Seeing Daughters Go

Seeing her daughters well married obsesses Mrs. Bennet. It just seems socially acceptable. On the other hand, Mr. Bennet isn’t so eager to see them married. The development of both characters in Pride and Prejudice revolves around the idea of their daughter’s marriage. Towards the end of the novel we observe how: “Happy for all her maternal feelings was the day on which Mrs. Bennet got rid of her two most deserving daughters. With what delighted pride she afterwards visited Mrs. Bingley and talked of Mrs. Darcy may be guessed” (Austen, 289). Her obsession with seeing her daughters marry may be explained by her own life as a wife. The juxtaposition of this perception of marriage with that of Mr. Bennet surfaces when Austen states that “Mr. Bennet missed his second daughter exceedingly; his affection for her drew him oftener from home than anything else could do” (Austen, 289). The differences between the two character’s vision of their daughter’s future develops a sense of disunity in their perceptions of parenting. What does Mr. and Mrs. Bennet want for their daughters? How does the relationship between Mr. Bennet and his daughters develop through the novel? How does it compare with Mrs. Bennet’s? How does Mr. Bennet impact Elizabeth in terms of marriage and love?

Marriage And Money

Is Elizabeth truly as moral and integral as the novel makes her seem? Are Elizabeth’s intentions of marrying Darcy truly as pure and distant from economical purposes as we think? In Chapter forty-three we encounter an admiring Elizabeth who, impressed by Darcy’s mansion wishes to be his lover. The narrator describes Elizabeth’s mind as “too full for conversation, but she saw and admired every remarkable spot and point of view. [. . .] They were all of them warm in their admiration; and at that moment she felt that to be mistress of Pemberley might be something!” (Austen, 181). The moral, thoughtful character of the novel seems baffled by Darcy’s wealth and motivated by it to develop a closer relationship with him. What are Elizabeth’s true motivations to change her mind and accept Darcy’s proposal? How does wealth really affect her?

Social Class And Marriage

Social class issues are much more powerful than most people imagine. In Pride and Prejudice relationships and marriages are arranged and ended due to status and Mr. Darcy’s marriage proposal to Elizabeth shows how he still has doubts of their different social status. The narrator describes how “there were feelings besides those of the heart to be detailed; and he was not more eloquent on the subject of tenderness than of pride. His sense of her inferiority—of its being a degradation—of the family obstacles which had always opposed to inclination, were dwelt on with a warmth which seemed due to the consequence he was wounding, but was very unlikely to recommend his suit” (Austen, 142). Even though he seems truthful of his doubts of marrying a lower class the reader is shown the possibility that he may not be accepting this. How does Darcy end up accepting the difference in social class and marrying Elizabeth? Are there relationships in the novel where social class isn’t an impediment? How does social class impact each one of the characters?

Social Acceptance

Is trying to be moral and thoughtful against society’s principles? At least that is what the relationships in Pride and Prejudice show. Women marry for money while men do it for beauty. Is society so simple and decadent? Are there any exceptions to this in the novel? At least we know that societal acceptance plays a fundamental role in the understanding of relationships and marriage. Parental guidance seems to do its own social pressure to marry someone of a determined social class. But, what happens if we go against it? Do we end up lonely? Can we reconcile our true love and passions with society’s inherent pressures?

Pride

As I tried to find an example of a prideful person in the novel, I couldn’t think of a more perfect example than Lady Catherine. The way she looks at her guests, the way she talks and how she refers to other individuals reflect this characteristic trait. While talking to Elizabeth about her skills, including music, she states that “There are few people in England, I suppose, who have more true enjoyment of music than myself, or a better natural taste. If I had ever learned, I should have been a great proficient.” (Austen, 130) For being such an old and supposedly experienced individual, Lady Catherine is simply disastrous at treating others, specially when it comes to appreciating other’s skills. The screenshot above exposes Lady Catherine’s attitude toward Elizabeth, a condescending look accentuates her characteristic trait: pride.

As Lady Catherine continues, she directs her attention at her daughter, of whom she explains that she would have also been prominent in the music realm “if her health had allowed her to apply. I am confident she would have performed delightfully. How does Georgiana get on, Darcy?” (Austen, 130) The sudden look at Lady Katherine’s daughter, her looking down at the ground and the rapid change of topic expose how Lady Katherine is truly disappointed of her daughter, how she searches for excuses behind her unattractiveness and her limited skills. The necessity of being perfect and her desire of hiding her faults supports my vision of a prideful individual.

Age

Does age really mature us? I would argue experience and intelligence is the true key. As seen in Pride and Prejudice, character’s such as Elizabeth are more conscious of their surroundings and the society they live in than other characters such as Lady Catherine de Bourgh. In chapter 29, Lady Catherine criticizes Elizabeth for being so frank with what she feels: “‘Upon my word,’ said her ladyship, “you give your opinion very decidedly for so young a person. Pray, what is your age?” (Austen, 124) Lady Catherine appears as a childlike figure in the movie, not so solemn and experienced as I imagined her. Catherine seems to act based on her whims and not on logic. I truly hate when older people dismiss younger individuals’ perceptions and ideas based solely on their age. I believe that if one is truly brilliant one will listen to what others have to say, regardless of age. Lady Catherine’s questioning deflects what Elizabeth was pointing at, trying to dismiss the possibility that she wasn’t right.

Marrying For the Sake Of It

In both the Pride and Prejudice film and novel versions, Mr. Collins appears as a desperate man who searches for acceptance in his family and community. As seen in the screenshot to the left, when he proposes Elizabeth to marry him, we can see how he appears as a solemn but ridicule figure even failing to gain Elizabeth’s attention. What he is saying doesn’t help him either as he states that his reasons for marrying are “first, that I think it a right thing for every clergyman in easy circumstances (like myself) to set the example of matrimony in his parish. Secondly, that I am convinced it will add very greatly to my happiness; and thirdly, which perhaps I ought to have mentioned earlier, that it is the particular advice and recommendation of the very noble lady whom I have the honour of calling patroness” (Austen, 80). The idea of marrying to satisfy others is completely out of order in my idea of what marrying is for. The idea of a man trying to convince a woman to marry him by stating these reasons for marrying is completely absurd.

