Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Bryan Owens
- Blogs are hilarious. If you spend an hour or two just browsing peoples' blogs--you tend to learn some unfortunate things about people in general. For instance, people are generally very boring, and they think that what they are talking about is VERY important. Much like I'm doing now. This whole blogging sensation is a free, easy, accessible way for people to publish a space that is entirely their own; the purposes of which are predominately to make themselves feel self-important. Everyone has something to say about everything. I haven't decided yet if this blogging sensation, as I have flippantly deemed it, is a good thing or a bad thing. Perhaps neither, perhaps both. I don't know.
You will select a question from the list below and respond to it for the Act I thread. You will also respond to another classmate's post. (You should have two posts total for Act I).
ReplyDelete-What is "rotten in the state of Denmark," as Marcellus tells us? What do we learn about the situation in Scene I? In Scene II?
-In what ways is Scene II a contrast to Scene I? What do we learn about Gertrude, Claudius, and Hamlet in this scene?
-What is the function of the Polonius-Ophelia-Laertes family in this play? What parallels exist between their situation and that of the ruling family?
-What does Hamlet learn from the Ghost's speech?
-In scene II, why does Hamlet contemplate suicide? In his solioquy, he resolves not to commit suicide because of God's law against it. However, at the end of Act I, Hamlet resolves to murder Claudius. Discuss how religion will dictate the events of the play.
Question 1, What is "rotten in the state of Denmark"?
ReplyDeleteMarcellus says this line at the end of Act I scene i in reference to all the quite frightening and Erie events he has witnessed over the course of the Act. In scene i we learn that Marcellus as well as the other guards on the night watch believe they have seen a ghost which looks exactly like the late King Hamlet. Horatio, a scholar and a skeptic, questions the reality of the ghost by speaking to it however, the ghost does not speak and disappears. Because Horatio is a scholar and skeptic and believes in the reality of the ghost i would like to believe that the characters have seen a ghost and that it is not part of their imaginations. Ghosts are commonly accepted as superstition, and therefore by introducing a ghost to his play Shakespeare has added a magical and doubtful air to the play. I believe that by adding this fantasy element to the play Shakespeare has raised and is preparing to raise questions that for the most part he will leave unanswered.
during scene i we also learn that Denmark is preparing for potential war with young Fortinbras of Norway whos father, Fortinbras, was slain by the late King Hamlet. Young Fortinbras has gathered an army in hopes of regaining the land he lost to Denmark.
In scene ii we learn that Claudius and Hamlets mother have just been married. Hamlet does not approve of this marriage. He is deeply affected by his father's death and believes it wrong of his mother to remarry so quickly. One can see that Hamlet is grieved and perhaps unstable. Through his monologues one can better understand his thoughts and feelings. One also begins to realize that it is strange that Claduis and Gertrude have been married so quickly and knowing that there has been ghost activity recently wonders if maybe these events are more than an unrelated sequence of events. Hamlet learns from Horatio about the ghosts appearance and they make plans to meet it later that night.
Question 4, What does Hamlet learn from the ghost's speech?
ReplyDeleteThe action of Act I scene v consists of Hamlet, Horatio and Marcellus seeing the ghost, and Hamlet running after it into a forest where the ghost speaks to him. The ghost tells Hamlet that he has just come from a purgatory and he was murdered. He informs Hamlet that while he was taking his usual nap his brother Claudius, the new king, poured poison in his ear. The ghost then asks Hamlet to avenge him by plotting against Claudius not to his mother. After the ghost sees that Hamlet has understood him he disappears. Hamlet in a sort of hysteria announces that he will kill Claudius and avenge his father. Horatio and Marcellus find Hamlet in the forest soon after and ask him what the ghost said. Hamlet does not tell them what the ghost told him and instead tells Horatio and Marcellus that they should not speak of the ghost again. The play has now become a story of revenge. We see that Hamlet had reason to think it strange that his mother had remarried his uncle to quickly. Yet, many questions are also raised. Ghosts are elements of superstition, therefore one will always wonder if Hamlet really did see a ghost, especially because many other characters also believe to have seen it. Has he imagined it? It seems unlikely because the ghosts existence was confirmed by other characters. However, the existence of a ghost is also unlikely. One also wonders whether or not Hamlet will avenge his father and kill Claudius. So far Hamlet seems depressed and unstable; his grief is consuming him. Based on this one wonders whether or not this grief will drive him over the edge or whether he is stronger than he appears to be.
