Post Apocalyptic Hamlet

I personally think it'd be fun to see Hamlet in a post-apocalyptic setting in the near future, as groups of people are beginning to emerge at the surface. Claudius is the new leader or chief of the make-shift civilization, New Denmark. The people of the village believe Hamlet's father had recently died from a burgeoning amount of radiation from drinking irradiated water, resulting in a fatal illness. The world is already in shambles and the people just want a politically stable village,so they embrace Claudius as their new leader. A nearby village led by Baby Fortinabras, Norwaste, is at war with New Denmark over a recently recovered factory filled with Twinkies. Hamlet is a young man born after the nuclear fallout, and loves to read pre-apocalyptic books. He suspects foul play with Claudius after his mother quickly remarried. Hamlet has learned the truth of his father's death through a ghost, but the village leaders believe the radiation is beginning to get to him. Hamlet has been told to avenge his father by killing Claudius, but even the wastelands can't harden his cowardly heart.

Imagine this in Act 3 Scene 4. Polonius and Gertrude talk in the center of the civilization, a sturdy, yet scruffy building that managed to survive the war. Only the "royal" get to sleep in a real building, while the rest live their lives in poorly-built shacks. Polonius hides in an empty closet as he hears Hamley approaching the room. Hamlet talks with his mother abou
t Claudius, and the argument gets heated. Their yells echo and bounce off the bare cement walls. The queen begs Hamlet not to her, and Polonius can't help but gasp in terror. Hamlet looks at the closet, exclaims there is a mutated giant cockroach, and thrusts his rusty machete through the rotting door without hesitation. After Hamlet pulls out Polonius' body, Gertrude begins to see a new-found thirst for violence in his eyes. The ghost appears to Hamlet, dressed in his rugged armor made from a variety of recovered materials. Gertrude believes the radiation is making Hamlet hallucinate. Hamlet requests his for his mother not to reproduce with Claudius,and claims he will hide Polonius' body in an abandoned shack on the outskirts of the village.

To Be or Not to Be

Of the many different performances on the famous Hamlet soliloquy, "To Be or Not to Be," I decided to look at Kenneth Branagh's and David Tennant's different portrayals. In all honesty, both actors did a great job with the soliloquy, but I'll get this out of the way and say I preferred Branagh's more. The most up-front similarity I noticed was really the dead silence beside the speech, which helped the actors accentuate certain parts. Every single 's' consonant was absolutely piercing; it added dramatic effect but I personally didn't like it. Both of the speeches were chilling in their own way.

In Branagh's portayal, I liked the use of the mirror. I thought the mirror itself really represented the first, famous lines of the soliloquy, "To be or not to be-that is the question:" (3.1.64). The mirror, to me, represents two different realities Hamlet can choose, one where Hamlet deals with the situation, and one where Hamlet goes off and ends his life. To me, this really emphasized Hamlet's two-faced insanity, and the horrible reality of the situation. And as the speech goes on, he draws closer and closer until you can finally see just his reflection wielding a sword, which made me think how easy he could have killed himself then and there. I thought Branagh's use of the mirror and sword added depth to an already chilling speech.

Tennant's version was very different emotion wise. While Hamlet looked and felt disdain towards himself in Branagh's version, the Hamlet in Tennant's had a much deeper, more somber expression, especially in his eyes. One think that bothered me was when the actor looked directly into the camera; I think he was trying to be chilling with his eyes but I cringed every time we made eye contact through the screen. I felt this version lacked depth,it was just Hamlet kind of staring off into the distance as he leaned against the wall stationary. It was an impressive speech nonetheless, but I felt like it was still missing something. I didn't feel the madness and insanity that Branagh brought to the table.

You're Never Really Done....

~Here I'll take a single paragraph from a past essay and practice my editing skills~

Original: When the speaker snaps back to his own life, he complacently admits his inability to dig, but feels confident about his writing. He thinks of his ancestors with so much pride and admiration, but when it comes to himself, he simply says: “I’ve got no spade to follow men like them” (Heaney 28). The poem’s shift of tone from inspired to complacent shows how tough it can be to meet family expectations. The speaker takes his self-satisfied remorse and turns it into confidence. He is determined to take his pen and “dig with it” (Heaney 31). The speaker settles his conflict by obliging to his family, but in his own way. Heaney uses the speaker’s complacency and confidence to show that it is possible to meet family expectations while still being an individual.