Later on in the film, we see how Mr. Collins kneels down and continues trying to convince Elizabeth to marry him. He doesn’t even look at her in the eye, he is just doing it as if it were a task he was assigned. He doesn’t understand why she won’t accept his proposal stating that: “My reasons for believing it are briefly these: it does not appear to me that my hand is unworthy your acceptance, or that the establishment I can offer would be any other than highly desirable.” (Austen, 82) Throughout the novel we have observed how money is fundamental in starting and maintaining a relationship. Maybe this hasn’t changed, but I think it isn’t as explicit now. The idea of Mr. Collins arguing that what she would be getting must be satisfactory comprehends this societal establishment. Mr. Collins’ marriage proposal seems to be an obligation, an action who’s only real motivation rests only in satisfying society’s needs and receiving its approval.

Prideful Vocabulary

-Laconic (45)

-Threadbare (45)

-Atonement (48)

-Affability (50)

-Bequest (60)

For The Better?

Society requires us to have certain requisites to do just about everything in our daily lives. The characters of Pride and Prejudice are no different: “A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, all the modern languages, to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be but half deserved” (Austen, 29). What everything comes down to in getting a job, entering college or being in a team is if you meet the requirements. Why are we obsessed with such things? Because there are too many of us? Because we haven’t found another way to compare different individuals? But is this for the better? I don’t really think so. Just that definition of what a woman should be able to do seems quite limiting to her desires. The idea that we are not perfect may imply that we aren’t supposed to meet up to complex requisites but rather find our unique passions that are born within.

Later on in the novel we are presented with a case in which Miss Bingley offers advice to Darcy as he writes a letter: “The perpetual commendations of the lady on his handwriting, or on the evenness of his lines, or on the length of his letter, with the perfect unconcern with which her praises were received, formed a curious dialogue, and was exactly in unison with her opinion of each” (Austen, 34). These lists of things that a writer must do or the way a woman should be are pretty established. We must play the game and try to meet these requirements in order to succeed. But aren’t we supposed to make a future of our own, to discover the endless possibilities available, to enrich our souls with new different things and to understand our world’s complexities from different points of view including our own?

As I thought about how language may be responsible for such a thing I remembered a sentence from Rayuela which states that language “al igual que el pensamiento, procede del funcionamiento aritmético binario de nuestro cerebro. Clasificamos en sí y no, en positivo y negativo” (Cortázar, 436). We need to make a checklist out of everything. It isn’t enough to be able to describe something but to be able to say what it isn’t. Suddenly tables and graphs start to make sense, we are one thing or another. Meet the requisites or not.

Feelings And Long Sentences

Sentences in Spanish are generally longer. You just have to open any book by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Cortázar, Faciolinze or Sabato to notice how a sentence can be a page long. These sentences generally deal with complex feelings and events that impact the meaning of the book. As I continued reading Pride and Prejudice, I noticed how Austen includes long, complex sentences in much the way our Latin writers do.
“It was generally evident whenever they met that he did admire her; and to her it was equally evident that Jane was yielding to the preference which she had begun to entertain for him from the first, and was in a way to be very much in love; but she considered with pleasure that it was not likely to be discovered by the world in general, since Jane united with great strength of feeling a composure of temper and a uniform cheerfulness of manner, which would guard her from suspicions of the impertinent.” (Austen, 14-15)
In this sentence a narrator exposes what Elizabeth thinks about the relationship between her sister and Mr. Bingley. All of the feelings that make this sentence up could be easily divided and turned into several sentences, but suddenly something would be lost, a line of thought. This 93-word sentence has a spirit of its own, it’s the perception of one of the sisters about the other, it shouldn’t be divided into any simpler forms as it reveals more of Elizabeth than of the subject it deals with.

Austen uses these long sentences to narrate the story and support what has been said by incorporating the opinion of one of the characters as seen in page 25:
“The sisters, on hearing this, repeated three or four times how much they were grieved, how shocking it was to have a bad cold, and how excessively they disliked being ill themselves; and then thought no more of the matter: and their indifference towards Jane when not immediately before them, restored Elizabeth to the enjoyment of all her original dislike” (Austen, 25).
Commas in this sentence provoke a sense of laughter when employed to separate the different elements in a list referring to the different reactions the sisters have towards being sick and Jane’s health state. In the same sentence we are also presented with Elizabeth’s reaction to the sister's comments and her final change in state of mind. Given the thematic of the book, Austen’s long sentences are perfect for the drawn out complexity of human thoughts and emotions.

First Sentences

As I ventured into the world of Pride and Prejudice I noticed how the first sentence of each chapter is critical to understanding the meaning of the section. Yes, this happens in almost all novels but not quite with this intensity. The first chapter begins with a generalization of the role of a rich, single man in society, something the rest of the chapter elaborates in detail. We see how the arrival of a young man, Mr. Bingley, forces the parents of young girls to bond with him, including Mr. Bennet, who states that he will not go to talk with him. The first sentence of Chapter 2 juxtaposes with the impression we have of Mr. Bennet from Chapter 1: “Mr. Bennet was among the earliest of those who waited on Mr. Bingley” (Austen, 3). The first five pages reveal a playful character in Mr. Bennet and a solemn, motherly figure in Mrs. Bennet, completely devoted to finding
wealthy husbands for her daughters.

The beginning of the third chapter “Not all that Mrs. Bennet, however, with the assistance of her five daughters, could ask on the subject was sufficient to draw form her husband any satisfactory description of Mr. Bingley” (Austen, 5). The reader rapidly discovers how the first sentence reveals the main subject of the chapter, the first interactions between the Bennets and Mr. Bingley. The early structure of the book resembles a newspaper article, a headline, or the chapter’s first sentence followed by a body which captures the story presented. This structure helps the plot be effective in conquering the reader's attention and giving him the main points of the idea the author tries to make.

The fourth chapter does much the same with the first sentence in which the narrator states that “When Jane and Elizabeth were alone, the former, who had been cautious in her praise of Mr. Bingley before, expressed to her sister how very much she admired him” (Austen, 9). The chapter deals with the relationship between the Bennet’s daughters, how varied their personalities are and how they begin to interact with Mr. Bingley. The power of each of these first sentences is as strong as the importance of the headlines of newspaper articles with the difference these sentences completely capture the readers attention to continue the Bennets/Bingley journey.

