Literature Analysis #2

The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

   The past few years have been known especially for encouraging individuality, focusing on oneself, staying true and not letting anyone say different. This message has been around for centuries. And the hackneyed phrase "be true to yourself" has captured the attention of many insecure individuals who need reminding that they can only be the best versions of themselves. People often appeal to this instruction when they feel defensive and want to state their opinion. They want others to know that they stand by their morals. And that's exactly what Hamlet does throughout the play; he remains true to his resolve and mission, remembers his roots and his father, and doesn't let anyone veer him off course.
   Hamlet never let himself be fooled whether by his own fault or others in the castle. He knew his mission, his motive, and he sought to fulfill it. While his confidence may have wavered, his resolve never did. Hamlet struggled with the task of killing Claudius, often chastising and berating himself for acting like a coward. But in the end (with a few bumps in the road), he was able to accomplish It was up to him to survive the pain of his father's death and prevail over Claudius. Hamlet's mother didn't genuinely. Polonius remained loyal to Claudius. Polonius was merely an ingratiating adviser who did Claudius's bidding, doing so throughout the play. He sent spies to keep an eye on Hamlet ultimately to keep Claudius safe, making sure Hamlet wouldn't pull some crazy stunt.
   Throughout the play, the feeling of frenzy and paranoia is tangible. Hamlet trying to kill Claudius, Claudius trying to send Hamlet away, Polonius trying to watch his kids and still keep up with Claudius's scheming antics. And yet, through all the craziness, each character does his best to follow through with what he had planned.

David Whyte and Robert Francis

Working Together by David Whyte and Summons by Robert Francis

   Poetry: the universal expression of knowledge and self. No matter what language, type or form, all poems carry a message. Working Together and Summons evokes a sense of fellowship and camaraderie from the reader. One person can only do so much alone, only feel and experience insular emotions and moments by himself. And with the help of others, that one person can open his eyes to "a whole new world" and find a greater truth in it.
   In Summons, the narrator talks to an unknown person, asking him or her to keep the narrator awake so they can watch the Northern Lights together, so they can admire nature together and appreciate each other's presence. The narrator wants to be woken up so he and his friend can watch the wonders of nature that are bigger than the both of them. He wants to see something wonderful, and those sights will reshape his perspective and thinking. He will have been changed for the better. The narrator gets to share those few moments with someone he cares about. He needs the motivation that everyone else needs to get out of bed, and he shall be rewarded with irreplaceable and priceless memories and mementos.
   And in Working Together, Whyte talks about how the world and the people affect us, how there's something greater out there waiting to be discovered and invented. When people work together, great things can happen. They can experience new things, great moments. The intangible contains some phenomenal that, when molded by different hands, can create something momentous. This message is shared by Francis's Summons, that with the help of at least one person, the beautiful elements of life can be discovered and marveled at. The narrator wouldn't have seen that "the Northern Lights are on," or that "the clouds are doing something to the moon..." if his friend hadn't persuaded him to go outside. That camaraderie or sense friendship helped both of them experience something completely beyond their control. And like in Working Together, the coalition of people can achieve something that just one person couldn't do by himself.
   With the help of others, one person can transcend the boundaries that confine him to solitude to experience something more meaningful than if left alone. Working together, whether with one person or seven, can help make new memories and reshape perspectives. We are shaped by the world and the people around us. And individuals can unite to see, imagine, experience, produce something never seen and done before. They can "work together in common cause, to produce the miraculous."
 
 

Working Together by David Whyte Remix

With Ashlyn Bishop, Brenissa Flores, Elizabeth Smith, Melissa Sobczak, and Victoria Tonascia

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BeodFHlvIF1ImNxliVaQdK6tjo4dCVFpveSCJslWUb4/edit#slide=id.p

Unappreciated Education

   Let me first say that yes, I should be writing my other essays (Hamlet and poetry) but to be honest, I'd rather write about ↑ this topic because it's something that I've thought about for a while now. And I thought what better way to express my thoughts and ask questions (and also procrastinate even more on the two essays that I have to write) than to do it here.
   It's been on my mind lately that why do we always complain about going to school? "Why am I here?" "What's the point?" "I hate it." "I wish I could be at home." "Such a waste of my time." Every single student has said something like this at least once in his/her life. Yet kids in third world countries, especially in Africa and Asia, crave and so deeply desire the education that we in America take for granted. I see documentaries on TV or articles and pictures on the internet about children in dirty clothes gathered under a freeway overpass or in an abandoned building learning the simplest math or English from a random adult who volunteered or was deemed a good enough teacher. What these kids wouldn't do for the free education we have here in the USA and other countries! So why is it that we don't appreciate it as much as them? I mean, don't get me wrong, I understand the value of education and want to continue for many years but I have done my fair share of complaining about not wanting to go, wanting to spend my time at home doing other things. And even in general, why do we take for granted the things we have in our daily lives? Maybe because we get so accustomed to having them that we lose sight of their importance and the trouble it took to get them?
   I honestly feel bad when I compare the trouble kids in Nigeria, for example, have to go to of walking miles to get to school compared to the six minute drive I have to get to mine. And yet I know that those little Nigerian kids would appreciate my experience so much more than I enjoy it myself. And I also know that money is a factor, setting up the school, finding teachers, building the classrooms, furnishing and equipping. It takes loads of money to get a school going, so I understand why education is so hard to come by. But what I don't understand is why we hate it, or the kids undervalue it so much here when it's so much more valued and esteemed by kids in poor countries. I think that as kids/ teenagers we think we have so many other important things to do with our lives than sit at a desk all day and learn... trigonometry (which is actually a useless subject). We think that we're so cool, and we have all these cool things to do that are even cooler than going to school. Many of us don't understand and appreciate just how lucky we are to have free education.
   So while I don't have a full and complete answer to my question, I do have somewhat of a solution, a hard one but a solution nonetheless. We have to learn to appreciate what we have, how lucky we are to have a public education system so that everyone can go to school, no matter how poor. I wish I could just magically transport a fully equipped, functioning school to the third world countries, or even swap out the useless, never-going-to-see-the-value-in-school kids for the ones who would. I shake my head at the kids who just take up space, not fulfilling their potential, just letting the minutes (and their lives) slowly tick away. It's frustrating and saddening.

