Haikuuuuus

Tales

Leaves fall from the vine
Drifting slowly to the ground
My brave soldier boy


Finals

Light flickers on words
Mind grows weary, Eyes, Sleepy
Many miles to go



Sunrise

The sun rises now
Light filters through the closed blinds
Birds chirp morning calls

SAVE THE INDIGNEOUS AMAZONIAN PEOPLES

Okay, So I'm not one to push people to sign petitions. I know how annoying and exasperating those petitioners are when they harass students to sign things at school BUT, this is one situation that is really heartbreaking to me and for some reason, this problem really speaks to me. I'm not a hippie, but lets face the facts. The world is slowly becoming a polluted, technological wasteland and having these small Amazonian tribes still existing in our world is a rare treasure that we MUST preserve. It is a glimmer of the past towards life on Earth that we cannot even begin to fathom. As the world progresses, these indigneous people, these amazing natural environments and animals are the only things we have left to remind us of what natural beauty exists on our planet. Not only that, but this is a HOME that these people are being forced out of. So please read the information below and sign the petition! I promise they're not going to ask for all your information and they're not going to send you stupid emails. 

Kayapo tribe’s chief listening that an hydroelectrical plant is going to be build sweeping their homeland.

“While newspapers and television talk about the lives of celebrities, the chief of the Kayapo tribe received the worst news of his life: Dilma, “The new president of Brazil, has given approval to build a huge hydroelectric plant (the third largest in the world). It is the death sentence for all the people near the river because the dam will flood 400,000 hectares of forest. More than 40,000 Indians will have to find another place to live. The natural habitat destruction, deforestation and the disappearance of many species is a fact.”

(For those of you who want to read up more about it, it’s called the Belo Monte Dam. I’m not sure if it’s actually effectively in construction yet, I’m trying to find more accurate information on the Internet! but it’s still good to know.)

SIGN THE AVAAZ PETITION TO STOP THE DAM

DRJ # 4 ACTS 4&5

I knew Gertrude was going to tell Claudius what happened with Hamlet and Polonius and Gertrude, I knew Claudius was going to plot against Hamlet and do something dirty, I knew Hamlet would figure it out, but I did not know Ophelia was going to go mentally insane. I'm a little disappointed in her, I expected her to be a strong woman who'd be able to fight everyone with Hamlet and become the King and Queen of Denmark and everything else. But of course that's not his style, Shakespeare likes having everyone die in the end. It's like I knew it, but I didn't want it to happen, like most of Shakespeare's plays.

The character I am choosing to analyze is Claudius. Claudius is a dirty, dirty man. He is definitely the antagonist of the play. Simply put, he killed his brother for his throne and his wife, and plots to have the protagonist, Hamlet killed as well. At first, I sympathized with Claudius. Claudius would have bouts of depression, pangs of guilt from his actions. Unlike a lot of familiar villains, Claudius knows what he did was WRONG, and even tries to repent for his sins (although that failed). I familiarized with him a little, to understand what something I did was wrong and how awful it must have felt to realize it. I even thought, okay, Claudius is going to make it up somehow. I honestly felt Claudius was sincere, but I was horribly wrong, and curse my good judgement. After his sessions of guilt, he would just go back to his throne and his wife like it was no big deal, and then set off to plot Hamlet's death with Laertes. How dare Claudius toy with my emotions like that! Good riddance. As the antagonist, he definitely purposely causes all the conflict in the play, like having R & G and Ophelia to get the scoop on Hamlet and plotting to kill Hamlet because he is a threat to his throne, but then there would be no conflict, no play if Claudius hadn't killed his brother and knocked up his wife.

The themes present in Act's 4 and 5 is the spurring of revenge and ambition. In these acts, Fortinbras and Laertes is shown to set off doing his duty, unlike Hamlet who waited too long. Fortinbras is planning to avenge his country, claiming back the land that was taken from the previous Fortinbras, and Laertes plans to avenge his father's death. With the absence of Hamlet and the appearance two characters in Acts 4 and 5, Shakespeare purposely has them there to act as a foil for Hamlet (in order to further strengthen Hamlet's "fatal flaw") Similarly to Hamlet, Fortinbras and Laertes have ambition, and are determined to avenge their losses, determined to "do their duty". However, unlike Hamlet, Fortinbras and Laertes immediately jump in to action without a second thought. Their ambition and sense of duty is stronger than Hamlet's, although Hamlet was willing to go through with his plans of vengeance. I feel as though Hamlet was so clever, he liked to dart around the rocks instead of just simply diving in, which was his fatal flaw.

DRJ #3 ACT 3

My initial reaction to Act 3 was...weird. I wasn't sure how to feel about Act 3, although I thought act three was very funny, in a sarcastic, bitter, and cruel way. It reminded me of some kind satirical essay Jonathan Swift would write. Hamlet's witty banter definitely kept my interest afloat, which I believe was Shakespeare's intention.

I feel that Act 3 was the crux of all the action, the main ideas behind Hamlet, so I've decided to analyze the protagonist, Hamlet in this act. Simply put, Hamlet is a punk. He is mean to everyone, as seen in his rude conversation with Ophelia during the play, his rude comments to Claudius, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Polonius and his angry conversation with Gertrude. Hamlet bitterly jokes around, answering Claudius and Gertrude questions with jokes. He constantly talks throughout the play, (ashamed at himself for not being able to do what the actor is doing) yet he is clever, his wordplay, being able to call out the fake Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and able to put together this play. However, this typical Hamlet behavior makes everyone around him believe he is insane, when honestly, I feel that he is just a clever, angsty, smartmouthed teenager who is having a hard time dealing with everything that had happened to him. Hamlet even states that his "insanity" is just him fooling around, (in order for him to be able to avenge his father) but everyone doesn't understand. The main character Hamlet is not the ideal person, but he does suffer a fatal flaw. (Aristotle's tragic hero is someone who is almost perfect in every sense, in which Hamlet is definitely not) who dies because of one fatal flaw. For Hamlet, I see his fatal flaw as being someone who is not able fulfill what he set out to do. Hamlet has all these opportunities to slay Claudius, and yet he doesn't actually do it until Claudius and Laertes set out to slay him. Even his own father had to come to him (in ghost form) to try and sharpen his "somewhat dull appetite for revenge." Hamlet's dilly-dallying was his ultimate demise, because Claudius and Laertes is able to plot and kill him in Hamlet's inaction (although Hamlet barely kills Claudius at the last minute). Foils to Hamlet include Fortinbras and Laertes, because unlike Hamlet, they jump immediately into action.

One theme present in Act 3 is, what is truly madness? What is considered insane and not insane? How are you to tell when someone is being crazy, or if you're the one that is actually crazy? In Act 3 Scene 1, Ophelia constantly calls Hamlet crazy, saying "Dear God, please make him normal again!" But Hamlet is only telling Ophelia the truth, his views on women and even himself. Does speaking the truth and speaking his mind make Hamlet crazy then? I feel as though Shakespeare toys with the idea of being honest is like being insane. Everyone in Claudius's court is full of deceit and lies, tricking and plotting against one another to find information on someone or something. However, Hamlet is honest with his feelings from the start. Although he states them in a rude way, he does tell people what is going on in his mind and what he is feeling, like in Act 3 Scene 4 he bluntly tells Gertrude everything that is going on with Claudius and his father, and yet she seems to turn a blind eye to it, constantly saying Hamlet is crazy.

DRJ #2 ACT 2

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.

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.

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.