Life, Death And Intermediates

As Hamlet’s death approaches, we are overwhelmed with conclusions about the nature of death and its impact in a human’s life. Hamlet questions how death doesn’t discriminate individuals, it takes all individuals as humans and not for whom they are: “Do you think Alexander looked o’ this / fashion i’ th’ earth?” (V.i.204-205). The idea of becoming dust, of having a smell grow in your bones and live on forever in our bodies comprehends the importance of our lives, not our deaths. As Hamlet confronts his imminent death and how he will transform into a lifeless skull, we are presented with a dispassionate individual who understands his existence as the culmination of his suffering, as the importance of acting on behalf of his father and his own desires. In the screenshot to the right we see this individual, one who tries to comprehend what life and death truly signify, one who sees and confronts death in this skull, the bones of what once was a joyful individual.

In the preceding moments to Hamlet’s death we are exposed to the character’s reflections on destiny and afterlife as he states: “There is a / special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be / now, ‘tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be / now; if it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all” (V.ii.233-236). As we try to comprehend life and how the decisions we make should or are reflected in our afterlives we are presented with the crudest shadow form of our existence, that which reveals our fears, our impotence and loneliness as we journey on to our final quest. The complexity of such an understanding is captured by the screenshot to the left, the reflection of a fractioned Hamlet, an individual who hopes to be ready for that unavoidable next step.

Polonius: Madness, Power And Responsibility

In the second part of Discovering Hamlet, we are presented with a depiction of each of the character’s importance, roles and interesting facts in Hamlet. One of the character’s the video presents, Polonius, is exposed as a powerful individual who is absorbed in trying to be intimate with the monarchy, losing touch with his family. Edward Jewesbury, who plays Polonius in Jacobi’s version of the play explains that his character “is usually played rather more as a joke figure and as a buffoon, but he is a minister of state [. . .] he obviously has an enormous amount of authority and power” (Jewesbury, 2:13-2:42). It is interesting how powerful individual’s are depicted in satire, comedy and plays as buffoons, individuals who are simply too ridiculous in their actions, probably due to the power they have, to be presented in any other way. I think it is very worrisome to know that a lunatic is handling a country, to be able to go to sleep thinking about what could be happening in that instant due to the poor choices one’s representative is making.

Jewesbury continues describing his character as he mentions that “Laertes and Ophelia are Polonius’s children, so he does have a sudden feeling of responsibility. I don’t think he has pretty much affection for them, even for Ophelia. You see, he is a statesman, I think the focus of his attention is his work, his relationship with the monarchy, with the state. His family are, I think, secondary to him” (Jewesbury, 2:52-3:23). Definitely Polonius has some strange relationship with his daughter, as we see in the dialog of Act I, Scene iii, where he exposes his contradictory and insane feelings and ideas about how she should proceed with Hamlet. Power corrupts Polonius, to the point where we don’t have a clear understanding of his relationship with his children, the only one’s who show true love and consideration for him.

In the picture to the left we see how Jewesbury chooses to act Polonius as if convinced by what he is saying, exposing a truly mad character who tries to use the power he has to order his children around. Polonius’s grim and semi-erect position reflect the authority he has in Denmark and how serious he is compared to other characters in the play such as Claudius. Overall we are presented with a self-absorbed, confused individual who brings laughter to a dense play. The juxtaposition of such a character with reflective Hamlet or the worried but confident Claudius generates an interesting depiction of the powerful, male roles in the play.

Not So Fast…

T. S. Eliot’s, Hamlet and His Problems, exposes some impressive insight about Hamlet’s transcendence and importance compared to Shakespeare’s other plays. Eliot exposes how “Qua work of art, the work of art cannot be interpreted; there is nothing to interpret; we can only criticize it according to standards, in comparison to other works of art; and for "interpretation" the chief task is the presentation of relevant historical facts which the reader is not assumed to know.” (Eliot) The idea of interpreting a play involves the concept of comparing, of correlating an individual piece of art in a wider spectrum of literature, of understanding the influence of the sole piece in a time period. T. S. Eliot helps us understand the importance of such an interpretation process, one which he does with Hamlet, thus questioning the play’s accepted place in literature.

The author states that the birth of such a play as Hamlet must have roots in other plays, noticing how influential Thomas Kyd’s, The Spanish Tragedy and the Ur-Hamlet, must have been for Shakespeare. I consider that being truly original is impossible. There is always a preceding event, object, or piece of art that sparks an individual’s mind to do or have an opinion of a certain thing. There is a necessity in human beings to understand something palpable in order to have an appreciation of the world, this is no different for playwrights. I like the idea of being able to track down the inspiration or motivation of influential art pieces, since it gives us a deeper, more transcendent look at the existence of the thematic involved.

Eliot explains how “Coriolanus may be not as "interesting" as Hamlet, but it is, with Antony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare's most assured artistic success. And probably more people have thought Hamlet a work of art because they found it interesting, than have found it interesting because it is a work of art. It is the "Mona Lisa" of literature.” (Eliot) As individual’s personalities and professions vary, the importance and focus with which an individual approaches literature varies. For me, literature is a break of one’s struggles and dilemmas, the moment in which I can put my mind to work in another’s problems, views and questioning. For a writer this may not be the case. It may be to understand how their colleagues use different stylistic resources to expose the thematic of their creation, or other literary elements. I consider one’s opinion to be valid within one’s context as it is the direct effect of the interaction with a certain event. For this reason Hamlet is considered such an "interesting” play, probably Shakespeare’s most transcendent one, as it reflects human beings biggest difficulty, picking that personality, that possibility.

Dream-Interpretation Vocabulary

-Touchstone
-Scanty

-Forlorn

-Appease

-Bereave

-Romping

Remorse

Sorrowful Claudius appears in Act III Scene iii, desperate for holy forgiveness. Claudius appears alone in a room, illumined by a hanging light which constructs on his solitude. As he tries to ask for forgiveness he states: “Pray can I not, / Though inclination be as sharp as will” (Act III, Scene iii). We see him looking down at his hands, those hands that murdered his brother for ambition, and he doesn’t see how he can be dissolved of his crime, for his will isn’t righteous enough to be forgiven. It is interesting how hands are related to acting, to deciding what to do. The idea of having Claudius look down at his hands reflects such an incapacity of action, of remorse for his actions.

