You will choose one of the following questions and respond to it. You will also comment on one of your classmate's posts. You may also say bad things about Mr. Owens while you do it, or you can save all of your complaints and insults for lunchtime when they may reach their full potency in the slew of teacher bashing. (Two posts total).
P.S.-Thank you guys for working diligently on this discussion forum.
Why does this scene begin with two clowns trading jokes? Do their jokes make any sense in the context of the play?
Does Hamlet realize that he might not come out of this fight alive? See V.ii.225-238.
What is the outcome of the fight scene at the end? What thematic conclusions can you draw based on this conclusion?
When Gertrude drinks from the cup, Claudius asks her not to drink and she refuses. Has she ever disobeyed Claudius before?
Who is alive at the end of the play, and how do the others meet their ends? Is there a sense of redemption or restored order to the kingdom and the characters by the end of the play?
Why is Fortinbras's presence important?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fortinbras arrives after everyone except Horatio died. He is presented to the end of tragedy. One must be destroyed in order for harmony and peace to exist once more. What must Young Fortinbras do? No longer do the entities Hamlet or those who were dragged down by his calamity breathe. Is it enough to understand the motives behind tragedy in order to forgive it? Horatio promises to present Young Fortinbras with the truth as to why things occurred and the culprits behind it. Here Horatio is given the option to alter reality and blame, protect and exclude certain figures as seen fit. Why must Hamlet be forgiven for his crimes? Is it to prevent further hate to exist? Can Young Fortinbras bear to not have his Father avenged in the way he wanted? Shakespeare places Young Fortinbras at the end of the tragedy to show the audience that hatred only exists if humans exist. Hatred, vengeance all these raw, fierce emotions pull us downward as the injection of pleasure leads to addiction. When can we let go? How farther must we fall to quell the appetite for revenge? If a beast is fed it is in ecstasy, but when starved what happens? Young Fortinbras was not allowed his revenge, but was the sight of the kingdoms that had done away his very father enough to forgive and quite possibly forget the deed? Could it have been that there was nothing left for him to take vengeance upon? Hamlet was celebrated for what, acting like an irresponsible brat that had a weak resolve to avenge his slain father, whose very actions brought only calamity and contempt to Denmark? Of course it should be celebrated for it was he that brought down the very kingdom to Young Fortinbras as a parting gift at the end of his forsaken life. What was celebrated was the very fact that now Young Fortinbras had no motives left for him to carry out. Saddening is it not, that the only way for humanity to achieve the desired haven of peace can only exist when he is not present?
ReplyDeleteQuestion 3, What is the outcome of the fight scene at the end? What thematic conclusions can you draw based on this conclusion?
ReplyDeleteBy the Duel's end both Hamlet and Laetres as well as Claudius are dead or dying, and Gertrude has drank from Claudius' poison cup. Before dying Hamlet tells Horatio, the remaining character, that he must tell what happened here and give young Fortinbras control of Denmark. Nothing is Rotten in the state of Denmark as everyone is dead. Therefore one can conclude that lies, deceit, and murder, which lead to revenge and vengeance create never ending cycles of murder and revenge. The cycle would have continued with Young Fortinbras had Hamlet not already died in his duel with Laertes. It seems to me that Shakespeare is commentating on something similar to what Ariel Dorfman was commenting on in his work Death and the Maiden. Revenge creates vicious cycles which end only when there is no one left to kill. Is this all humans are capable of? or should we recognize that these cycles can be avoided through forgiveness?
Selin's commentary in regards to Pablo's commentary,
ReplyDeleteI found Pablo's post interesting to read. He brings up some worthwhile points. I agree, it is sad that the only way that peace was restored to Denmark is that the cycle of revenge was prematurely cut short.
Why does this scene begin with two clowns trading jokes? Do their jokes make any sense in the context of the play?
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of scene i, one of the clowns asks the other one "What is he that builds stronger than either the mason, the shipwright, or the carpenter?" The other clown answers the gallows-maker because it's frames last a thousand tenants, to which the first clown corrects him by saying it's the gravedigger, since their "houses" will last 'til doomsday. They're kind of talking about the same thing Hamlet realizes through out the play- the same thing he means when he said kings may eat fish that ate a worm, but in the end the worm will eat the king. In the end, nothing matters because we're all just gonna be eaten by worms. I think Shakespeare started this scene off with the clowns talking about this because it emphasizes this point which is kind of recurring through out the play, and also because since this is the scene where Hamlet picks up Yorick's skull and basically shows that he's come to terms with death, his previous thoughts about how nothing matters lead up to his eventual acceptance of death, so the clowns talking about the futility of everything is kind of a gentle reminder that Hamlet has been reflecting over it before he makes another realization related to it.
