything, but I know that some people don't contribute because they have nothing worth talking about. Well, how could you know the value of something if you never get it appraised? Everyone is different, so everyone can contribute something.

Summary and Analysis: Hamlet

Author:
Hamlet is written by the legendary Bard, William Shakespeare. Although Shakespeare was already successful and respected by the time of Hamlet, many consider Hamlet as Shakespeare at his best, and is perhaps one of the most recognizable and widely quoted of his work.

Setting:
Hamlet is set in medieval Denmark, and most of the play occurs in the castle of Elsinore. Textual evidence suggests that the play is set during the winter.

Characters:
The character of Hamlet are known for being layered and complex.

Hamlet: Prince of Denmark, son of old Hamlet and Gertrude, nephew to Claudius. Despite being 30ish years old, scholars note that his character seems somewhat immature. Lacks conviction and is the main subject of character study due to the large amount of dialogue concerning life and existence.

Claudius: Uncle of Hamlet, king of Denmark, husband of Gertrude. Committed murder to acquire the throne and marry Gertrude. Unlike modern stories, the character is not a stock antagonist: textual evidence suggests that he feels guilt and regret from his sins and some depictions of Claudius have him as much a victim as Hamlet, old and young. Despite this, he does conspire against Hamlet.
Interesting to note is that Claudius is a notably Latin name. In fact, Claudius was a historic figure, the emperor preceding the infamous Nero of Rome. Acquired the throne through treachery and luck.

Gertrude: Queen of Denmark, mother of Hamlet, former wife of old Hamlet and current one to Claudius. Although not an active player of the going-on in Elsinore, her role is no less important. Her quick marriage to Claudius soon after old Hamlet's death infuriates Hamlet and can be seen as what kicks the play in motion. Although relatively detached from the events of the play, her love for her son is evident, and some depictions have her committing the ultimate sacrifice to save her son.

Polonius: Adviser to Claudius, father of Laertes and Ophelia. Seen as a witless clown by scholars, Polonius has the significant honor of being the first character to die. Although he has great care for his son, Polonius has an almost complete disregard for his daughter unless it suits him. The usually butt of Hamlet's abuse.

Ophelia: Daughter of Polonius, sister of Laertes, lover of Hamlet. Interpretations of her character vary. Some see Ophelia as a witless daisy of a girl that was another bystander and causality of the plots of men. Others see her as an equal of Hamlet, merely not in the grace of fate. Either way, her relationship with Hamlet breaks off and Polonius's death contributes to her apparent insanity and suicide. Ophelia in death plays as much a significant role as Ophelia in life, perhaps more, as it opens discussion of class roles in society and also an additional scene where Hamlet mourns her and grapples with Laertes.

Laertes: Son of Polonius, brother of Ophelia. Laertes can best be described as a foil to Hamlet. Whereas Hamlet is cautious and slow in action, Laertes is hot-blooded and vengeful, immediately demanding revenge for his father's death, with little consideration of the consequences. Further enraged upon Ophelia's madness and suicide.