Shakespeare continues presenting this remorse, forgiveness theme when Claudius asks: “What if this cursèd hand / Were thicker than itself with brother’s blood? / Is there not rain enough in the sweet heavens / To wash it white as snow?” (Act III, Scene iii). Is there a limit for forgiveness? Is there a crime that can’t be forgotten? Claudius brings this up, as he continues looking at those sinful hands, at those perpetrators of the living. I think it is interesting how Claudius develops this sense of guilt through Act III, how the results of Hamlet’s fathers assassination doesn’t begin with other individuals but with Claudius himself.

I don’t know how somebody that has killed must feel like, but I have felt remorse for my actions. As I consider Claudius’ sin, I question the idea of sinning, is there some occasion where assassination is moral? Are there exceptions to the moral grounds? It is interesting how so many people are involved with determining this, and how varied laws are around the world on the subject of murder. Is killing somebody in Colombia somewhat different from killing someone in the US, for example? How can there be international consensus in such matters? Who has the final word? The church? The government? Ourselves? Maybe guilt is the ultimate form of law, the universal crime punisher for all humans with a conscience.

Mischief

Act III Scene ii exposes Hamlet’s decision to confront Claudius in terms of his father’s assassination through a play which exposes such treason in a comical way. After the first scene, Ophelia asks Hamlet “What means this, my lord? / [. . .] It means mischief” (Act III, Scene ii). I find it interesting how the complex character observed in the first scene becomes so simplistic, so reserved in his decisions, in his responses to such questions.

The conversation between Ophelia and Hamlet may generate questioning around the subject of mischief, defined as the “playfulness that is intended to tease, mock, or create trouble” by Oxford dictionaries. Following this line of thought, Hamlet reflects on his own actions, as deciding to create trouble through the presentation of this play. Shakespeare is creating a situation of laughter within a tragedy, a situation that serves as a break for the troubled reader, the individual who has seen Hamlet develop strength to act upon what he thinks is the correct thing to do.

David Tennant’s version of this scene exposes a playful Hamlet, an individual who is making the best out of this difficult situation, looking for answers in his taping of Claudius’ reactions. I like this modern-version appreciation seen in the idea of having Hamlet record his uncle’s reactions, as it exposes the true mischief in his actions, the steps he is taking towards revenge and the necessity to employ all the available resources in his enterprise. Mischief becomes the central actor in this scene, as we are immersed in the play within the play, with all of its splendor and revenge.

Oh, The Silence!

In David Tennant’s version of Act III we encounter Hamlet’s long, emotive soliloquy, acted in such a way that we are immersed in each word, in every pause, in the silence evoked by our questions. Tennant appears leaning on a wall, as if trying to look for any kind of help, of company, of support. We are asked to perceive Hamlet’s dilemma as the dilemma of humankind, to believe in the suffering of the human mind when it searches for a distant, complex answer, that answer which will determine our future. Tennant glares at the future to come, at the results and consequences of the decisions he will make, without any confidence, without assertiveness.

The actor ponders for a full ten seconds after delivering Shakespeare’s most famous line, until he states: “Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer / The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, / or to take arms against a sea of troubles / And, by opposing, end them” (Act III, Scene i). Tennant’s face, illumined by a distant light, looking upwards reflects the individual’s solemnity when pondering such a question, to decide whether to act or not to, to be partial in such a matter as one’s father’s assassination, to be able to live with the suffering or act upon it, end the farce. This question, the question of taking action, becomes more and more important as life progresses. The impossibility of changing the past, of having to live the consequences and results of our decisions, makes the process of such a task as decision-making fundamental in our quest for happiness.

By choosing something we are thus opposing the other choice, deciding to terminate a whole new set of new realities and possibilities. I think it is very interesting how Shakespeare chooses the word being, instead of acting for Hamlet’s first soliloquy line. Such a decision probably reflects how our choices are reflected in what we become, in the be part of living and deciding, not in the act itself. Considering how language must be a tool for a writer, not an enemy, explains how we must understand this question in its overwhelming expression, its huge umbrella-like display, as the question that understands all questioning, as the question that creates all questioning.

Acting Oneself

In the Hamlet episode of This American Life I found out fascinating things about how a criminal understands and appreciates Hamlet as the reflection of conflicts they have had throughout their lives. I find it interesting how Jack Hitt explains that “this production was different because this is a play of a man pondering a violent crime and its consequences, performed by violent criminals living out those consequences” (7:00-7:11). Through the episode we can see how these individuals are so fond of the play, of how Hamlet’s doubts and conflicts resemble their own, that performing Shakespeare has become a type of therapy, involving the understanding of their role for the play, for the community in which they dwell in. It becomes fundamental to understand Hamlet in our context, to appreciate the complexities of such a drama and apply them to our own, in such a way that we are bonded with the character and his dilemma.

My reading of Hamlet has shown me how a concept or play that was valid long ago can still be valid today by connecting it with a human dilemma such as deciding when to act, or just letting things follow their regular course of action. I think the different versions of Hamlet reflect just that, how the language can transport such complex human concepts and dilemmas though time, how it is possible to understand the situation of another human being as time progresses, as we have less time left to take a decision, to act or not to do so. The questions Hamlet invokes are dependent on our context, on what decisions we must make for our survival, well-being etc. but we are still forced to understand a more general concept of the play, the portrayal of all individuals as reasoning individuals, that even though they might know what’s right, they not necessarily wind up doing exactly that.

