Essay writing...

I've had a little help writing my essay.(;

Haikus

Make the Most 

A mere three stanzas

Is all you have been given,

Make the most of it.

The Arrival

sweat pouring like rain

dashing to get to first base

the ump cries out, “safe!”

A Semester's End

A new season starts,

But poetry will always

remain in my heart.

Hamlet Midterm

Christina Putnam

Mrs. Blunk

ENGWR 301

3/17/2012

Midterm

Revenge Harms the Revenger

It is commonly said that “two wrongs don’t make a right,” but can a wrong be made right? How would one go about seeking revenge, and is revenge a morally justifiable solution? William Shakespeare uses imagery and foils in the literary classic Hamlet to reveal that because two wrongs don’t make a right, in an attempt to exact revenge, one only hurts one’s self.

The foils of the revenge seeking sons, Hamlet, Laertes, and Fortinbras, were employed by Shakespeare to show that revenge is complex and complicated. There isn’t a formula for revenge that one can follow. Shakespeare uses contrast between Hamlet, Laertes, and Fortinbras’ quest for revenge, to not only show there is no clear method for revenge, but that seeking revenge only hurts one’s self. Although each son’s path to revenge was different, they all sought to correct an injustice by committing an injustice, which led to their demise.

Hamlet was seeking revenge for the murder of his father who was killed by Claudius. The Ghost of King Hamlet first told Hamlet about the murder, and it was he who entreated Hamlet to “revenge his foul and most unnatural murder” (Shakespeare 1.5.25). Although Hamlet professes to swiftly “sweep to [his] revenge” (1.5.31), Shakespeare uses Hamlet to illustrate inaction and delay in revenge; Hamlet could “say nothing—no, not for a king” (2.2.545) throughout most of the play, but while Hamlet was dying he finally killed Claudius. Shakespeare designed the characters of Laertes and Fortinbras to serve as foils to Hamlet; Shakespeare contrasts their quick path to revenge against Hamlet’s delay to highlight that the process of seeking revenge, no matter how long it takes to exact revenge, only hurts a person. Not only did Hamlet’s quest for revenge result in his own death, but also in Gertrude’s and Ophelia’s, the woman he “did love…once” (3.1.116-117).

Shakespeare uses the foil of Laertes to further complicate the idea of revenge and to show that seeking revenge only harms one’s self. Although Laertes had just cause for revenge, he sought it in a deceptive manner, which resulted in his harm. Laertes sought revenge for his “noble father lost, [and his] sister driven into desperate terms” (4.7.25-26) by Hamlet. His motives for revenge were justified, as opposed to Fortinbras, who sought revenge regardless of the fact that his father “who by a sealed compact well ratified by law and heraldry, did forfeit… his life” (1.1.85-87). Laertes used trickery to execute his revenge by poisoning Hamlet indirectly with a fencing sword. The poisonous sword intended for Hamlet “justly” (5.2.308) killed Laertes with his “own treachery” (5.2.309).

Shakespeare reveals a new dimension of the complexities of revenge when Laertes sought forgiveness for his actions. Laertes admitted that killing Hamlet “is almost ‘gainst my conscience” (5.2.293), and before he committed revenge he asked Hamlet to “exchange forgiveness” (5.2.330). Shakespeare revealed that regardless of one’s feelings of remorse or repentance, the path towards revenge could hurt oneself because two wrongs don’t make a right.

Shakespeare further explores the concept of revenge though the character Fortinbras of Norway. Fortinbras sought to avenge “those foresaid lands so by his father lost” (1.1.102-103). Similarly to Hamlet and Laertes, Fortinbras attempted revenge through deceit and trickery. Fortinbras was deceitful in his revenge by breaking the vow he made “before his uncle never more to give th’ assay of arms against [Denmark]” (2.2.70-71). Shakespeare uses irony to show how “Fortinbras craves the conveyance of a promised march over his kingdom [Denmark]” (4.4.2-4), when in reality, he was moving his troops to attack Denmark. Hamlet called Fortinbras “a delicate and tender prince” (4.4.47), and he admired Fortinbras for his “divine ambition puffed” (4.4.48) and his ability to conduct revenge swiftly. However, Fortinbras wasn’t the tender prince Hamlet described him as, because Fortinbras was willing to allow “the imminent death of twenty two thousand men, that for a fantasy and trick of fame” (4.4.59-60). Fortinbras’ quest for revenge on Denmark ultimately hurt himself because he inherited the throne in a deceitful manner that tarnished his reputation.