Edited: When the speaker snaps back to his own life, he complacently admits his inability to dig, but feels new-found confidence in his writing. He thinks of his ancestors with so much pride and admiration, but when it comes to himself, he simply says: “I’ve got no spade to follow men like them” (Heaney 28). The poem then shifts tones from inspired to resigned to show how tough it can be to meet family expectations. The speaker finally realizes the value of his talent and is determined to take his pen and “dig with it” (Heaney 31). Heaney uses the speaker’s complacency and confidence to show that it is possible to meet family expectations while still being an individual.

Branagh's Depiction of Hamlet: Good and Ugly

What struck me most about Branagh's portrayal of the ghost scene was not the ghost itself but Branagh's decision to depict the assassination. I was really imagining a quiet, maybe painless murder; Claudius walks up while Old Hamlet sleeps, pours the poison in his ear, walk away, and voila! I pictured assassination, but Branagh depicted cold-blooded murder. The thing that hit hardest was the eye-contact between the brothers. In Branagh's version, Claudius looked almost guilty for a second. Maybe this will lead up to something important, or perhaps the actor just had trouble with his facial expressions. It's hard to imagine what you'd look like after poisoning your brother and watching as he flailed in pain. Branagh's harsh portayal of the murder and the interaction between old Hamlet and Claudius really emphasizes a sense of betrayal and family tension; At that moment, I really started to hate Claudius.

That brings me to Hamlet and his actor. I agree with Branagh: that is not an easy scene to act. There's so much emotion that must be flowing through Hamlet's head. This certain mix of emotion is almost possible to achieve in a sense. How many people do you know who have met their dead father? None. Although I do admit it's tough to play the role, I felt like the actor could have done more than stare in awe at the ghost. Branagh himself did a good job setting the mood of the scene, though. It was extremely clear that this was not a family reunion. There was business to be dealt with and the ghost had no time to really rejoice with his son. The last thing that struck me about the scene in a positive way was Hamlet's hand almost, I think, touching his dead father's hand. It helped me realize how close Hamlet might have been with his father, and the loyalty he has towards him.

Now... the criticism! I'll be straightforward; I was cringing for a solid 50% of the scene. The ghost was really not how I pictured it to be, which is understandable, but I felt like Branagh kind of butchered the ghost for me. Most of the mood and tone of the scene was fantastic, but some of the filming was tough to watch. The worst part being the back and fourth between his mouth and his bleeding ear. I was honestly really confused and personally I didn't want to stare at his mouth that long. I liked the ghost's eyes though, they were chilling. I don't know what to think about the ghost whispering all his lines. It added mood to the scene, but it was not pleasant to listen to.

Besides that little rant, I believe Branagh did a great job depicting emotion and setting up tension for future scenes.

The 'valiant' ghost!

Hamlet First Impessions

After reading Act 1 Scene 2 in Hamlet, I couldn't help but feel bad for Hamlet. It seems like his world kind of flipped upside down; his dad died and his mom practically abandoned him. Yikes.
Hamlet must feel like he's on his own in this situation. He seems to be the only one actually mourning his father's death. When Hamlet wears black clothing to honor his father, Claudius and Gertrude are bothered by his clothing and tell Hamlet to "cast thy nighted color off" (1.2.70). The king and queen further express their insensitivity when they try to convince Hamlet to get over the death, telling him that mourning too long would be "unmanly grief" (1.2.98).

Not only is his mother not faltered by her husband's death, she married within a month, and ran "With such dexterity to incestuous sheets" (1.2.163)! Instead of grieving with Hamlet, his mother just remarries his uncle. SUSPICIOUS! Hamlet obviously does not approve of their marriage, questioning "why she married with [his]/uncle,/[his] father's brother, but no more like my father/Than [he] to Hercules"(1.2.153-158). From what I can tell, Hamlet's father was a noble king, and Hamlet makes me picture Claudius as a selfish and chubby brother who can not even compare to Hamlet's father. It is clear Hamlet's and Claudius' minds operate differently. Claudius reeks of greed, while Hamlet shows honor in family.
Hamlet really doesn't deserve any of this. My first impression has led me to believe Hamlet is an honorable and noble prince.

