In Hamlet, a play that I'm severely angry at because of the end, there is a lot of motifs to destruction and corruption. I said,  on the sticky notes, that Hamlet is the poisonous snake destined to kill the garden, but then I asked: Is this a good garden, or a bad garden? Earlier today, coincidentally, I heard Mr. Fortunato talking about his opinion about Hamlet, and he agreed -- It's all about corruption. But he began to speak about the "false king" (interesting way to phrase it, don't you think?), and sadly I didn't hear the total conversation, but it really made me question whether or not Hamlet is necessarily a bad person for poisoning the garden. I mean, surely it isn't good and it leads to everybody dying, but didn't Claudius start it all (as Mr. Fortunato pointed out)? Can a antagonist poisonous snake be corruptive if the garden is already corrupted? Was it destined for that kingdom to fall as soon as he became king because Claudius didn't become a king in honor, but yet in murder? Hamlet says in the first act, "'tis an unweeded garden." Unweeded, uncleansed, sprouting evil. The moment Claudius stepped onto that platform, it was obvious to Hamlet that it would fall sooner or later because the "weeds" in the garden would ruin it.  He adds to this in one of the later acts to his mother, trying to point out how the kingdom is falling in corruption and says, "And do not spread the compost into the weeds" in caution. So, generally, I believe Hamlet is the poisonous snake, yes, but I don't believe it's a bad thing. There is no say what would have happened if Claudius didn't die in the end. Something had to end that era after Claudius took over in a sinful way, and his death was the best option. If Fortinbras, for instance, came to the doors with everybody alive and well, it would create an unneeded war with countless deaths, which would also create a cycle of hatred and murder, spoiling the new "garden". The garden, in all, is an everlasting cycle that symbolizes a successful kingdom. It gets planted, it grows, it manifests, it dies, it sooner or later transitions into a new garden.  There is no way to fight it. But when it comes to the point it is spoiled and uncontrollable, someone has to kill it so that it can have rebirth and have a chance in being pure again. So Hamlet creates a baptism, in some sense, since the garden will regrow sooner or later. Hamlet is a hero, even if he isn't the perfect archetype for one.

Ah Sunflower

Ah Sunflower, weary of time,
Who countest the steps of the sun;
Seeking after that sweet golden clime
Where the traveller's journey is done;

Where the Youth pined away with desire,
And the pale virgin shrouded in snow,
Arise from their graves, and aspire
Where my Sunflower wishes to go!

William Blake

 

Firstly, William Blake uses "Sunflower" capitalized, so the readers know that it is not just an object, but a string of life. It is a being, in some ways, and possesses the same amount of meaning and importance as a person. The Sunflower is "weary of time" or is in knowledge that it is going to die soon (as flowers to die after a short matter of time) and is not ready to because it has not fulfilled its purpose. The Sunflower, in the next line, is said to "countest" the steps of the sun. This probably suggests that Sunflower is counting the steps to the sun,  waiting for a specific response from the sun. It is revealed in the next line that Sunflower is waiting for the sweet golden clime to end, in order to see the result of the ending journey. In other words, the ending journey will take place in the night, when the golden clime is gone, which is interesting because night is generally seen as something evil and negative, while being done with a journey seems like an accomplishment.

In the second stanza, "Youth" is capitalized, like Sunflower. The speaker says Youth is pined away with desire. Pined means to suffer in because of a broken heart, suggesting that Youth's desire only causes pain and misery, creating an oxymoron. The speaker clashes two opposite forces in order to convey that misery can be found in the best of things. The speaker goes on to say "And the pale virgin shrouded in snow". "Pale" is close to white, which means pure, along with virgin which a symbol of purity as well. But snow means cold and misery, meaning that the virgins are in pain and are not rewarded for their goodness. It is also important to take notice of "shrouded" because a shroud is something that is wrapped around somebody in burial. The virgins, though pure, are slowly dying because of the corruptness. In the next line, it is revealed that these groups of people are dead, either spiritually or literally. They arise from their graves, which is negative and dark, and "aspire" (the need to achieve something) the same place the sunflower, a symbol of purity and happiness, wishes to go. This place could many things, including Hell because it has to do with the dead, the dark, and the end of time.

