From what I've read in act 1, I could already see Polonius as the eccentric, overprotective yet awkwardly funny father of Ophelia. My initial reactions towards Gertrude and Claudius in act 2 remain the same as in act 1. My conclusion about that dirty duo being villainous incestuous heathens has not changed. But then again I suppose they do care about Hamlet, because they call his two closest friends to see what's wrong with him.
The character I'm going to analyze here is Polonius, father of Ophelia (Hamlet's "love" interest) and a member of Claudius and Gertrude's royal court. He is neither protagonist nor antagonist, but rather he serves the same purpose as the late King Hamlet, which is to create events/conflicts for the play, mostly for Hamlet. He's very protective of Ophelia, and I believe he actually LIKES to investigate Hamlet. Actually, Polonius overprotective of his own son too, since he has Reynaldo keep tabs on Laertes ( whom is supposedly studying music in France). Not only that, but he's kind of like the comic relief in this dramatic play (besides Hamlet's bitter sarcasm). Polonius's conversation with Gertrude and his witty banter with Hamlet in Act 2 scene 2 definitely shows this.
The theme in act 2 is also the impact of family and friendships (thats what I see anyway) has on a person. The first half of act 2 is basically showing Polonius's overprotective nature towards his two children, Laertes and Ophelia. He then concocts this plan to have Reynaldo follow Laertes all over France and have Ophelia secretly meet up with Hamlet so he can spy on Hamlet to reveal his "true intentions". The second half of act two is Claudius and Gertrude forcing two of their son Hamlet's closest friends to figure out his change in behavior. Here you can see the concern the three parental figures in the story have for their children, and how they believe that Hamlet's friends can make him feel better.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
DRJ #1 ACT 1
My initial reaction to the characters were...shock I guess you could say. It was very dramatic already in the first act, I felt as though I were watching some tele novela. The way Hamlet interacts with his compadres is comical though, reminding me of how my friends are. I was also disgusted at first with the weird situation with Gertrude and Claudius and the previous King. I think any teenager would react like how Hamlet did. And the whole thing about Laertes and Polonius telling Ophelia to watch herself because Hamlet just wants her goodies was hilarious as well.
For this act I want to focus on the late King Hamlet because the whole conflict arises from his death. King Hamlet (from what I perceive) was a good king, he is neither protagonist nor antagonist. He led his people to victory from the war with Fortinbras, claiming land for Denmark. He had a loving wife and son, and his people respected him. He seemed like a good man. However, Fortinbras son is coming to claim the land back, Claudius kills him for his crown and his thrown, and Hamlet is upset about the death and the sudden wedding celebration right after the funeral. (As he should be.) Everything is thrown into confusion, angst, and problem after problem arises after King Hamlet's death. I also question King Hamlet's actions before he died, because in Act 1 Scene 5 he talks about dying before repenting for all his horrible sins. I am not sure about his fatal flaw or whether or not he is a tragic hero, perhaps he trusted Claudius more than he should have. I suppose he could be a classical tragic hero, he died by his brother's hands after winning a war. This character does cause conflict though because he is the one who tells Hamlet to seek revenge on Claudius for his death. Rather, I see King Hamlet as the character who sets everything in motion. However, the antagonist is Claudius (he's obviously the villain).
I think one of the important themes shown in Act 1 is the impact that family and friendship can have on a person, which can be seen in young Hamlet's character and even in Ophelia. In scene 2, you can obviously see the angsty bitterness in Hamlet about his mother's remarriage, (not even a month after his father's death) and in scene 3 Ophelia is swayed easily by her father and her brother's assumptions about Hamlet. In the scenes 4 and 5 of Act 1, you can see how Hamlet depends on his friends Horatio and Marcellus for support, and how being with them is much more comforting to Hamlet compared to when he was with his family Claudius and Gertrude.
For this act I want to focus on the late King Hamlet because the whole conflict arises from his death. King Hamlet (from what I perceive) was a good king, he is neither protagonist nor antagonist. He led his people to victory from the war with Fortinbras, claiming land for Denmark. He had a loving wife and son, and his people respected him. He seemed like a good man. However, Fortinbras son is coming to claim the land back, Claudius kills him for his crown and his thrown, and Hamlet is upset about the death and the sudden wedding celebration right after the funeral. (As he should be.) Everything is thrown into confusion, angst, and problem after problem arises after King Hamlet's death. I also question King Hamlet's actions before he died, because in Act 1 Scene 5 he talks about dying before repenting for all his horrible sins. I am not sure about his fatal flaw or whether or not he is a tragic hero, perhaps he trusted Claudius more than he should have. I suppose he could be a classical tragic hero, he died by his brother's hands after winning a war. This character does cause conflict though because he is the one who tells Hamlet to seek revenge on Claudius for his death. Rather, I see King Hamlet as the character who sets everything in motion. However, the antagonist is Claudius (he's obviously the villain).