-What does Hamlet learn from the Ghost's speech?
ReplyDeleteIn scene V Act I we come across young Hamlet chasing what he beleives is the ghost of his father. Young Hamlet gets the chance to have a conversation with the ghost, who tells him the story behind his murdered. As young Hamlet listens he enters a state of shock, as his dad the ghost tells him how cladius, the present king killed him.The ghost tells hamlet that he needs to seek revenge and kill cladius and not involve his mother. The conversation then ends once the ghost has nothing else to say.
Hamlet understands that he has to make justice and kill Cladius. At this point in the play you can only see hatred and the raging pain cladius has caused to young hamlet. But yet we still wonder if hamlet will avenge the death of his father or let his grief invade him laybeling hamlet as caword.
-What is "rotten in the state of Denmark,"
ReplyDeleteMarcellus:
Let's follow. 'Tis not fit thus to obey him.
Horatio:
Have after. To what issue will this come?
Marcellus:
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Horatio:
Heaven will direct it.
Marcellus:
Nay, let's follow him.
In Act I horatio and marcellus beleive they have seen what appears to be the ghost of Hamlet, the king of Denmark. Who was recent murdered. As marcellus states the phrase " theres something rotten in the state of Denmark", he emphasizes on wierd, strange events that have been happening ever since the death of the king.
later in act I the ghost tells hamlet how he died making young Hamlet understand how things are beginning to shift and start to get rotten in denmark. starting with his uncle cladius. Whom with ambition and jealousy killed his own brother for his desire upon his wife and power.
Besides cladius rottening Denmark, the country is starting to prepare itself for war also allowing hamlet to see other problems that are starting to unfold in Denmark.
Religion in this play mirrors how humanity utilizes it. Shakespeare was commenting on how humans change their perspective on religion. How it can also easily be changed into something that benefits them, almost as if religion were theoretically ever-moist clay ready to be manipulated by the hand of man.
ReplyDeleteIn scene 2 Hamlet condemned religion for not allowing him to leave the world he deemed pointless. In his soliloquy we see that Hamlet so adamantly takes religion to heart. A fellow follower. Hamlet in this scenario accepts not to commit the sin of self-slaughter. He justifies religion as the only reason to keep him from killing himself. This reveals how the religion oppressed mind of humanity accepts some of the established norms preset by the generations before them.
However this in no way prevents humans from deviating from such religious ways. Religion was indeed an invention of man. All inventions over time innovate, and under certain circumstances used whenever one sees fit. Once Hamlet learns from the Ghost of the terrible deed Claudius committed, Hamlet immediately becomes unstable and then vows to take revenge. Here in this situation Hamlet takes the whole concept of retribution and justifies that he must take revenge in order to make things right once more. In order for his alleged ghost father's spirit to be released from its earth-bound days to cease and attain peace, he must first make things even. But isn't murder a sin? Can humans just decide to make something as revenge justifiable by simply using an excuse to set things straight? Interesting enough how Shakespeare presents a God-fearing individual unwilling to commit suicide, but paradoxically decides to murder someone else? What Shakespeare shows here is how humans repudiate customs and beliefs when it they do not adhere to what they do.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn Selin's comment, it is true that Hamlet was beckoned by the ghost, but it is unsure where exactly that was; Shakespeare was adept at not giving stage directions. However there is the whole thing of perception and whatever, neither is correct nor incorrect. Whenever I read this scene I imagine Hamlet led to the edge of a cliff. Possibly because of Horatio's earlier comment, warning Hamlet not to trust it for it could lead him on his path to madness. A cliff would most be appropriate here because of its symbolic nature. Hamlet was lead to the edge (theoretically speaking) of the cliff by the truth given to him by the ghost. The shock of the truth entirely made him loose his sure grip on his sanity; wounded already by the loss of his father. Indeed the Ghost, awkwardly brings about insight on what allegedly happened to the previous King Hamlet. However the audience can question the validity of his declaration. Something Hamlet has to make sure of before taking revenge. At this point the audience knows for certain that maybe King Hamlet did not die of "natural" reasons.