Paulina commenting in Selin.
ReplyDeleteThe connection that Selin made between Death and the Maiden and Hamlet is really good. I also agree with her statement before that, if Hamlet had lived, then he and Fortinbras would most likely duel and set their two countries at war.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShane's Post
ReplyDeleteWhen Gertrude drinks from the cup, Claudius asks her not to drink and she refuses. Has she ever disobeyed Claudius before?
Gertrude's disobidence to Claudius in Act V is an ironic turning point of her character in the play. From the beginning of the play Gertrude is very loyal to Clauidus, as was necessary to "get away" with their diabolical plan. Gertrude, however, never seems as conniving as Claudius, she appears to be simply following orders and going along with what they have to do. After she has taken part (though indirectly) in killing the king and her husband, she does not have much of a choice, even if she had a change of heart throughout the play. The scene after Hamlet kills Polonius shows much light into this subject. Hamlet is harshly accusing her and interrogating her actions with Claudius. She breaks down and states that his words are like daggers going into her ears. She feels the immense guilt and begins to cry, but when Claudius enters, she continues to follow his orders and submit unto his will.
This last action however, Gertrude takes matters into her own hands, she chooses death over a life of lies and misery. Her only noble and honorable act in the entirety of the play, causes her death. Or maybe she just didnt want to be left out because everyone else was dying and it was the cool thing to do.
What is the outcome of the fight scene at the end? What thematic conclusions can you draw based on this conclusion?
ReplyDeleteThe final outcome is the death of almost every main character. This helps show the futility of hamlet's revenge. He may have achieved his goal but no one was there, including himself, to appreciate it. His plan was not a complete waste, though, while it is true that no one was there to appreciate his actions on a spiritual scale one would say he had avenged his father. Although he killed claudius he solved nothing by doing it other than satisfying his own honor which did not last very long at all.
Kyle commenting on paulina
ReplyDeleteI believe fortinbras would have tried to reason with hamlet, actually. Fortinbras' final appearance gave him a more noble warrior feel than ruthless warmonger in my opinion.
Shane I don’t entirely agree nor disagree with your claim. Certainly Gertrude was forced to succumb to his will mainly because that was the only option women had in such a filth-conservative-religious-ridden world. Gertrude drinks the poison to show Hamlet her resolve that she has really repented for her sins. By accepting death, one is given the opportunity to shed their stained human shell and become pure as the air one breathes. This disobedience led to death. This shows a contrast in how both of the women in this play could only escape the hateful oppressive life as men’s inferiors by death. Ophelia went mad (which is literally the death of the human psyche) and the real Ophelia dies; or it could be the other way around, the real Ophelia on the contrary surfaced. Both women accept death as the only way to leave such chagrin concentrated thick world; to quell their heavy woes.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, it was the hip thing to do.
Does Hamlet realize that he might not come out of this fight alive? See V.ii.225-23
ReplyDeleteWhen Hamlet decides to fight Laertes, i think he came acroos the thought that he might not come out of the fight alive. in this scene Osric tells Hamlet that Laertes isnt that bad when it comes to fighting, and Hamlet replies that he, too, is good and has been practicing. Later in the coversation, however you can see that Hamlet's depressed and doesn't really care if he dies. As he states in the play that everyone has to die, so what difference does it make whether it is sooner or later?
in response to pablos comment...
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned how women in the play could only escape the hateful oppressive life by death. But i think that in this play everyone seems to either kill themselves or kill the ones that stood in their way. No matter if they were male or female, everyone took the easy way out hoping that their sins would either take them to heaven or hell.
Clayton Nocker
ReplyDeleteWhat is the outcome of the fight scene at the end? What thematic conclusions can you draw based on this conclusion?
The play ends with almost everyone involved with Hamlet dead. Gertrude, Claudius, Laertes and Ophelia all end up dying because of Hamlet's mad obsession with revenge. He does end up killing Claudius, avenging his father, but the cost of his mission was so great that any honor he tried to restore was lost. By the end of the play Hamlet had pretty much accepted that his mission would lead to his death but ultimately it still surprised him as is seen in the scene with the gravediggers. The nature of the play's ending goes to show how sometimes the most unlikely of outcomes can become the final outcome (Hamlet's mother who he adored dying and the man who originally set out to destroy Denmark probably ended up ruling it) Shakespeare realized this and crafted the absurdity that often goes hand in hand with such schemes into his play.