Plot:
Act I:
The main conflicts are introduced. Guards, in an atmosphere of suspense and suspicion, see what appears to be the ghost of the recently deceased old Hamlet, king of Denmark. Fortinbras of Norway plots to seize lost territory with an invasion of Denmark. Hamlet is upset at his mother's quick marriage to her recently deceased husband's brother. Hamlet is compelled by his friends to visit the ghost, who does claim to be the ghost of his father. Furthermore, the ghost reveals to Hamlet that he was murdered by the current king of Denmark: Claudius.
Act II:
Ophelia rushes to her father, stating that Hamlet charged into her room and seemed to be insane. Believing that Hamlet is insane due to love, Polonius heads to Claudius. The king of Denmark employs two of Hamlet's childhood friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to spy on Hamlet to determine what lies on his mind. A band of performers arrive, and Hamlet employs them to mimic the ghost's account of his death in order to prove Claudius's guilt.
Act III:
Claudius discovers that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have no clue about Hamlet's intentions. Meanwhile, Hamlet contemplates suicide and existence before he encounters Ophelia, who is being used by Polonius and Claudius to spy on Hamlet. Hamlet, not deceived, denounces his love for Ophelia, orders her to a nunnery, and threatens Claudius's life. Although Claudius doubts Polonius's assertions about Hamlet's love for Ophelia, Polonius concocts a meeting between Hamlet and his mother to ascertain the Prince's intentions. The play occurs, and Claudius's guilt is proven. While Claudius prays to rid himself of sin, Hamlet contemplates murdering him, but backs down. During his encounter with his mother, Hamlet mistakenly kills Polonius, rails against Gertrude and her apparent sin of remarriage, gets visited by the ghost once again (who reminds Hamlet to take his mother as an innocent), and convinces his mother to distance herself from Claudius.
Act IV:
Hamlet refuses to cooperate and disclose what was done with Polonius's body. Claudius has Hamlet sent to England along with Rosencrantz and Guildernstern and a message ordering the murder of Hamlet. Ophelia is reintroduced, and apparently insane. Laertes returns from a trip, a crowd at his back, and demands revenge for his father's murder. Ophelia returns, enraging Laertes at her transformation. Claudius, upon hearing Hamlet's magical return from his trip, conspires with Laertes to kill him. Ophelia is revealed as dead.
Act V:
The act opens with comic relief, as two gravediggers debate on the nature of Ophelia's death. Hamlet enters and confides in his friend Horatio. After a brief fight with Laertes over Ophelia's body, Hamlet accepts both a dual with Laertes and his fate. Hamlet duals with Laertes. Gertrude drinks a poisoned cup meant for Hamlet, Laertes is cut by his own poisoned blade after cutting Hamlet, and Hamlet finally kills Claudius and dies. Fortinbras arrives and after listening to Horatio about the events, orders Hamlet to be bore out as a soldier.

Response to Course Materials (1/19/2014)

Considering the time between the last Response to Course Materials and this one, there seems to be little to write about.
I mean, we came back from break, had two days of school, came back after the weekend, and then one week of school. And that "full" week of school consisted of two days of FLEX and a PLC day, with Thursday and Friday apparently consisting of working on a review document ("apparently" because I wasn't there those two days).
So the only meaningful thing we did in class that would be any worth discussing would be the wrapping up of our Hamlet discussions. As always, I was very uncomfortable with the theme statement that our class produced. Not that I had a better one, but it just seemed wrong to attempt to sum up Hamlet in one or two sentences. I mean, this is Hamlet we are talking about. The play that is the most quoted of Shakespeare's works.  The play that is said to be Shakespeare's greatest, the greatest work from a man hailed as the creator of the greatest works of the English language. To allow mere high school students to sum up Hamlet in a few sentences seems like heresy.
And consider this: how could we possibly be like "Yup, we are done with Hamlet, we nailed it" when we are talking about a work of art? There was a book I read in 5th grade, Ender's Game (brought recently to film). Although it was a work of pulp fiction, I drew a lot of themes and meanings from it. I thought the book was, as a kid, about the sacrifices humanity is willing to make to survive. Later, when I was older, I read it again. This book, by the way, was a book I read a dozen times. And when I was older, I realized that an alternate interpretation could have been made. My first interpretation completely left out the events of a side-story, and I realized that I needed to take that into account when I evaluated the book as a whole.
So, I don't really agree with making a theme statement. I probably said the exact same thing in past Response to Course Material blogs, but doing the treatment on such a legendary work as Hamlet seems especially wrong. Considering the various possible interpretations of Hamlet that anybody can have from past experiences, how can we make one statement to encompass it all?

Open Prompt 2008

(By the way, this is a late assignment for all you peer reviewers after 1/11/2014)

The prompt for the 2008 open question was to pick a piece which used a foil to emphasize aspects of the main character, and analyze how this relationship adds to the meaning of the piece.