ReplyDeleteClayton Nocker
ReplyDelete-What does Hamlet learn from the Ghost's speech?
When the ghost finally speaks to Hamlet, he confirms his worst fears: that his Uncle had a role in killing his father and intentionally stole his mother's love away. From purgatory, the ghost was able to witness his own brother almost erase him from his wife's memory. Hamlet also learns that because Claudius killed Hamlet senior at a point in his life in which many personal issues were unresolved, his spirit was unable to move onto heaven and had to stay in a state of anguish in purgatory. The ghost's descriptions of the torments a spirit unable to be at peace mortify Hamlet, and he becomes convinced that he must seek revenge. His love for his father is a driving force in Hamlet's decision to kill Claudius. An important point the ghost makes is that Hamlet should not hold any anger or ill feelings towards his mother than that her judgment should be left to God. Whether this is because Hamlet senior knew his wife was fickle about love or because he understood her social situation is unknown. Hamlet's encounter with the ghost serves as powerful foreshadowing in the play. The despair and torment the ghost describes seem to closely mimic Hamlet's immense grief and woe and hints at these feelings only growing in power. Also, it becomes clear that revenge is the goal once Hamlet makes his friend swear to stop discussing the ghost because, unbeknownst to them, it had told Hamlet to kill the king. Readers are left with an important question by the end of this scene, is the ghost really King Hamlet's spirit or is it a demonic entity posing as one due to the insistence on revenge. Why would a spirit (supposedly much closer to God) deem murder a necessary thing?
Clayton Nocker responding to Pablo's comment:
ReplyDeleteI think you're right about how Shakespeare captured human nature. Throughout society examples can be found of people exploiting or applying out of context an idea or philosophy. The need for vindication often times drives people to twist moral values or truthful facts to suit their own needs, thinking that the ends justifies their means. The reason Hamlet chose not to commit suicide but to follow through with the plot to murder his uncle, in my opinion, is because he could not justify the former. To up and kill yourself due to a loss was totally unjustifiable in Hamlet's eyes, especially when he could end the torment of his father through revenge (a justifiable act). The need for vindication and the already somewhat subjective nature of religion is pretty well illustrated in the play.
-In scene II, why does Hamlet contemplate suicide? In his soliloquy, he resolves not to commit suicide because of God's law against it. However, at the end of Act I, Hamlet resolves to murder Claudius. Discuss how religion will dictate the events of the play.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like religion is available at the disposable of everyone in Elsinore. Even though in medieval times, people were usually very religious, with all the adultery, usurping and corruption going on, why should religion be an exception? Because Hamlet is the "whiny little emo" kid that he is, it's easy to see how he would contemplate suicide after he is so obviously (and rightfully) upset about his mother marrying Claudius so soon after his father's death. Personally, I think he used religion as a reason not to commit suicide because he was actually too cowardly to go through with it. Because he later resolves to kill Claudius once his father's ghost tells him to, it's apparent that religion isn't always so important to him if he's willing to set it aside to obey the whim of a ghost. However the first time he gets the opportunity to kill Claudius, he decides not to because he is praying and doesn't want to send Claudius to heaven. This could be another case of Hamlet using religion to his advantage because he's too cowardly to do what he said he'll do. Also, it doesn't make sense to me that killing someone while they're praying suddenly makes them able to go to heaven even if they've probably already earned their ticket to hell. If Hamlet truly believes this, then perhaps he's having doubts about whether or not Claudius really deserves to be murdered? If not then, again, it's Hamlet being a coward.
Paulina Seng commenting on Pablo's post.