One of the individuals Hitt interviews is Hutch, alias ‘The Killer Whale’, who raises an interesting question regarding Hamlet’s state of mind: “Now, if I’m strong enough to believe in ghosts, then I’m strong enough to believe what the ghosts tell me” (16:16-16:24). I hadn’t thought about or questioned Shakespeare’s position regarding the role of ghosts and the rules involving their interactions with the characters, but I understand what Hutch is trying to say: How is it possible that a man who has heard from his own father that he was killed by his brother in order to become king not believe what he is being told? Why does Hamlet take so long questioning this theory before he acts upon it? I consider that the answer resides in the question: “To be, or not to be?” For what would be left of the drama and play if there weren’t such a question? What would be our role in the world, if a ghost was telling us what truly happened, how we should act? Is the ghost real or a part of his own psyche coming up with its own conclusions and suspicions? What would be of life if there were only one path instead of two or more? Life would become incredibly boring!

Innovation and Shakespeare

How can a play like Hamlet live for such a long time and still be innovative? In David Tennant’s interpretation of the conspiring Hamlet we find an individual who has decided to act upon what he knows, in this case, trying to expose how his uncle is responsible for his father’s death. This modern, technological portrayal of Hamlet shows the protagonist’s wish to be alone through the pulling of the camera installed in the room he will conspire in. The original lines of this scene fit in perfectly with the actions as Hamlet states: “Now I am alone” (Act II, Scene ii) David Tennant opts for exaggerated facial expressions that expose Hamlet’s feelings and thoughts. It is necessary to understand how these expressions fit in with the play, specially with a modern version. It is interesting how the props contrast with the language of the play, at times it seems as if they can’t both subsist, but David Tennant’s acting makes this possible as our attention is directed to him, instead of the scenery and words.

David Tennant tries his best at giving Shakespeare’s words a meaning in this modern context. Long pauses, exaggerated actions and direct camera contact make this possible. The actor suddenly adopts a low position and conspiring look when he states: “For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak / With most miraculous organ” (Act II, Scene ii). It is interesting how valid this interpretation is, how the tone and visual exposition of Hamlet becomes so important in making the viewer understand the development of Hamlet’s plan of tricking his uncle. The direct eye contact with Hamlet intimidates the viewer who has changed his perception of this impotent, sorrow individual for a strong, conspiring one.

Kenneth Branagh’s interpretation of Hamlet is much more solemn and classic. This is obviously due to the nature of his Hamlet version, but can still result impressive how the actor seems convinced by his ideas and feelings and how the soliloquy becomes a sot of exposition or explanation of these conclusions. The screenshot on the left demonstrates how Branagh is exposing rather than acting Hamlet, how it is important for him to make the words relevant to the acting when Hamlet states: “O God, a beast that wants discourse of reason / Would have mourned longer!), married with my uncle, / My father’s brother” (Act I, Scene ii). The individual’s sorrow is exposed through the tone of his voice and the relevant facial expressions. Compared to David Tennant’s interpretation, we find a troubled individual, who takes his time to expose his feelings and is constantly trying to prove himself of what he is thinking. Innovative acting is necessary for both plays, as Hamlet becomes immersed in his troubles, and Shakespeare transcends with his plays.

One Person, Two Characters

In the second half of Krapp’s Last Tape, we observe how the old, sad-looking version of Krapp has two completely opposite personalities, one of which tries to hide and destroy the other, by pausing the tape, throwing out the remaining of that old self. This is seen when Krapp begins recording his a new tape in which he states: “Just been listening to that stupid bastard I took myself for thirty years ago, hard to believe I was ever as bad as that.” (Beckett) It is interesting how Krapp seems to be an alter ego of Beckett, who had his own drinking and love problems. Maybe he had these same internal conflicts, by which he was able to capture this personality conflict. The superior Krapp, the one that tries to hide his true self, is the one who laughs at his aspirations and drinking problems, the one who tries to eliminate his pain in the alcohol and the tape recordings.

But we rapidly see how the other self runs up to scream how he is feeling, how beautiful were “The eyes she had” (Beckett). It becomes monumentally important for the reader to see Krapp’s true personality and to understand the suffering and the complexities of his life that have made him dependant in alcohol and alienated form society. The juxtaposition of both characters, the defying, strong Krapp, and the weak but truthful individual who abruptly shows up in the play, make up a scene of trickery, a play of one person but several characters. The visual Krapp’s Last Tape understands this relationship between Krapp’s personalities, exposing them in the facial expressions and actions of the character as seen on the screen shot to the right.

The final resolution Krapp makes, of listening to the whole part of his love for the woman, exposes how the weaker but truthful self manages to win over the other, to expose the truth of his feelings about love and what he has become. The old Krapp listens to his younger self stating how they “lay there without moving. But under us all moved, and moved us, gently, up and down, and from side to side” (Beckett). The tape becomes the old Krapp’s possibility to escape, to remember and cherish that moment in which he was happy, in which he wished be back again at. Does life become this? The limited list of memories, or can one arrange it to be unique in its individual, day to day essence?

Conserved Moments

In Krapp’s Last Tape, Beckett captures the image of a lonely, alcoholic man, and slowly uncovers the life of this individual. The written play is extremely specific, something that the presentation shows. Beckett describes how the sixty-nine year old Krapp eats a banana and he suddenly “has an idea, puts banana in his waistcoat pocket, the end emerging, and goes with all the speed he can muster backstage into darkness. Ten seconds. Loud pop of cork. Fifteen seconds. He comes back into light carrying an old ledger and sits down at table” (Beckett). The image of Krapp limping towards the end of a corridor is well represented in the presentation, as seen on the right, where the actor is able to demonstrate the feelings and conditions of his character. I find it interesting how specific a screenplay can be, and how useful it becomes to act a certain play. This is somewhat different to Shakespeare, who does include some basic instructions of entrances and exits but doesn’t focus that much on the specific actions and props the actors should have.

As the play continues we find ourselves immersed in the discussion of Krapp’s life and feelings. We soon discover that he is a drinker, and a disappointed individual, as his younger version states in the tape: “Hard to believe I was ever that young whelp. The voice! Jesus! And the aspirations! (Brief laugh in which Krapp joins.) And the resolutions! (Brief laugh in which Krapp joins.) To drink less, in particular” (Beckett). It is interesting how the Beckett captures the essence of his character through the tape recordings, through the reflections of the individual about his own life. It becomes the duty of the viewer/reader to decompose the play into simpler concepts, the alcohol dependency of the individual, his love problems etc. The possibility of having both versions of Krapp in the same scene, basically talking and laughing at each other is the element that makes the play possible, the concept that makes us see what this individual truly is, seeing what is happening in his reactions to the tape, as seen on the left.