Student 3A:

This student choose the Joy Luck Club by Amy Tan, a book I have heard of but am not familiar with, to analyze. The student's essay takes a considerable amount of paper, four pages total. Combine this with rather sophisticated and basic, straight-forward analysis, and there is little to be left out in this essay. It can be considered the basic model for a successful essay: a thesis and claim backed by plenty of well-written and analyzed evidence. This essay also ties the different pieces of evidence together rather nicely, which is definitely a plus, and concludes the entire essay with a paragraph which does a nice job of wrapping up the entire essay. As the essay grader states, the essay is "insightful and mature" and truly deserves the 8 it received.

Student 3B:

Student 3B, although not necessarily wrong at any point, cannot receive a high grade. Although there was not point in the essay that the writer demonstrated a lack of understanding of the prompt and the question that it had asked, the writer demonstrated a lack of understanding of how to write a suitable answer. The question of the prompt is never actually answered until the last few paragraphs where the writer gives a definitive stance on the foil in The Color Purple: the paragraphs prior where mostly plot summaries or had not true analysis of the selected piece. The grader gave the student a 6, but I believe that the student deserved the lower grade of 5.

Student 3 C:

If volume is any indication, this student did poorly. Very poorly indeed, with only about 1 and a quarter pages. Although a lack of volume should never be criticized (the Gettysburg Address was only about 270 words), the amount of literary analysis needed to properly answer the prompt suggests that the writer did not properly understand the prompt or back any claim made about the prompt. The actual text, once one musters the courage to read it, only serves to confirm such suspicions. Although the writer sets up two characters to contrast, any claim made by the student is worded in the most elementary and basic manner possible, with a complete absence of any sort of analysis or support. The grader gave this student a 4, which I believe is justified. Personally, however, I would give the essay a 3.

Response to Course Materials (12/22/2013)

Happy holidays to you all.
Our days in AP Lit since the last "Response to Course Material" was dominated by Hamlet. Dominated. I mean, even while I laid in bed sick, Hamlet's "To be or not to be" speech looped through my head. To die, to sleep. Funny enough, when you are sick and miserable, those two things are the only things you ever think about. Anyways, after we read through Hamlet the first time, we then watched a bag full of various movie interpretations of Hamlet. The diverse takes and interpretations of the exact same text was interesting, and I believe that they should remind us all of why Shakespeare remains relevant today.
Although we watched multiple movies, I feel compelled to discuss only the ones that really interested me.
The first movie we watched was, ah, "American" to me. The movie was a perpetual cloud of anger and angst from Hamlet. Claudius was too timid to be either a well-developed or compelling character. I did appreciate the setting, especially with the "chess board" floor that a classmate brought up. Overall, I didn't really think that Shakespeare intended for this much anger, more brooding and more thinking and less flamboyant anger.
The David Tennant Hamlet was interesting. Although it was not as traditional as the Jacobi Hamlet (the second movie we watched starring Patrick Stewart) it still relied less on props and settings and more on acting, which I particularly enjoyed. It was interesting to see Tennant's interpretation of Hamlet, more deranged and unrestrained than the other movies. Claudius was also portrayed as more of a complex figure, tying in nicely with our latter discussions about the essays. Overall, staying traditionalist with the set up and presentation while having a more modified interpretation produced an interesting production that was interesting to analyze.

Mandela was avatar of upending world
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/opinion/rothkopf-mandela-of-his-time/index.html?hpt=op_t1

Nelson Mandela was, to say the least, a legendary character. Following his death, a number of people wrote tributes and articles in remembrance of this man. This is one of the many I articles of that I speak. David Rothkopf uses diction, syntax, and language to convey the unique greatness in Nelson Mandela.
The diction that Rothkopf uses illustrates not only his respect for Nelson Mandela but also his belief in that Mandela was a one-of-the-kind great figure for the entire world. Mandela was described as "hope incarnate", singling him out as not only unique, but something greater. The diction that describe his past life further conveys the greatness that the author felt about Mandela, for example: "remarkable" and "graceful and dignified" serve not only to compliment a man, but also conveys to the reader a sense of greatness from a man that has past.
The language that Rothkopf uses is conversational, yet reflective.
However, of all the literary devices that Rothkopf uses, his use of syntax is the most prevalent. Particularly his use of parallelism. Three consecutive paragraphs begin with "Mandela", not only emphasizing the subject of his article, but also using the name in a kind of reverence. The parallelism also develops in the same section of the article. "He was a powerful symbol..." and "He was hope incarnate" and "He was a message..." emphasizes the figure of Mandela as an "avatar" of a world in turmoil. Rothkopf also uses parallelism to construct a homage to Mandela's achievements: "The unshakeable has been shaken" and "The unbreakable had been broken" further emphasizing Mandela as not one of ordinary men.