ReplyDeleteThis was actually a very good comparison to humanity. If I learned anything from watching the last episode of Gossip GIrl (does anyone even watch that anymore?) it's that even if someone is doing something horrible, as long as they can justify that it's on someone else's behave, in GG's case Blair Waldorf for Chuck Bass and in Hamlet's case, Hamlet for the ghost. Humans usually tend to do what they want, no matter what, and it makes it all the more easier when they have either religion or another scapegoat to take the blame for their own actions.
What is the function of the Polonius-Ophelia-Laertes family in this play? What parallels exist between their situation and that of the ruling family?
ReplyDeleteI think that Ophelia’s family is use to create a contrast to Hamlet’s family. At this point in the play, Ophelia’s family is the normal and caring one. With over protective and caring father and brother. This is a big contrast to Hamlet’s family because the only person that seemed to care about him was his father who was murder by his brother. Hamlet’s family is composed of his mother Gertrude and his new father Claudius. Hamlet’s family is really abnormal compared to Ophelia’s family, at this point in the play because they seemed to not have any horrible secrets or act as strange as Hamlet‘s family does.
Ophelia’s father is an honorable, respected man that knows that there is something wrong with Hamlet therefore he doesn’t want his daughter to be involved with him. I believe that Polonius doesn’t think that Hamlet is worthy of his daughter even thought he tell her that Hamlet is a prince and that he will never chose her. Polonius view of his daughter is that she is pure and beautiful women that shouldn’t be with the depress prince who’s family is extremely abnormal. His son Laertes who a lot like his father, an honorable, intelligent men, that knows what is good for his little sister, has also adopted Polonius’ high view of his family. Laertes is a great contrast to Hamlet because he seems to have a plan for his life.
From Act II we are able to conclude that Hamlet’s family is composed of extremely abnormal people in comparison to Ophelia’s happy, normal family.
Like Pablo I believe that we as imperfect humans twist and bend religion to allow us to continue acting the way we want to. Much like Hamlet we convince our selves that what we are doing is just and right. For Hamlet it was a sin to kill him self but to take his vegans on his uncle by murdering him was setting things right. Pablo makes a good point that we may have our religious view but we are also willing to venture away from them. We take different aspects of religious views to fit our own choices and life style. I think that Shakespeare was making the point that religion was no longer something that should was to be regarded as sacred and holy but was treated more as a toy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete-What does Hamlet learn from the Ghost's speech?
ReplyDeleteFrom what hamlet has been told he finally understands and puts his questioning to rest about whether or not his uncle or someone in Denmark had foul played. He realizes that his father was murdered and that soon enough he too will be murdered. From there on he takes matters in to his own hands as he reacts to what his fathers ghost has told him and is now going to take revenge for both him and his father.
commenting on what Mirna G. said...
ReplyDeleteIt is to my understanding that Hamlet is obviously on board for killing his father's murderer. One can obviously at least understand what he might be going through probably not grasping his full emotion but definitely enough to know that Hamlets young yet very disturbed mind is willing to do much of anything right now.
In scene II, why does Hamlet contemplate suicide? In his solioquy, he resolves not to commit suicide because of God's law against it. However, at the end of Act I, Hamlet resolves to murder Claudius. Discuss how religion will dictate the events of the play.
ReplyDeleteHamlet contemplates suicide because of his fathers death, and the aftermath of it. First of all, like any human being, he is shocked that his father is gone. Then to push him further into depression, his mom marries his uncle and they expect Hamlet to be content with it. Hamlet in the play mentions that he could never replace his father with Claudius and how dreadful it was to pretend that the incestual relationship going on in his family was okay.
Religion for the characters in this play isn't used as "The Law", I guess you would phrase it, but rather as a convienence to them. As mentioned in the question, Hamlet contemplates committing suicides but backs out because he would "go to hell". Ironically, he is ready to kill Cladius, which is sin in one of the ten comandments. Although later on in the play, he decides not to kill Cladius while he is praying because Cladius has repented. Hamlet is only using religion to justify his reluctancy.
Furthermore, just for entertainment, I love how my blog name is still showing up as "Creep Master".