 

So, today, as I was considering writing a new story, I was looking up the purposes of illegitimate children. Illegitimate children in literature ( found in Victorian fiction mostly) are really interesting because they tend to be "outsiders" in a royal world (or rich world). They aren't just shunned from the family, but from society as well, even though their birth is really not their fault. If they weren't illegitimate in the family, they would've probably been just as royal and rich as the rest of the family members. So, of course, this bitterness typically makes them an antagonist or a character in need of resilience and honor, such as Mordred from some Arthurian legends. And though Hamlet is not illegitimate at all (or at least from what I know so far),  he still holds that weird gray area of not truly being in the place he deserves as the late King's son. And, pondering this, I started to think of other weird happenings in Hamlet, such as Hamlet not being king though he was next in line. Gertrude marries his uncle awfully quickly, and I immediately assumed that it wasn't because she loved him, but because she thought it was the greater good. In other words, I always thought she was protecting him. But then why not let him have power? Because of the fear he'll die like his father? Because she believes he is not ready? But then I noticed that Hamlet would be in central eye. People will look at him deeper and maybe even suspicious of if he deserves it, and maybe it's because he could be illegitimate. Gertrude could have possibly had him with another man, and claimed it to be her husband's baby, and made sure he wasn't on the throne because an illegitimate child on the throne is bad luck and can be omen for chaos. If anybody in that era had an illegitimate child and put them on the throne without permission from the Pope would be slaughtered in some way or another. So what if she was protecting Hamlet because of his birth, and believes that if he was on the throne then it would be revealed? It's a stretch of course, saying there is no good evidence in the play, but Gertrude is strict about keeping Hamlet out of the spotlight, despite his snarky attitude. She is constantly shushing him and pulling the court away from Hamlet's comments, including distracting her late husband's brother by marrying him.           Also, almost like Shakespeare is hinting at it, Hamlet always seemed to be anyways in the shadow's. Hamlet puts himself there because he knows he does not belong and believes he is better than the rest. Hamlet can't be a part of the family his mother made, and maybe that's because he biologically isn't linked to any of them but the mother.  Whether people see it this way or not, Hamlet is treated like the illegitimate child because he is pushed aside and is forced to stay away from the royal power that he is capable of possessing. He even in a way seems himself that way because he can't handle being a part of it, he feels like he doesn't belong, giving him the  trope of an illegitimate child.  So maybe he is.

So for my poetry essay I wrote two different versions. One was the one I turned in, and the second one was the one I actually kinda liked more, but everybody who read it said not to turn it in because it was a political analysis instead of a literary analysis. But I wrote it at a two a.m. on a Saturday, so I was a tad proud of it. I did the Introduction to Poetry by Billy Collins.
Billy Collins Poem:
I ask them to take a poem
and hold it up to the light
like a color slide
or press an ear against its hive.
I say drop a mouse into a poem
and watch him probe his way out,
or walk inside the poem's room
and feel the walls for a light switch.
I want them to waterski
across the surface of a poem
waving at the author's name on the shore.
But all they want to do
is tie the poem to a chair with rope
and torture a confession out of it.
They begin beating it with a hose
to find out what it really means.

Essay:

               Born in the 1940's, Billy Collins was immersed into the horrid treat of the aftermath of War World Two through the privileged white supremacy point of view. These events include everlasting hatred towards the Japanese and Europe's inability to acknowledge their actions towards the Jews. Though Collins is greatly dismissed as only a woeful poet, Collins uses his writing in order to release his political views upon the world and revealing the world's inhumane actions. In his poem "Introduction Of Poetry" Collins integrates his opinions and knowledge of War World Two in which most Americans, at that time, ignored, through his gift in writing.  Collins reveals the unethical actions of War World Two by paralleling the senile events against the misunderstood feelings projected towards poetry through symbolism and allusions.