Shakespeare uses imagery to further explore the idea that seeking to exact revenge will only hurt a person because two wrongs don’t make a right. Upon hearing of his father’s death, Laertes assumes that Claudius was responsible, and blasphemed Claudius telling him, “I’ll not be juggled with. To hell, allegiances!” (4.5.128-130)! Laertes professed, “I dare damnation. To this point I stand that both worlds I give to negligence” (4.5.131-133). In his anger, Laertes recognized that negative consequences could result from his revenge, but he was willing to accept them. Shakespeare used the imagery of Laertes’ acknowledgement of the consequences of revenge to further illustrate how revenge only hurts one’s self when a wrong is paid for by a wrong.

The devastation that seeking revenge can cause is accurately summarized by Hamlet’s commentary on the feud between Norway and Poland when he said, “That inward breaks and shows no cause without why the man dies” (4.4.27-28). Similar to war, the process of seeking or achieving revenge breaks a person down inwardly, and causes harm to the revenger. Because two wrongs don’t make a right, an attempt to exact revenge may hurt one’s self and be the reason “why the man dies” (4.4.27-28).

To Thine Own Self Be True

It has been said, “If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything.” Not abiding by one’s own moral compass results in “falling for anything,” which can have negative ramifications on one’s life. Through the use of characterization in the play Hamlet, William Shakespeare reveals that haphazardly taking on someone else’s truth results in severe consequences.

Shakespeare uses the character of Hamlet to illustrate the negative affects that taking on someone else’s truth has. The thought to avenge the Ghost’s “murder most foul” (Shakespeare 1.5.27) didn’t originate with Hamlet; in fact, the Ghost first told Hamlet that he must be ready “to revenge when thou shalt hear” (1.5.8). Hamlet was compelled “to make bitter oppression” (2.2.555) by the Ghost, and in his attempt to take revenge, Hamlet adopted the Ghost’s truth.

Through the character of Hamlet, Shakespeare sends a warning about the serious consequences that can result from arbitrarily adopting someone else’s truth. In taking on the Ghost’s quest for revenge, Hamlet was perceived as a threat by Claudius because “the queen his mother lives almost by his looks” (4.7.11-12) and because of “the great love the general gender bear him” (4.7.18). Ultimately, Claudius ended Hamlet’s life by the “exploit… under the which he shall not choose but fall” (4.7.65-66). Hamlet’s choice to act on someone else’s truth not only wound up killing him, but it also resulted in deadly consequences for others. Both Gertrude’s and Ophelia’s deaths were used by Shakespeare to show the effect that Hamlet’s actions had on those around him.

Not only did Hamlet’s adoption of someone else’s truth indirectly hurt those he loved, but in the process he also murdered Polonius, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Laertes, and Claudius. Shakespeare uses this high body count to warn us of the serious consequences that result from haphazardly taking on someone else’s truth.

In addition to Hamlet, Shakespeare uses the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to convey that blindly following someone else’s truth can cause one to “fall for anything” and potentially lead to one’s demise. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were summoned by Claudius to “draw [Hamlet] on to pleasures and to gather, so much as from the occasion you may glean” (2.2.15-16); in other words, they were hired by Claudius to spy on Hamlet. Hamlet wasn’t fooled by their pretentious friendship, and he chides them for “lying” (3.2.330) and attempting to “play upon” him (3.2.336). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern recklessly adopted someone else’s truth by laying their “service freely at [Claudius’] feet to be commanded” (2.2.31-32). Hamlet referred to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as a “sponge” (4.2.12) “that soaks up the king’s countenance, his rewards, his authorities” (4.2.15-16), illustrating how they were pawns used by the King.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s adoption of the King’s truth resulted in the consequence of Claudius “keep[ing] them, like an ape, in the corner of his jaw, first mouthed to be last swallowed” (4.2.17-18). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were “squeezed dry” (4.2.19-20) by Claudius, and consequently died while carrying out his mission of spying on Hamlet. Shakespeare reveals that haphazardly adopting someone else’s truth results in serious consequences, or in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s case, death.