I think one of the important themes shown in Act 1 is the impact that family and friendship can have on a person, which can be seen in young Hamlet's character and even in Ophelia. In scene 2, you can obviously see the angsty bitterness in Hamlet about his mother's remarriage, (not even a month after his father's death) and in scene 3 Ophelia is swayed easily by her father and her brother's assumptions about Hamlet. In the scenes 4 and 5 of Act 1, you can see how Hamlet depends on his friends Horatio and Marcellus for support, and how being with them is much more comforting to Hamlet compared to when he was with his family Claudius and Gertrude.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
SSRJ #2 D. WALKER
My first initial reaction to "I am Grass" by Daly Walker was pure shock. I was appalled at what I was reading in the first paragraph, then I thought, "wow this is going to be interesting." Personally, I've never had a conversation or any interaction with a war veteran or a soldier, therefore I had no idea what kind of atrocities go on within a war (besides what I learn in school) nor anybody's personal view/experience with it. When I did read this story, I was little surprised at the kinds of personal things the narrator did. I think that is the element that stood out to me the most, the fact that Walker had the narrator talk about his personal experiences and emotions so intimately. It made me feel as though I were right there, his descriptions about Vietnam and the details of his actions were so vivid in my mind, as if I were watching a motion picture documentary on the Vietnam War in my head. However, there are no situations I can think of that are remotely similar, it seems very real and raw to me.
Walker used elements such as point of view and the setting of the story to emphasize the impact of post-war effects on people, relationships, countries, and even in nature. The real problem however, is finding the narrator's inner peace after years of internal conflict with his own personal history during the Vietnam War. Yet no matter how horrid his past actions may be, time goes on and accepting the past is the key to curing these internal "wounds"within his heart and soul, and finally moving on.
Walker does so by giving a lot of distinct detail on the setting and what is going on. He compares every setting and event to similar situations he felt while he was a soldier in Vietnam. He also compares them with a "before" and "after" image, to show us the contrasting states of places before the war and after the war (metaphorically relating to the personal conflict within himself, the "before war" man and the "after war" man, which has, ironically, not changed much.) Walker has the narrator revisit Vietnam to perform "miracle" surgery on children there, as if doing good deeds to Vietnam would take away the bad things he's done. Here he's not only trying to help others, but to help himself, to calm the fierce storm that has never left his mind even after the war. The narrator constantly has flashbacks of war times, which cause him to reel back from the progress of forgiving himself. The meeting with Dinh was definitely a setback, and I feel as though the failure of the thumb surgery proves to demonstrate that you can never erase or completely cure what happened in the war, but you can accept it as a part of yourself, as a part of your person, who you are and how you've grown from it. Which is shown in the end when Walker has the narrator sit back in the plane and instead of feeling fear like in the beginning, he feels excitement instead.
My only question is to why Walker did not feel the need to describe Dinh's emotions and feelings of failure the thumb surgery. He does not speak, does not show up at the airport, he simply "disappears" after the surgery. Personally, I felt incomplete and uneasy without the explanation, although the narrator finds closure in the end.
Walker does so by giving a lot of distinct detail on the setting and what is going on. He compares every setting and event to similar situations he felt while he was a soldier in Vietnam. He also compares them with a "before" and "after" image, to show us the contrasting states of places before the war and after the war (metaphorically relating to the personal conflict within himself, the "before war" man and the "after war" man, which has, ironically, not changed much.) Walker has the narrator revisit Vietnam to perform "miracle" surgery on children there, as if doing good deeds to Vietnam would take away the bad things he's done. Here he's not only trying to help others, but to help himself, to calm the fierce storm that has never left his mind even after the war. The narrator constantly has flashbacks of war times, which cause him to reel back from the progress of forgiving himself. The meeting with Dinh was definitely a setback, and I feel as though the failure of the thumb surgery proves to demonstrate that you can never erase or completely cure what happened in the war, but you can accept it as a part of yourself, as a part of your person, who you are and how you've grown from it. Which is shown in the end when Walker has the narrator sit back in the plane and instead of feeling fear like in the beginning, he feels excitement instead.
My only question is to why Walker did not feel the need to describe Dinh's emotions and feelings of failure the thumb surgery. He does not speak, does not show up at the airport, he simply "disappears" after the surgery. Personally, I felt incomplete and uneasy without the explanation, although the narrator finds closure in the end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)