            In the first stanza, the speaker addresses the ignorance taken upon in American society. The speaker says, "I ask them to take a poem/ and hold it up to the light/ like a color slide". A poem, which the speaker uses as the large analogy in the poem, is created by words that is only fathomed by past experiences and ideas. During the era the speaker is illustrating about, majority of the experiences and ideas were still reflecting upon the war, including racism, prejudices, and abuse towards ethnic groups such as the Japanese and Jews. The speaker then commands to hold their actions towards the light, so that the hatred they hide in the dark will be revealed and the audience will be forced to confront the unfair prejudices that made up society at that time. Afterwards, the speaker suggests that they hold it up "like a color shade", or in a view that isn't seen as black and white, in order to universally understand the common emotions and similarities within the ethnic groups. For example, a color shade could be used as a  view of children, revealing the innocence and purity that rests in all ethnic groups.  In simpler terms, the first stanza creates an anchor for the speaker's view of the aftermaths of War World Two, and announces that the speaker will refuse to sit in silence while the nation refuses to work on the social issues in America.

            The second stanza consists of only one line:  or press and ear to against its hive. Not only does the second stanza hold importance because of its one-lined shift, but also uses symbolism through body parts and a hive. An ear is commonly used to symbolize the act of hearing, but it can also symbolize an individual's level of ignorance. A hive, on the other hand, is technically a closed off area where bees, which live in communities, raise their young. The speaker, in all, addresses that the level of ignorance that will be passed on for generations if individuals refuse to acknowledge their words said in society. If their prejudices against minorities continue, the speaker says through symbolism, it will destroy the future generation's morality, if people continue to ignore the importance of words spoken in society.

            The third and fourth stanza creates a question given to society and its leaders. How will the nation continue being "great", if individuals and leaders in the country refuse to see the impact prejudices affect on nations? The speaker says in the poem, "I say drop a mouse into a poem/ and watch him probe his way out/ or walk inside the poem's room/ and feel the walls for a light switch". Spiritually, a mouse represents scrutiny. The speaker suggests that an individual who holds power in the speaker's nation, to truly be immersed into a minority's  situation, and dare them to be the same person and hold to the same prejudice views when they find their way back. The speaker desires for somebody who is prejudice to see the true horrors minorities have to go through, and still hold to the same prejudice views when they get "out". Not only that, but the speaker also wishes for the powerful individual to "feel the walls for a light switch" or to solve this crucial issue that society refuses to realize.  The third and fourth stanza is more than just a dare, but it is also a way to question power and how effectively a leader using his/her power in the world if a leader does not understand what every individual in the country is going through.

            The fifth stanza begins with the economical difference between the majority ethnic groups and the minorities. In the 1940's, the cliché of a "wealthy suburban family" was starting to become real. After the war, families were starting to live in neighborhoods, fathers were coming home from dinner every night, and the women were supposed to adapt to their gender roles. But towards this typical family, the idea of family vacations were starting to become a "thing" and other activities that made a family bond together. A common family activity, if a family had a decent amount of money, would be going to the beach and waterskiing. Like the speaker says, "I want them to waterski/across the surface of a poem/waving at the authors name on the shore". The speaker uses the typical family activity in order to explain that the cliche idea was an illusion to people with wealth. Beneath the "surface" there was poverty and abuse that destroyed families of minorities, contrasting to the perfect majority ethnic family. The economical stand point that the speaker is stating is that families with money were the ones who were blind to those who did not have it. Instead of seeing beyond their wealth and what it meant towards the country, they only saw the opportunities they were given as families in order to dismiss the evils in America. At the end of the stanza the speaker reintroduces the parallel between the country and a poem and says, "waving at the author's name on the shore" or acknowledging the politicians who have let this economical difference occur. 

            In the last two stanzas, the speaker reminds the audience what had happened to the ethnic groups during the war, in order to highlight the majority's brutality.  In the sixth stanza, the speaker addresses the actions inflicted on the Japanese during the war, "But all they want to do/ is tie the poem to a chair with a rope/and torture a confession out of it". The speaker exclaims that America had unfairly accused the Japanese of being spies, and then, in fear and cowardice, shoved them into camps in order to be starved and abused. The speaker also implies that though the Allies won the war, America was so emotionally humiliated they would rather blame it on the Japanese-Americans who had done nothing, rather than take responsibility for their faults. Now that the war is over, the speaker claims that the majorities who had done this in the first place would gladly do it again because their ability to show sympathy is extinct.