"However this in no way prevents humans from deviating from such religious ways. Religion was indeed an invention of man. All inventions over time innovate, and under certain circumstances used whenever one sees fit. Once Hamlet learns from the Ghost of the terrible deed Claudius committed, Hamlet immediately becomes unstable and then vows to take revenge. Here in this situation Hamlet takes the whole concept of retribution and justifies that he must take revenge in order to make things right once more. In order for his alleged ghost father's spirit to be released from its earth-bound days to cease and attain peace, he must first make things even. But isn't murder a sin?" Pablo
ReplyDeleteReligion an invention of man? I take it your an atheist?
I know I'm about to contradict everything, I said in my post but I just gained an epiphany. If your uncle killed your dad and then married your mother, wouldn't you be pissed? Wouldn't you be pissed if you found out your uncle killed him? As much as I want to bash Hamlet for exploiting his religious beliefs, I believe he wasn't think so much of religion anymore at the point he wanted to kill Cladius. I'm pretty sure Hamlet knew it was a sin and wasn't trying to be intentionally hypocritical.
What I'm trying to get at is because we're human, when something happens that upsets us, We don't think. Instead, we make impulsive decisions based on our emotions, erasing all logic and reasoning.
For example, when you are angry about something, you might say a curse word, impulsively, even though you know it's wrong.
I don't think Hamlet was thinking too much about religion, he was just really angry about his life situation, and killing Cladius seemed to be his only solution.
The question to ponder "Is Hamlet justified for wanting to kill Cladius because of his father's death?"
Final Question: In scene II, why does Hamlet contemplate suicide? In his solioquy, he resolves not to commit suicide because of God's law against it. However, at the end of Act I, Hamlet resolves to murder Claudius. Discuss how religion will dictate the events of the play.
ReplyDeleteHamlet contemplates suicide because he is disgusted with the events (such as the incestuous relationship between his mother and uncle) that have so far taken place. He damns the very core of religion for making suicide such a high ranking sin, but this just seems to be a reason for him to be a little emo punk crying in the corner that daddy is dead without actually having to kill himself. He uses his religious beliefs whenever they seem to work more in his favor, I.e. i'd kill myself if it weren't for my beliefs but i'll gladly go against all of them to kill a man who aside from a mild and possible delusional encounter i have no proof did anything. hamlets ties to his faith are string-thin at best and his ties to reality may even be less than that (but that's a discussion for another day)!
Kyle Neumann In response to Juan Reyes:
ReplyDeleteHis very desire to commit suicide after a brief period of lunacy in the kingdom seems to be a surefire sign of something violently wrong within his psyche. while I can see where you would truly prefer not to imagine your uncle dating your mother but suicide is far from a solution to the problem. If anything he should have at least confronted his mother about the unusual relationship that they would begin in. and if that failed there is always the old fail-safe of leaving to live at your own place, or at least avoiding the uncomfortable situations.
why does Hamlet contemplate suicide? In his solioquy, he resolves not to commit suicide because of God's law against it.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why Hamelet wanted to suicided himslef was to take away all the problems and situations that is going on in his life; hes uncle (Claduis) marrying his mother and now seeing his father (Ghost) frightens him.Is like a way to escape from the reality of his true life. Its a way of resolving it and making it just go away.
In my perspective i believe that hamlet uses Gods Laws as a excuse to not sucide himself,becuase deep inside he wants to live and find a true loving woman; using hes religion just for his benfit. For example,in the christianity religion they dont believe in ghost but when the ghost first spoke to Hamlet ,Hamelet believe all the things that the ghost said and went along believing that the ghost was his father. Not going allowing with his so called religion that believe that theirs no such things at ghost.
However, in the end of the scene it seems like Hamlet is trap not knowing if he should listen to the ghost by taking revenge or to follow his mother advice to move along and forget about it. Which makes me think that Hamlet is a kind of person that questions everything to much;thinking about things throughtly and questioning about his religion (the doughtfulness of believing without seeing).
i agree with cyhthia and pablo about how religion sometimes is treated like a toy using it to their benefit. Twisting the their religion to make it fit the way they want it to fit and make it seemed like if its the right thing to do when in the end it isnt.Is more like if the humans are making so many religions so it could please everyone. Which in the end it shouldnt .