Shakespeare highlights the severe consequences that can result from “falling for anything” through the character of Polonius. Polonius took on Claudius’ truth when he was constantly spying on Hamlet for Claudius. Shakespeare uses the irony of Polonius’ advice of, “this above all: to thine own self be true” (1.3.78), to reveal how Polonius was more “faithful and honorable” (2.2.131) to Claudius than to himself. Polonius was eager to “fain prove” (2.2.132) his faithfulness to Claudius, and he professed he would “find where the truth is hid, though it were hid within the center” (2.2.158-160). Polonius was more committed to Claudius’ truth than his own which ultimately led to his downfall.
Through the use of irony, Shakespeare highlights how blindly following another person’s truth results in severe consequences. Ironically, Polonius died like the “rat” (3.4.24) he was while following Claudius’ truth and spying on Hamlet and Gertrude. Faithfully following the leadership of Claudius led Polonius to his death.

Shakespeare’s uses characterization to emphasize that when one haphazardly takes on someone else’s truth, it results in severe consequences. In order to avoid the consequences that result from falling for anything, don’t blindly follow another’s truth; take Polonius’ advice “to thine own self be true” (1.3.88).

Ophelia’s Chaste Treasure Has Been Opened

Shakespeare reveals through foreshadowing, imagery, and repetition that Ophelia was pregnant. Shakespeare employs foreshadowing when Laertes is warning Ophelia about Hamlet. Laertes suggests “the weight what loss [Ohpelia’s] honor may sustain if with too credent ear you list [Hamlet’s] songs, or lose your heart, or your chaste treasure open to his unmastered importunity” (1.3.28-31). Foreshadowing suggests Ophelia will give, or has already given, “her chaste treasure” (1.3.31) to Hamlet.

Polonius is also foreshadowing Ophelia’s pregnancy when he tells his daughter to “not believe [Hamlet’s] vows, for they are brokers not of that dye which their investments show, but mere implorators of unholy suits, breathing like sanctified and pious bawds, the better to beguile” (1.3.127-131). In simple terms, Polonius is warning his daughter that Hamlet’s professions of love are intended to seduce her, which could lead to a pregnancy.

Shakespeare also uses foreshadowing to suggest Ophelia’s possible pregnancy when Hamlet tells Polonius that “conception is a blessing, but as your daughter may conceive- friend, look to ‘t” (2.2.185-186). Hamlet is warning Polonius that if Ophelia got pregnant it wouldn’t end well, and that Polonius should look after Ophelia’s purity.

Shakespeare uses imagery to reveal that Ophelia was with child. As Hamlet gives his “to be or not to be” soliloquy, he asks that Ophelia remember him in his prayers. “Soft you now, the fair Ophelia! - Nymph, in thy orisons be all my sins remembered” (3.1.89-91). The imagery of Hamlet calling Ophelia a nymph implies a sexual connotation.

Another instance where Shakespeare uses imagery is through the song Ophelia’s sings in her madness. She sings, “Maid at your window, to be your valentine. Then up he rose, and donned his clothes, and dupped up the chamber door. Let in the maid that out a maid and never departed more” (4.5.49-54). Ophelia is singing about how a man took away a girl’s virginity, which Shakespeare uses as an image of what happened between Ophelia and Hamlet.

Additionally, Shakespeare is revealing that Ophelia was pregnant through the imagery of the flowers that Ophelia handed out. The only flower Ophelia gave to herself was rue, “the herb of Grace” (4.5.180), which is symbolic of repentance or sorrow. Rue suggests that Ophelia regretted the incestuous act she committed with Hamlet, which led to her pregnancy.

Through the use of repetition, Shakespeare reveals that Ophelia was pregnant. Hamlet repeatedly tells Ophelia, “get thee to a nunnery. Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners” (3.1.123-124)? Hamlet’s repeated use of the term nunnery, another word for brothel, suggests Ophelia belonged in one for the incestuous acts she committed.