The author captures the essence of remembering, of understanding the moments we have live through the tape recordings and the character’s expressions. In a scene the young version of Krapp sais: “Moments. Her moments, my moments. (Pause.) The dog's moments.” (Beckett) I find it interesting how Beckett includes the “moments”-theme in his play. Clearly what we see in the recordings and the old version of Krapp are the main events and narrations that marked his life. The possibility of understanding a life of observation is made possible by these “moments”, the glimpses to the past in which our personalities and inner feelings are demonstrated. The suffering Krapp exposes when listening to his own voice remembering him of those “moments”, shows how a troubled life he has had and how the recordings are all that he is left with. This makes me reflect on my own little “moments”, how they will be seen, if not in tape at least in memory.

Style, Style, Style

“In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.” (McCarthy, 150)

F. Scott Fitzgerald: And they walked on, against that intense, surrounding past.

“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne ceaselessly into the past.” (Fitzgerald, 180)

Cormac McCarthy: They continued on the road in which all things were of the past.

A Promising Road

Even though I haven’t read Hamlet, I consider I have some understanding of its significance for English and the literary world. This introduction to the film let me understand how monumental it was for the director to film Hamlet, since he states that “there had been lots of films of Hamlet and it seemed entirely impossible that I would be allowed to do it” (Branagh, 1:29-1:34). It is interesting how a piece of art develops with the years to become an icon of that culture, to grow into a monument of life, of that time period, transcending into history. The idea of having a piece of art influence or generate new concepts, new art pieces, new educational guidelines is astonishing. Following this line of thought I wonder: What will be our time period’s legacy? Who will be remembered or better yet change human history forever? What impact will today’s writings and artistic creations pieces have in our culture and future? Will there be a another artistic genius who will have such an impact in the world like Shakespeare?

The possibility of seeing this film version of Hamlet is reveled when Branagh states: “Listen, there has never been on screen, the full length Hamlet” (Branagh, 2:49-2:53). I believe it is very difficult to create a good film from a book or play. I would even state that I haven’t seen a film that surpasses or even equals a book I’ve read in my entire life. Normally what happens is that the film has to eliminate several scenes in order to end up with a reasonable length, also limiting the viewers understanding of the plot, ending up with a disappointing version of the complex ideas expressed in the book or play. Even though I expect some scenes, dialogs or soliloquies to be cut out, I hope this isn’t another lousy version of the written art piece.

From my AP US History class I have learned that most of the people involved with film versions of historic recounts and plays normally agree to participate not because of the economical aspect, but because they are truly fascinated by what they are doing. The director states how “I hope you enjoy us enjoying the film” (Branagh, 7:28-7:31). This makes me reflect on how these individuals are truly giving the best of themselves in order for this film to happen. I believe the created piece at times has to be seen as something in its own right, an illegitimate child of the original piece. The cultural significance of this film as with most of these creations hopefully will break patterns, innovate, surprise and rattle our cage.

The Bodyguard’s Tale

Once an officer of the great Air Force,
I ended up changing my life’s hard course.
Yes, I ended up as a bodyguard,
One more who received Mr. Nacho’s card.
But I hated my job, for I loved cash,
And wanted lots of it in a short flash.

After I had worked twenty years of life,
I could say I had been stabbed with a knife,
Shot five times, and kidnapped twice.
I was fed up of playing cards and dice,
Of receiving a low pay for being in cars,
Having a Glock and more weapons of mars.

The idea of defending a man,
Who had made a fortune in a huge clan,
Still makes my stomach revolt in despair.
For Nacho had killed hundreds, wasn’t fair,
Nor moral with his friends in the government,
And hoped dead or drawn in an accident.

On my disastrous last trip to the FARC,
Of which I was let free by a friend, Mark,
I negotiated a deal with him,
A complot to kill alias Ibrahim,
My one and only boss, for a huge sum.
And so I was compromised for my bum.

The day we killed Nacho I went to church,
Prayed for mercy and good luck in my search
With the money I was about to earn,
Of love and happiness, before I burn,
As all humans do with their sin, lament,
And unhappiness due to their loved cent.

That Friday I checked my bullet-proof vest,
Loaded my guns’ mags and wished for the best.
I took a cab to Nacho’s huge mansion,
Prepared the car in its full expansion,
Joked a bit with my colleagues and the maids,
And spoke to my boss of the route’s parades.

We left at ten and by twelve we met them,
They had parked at the corner’s apothem,
With a couple M60’s on the trucks,
barbed wire on the road, and in a big ruck.
I sat by Nacho’s side, in the car’s back,
And as we slowed down beside the truck’s black,
Rusty machine-gun, I took out my gun,
and shot him twice by his dark, swollen gum.

As I ran out, the convoy burst in flames,
They shot incendiary rounds at the frames,
Killing all, destroying the evidence.
I stayed there in the police’s absence,
Until they came, heard my story and left,
Sending some cranes and repairing the cleft.

Some days later I received my money,
And left the country to find my honey.
I don’t feel bad, for I got rid of pest,
And enjoyed life’s wonderful flashing fest.

Beyond Bonding

Is life truly about where you’re going, or the process itself? As I read The Road, my reading objective was to know what was going to happen to the boy and his father. Were they going to survive? Were they going to find other people? Where would they end up? As I finished the book, with the father’s tragic death, I reflected on my original reading objective, and I concluded that the story itself isn’t what makes McCarthy’s book interesting, it is captivating because of the road it creates as we read, for the path we must travel on. The author is able to give us some insights about traveling, appropriate for this quest: “Maybe you should always be on the lookout. If trouble comes when you least expect it then maybe the thing to do is to always expect it” (McCarthy, 77). I find it interesting how McCarthy captures what both characters are thinking and feeling without leaving behind the human side to the story, the idea of struggling to survive with another human being. The same way the father tried to maintain a good relationship with his son, trying to cheer him up and answering all of the questions he asked, McCarthy does the same with us, giving us the necessary information to continue on this journey, to understand the suffering, to imagine what it would be like to experience these extremes and wonder how we would cope.