ReplyDeleteWhat would happen if Hamelet understood the situation that his mother had to choose from which is marrying his dead husband brother inorder to survive . Would Hamlet had understtod? or would he had contnue questioning things?
Question #4… What does Hamlet learn from the ghost’s speech?
ReplyDeleteIn scene five Hamlet runs after his dads ghost, but before seeing the ghost Hamlet is with Horatio and Marcellus. Hamlet and the ghost talk and the ghost tell Hamlet that he has just come from hell and that he was murdered. King Hamlets ghost told Hamlet that he was to revenge his death but not to his mother to his uncle King Claudius. He also told Hamlet how he was killed, how Claudius, his brother went into his bedroom when taking a nap and poured poison into his ear. The ghost disappears after he sees that Hamlet understands what he is supposed to do. After the ghost leaves Hamlet says that he will kill King Claudius, and then Horatio and Marcellus find him. Hamlet seeing and talking to the ghost leaves a question, is the ghost real, but there are other characters that also saw the ghost.
Question 1 "What does Hamlet learn from the Ghost's speech?"
ReplyDeleteThe credibility of this ghost, as compared to the ones oh "Macbeth" are much more concrete. We as the reader are assured that this ghosts does indeed exist, as given by 4 eyewitness, and one of them apparently being an intellectual (because of course intellectuals, the only people who read Shakespeare, do not take the word of imbeciles). We have already previously learned the state of Prince, Hamlet and that he is still in deep mourning of his father death and disturbed at the actions of his mother and uncle. This fact, presented shortly before he meets the ghost, makes Hamlet’s meeting with him a very passionate one. When his friends first mention the ghost’s existence he does not doubt at all, but is extremely anticipating meeting him. When he and the others finally go to confront it, and to show Hamlet, he wants to follow it and speak to his father’s ghost, but everyone tries to dissuade him, for it might be dangerous. Hamlet will hear not a word of it, and follows the ghost into the woods. Before he even speaks to the ghosts, we have gained much insight into the character and personality of Hamlet, and the circumstances of his life. It is in the speech though, that they play gains its plot. The King’s ghost tells him that he has been murder by his own brother, which is in a way, foreshadowed to us by Hamlet dislike of him. The ghost is what will move Hamlet’s heart to revenge, though his actions may not directly follow.
I think what is rotten in the state of Denmark is the royal family. Throughout the play the state of Denmark is compared to a body. And if we’re going with this analogy, then the head of the body would be the royalty. The royal family of a nation should lead by example by being the best. Denmark’s royalty, made up of Claudius, Gertrude, and Hamlet, are pretty far from exemplary. Their many shortcomings contribute to the overall ill-health of the nation. Claudius is an amoral sneak who only got to be king by killing the previous ruler in his sleep. Gertrude is weak and jumped on Claudius right after her husband died. Hamlet is a whiny man-child who ignores his responsibilities as prince. It is these faults, which make the characters so interesting to the reader, that end up destroying the royal family and the country as a whole. Because Denmark isn’t a chicken, and it can’t live without a head.
ReplyDeleteClayton asked "Why would a spirit (supposedly much closer to God) deem murder a necessary thing?" It's the kind of question that I think Shakespeare would want us to ask. Shakespeare starts the play with the guards questioning the nature of the ghost. Nobody says "King Hamlet's Ghost"; they always talk about a ghost that looks like Hamlet. I think that this ambiguity has two purposes. It adds to the overall atmosphere of uncertainty and creepiness in the play. It also causes us to question the motives of the ghost, Hamlet, and every other character in the play. We're not supposed to take what the ghost says at face value. I think it shows that people should make their own judgments instead of unthinkingly following religion or any other system. Of course, Hamlet is the only one who really questions things, and he ends up dead. I guess you can't win in Denmark. :(
ReplyDelete