Responses to Course Material (11/24/13)

It has been an interesting month, and I can't really find a proper place to start.

We finished our discussion about Death of a Salesman and wrapped it up. I found my second look at the play interesting as I was enlightened to many things that I had missed before. Examples include how the tape recorder represented reality and the discussion about tragedy and whether or not Death of a Salesman really is a tragedy. Learning such new things from something I had already read is always entertaining. Different points of view, different opinions. We also discussed things that I had learned back in American Literature, such as Uncle Ben offering Willy a job in the wilderness, where one's fortune is tangible. It was really enjoyable for me to mix these old and new ideas, forming a different view and opinion of a text I had already read. I didn't really agree with the theme statement that our class constructed at the end, but it was true. I felt, though, that some evidence was either ignored, or not placed with enough weight, such as the cause of Biff's disillusionment, and the interactions between Willy and other characters. There was more, I feel, that we could have dove into.
Our discussions, by the way, was mostly in the form of a "fish bowl" where a select few discussed the text whereas the rest of the class watched and remained silent. I believe I was highly disrespectful during this exercise, as I did not fully adhere to the mandates set by Ms Holmes. I was also disrespectful to my peers, as I had, multiple times, tried to cut in the conversation with little respect for my peers' opinions, which where probably more valid then my own. So, I'm sorry. I did find the fish bowl (or shark tank, as 1st Hour seems to prefer) exercise interesting. One learns by listening more than speaking, so it was interesting to listen to others, especially to those who don't talk often. I know that sounded a bit hypocritical coming from me (I still remember Mrs. Gunns making me yell on front of the class to cure my quietness) but I feel that in AP Lit., there is no excuse to not speak. Letting our opinions be heard is essential, and it could help us as a class understand literature better. Just a thought.
Oh, yeah. Ms Holmes has been slamming me on the quality of these blogs I have been writing, and upon further review, I believe she was right to do so. Many things I have said were inappropriate and uncalled for. So, yeah. Sorry guys.
Among the smaller activities the 6th Hour Elephantacocks have been doing was an analysis of a poem, "The Century Quilt" and two pictures. I had immense difficulty writing the response essay about "The Century Quilt" and I was rather disappointed with myself. You know, the kind of disappointment you get when you take a SAT and finish thinking "Well, I kind of had no idea what I was doing". I barely wrote a single paragraph, even the second time around. The second bloody time around! I just kind of sat there, not knowing what to write. It was kind of embarrassing because I had somebody to my right and left scribbling furiously while I still had nothing to say. I spent weeks blasting through someone else's essay and now I can't write one myself? I suppose I was too much of a perfectionist. I wanted to perfectly convey my thoughts on the poem, so discarded thesis after thesis, sentence after sentence. Isn't it ironic? In trying to get something perfect, I ended up writing the worst essay of all.
The two pictures we analyzed to stretch our atmosphere and mood muscles. These exercises hailed back to the time of our first week when we analyzed those two paintings. The writing that our class came up with to describe the cave was rudimentary, or even elementary. Too focused on writing adjectives instead of creating an effect. But it was a start, and a good one.
The latest news from the front: we finished Hamlet. I could see why many consider this as Shakespeare's greatest. The hidden meanings, the language, the effects. It sure is a chunk of literature. I sure am grateful that Ms Holmes helped, no wait, did all the deciphering. I really look forward to seeing what more of Hamlet we could extract.