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.