Clayton Nocker commenting on Paulina's post:
ReplyDeleteI think that Hamlet's view of life and death didn't really factor in to his plan to kill Claudius. Rather than waiting for the perfect moment to avenge his father he jumped the gun and randomly killed Polonious, assuming it was the king hiding behind the tapestry. Many of the characters in this play are very picky-choosy about how they apply a given belief or conviction to situations, especially Hamlet.
Does Hamlet realize that he might not come out of this fight alive?
ReplyDeleteI think Horatio is the one that puts this in perspective for Hamlet when he offers hamlet to tell his mom that he cant dual. Hamlet tells him no because if he were to die it would eventually happen no matter what. If he were to die at least he would have hurt Laertes. Before this when he killed Polonius the speech he gave about how eventually we all be come worm food made it seemed that Hamlet had come to terms with death.
This is kind off topic but when I was reading Act V scene I where hamlet asks how long the gravedigger has been working in this profession he replies science Hamlet the II was born it seemed to me that his (Hamlet II) destiny was the grave.
Cynthia commenting on Selin’s post
ReplyDeleteWe can conclude that by the deaths of these characters, Denmark is no longer rotten because the people who were in charge of this country are not alive to continue to pollute it with their sinful acts. Selin also makes a great point that if hamlet had not died the cycle of violence would have continued and this would have affected everyone in those to countries.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 3, What is the outcome of the fight scene at the end? What thematic conclusions can you draw based on this conclusion?
ReplyDeleteIn the end of the Act 5 its seems that the truth came out about how taking revange and deciding to kill lead into a lose, lose situation because in the end nobody won. Nobody actually again anything from killing each other; leaving Horatio as the person that would stop the chain by telling Denmark how in the end everyone lost the battle of taking reveange. I believe that Hamlet in the end realized that it wasnt a smart idea of what has happen but was hoping that it would make a diffrance so then it wont happen again by telling Horatio to tell everyone.
In conclusion, i ask myself was it necessary for this to happen to brake this chain that was based on taking reveange so one can feel that joy of taking reveange? It seems to me that the only way people learn not to do some if something horrible happen in the end learning from seeeing but not from experiencing oneself which in this case its Horatio and Society of Denmark
i kind of agree with pablo about how the tragedy affected the society in Demark i disagree that Hamlet was the one to blame for all the bloodness situation that happen becuase in my perfective i beleieve that Clauduis was the one that first started to let his caution of killing his brother brought him to make Hamlet feel like he had to take reveange. But I agree that Hamnlet could had the opportunity to brake the chain by not decideing to take reveange but trying to find a way around to forgive claduis for his fathers death.
ReplyDeleteShane commenting on Selin's post (question 3)
ReplyDeleteI agree with selin's comment. I think that the reader can highly infer that if Fortinbras would have tried to conquer Denmark with Hamlet still alive would have led to more "vicious" blood shed, that being an actual war or a war between hamlet and fortinbras. But obviously forgivness doesnt work, someones gotta die =P
Does Hamlet realize that he might not come out of this fight alive? See V.ii.225-238.
ReplyDelete"Sir, in my heart there was a kind of fighting
That would not let me sleep. Methought I lay
Worse than the mutines in the bilboes. Rashly—
And praised be rashness for it: let us know
Our indiscretion sometimes serves us well
When our deep plots do pall, and that should teach us
There’s a divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough-hew them how we will—"
At the beginning of the scene, Hamlet is discussing with Horatio about how he beat Cladius at his own game.
Specifically in these lines, Hamlet seems to be discussing his premonition of his death without realizing it. In Act IV, Laertes and Cladius have already concluded to kill Hamlet in a fight.
In Hamlet's premonition monologue, he mentions that his heart there was a "fighting". Although this may not be directly talking about the duel and could be talking about his madness, he does talk about divinity. He mentions that in end, the divine will decide whether all of them go to heaven or hell.
"think Shakespeare started this scene off with the clowns talking about this because it emphasizes this point which is kind of recurring through out the play, and also because since this is the scene where Hamlet picks up Yorick's skull and basically shows that he's come to terms with death, his previous thoughts about how nothing matters lead up to his eventual acceptance of death, so the clowns talking about the futility of everything is kind of a gentle reminder that Hamlet has been reflecting over it before he makes another realization related to it. "
ReplyDeleteI agree with Paulina. Also to elaborate on that, I believe that death has finally sunked in for Hamlet. Earlier when he deals with death, he is either avoiding it, or impulsively committing another person's death with little remorse. By seeing Yorick's Skull, I believe Hamlet finally realizes that death does happen. No matter what Hamlet does, he will just end up as "dust".