The way McCarthy makes the reader view his story, ensures we are emotionally bonded with the characters. The author exploits this bond in order to make everything that the characters think or feel, affect us tremendously. As seen in the father’s reflection when he boards the ship and looks for supplies, hope was something he was running out of: “It occurred to him that he took this windfall in a fashion dangerously close to matter of fact but still he said what he had said before. That good luck might be no such thing. There were few nights lying in the dark that he did not envy the dead” (McCarthy, 119). The idea of envying the dead, of hoping to loose our lives in order to be satisfied, is extremely tragic. It seems unnatural to envy something most individuals run away from, but it seems reasonable after loosing all faith, of not being able to even believe in luck. This line of thought makes his story verisimilar, while appreciating what the reader must be feeling with every word.

The concept of a road, of a journey or quest, implies in its own definition it must have a beginning and an end, in the sort of way a book has one. The narrator of The Road is able to warn us of this end when he describes how “they camped and when he lay down he knew that he could go no further and that this was the place where he would die” (McCarthy, 144). The road we share with the characters, the road to bonding with our surroundings, be it human or other forms of existence, transforms itself into a rule of living as the journey comes to an end, a rule of existence, of creating a relationship with that which we care about, with that which surrounds us. McCarthy gives us his concept of living, of taking the journey, one that transcends death due to the bond we create with our surroundings.

Reading Once And Again

I don’t really re-read books. I know one should, one changes with time so the second time you read you find new interesting things, you find more meaning to every word, you enjoy remembering how reading it for the first time was, etc. As I read Sonya Chung’s, The Great Gatsby Revisited, I found it extremely interesting how it was for her to read this book as an English teacher, after having read it in high school and college. The Great Gatsby definitely has some incredible sentences, which Chung shows and talks about: “Describing why a sentence is beautiful is a little like trying to describe what chocolate tastes like. For me, Fitzgerald’s sentences are somehow both profoundly weighted and soaring, confident in their matter-of-factness and indulgent in their romanticism” (Sonya Chung). The solemnity and truthfulness of the narrator stands out in this novel, helping Fitzgerald explain complex feelings and perceptions his characters are experimenting and making his novel verisimilar. I agree with Chung’s perception of Fitzgerald sentences, they truly stand out by themselves, showing a complete and believable truth of what is happening, giving the reader enough information of everything that is going on, without being repetitive or too out of order.

Chung appreciates Fitzgerald’s descriptions of the symbolic eyes and Daisy’s voice, something interesting that I hadn’t noticed in my first read of The Great Gatsby. “Both haunt me, they vibrate in my mind and ear well after reading; I hear Daisy and see those gigantic eyes much more vividly than I recall Gatsby himself. With these iterative descriptions, Fitzgerald impresses upon us the complex quality of Gatsby’s allure/repulsion to Daisy…” (Sonya Chung). I believe Fitzgerald’s novel is able to grasp the essence of the time-period with a strong narrator, one that has close relationships with all the characters, and strong descriptions of meaningful events, objects and places that make the story closer to the reader, even as if he was Nick, that individual who experiences the intrigue, violence and corruptness of this society. As with the sentences, Chung understands how significant the descriptions are to make The Great Gatsby stand out, make of itself a classic that both shows the society of this era of artistic and economical transformation.

Re-reading The Great Gatsby made Chung find new connections between Fitzgerald’s narrative and Hitchcock’s thematic and story development as seen when she states that the “yellow car/mistaken identify device, upon which the story’s climax and resolution hinge, feels almost Hitchcockian in its nod to the murder-mystery mixup. Who’s driving which car and why convincingly fuels (literally) Gatsby’s inevitable demise, Tom and Daisy’s flight, and Nick’s final revulsion towards the excesses of Eastern privilege” (Sonya Chung). Developing the climax of a story around an object, such as the yellow car, makes the story both reflect the materialism, economic change and superficiality of the era, helping the reader understand the context and connect the main ideas with one common object. I hadn’t reflected upon this similarity between Fitzgerald’s and Hitchcock’s style, both employing their artistic means of communicating a central idea through the significance of an object. Re-reading now proves being a much more interesting tool than it was before, a tool to help us remember and push us to discover.

Remembering, Yet Creating

In The Road, McCarthy employs different techniques to involve past, present and future with the characters, thus capturing the essence of the plot with more vivid detail. Through his narrator, the author is able to make conclusions of what the characters are feeling, as when he includes a reflection of what memories are for the father, stating that: “He thought each memory recalled must do some violence to its origins. As in a party game. Say the word and pass it on. So be sparing. What you alter in the remembering has yet a reality, known or not” (McCarthy, 67). I find it extremely interesting how remembering, the past, is so important for the characters given the circumstances they are living in. In repeated occasions we find the adult wondering how to describe how the world was to his son, something that makes me think about how everything we do, the choices we make will be shown in history. Definitely there is something violent in remembering, in the altering of what was, to be able to share it, in tying it up with words and limiting it to the wish of the individual. How many times have we heard someone telling an event we were witness to and thinking that wasn’t like that?

The narrator is able to capture what is happening through the feelings of the characters and the conclusions of its essence, as seen when he describes how “somewhere two hunted animals trembling like ground-foxes in their cover. Borrowed time and borrowed world and borrowed eyes with which to sorrow it” (McCarthy, 67). The precarious situation of McCarthy’s characters are represented by their relationship with the surroundings, in the feeling of only being able to borrow the time, world and eyes to sorrow about what is happening, in a certain voyeuristic way you are able to do so. The impossibility of the characters of reflecting on what has happened, constantly being on the run, unable to sit down and think, makes us their judges, acting as their minds to make opinions about their decisions and what is happening around them.

McCarthy experiments with the words, the commas and specially the apostrophes to indicate interesting elements of the content of his novel. The narrator describes how “There were times when he sat watching the boy sleep that he would begin to sob uncontrollably but it wasnt about death. He wasnt sure what it was about but he thought it was about beauty or about goodness. Things that he'd no longer any way to think about at all” (McCarthy, 66). In this description, the author is able to make us understand how different it now was for the father to feel about what was happening, how different is the reason for which he is crying than the one that the reader would think. More than that, McCarthy is able to experiment with the missing apostrophe in the word wasn’t, probably reflecting the new world idea, the concept of needed invention in his writing. The reality of lacking everything being the constant. The possibility of understanding and appreciating more than one perception of the story, the past, present and future of the characters enriches the content of the story, helping the author win his readers’ thoughts about his novel.