            The speaker's last line inhabits not just America's prejudice, but Europe's as well. The speaker says, talking about all of the murdered Jews in the Holocaust, who had fallen to ultimate torture during the war, "They begin beating it with a hose/to find out what it really means". A hose is a tool that exerts water towards the ground. In other words, the speaker mocks them by saying that Europe is finally seeing, as they wash away the blood they had spilled on the ground, all the innocent  corpses that had been hidden in concentration camps. Unlike Americans, Europe is too late to recover what they had lost, so the only thing they can do is learn about the sins they had committed. The further they uncover, the more the nations start to see how horrifying they really are.   

               So I understand it's sort've early to bring this up, but I just realized that in two weeks it's Valentine's Day, and to be honest...I never really understood it. Though I know there's going to be a thousand girls who are going to be pulling around their obnoxious door-sized teddy bears and dying tulips, I feel like people miss the point in Valentine's Day. Shouldn't people declare their love every day, anyways? Why is the feeling of getting dying weeds and a box of calories the best thing about Valentines Day? But then, as I ranted to myself, I realized it isn't about the people who are getting the gifts, but about the people who don't. I don't think anybody truly wants an object, they just want to be remembered. They love the possibility that a person who they have never noticed may just be awake until three in the morning, debating on whether to get them a valentine's day gift, but chickening out last minute because their love is invisible. It's the ability to love that everybody is in love with it for. It's the reminder that we are important. It's  the idea that despite the fact we never truly know if people like us, that maybe people do.

               I feel like this subject ties into a lot of books we have read this year. I mean, love is always a big theme in novels, but it's the depth and reason for love that makes us read these novels. Did Torvald's flowers really hold significance? Was the feelings that Archer had for Ellen stronger than an object? Was Grendel really unable to love, or was it just that he believed he could not be loved? And, if all of these are true, was it truly worth it in the end? I think in Invisible Man a lot of it is about the inability to see each other. The people in that era were so incapable (mostly for the white people) of attempting to see through a black person's eyes, making it completely impossible to love each other. Even in that story, just a tad of sympathy towards the poor would have changed an entire lifetime. Something that may be, in some ways, the strongest love of all. This also ties into Blake's motives when he write. Of course, I could be totally wrong, but I believe Blake's heaven is really just Hell. I think the world he was in was so incapable of touching him, so incapable of at least responding, that he needed something so obscure and unlovable for him to feel love. He seeked Hell because Heaven wouldn't love him. Though we haven't read much of Hamlet, I believe he'd truly correspond with Valentine's Day because he loves his family (or, at least, his family when his father was alive) more than his kingdom. He'd take the opportunity to appreciate the people he has, and use it to share his love.  I think he understands Valentine's Day (or would have) because he understands the point of love in life.

               It's not about declaring love, its reminding us that we can be loved. And that's why Valentine's Day is so sad to me. Shouldn't we already know that?

               So, I had an amazing compliment (probably the best I've gotten in a long, long time) from my science teacher. Basically, my environmental teacher assigned a paper about the message the movie producers were trying to give out about The Lorax. Knowing that while being in an on-level class is beneficial if you don't exactly do well in science, you witness a lot of incompetent people who refuse to turn in papers and sleep in class so frequently that I doubt they even knew we watched The Lorax, I actually decided to spend some deep thinking on it. Of course, believing that my teacher wouldn't bother reading it because he's not a literature teacher, I sort of wrote more about symbolism embedded into the movie rather than the environmentalism. It only took about ten minutes, and I didn't bother looking it over twice, then I just shoved it into Edmodo without thinking about it a second time. The next morning, at about 7:30 , I got an email saying that it was the best reflexive paper he's ever read and that he had to put it through a plagiarism filter because (and I didn't know if this was a compliment or not) he didn't exactly believe I wrote it.

               I basically started my paper saying that one of the main character's clothing was what foreshadowed the entire plot. In the beginning, the Onceler takes up a good opportunity in using the trees (which are extinct now) to create this weird invention. He comes into the scene wearing a blue and white outfit. The blue - which was on the Onceler's jeans and vest - symbolizes cleanliness and unity. The white, which covers his arms and undershirt, symbolizes purity. Because the legs - a way of transportation - and the vest -which overlays the heart- are covered with blue (cleanliness and unity), it implies that when he enters the forest  he was innocent at heart and was only hoping to create a difference in the world. But later in the story, after he turns greedy and ignorant, he is shown in dark green outfit. Though the common connection between green is money and environment, it can also symbolize fertility, which brought on the climax of Ted (the original main character) having to enable the seed in which the Onceler gave him in order to give life to the trees. Basically, the Onceler let the trees live again. The colors were especially important in this movie because it showed not only foreshadowing, but how the characters can affect the story's plot and meaning so easily.

