Additional Hamlet Post

Through the story of Hamlet, I realized that anger overpowers any emotion. Hamlet had to battle through the emotions of love, for Ophelia, faith, to his Mother, and insanity, due to the odd behavior he exhibited. Because of his father's murder, Hamlet was left with no choice but to kill his uncle and avenge the death of the king. It was very interesting to watch when and how Hamlet would kill Claudius, and I, probably like a lot of readers, thought that he would when he was standing over Claudius with the sword whilst he was praying. When he did not kill him on the basis that he thought he would go to heaven, i was angry myself. I got sucked into the play and felt his anger. I wanted him to kill him, if that was me i would of. Although Hamlet did not kill Claudius at this moment, i knew it was inevitable, especially with two full acts remaining. The ending of Hamlet came as no surprise. Shakespeare likes to kill a lot of characters in his play, as he did in Othello. I knew the end would come for Claudius and Hamlet, but i have to say that the death of Ophelia was surprising. Although it is a recurring theme in Shakespeare's works that the love attraction dies, i did not predict this. Queen Gertrude's death was hinted at when Hamlet got a little violent with her. I knew part of his anger was towards his mother for marrying Claudius, and in such short time after his father's death. While my favorite play of Shakespeare's was Julius Caesar, Hamlet's plot and character's were more interesting and the performance we went to see was overwhelming.

Amlet Ack Dwo

I think its very humorous that Shakepeare includes a play inside his play that shares a parralel plot with Hamlet. He truly is a literary genius. This section of the play is very helpful towards Hamlet. When he sees the players performance and the play that they are doing, especially the first player's role, he cant help but feel sick that it directly correlates to his situation. Sick in the sense that he watches this actor have the passion and courage to do what is right, for nothing, and he himself sits back with the rage and anger that builds inside of him. That would get to anyone. Having some actor show you up, unintentionally of course. But i don't think Hamlet should have thought much of it. The actor is only acting, it's not real. If he was in Hamlet's situation he would probably do the same thing and keep the anger inside. The play was only helpful to show Hamlet the clear way to go. He even hatched a plan to help gain revenge on his evil uncle. By adding some lines, he hopes to spark some reaction or expression from his uncle to know once and for all if he did kill his father. Ive got to give a hand to Shakespeare on this one. I mean the plot of this story is great enough, but then he adds it again in the form of a staged performance. The use of repetition is truly great. How does Shakespeare's use of the player convince Hamlet that revenge is necessary? And how does the plot thicken from the use of this character?

Hammy Act Schwam

Vision, perception, and belief. Vision is a word with two similiar meanings. One is "the act or power of sensing with the eyes," while the other meaning is "the act or power of anticipating that which will or may come to be." So Horatio sees the ghost for himself and his vision tells him its real. But could he have also had a vision of the ghost appearing? Maybe something is on Horatio's mind as well as Hamlets. Now seeing this ghost is not enough. Horatio has got to believe that it is real. The definition of belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof." Obviously, during anytime period i would imagine, the belief of an apparition is something hard to accept. The sight of this ghost alone could or could not have been enough for Hoaratio to believe what he saw was in fact real. His perception wants him to believe that what he sees isn't real, but he can't deny the truth in front of him. If I were in his shoes, I would certainly be puzzled by the sighting, but i would also get curious as to why a ghost would be here. He hasn't seen one before, so what actions or events could have taken place to make this apparition appear? I think if Horatio peiced some things together, or got inside Hamlet's head a bit, he could be the main ingredient to set the kingdom right. Maybe he did have a vision? Some questions i could think for people to respond to are as follows. Does Horatio play a key part in Hamlet discovering that his father has a message for him? How does the ghost of Hamlet's father play a key part in the plot?

1984 Final

The role the doctrine O'Brien proclaims to Winston in this passage maintains the system of oligarchical collectivism upon which INGSOC is based and Winston’s ultimate fate at the close of the novel. O’Brien is “brainwashing” Winston in an effort to gain his obedience of the government. He does this by telling him that his belief of the Party’s “truth” doesn’t exist because he is separated from the rest of his peers. O’Brien goes onto explain that Winston’s beliefs are untrue, and are causing this separation. The government wants it to be that the only reality that matters is their reality. So, we can see why thoughts like Winston’s would be seen as concerning to the government. O’Brien makes Winston feel very insecure about his beliefs, as he intended to do. He tells Winston that “if one thinks individually, they are not self-disciplined.” This is kind of an insult to Winston because discipline is a major part of the Oceanic lifestyle. Each day he has to deal with an unsightly routine, and O’Brien’s statement could have damaged Winston’s self-esteem. This statement also shows us that O’Brien is trying to make Winston feel like an outcast, not only an outcast, but an enemy, so to speak, of the government. By convincing people such as Winston that their behavior makes them an outcast, O’Brien hopes to get into their heads so that they believe that they are the only one who has different beliefs. One statement in particular shows the succinct idea of the government: “What-ever the Party holds to be the truth is truth.” If the people of Oceana started to care and listen to each other, their might have been a break through. It seems that the Party tried to cast away those with differing ideas, as they did with Winston, but things like that could have been changed by a slight showing of care or at least interest in the outcast. Unfortunately, the Party prevented that with their oligarchical collectivism.