Parenting A New Culture

There is a moral obligation with parenting, at least that is what good parents can agree upon. The Road exploits this natural feeling, this bond between father and son, giving us an interesting perception of what an individual will do for his breed. The narrator describes how “He wrapped him in his own parka and wrapped him in the blanket and sat holding him, rocking back and forth. A single round left in the revolver. You will not face the truth. You will not” (McCarthy, 35). The difficulties of this journey for survival would easily destroy most individual’s hopes and strength for survival, at least mine. One could ask survive for what? But McCarthy uses the moral obligation involved with parenting to make this verisimilar, having these descriptions of an individual trying to have faith and continue in the journey, to not give up, to try not to face the truth.

The complexity of creating another world, one which would come after that which we call ours, involves creating new customs, as the protagonist states: “All of this like some ancient anointing. So be it. Evoke the forms. Where you've nothing else construct ceremonies out of the air and breathe upon them” (McCarthy, 38). It is common knowledge that one needs a culture, one must have cultural identity in order to exist, making it an urgent necessity in these survivors to create their own, their unique form of living, of coping with this new reality. The details involved in this writing are difficult to imagine, the amounts of work needed to make a reader feel that he or she is living this story, understanding what is happening. The cultural detail is just one of them but without it the whole novel’s feasibility is probably threatened.

McCarthy continues elaborating this world’s culture in unique and interesting ways as seen in the narrator’s description of the flute the father gives his son: “After a while he fell back and after a while the man could hear him playing. A formless music for the age to come. Or perhaps the last music on earth called up from out of the ashes of its ruin” (McCarthy, 39). The author plays with the perception one must take of each event, as seen by the opposites presented in these sentences, the one that considers this the new music of the new world and the one that considers it the remaining of the previous human existence. The existence of such a debate is given to the text by the human element in the text, the parenting of this new culture.

Emotionally Bonded

While reading The Road it is extremely hard not to imagine what would one feel, what would one do if you were in that extreme situation. One is immersed in the descriptions of day by day life, just how McCarthy wants us to read it, to understand, to feel, to experience the horror. As the two individuals see a corpse in the street, the son asks his dad: “You forget some things, dont you? Yes. You forget what you want to remember and you remember what you want to forget” (McCarthy, 6). It must definitely be hard to live in a world, knowing that somebody depends completely on you, being chased by others for food, and still have faith in what you knew, in what was, in what you think it should be. Not knowing if you will have enough food to survive another day, or even not have enough bullets to kill yourself! In the first pages of The Road we can see how memories and the past makes the father fight another day for him and his son to survive, knowing that it is harder to remember what it was than to forget what you don’t want to remember.

McCarthy shows glimpses of what the adult’s childhood and previous life was, emotionally compromising us with the text, obligating us to feel what is happening, bonding us with the characters. As the narrator describes a day of the father’s childhood with his uncle he concludes that “This was the perfect day of his childhood. This the day to shape the days upon” (McCarthy, 7). Definitely somebody who has lost it all except for his faith in the future must have to be mentally able to affront daily difficulties, one must find something to stick to, to be able to hope, have faith, wake up and fight. McCarthy occasionally uses these flashbacks of the protagonist’s life in order to remind us that these really are human beings, a tiny family struggling to survive.

As father and son reach the adult’s former home, McCarthy describes how his bedroom, his closet was, as the narrator states: “In the nights in their thousands to dream the dreams of a child's imaginings, worlds rich or fearful such as might offer themselves but never the one to be. He pushed open the closet door half expecting to find his childhood things. Raw cold daylight fell through from the roof. Gray as his heart" (McCarthy, 13). The characterization of the two individuals is given to us through their decisions and their feelings, it is very strange for the narrator to intervene in this way, literally telling us how he is. This description of the protagonist’s soul is very interesting given that the color of the light and his heart, gray, would necessarily imply a mix of black and white, pessimism and hope, death and life, good and evil. Due to the descriptions, the attention to detail and the memories the narrator and the conversations between father and son, we are bonded with the story, with the characters and the tragically deep situation.

Chaucerposition

Raven Vocabulary

Rapping

Surcease

Lattice

Mien

Dirge

Censer

‘Greed Is The Root Of All Evil’

As seen in the Pardoner’s Tale, humankind has an innate desire for wealth at the cost of others’ suffering and work. It is interesting how Chaucer is able to portray this simple message both through his character’s story and the interaction between the storytellers and the Host. The narrator of the story, the Pardoner, makes sure we understand his motives for being a preacher, as seen on the right. I like how Chaucer uses this character to both reflect upon a commonly accepted concept of the impact greed has on an individual’s life and to make fun of the church in this excerpt. It is very sad to think that religion and the various institutions that promote faith have become businesses, businesses of the soul.

The pardoner is portrayed as a complex individual by Chaucer, for by accepting being greedy and money-oriented he preaches that which he fails to do as seen when he states:Although the pardoner is greedy and makes a living of the other’s fear and regret, he has some interesting approaches to what life is and what makes us corrupt individuals. With this Chaucer is probably indicating that greedy people are not necessarily illogical, or unaware of what is happening. I think it is very interesting how our society has built a system for which greed makes us have more without having to work or use our resources as we would have had to in order to acquire the same wealth. Does our economical system and culture incite greed?

Sometimes people have to sin and suffer the consequences or have obstacles in life in order to understand why things happen. In the pardoner’s case we find an individual who understands why greed is a cause of evil, and even though he doesn’t apply it to his own life, tries his best to make others’ understand this as seen when he states:It is ironic how the appropriate individual to teach a moral story is he who is not moral. This is probably why the church has lost followers and influence in people’s lives. I find it interesting how we are not capable to apply what we have learned, what we understand and appreciate to our own lives but see evil in it when others’ follow our example. We must first become what we want to see in others’, for why do we desire to see change in that which we can’t control, and refuse to do so in that in which we can?