When Horatio and Bernardo deliver news of the apparition appearing in the form of his father, it sparks Hamlet with a little hope. Perhaps by communicating with the ghost Hamlet will unravel the secrets of his family. Honestly, I can respect Hamlet for not just accepting the hand he was dealt with. It can be easy to just go with the flow. It's not like his royal life ended. Hamlet is still "the most immediate to [the] throne" (1.2.113), but instead of just waiting to be king he remains respectful to his family and continues to side with his father.

Tone in "Digging"

In the poem “Digging” by Seamus Heaney, Heaney uses moods and tones of anxiety, admiration, complacency, and eventually confidence to show the speaker’s struggle between sorting his individuality and honoring his family obligation. Heaney introduces an unnamed speaker who is distracted as he tries to write by the sound of his father digging below him. The speaker continues to reflect and admire his father and grandfather’s hard work. In the end, he realizes and accepts that he cannot oblige his family’s tradition of digging, but will instead “dig” with his writing. Heaney uses the speaker’s emotional rollercoaster throughout the poem to express how the natural desire for individuality conflicts with family obligation.

When Heaney introduces the speaker, we can tell he is anxious as he tries to write. In his hand, “The squat pen rests; snug as a gun” (Heaney 2). The speaker holds his pen tightly, like a gun, because he feels nervous, protecting himself from the criticism of his family for not being able to dig. The noise “under [his] window, a clean rasping sound” and “when the spade sinks into gravelly ground” (Heaney 3-4), distracts him from his writing. The sound of the spade almost haunts the speaker, reminding him that he’s writing instead of digging. Heaney uses odd language such as “a clean rasping sound” (Heaney 3) to further express the speaker’s lack of connection with his family. Lastly, we see the speaker “look down” (Heaney 5), perhaps at himself for not digging like his father. Heaney sets up a tone of anxiety through the speaker’s distraction to show the how the conflict of individuality and obligation is not easy to deal with mentally.

As the speaker reminisces about his father and grandfather, Heaney uses prideful language and tone to show the speaker’s admiration for his ancestors. He delves deep into his past and depicts his father’s “coarse boot nestled on the lug, the shaft\Against the inside knee was levered firmly” (Heaney 10-11). The speaker describes his father’s work with words that show experience and pride. Heaney shows “The coarse boot nestled on the lug” (Heaney 10) to contrast the confidence he and his father have in digging. As the speaker continues to think of his father’s work, he thinks to himself: “By God, the old man could handle a spade” (Heaney 15). His thoughts show nothing but pure admiration for his father and his hard work. He continues to revel on his ancestors’ labor as he describes his grandfather “going down and down\For the good turf” (Heaney 23-24). The speaker reminds himself of his family’s determination and confidence in their work, which makes his writing feel shameful. Heaney describes the speaker’s ancestors as experienced and passionate to show how insignificant people, including the speaker, can feel as they try to differ themselves from their family.

When the speaker snaps back to his own life, he complacently admits his inability to dig, but feels confident about his writing. He thinks of his ancestors with so much pride and admiration, but when it comes to himself, he simply says: “I’ve got no spade to follow men like them” (Heaney 28). The poem’s shift of tone from inspiration to complacency shows how tough it can be to meet family expectations. The speaker takes his self-satisfied remorse and turns it into confidence. He is determined to take his pen and “dig with it” (Heaney 31). The speaker settles his conflict by obliging to his family, but in his own way. Heaney uses the speaker’s complacency and confidence to show that it is possible to meet family expectations while still being an individual.

Seamus Heaney uses the speaker’s multiple shifts in tone and emotion to help us understand how difficult it can be to decide between following dreams or expectations. People want to be themselves, but that can be difficult when family obligation looms over us. When the speaker accepts he cannot follow his family’s footsteps, he decides to forge his own path.

Revised Intro and Outline

In the poem "Digging," Seamus Heaney introduces an unnamed speaker about to write, but is distracted and worried when he thinks of his dad working in the fields. The speaker delves deep into his past as he admires and respects his family's incredibly strenuous labor. He then realizes and accepts that he can't follow his family's footsteps by digging, but will instead "dig" with his writing. Heaney uses moods and tones of anxiety, admiration, complacency, and eventually confidence to show the speaker's mix of emotions and his struggle between individuality and family obligation, pen and spade.