               Another large thing that effected what the plot implied about the environment was the variation of animals. The large majority of the animals in this movie were bears. Bears are, in a lot of stories like Native American Mythology and Celtic Mythology, seen as spirit walkers. In other words, the bears are seen as guidance between two worlds. The bears are the first to welcome the Onceler into the world he had never seen, full of trees and beauty, but there are also the ones to suffer when he betrays this new, abstract world. It is not until he sees the bears again at the end of the story, do the audience know that he has successfully redeemed himself because he had met the guidance of two worlds once again. His innocence and wisdom reunited him with the bears so he can rest in his original world in peace, without being haunted by the other world. The other animal which shows the importance between the environment and humanity is the fish. A fish in Christianity is often seen as a symbol of savior and faith. The fish, though they may be tricksters, do try to save the young bear, who in which is stuck in the Onceler's dark path of falling down a water fall, and brings back salvation. Though both of these animals are ordinary, they show the need for animals in the world in order to retain balance and humanity. The animals in Dr. Seuss' stories are saviors and are needed in order to truly be connected toward the earth because, mythological speaking, they are the only beings that can connect the populations to the environment. 

            I thought this would be a good thing just to add into my lit blog just because I'm very, very proud of it. And I guess it must connect to AP Lit somehow?

I'm the grayest and blobbiest!

            I'm really not going to lie, I haven't read more than the first chapter of the Invisible Man, though it does sound pretty awesome and a good topic to write about. I have mixed opinions about the first chapter: firstly, the character seems sort of pretentious. Secondly, Ellison's writing is (in my opinion) hard to understand because it is obviously not direct and I'm guessing just by the beginning that this book has to be analyzed to truly understand the plotline. But the idea is interesting -- what is an Invisible Man? I think the main character is supposed to symbolize the corruptness in society as a whole (i.e. beating a man unfairly just because of a first impression), and trying to show the corruptness in equal, yet different, aspects (because, as we realize now, words can be just as painful as physical wounds). So far, I think it shows an accurate picture of racism/discrimination/etc and how it is considered in a lot of society's. Though I really haven't read enough to really pull exact examples, it really did remind me of this one episode from "Fairly Odd Parents" (or something along those lines. It's basically a show about an unfortunate kid who has two little fairies running around granting him wishes) when Timmy (main character) encounters a few bullies who were discriminating against him. When he gets fed up, he wishes that everybody is a grey blob in order for everybody to be equal and stop being discriminating. Of course, it seems okay in the beginning, but when he confronts the bullies again after his wish, the bullies say to him, "Actually we’re the grayest and the blobiest".  And that's when Timmy, and the viewers, realize that it's really not about race or wealth or generational difference; racism is about people who push others down in defense, because they'd rather die than believe they weren't entitled in society.  Do they really care if they are Black or White or Asian? Does the bully really care about how much money you have? Do kids really care about how ugly or beautiful their peer is? No, of course not, they could care less -- it's more about young kids being taught that shunning/pushing away/bullying kids unlike them will make them more intelligent in the future. Nickelodeon, which rarely makes an impact in the adult world, really asked all of the adults who (many times) encourage (whether it's indirectly or not) discrimination: What would the world be like if we were all just gray blobs? Because now as I look around, it's completely accurate. We're all just awkward organic forms with weird flabs of skin that breathe and speak. If aliens saw us, they'd probably wouldn't see a huge difference between ourselves, except possibly our obnoxious ignorance.

            Though I may have just rambled off into a totally different subject because it's a Friday night and there's five children in my house and I may be feeling a bit reminiscent, but I do hope Ellison goes for this idea. Who are we to say that we are better, when we are really just the same? Whether it's God, or Evolution, or an idea we are yet to fathom, were we really meant to see ourselves so different?