Works Cited

Shakespeare, William, and John Crowther. Hamlet. New York: SparkNotes, 2003. Print.

DRJ #4

Initial Personal Reaction: I felt like this act moved a lot quicker than the others. The structure of the act, specifically the fact that there were morse scenes than in any other act and the constant entering and exiting of characters, helped move the pace along. I also felt that as the play progressed it became more and more ridiculous and less “believable.” Ophelia's madness was also very clear through the text, especially how Shakespeare italicized her singing. Call me a skeptic, but I was very hesitant to believe that Ophelia went “mad.” However, I didn't see any evidence of her faking madness, and I believed that she did love Hamlet and went mad over her father's death.

Character Analysis: I felt like Laertes' character became more interesting in Act IV. In the first three acts, he was portrayed as a man who cared about his sister and was somewhat disrespectful of his father. He begged his father to go off to Paris and he spent a good deal of the first three acts there. However, we do learn through Polonius' worrying that his son could potentially be doing up to other things besides studying in Paris. Polonius' worrying for Laertes caused me to question Laertes' motives and character. Why did he want to go back to Paris so badly? To escape his overprotective father? Possibly. In Act IV Laertes has more dialogue and begins to reveal how he can act very quickly. Laertes' character is used as a foil to Hamlet. Hamlet struggles to carry out revenge, but Laertes is quick to act and carries out revenge on Hamlet (which we know backfires). I gathered from the text that Laertes genuinely cared for Ophelia and Polonius because he wanted to avenge his father's death, and because he said “tears seven times salt, burn our the sense and virtue of mine eyes”(4.5.155-160). He was crying over his sister going mad.

Thematic Element: Through the use of irony, Shakespeare reveals that allowing oneself to be used will lead to demise. In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's (R&G) case, being the king's sponge lead to their deaths. Hamlet clearly told R&G that they were “[a sponge] that soaks up the king's countenance, his rewards, his authorities. But such offices do the king best services in the end” (4.2.12-20). Claudius kept using R&G until he eventually “rang them dry” (4.2.19-20). Irony is present because in R&G's obedience to the king's mission to kill Hamlet, Hamlet actually kills them.

Laertes is another example of how being used leads to demise. Had Laertes carried out his own idea of killing Hamlet in church he might have actually gotten away with it. Instead, Laertes allowed himself to be used by the king to kill Hamlet, which ironically lead to his own death.

DRJ #3

Initial Personal Reaction: I felt like this act was when things really started to get interesting, and that Hamlet's plot is starting to be put into action. Claudius finally admits to killing Hamlet Sr., and Gertrude admits to “falling for” Claudius and displays her guilty conscious. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (R&G) become more aggressive in their attempt to please the King and try to kind out what is driving Hamlet “mad.” Act III was the first time that I began to question Hamlet's sanity, specifically when Hamlet and Gertrude are in her bedroom and she doesn't see the Ghost (3.4.130-135). I was also surprised by the brevity of Polonius' death; it wasn't described in great detail, and I didn't expect it to happen so soon into the play.

Character Analysis: The character of the Queen Player, the actor who plays the Queen in the play, is meant to represent Gertrude's character. The Queen Player is a very minor character, and her purpose is to reveal Gertrude's actions. The Queen Player vowed to never take another husband, and if she said she would have no peace (3.2.205-209). What a coincidence because Gertrude took another husband and she felt guilty and bogged down with guilt, which is the opposite of peace. The role of the Player Queen reflects what Gertrude did to Hamlet Sr. when she said, “In second husband let me be accursed! None wed the second but who killed the first” (3.2.165-166). In modern language, the Player Queen said that women only take a second husband when they kill the first, which is exactly what Gertrude did. While the role of the Player Queen is small, the purpose of her character is to reveal what Gertrude did and the Queen Player is sort of a side effect from Hamlet's plan to expose Claudius through the play.