I. When Heaney introduces the speaker, we can tell he is anxious as he attempts to write.

a. "The squat pen rests; snug as a fun: (2)

b. "Under my window, a clean rasping sound when the spade sinks into gravelly ground" (3-4)

c. "I look down" (5)

II. As the speaker reminisces of his father and grandfather, Heaney uses prideful tone and language to show the speaker's admiration for his ancestors.

a. "The coarse boot nestled on the lug, the shaft against the inside knee was levered firmly" (10-11)

b. "By God, the old man could handle a spade" (15)

c. "going down and down for the good turf" (23-24)

III. When the speaker snaps back to his own life, he complacently admits his inability to dig, but feels confident about his own writing.

a. "But I've no spade to follow men like them" (28)

b. "I'll dig with it" (31)

The Squat Pen Rests

In the poem, "Digging," the speaker retraces his past generations and admires his ancestors' hard work in the field, but feels ashamed that he isn't following their footsteps. Symbolization is a powerful tool to bury compelling and meaningful content into writing. The author of "Digging" takes advantage of symbols to depict the speaker's internal conflict of being different from his family; Seamus Heaney uses symbols to illustrate the struggle between individuality and family obligation, pen and spade.

Daydreamer

In the poem "Miniver Cheevy," by Edwin Arlington Robinson, Robinson depicts a man who "wept that he as ever born." Miniver "misse[s] the medieval grace," and daydreams of the past that he's never experience. Miniver Cheevy just seems like a bitter man who got stuck in the tedium of life. He reminisces of the past like a child writing a Christmas list, but he does absolutely nothing about it; instead he "call[s] it fate, and [keeps] on drinking."

I believe Robinson is trying to convey the theme: if you have a dream, go and make it true. Miniver serves as a symbol and a wake-up call to our lives and to proactively work to make our dreams into reality, instead of drinking at a bar a grumpily blaming fate. Cheevy's medieval fantasies were not unachievable; it is entirely possible to find and immerse yourself with a community that shares the same interests, even the medieval times. He could have joined traveling groups that pretend to be medieval for months, or tried to join the community of cosplay, or even just learned how to fight with a sword. There are so many ways to bring the past back to life that Cheevy refused to see. Miniver's lack of activity turned him into a bitter man who "cursed the commonplace and eyed a khaki suit with loathing," as well as led him to waste away at a bar.

Miniver Cheevy serves as a prime example for as to what happens when you don't follow your dreams.

Irony

Irony is a powerful tool. In "Barbie Doll," by Marge Piercy, Piercy uses irony to convey her theme of what's wrong with people's conventional ideas of femininity and beauty. Direct narration is bland when trying to get across a lesson; using irony, authors can mess with our heads and our flow of reading, by shattering our expectations to create an exciting and almost confusing tone that makes the story more lively and emotional. Piercy uses verbal irony, where her words seem to contradict themselves yet hide a deeper meaning.After the "magic of beauty," the young girl is made fun of for her physical appearance, so much that she kills herself. Magic is a very strange and ironic word to describe the beginning of this girl's downward spiral to suicide. Towards the end I believe she uses dramatic irony as well. "Doesn't she look pretty? Everyone said" at her funeral; I beleive this is dramatic irony because she's dead, and only we and the sub-characters see her "beauty," even though she's plastered with make-up and missing her legs. Piercy is also using irony as a tool to satirize womens' unrealistic standard of beauty. As harsh as the poem is, I can't help but see truth in it.

Summer Short Stories

Welcome, men and women, to my blog, Organick Literature. My name is Nick, and here I will share my thoughts and opinions of various stories and aspects of literature. My favorite text from this summer is by far "The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas," by Ursula LeGuin. After reading the story, I felt rather afflicted. LeGuin did such a fantastic job of burning this theme of morality into our heads, but lets us decide as to which road we take. The author builds up this utopia of happiness, yet just blows it away when she reveals that all the people of Omelas "understand that their happiness...depend[s] wholly on this child's abominable misery." How can all these people live their lives knowing a child's "buttocks and thighs are a mass of festered sores, as it sits in its own excrement continually." It boils down to these questions: Is our happiness worth the suffering of others? How do we respond when faced with a moral paradox of being selfish or selfless?