This doctrine leads to Winston’s final “demise” because of it’s over bearing power and O’Brien’s persuasion. In the end, Winston surrenders himself to the beliefs of INGSOC. It’s ironic that even though he is not killed, we feel that he is dead, on the inside that is. He ignores the thoughts that are his own and adopts the entire belief of everything that O’Brien, INGSOC, and the Party tells him. They say that Winston needed an “act of self- destruction.” They could have easily killed Winston and avoided the time and effort they took in convincing him, but keeping him alive and in the society denies others of having objecting beliefs, especially with Winston accepting the “truth” now. The Party did a great job in keeping everything under complete control. They do this through mind control, isolation, and invasion of privacy. These key acts make the belief that any ideas that contradict the governments are against the law, that the nonbelievers are all alone, and that every where they went they could be watched. It is most dissapionting that Winston ended up giving in to the ways of the Party. He could have been a hope for change in the world if he had stuck to his beliefs.

Writing in Response to Orwell

3. The society that Orwell creates shows us a populus of brainless robots, figuratively speaking. The people represented in this novel have no thought to thier own; they believe what they are told. Orwell could try to be relating to the way his era acted, what with the media giving us the most information, we can only help but to be drawn into what they say. The information we recieve may not always be true, but we sometimes believe it based on others who believe it as well. Much like in 1984, our daily lives are filled with information we recieve from everyone and everything, but for us, we can easily find out which is fact and fiction. In the book, the people could not go against what they thought was wrong, they couldn't even have thoughts that contradicted what they were being told. Orwell uses Newspeak to restrict the people from even thinking of any rebellious thoughts. Doublethink is used as a psychological method that explains how people can forget about the past and any contrdicting ideas they might have. This terrible process allows the Party to gain almost complete mind control, making all the people believe whatever they are told. If the people banded together and acknowledged that they had similar thoughts about everything that contradicted the Party, they would be able to turn the society around. Much like in the real world, when people stop caring and standing up for whats right, wouldn't we also become braindead? It's a scary way to think about it.

Gulliver

a) The questions I have are : How did Gulliver come across Lilliput? Why didnt Gulliver attempt to escape? Why did the Lilliputians show so much hospitality to Gulliver? What is the parralell between Lilliputian politics and the politics of the British government at the time?. I chose excerpts that included information on the government type of Lilliput. I knew that any information i could get on thier form of government would help draw parallels to the british government. I predicted that the questions my partner and I wrote would be similar to the other groups questions.
b) Putting myself in the teacher's shoes is always an enjoyable experience. I like the feeling of showing others, especially my peers, that i'm well informed about the topic on hand and am able to discuss it thoroughly. That was the good part, as well as being able to get my peers reactions to any questions i might of had. The bad was the markers that were hard to get off my hands, and on a serious note, the lack of focus in the classroom took away from the comprehension of the text. The ugly was my poster, not a fan of pink.
c) My plan is the same. I know what i have to do and will execute it accordingly. We will go over the questions we have, the excerpts that help answer those questions, and our explanations of the excerpts meaning.

Blake

1. I agree with the editor's of the textbook that Blake's poetry had the power to enact social change by appealing to imagination. I believe this because his writing is aimed towards a lower class society. When the people read his text, if they can even read, they are going to relate to his use of imagination because thats all that they rely on in thier life. With no money or possesions, people would most likely use thier imagination to make a better life for themselves, a feeling they can relate to Blake's writing. At the time, his words were helpful to most, but in a society such as today, with different social classes, and the middle class being the biggest, the effect of his words my not have as much as an impact.
2. The editors might have included the Parliament as a primary source document because they felt that Blake's words as a poet didn't represent the entire picture of the working man. When you take into consideration the emotions and thoughts of a person, you would most likely read about them in poetry, especially a romantic poet such as Blake. It is the Parliament that tends to see the outer part of the worker, and not comprehend the inner part of the worker, that is, the physical and not the emotional aspect of the working mans life. The Parliament gave me a further knowledge of the worker in the time period, but it was Blakes text that stuck out to me.