Thematic Analysis: Shakespeare uses foreshadowing to reveal that liars cannot conceal their lies, dark deeds will come to light. Act III in particular backs up this theme because in the act both Claudius and Gertrude confess to their lies. Claudius confesses to God that he killed his brother (3.3.37-70), and Gertrude practically confesses to Hamlet for sleeping with Claudius when she tells Hamlet he has broken her heart and then asks him for advice (3.4.158) (3.4.184). Shakespeare uses foreshadowing when Hamlet says that the actors in the play shall reveal what the play is about. The line, “the players cannot keep counsel. They'll tell all,” foreshadows that the actors, or liars, cannot keep their deeds a secret. 

DRJ #2

DRJ #2 Christina Putnam

Initial Reaction: My initial reaction to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern was that they truly cared about Hamlet, but as Act 2 went on my perception shifted. They were visiting Hamlet because they were ordered by the King, not because they cared about their friend. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern came to talk to Hamlet on the King's orders and they were willing “to be commanded” (2.2.32). I found it interesting how Hamlet could see through their act and pressed them to tell him why they really had come to visit him.

Character Analysis: The character Polonius can be characterized as the King's right hand man. He too cunning, deceitful, and loyal to the King. In fact, Polonius described how his brain “hunts the trail on policy,” which suggests he is politically cunning, in his dialogue with Claudius (2.2.47-48). He is the father of Ophelia and Laertes, and Polonius appears to misunderstands his daughter. He tries to give Ophelia advice about Hamlet and even resorts to trying to trap Hamlet into professing his love for Ophelia. Polonius thinks that Hamlet's insanity is cause by his love for his daughter, and he uses his daughter to spy on Hamlet.

Theme Analysis: Shakespeare uses irony to show how revenge is both the cause and result of death. Throughout the play, Hamlet struggles to avenge his father by seeking revenge on his murder (2.2.555-560). What is ironic, is that seeking revenge creates a never ending cycle of murders, which just adds to the death toll. Laertes seeks revenge on Hamlet for killing his father; however, Laertes ends up killing himself “with his own treachery” when he gets cut with the poisonous sword that was meant for Hamlet (5.2.309). Revenge is caused by death, and leads to nothing but more death.  

DRJ #1

DRJ#1 Christina Putnam
Initial Reaction: Initially, I thought Hamlet was a little dry in the beginning, but after the Ghost was introduced I was hooked. Marcellus, Bernardo, Horatio, and Hamlet's sighting of the Ghost reminded me of the television show Gifted Man, which is about a doctor who sees the ghost of his dead ex wife. At first I wondered if the Ghost was telling the truth about the death of King Hamlet. Polonius and Laertes reminds me of the stereotypical over protective father and big brother. Ophelia is an interesting because she desperately wants to please her father and brother, but at the same time she wasn't afraid to criticize and warn Laertes against “doing as ungracious pastors do” (1.1.45-50). In other words, she warned him against being hypocritical.

Character Analysis: The character Claudius is full of himself, power hungry, unsympathetic to Hamlet, yet loving to his wife Gertrude. Ultimately, he us all about using other people to accomplish tasks that will cover up his problems. He is one of the main characters of the play, and his fatal flaw is his desire for power. He wanted to be king so bad that he killed his own brother. Claudius could be classified as the antagonist because he killed Hamlet's father, and later seeks to kill Hamlet. I'd say that the conflict caused by Claudius is intentional because his lust for power caused him to kill his brother. One doesn't just “accidentally” pour poison in their brother's ear or accidentally sleep with his brother's wife. However, Claudius does seem to genuinely care for his wife Gertrude; he just wants to see her happy, which shows his heart isn't completely blackened by greed and murder.

Theme Analysis: Through repetition, Shakespeare is highlighting that while suicide might have a certain appeal, the fear of the unknown generally outweighs taking one's own life. Hamlet repeatedly expresses how “weary, stale, and unprofitable” life is to him, but his belief that God made a law against suicide holds him back from doing it (1.1.129-1535). Hamlet has grown weary with living, especially because his father just died, but he doesn't know what will happen if he dies. Uncertainty about the after life is what keeps most people motivated to live. We know what to expect on earth. What would happen if Hamlet broke God's supposed “law” against suicide?