Intro to Poetry (Working Together by David Whyte)

1. The title is significant because it tells the central theme of the poem; it's about the world shaping us and us shaping the world, how working together can produce miraculous things. Working together produces something better than what a single individual can do alone. 
2. The tone of the poem is optimistic, "working together in common cause, to produce the miraculous."
3. My mood when I read this is also optimistic and hopeful. Hopeful for a future in which there is more camaraderie that can also create something better for society. 
4. There is not an obvious shift. But the first line is a bit aloof, stating that we shape the world and vice versa. Then it goes on to become more optimistic, how we can work as a team, how doing so led to incredible things and inventions. 
5. The theme of the poem is that everyone working together can create something bigger than working alone; have faith even in what we can't see because they still shape us into the people we are.  

Hamlet (The Madman?)

   Madness, synonymous with insanity; mentally deranged. But to be called insane is a serious accusation, and Hamlet is anything but. On the contrary, Hamlet possesses such cunning, witty skills that allow him to sneak right under King Claudius's nose and expose him as the dirty backstabber he really is. Hamlet is an angry, upset prince with almost everybody out to get him. And while a few of his actions are questionable, there is no denying that Hamlet is far from a mad man. He has too much cleverness and precision, intelligence and sensibility.

   From the time that Prince Hamlet was paid a visit by his late father's ghost who revealed his true murderer, the young heir to the throne never wavered in his mission to avenge Hamlet Sr. And while seeing a ghost might be grounds for accusation of madness, at the beginning of the play, guards Marcellus, Horatio, and Bernardo also witnessed the Ghost of the late King Hamlet passing right by them. But if the Ghost is just a figment of Hamlet's imagination, a projection of his subconscious, how were Marcellus, Horatio, and Bernardo able to see the Ghost too without being called mad men themselves? So while the state of the Ghost is unknown and questionable, Hamlet's ability to see it doesn't make him crazy. Rather it reveals his humanity, morals, and the anguish he feels for his father's death; not characteristic of a lunatic. And while it may seem less than reasonable to take orders from a ghost that may or may not be just a figment of the imagination, the request is justified . In the Bible, Exodus 21:23 states "...the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life," (one of many of Shakespeare's allusions to the Bible). Revenge in this form has lived for centuries before and after Hamlet's time. But while his taking orders from a ghost is cause for some concern, it merely means that Hamlet still carries his morals with him, his sense of right and wrong, something a crazy young man would rather lack.

   Hamlet does an excellent job of putting up a facade of craziness and passivity. He calculates his every move, weighs all his options, and makes sure no one- least of all Claudius- knows the true meaning of his actions. During Act 1 Scene 1 in the banquet, Hamlet first comes off as a (rightfully) cold and uncaring son. But during his first soliloquy, he exposes his genuine emotions- pain, rage, despair- making the audience sympathize with him. As the play progresses, the audience catches snippets and more soliloquies that give insight to Hamlet's plans and motives. But through all of that, he is very self- critical, berating and chastising himself when he hasn't actually killed Claudius yet, beats himself up about not crying about his father's death. The depth of Hamlet's character continues to grow and surprise the audience, ultimately showing that he is the very opposite of insane. 

  Hamlet is still a very complex character with all his warring emotions raging inside him. However, one thing that remains constant is his wit and cleverness. Hamlet fools everyone into believing that he is in fact a mad man, driven crazy by unfortunate circumstances. He knows that everyone in the castle will stop paying him much attention so he can swiftly move forth with his plan for vengeful murder. Hamlet is aware of the fact that no one will question the crazy prince whose father just died, so he acts the part to keep people's guards down. Lord Polonius doesn't fall for Hamlet's ploy and recruits a spy named Reynaldo to keep an eye on him. But the perceptive Hamlet realizes Reynaldo's ulterior motive and allegiance to Polonius, adviser to King Claudius. So rather than out Reynaldo and confront him, Hamlet still plays the wacky prince who calls people names and stays in the background knowing that Reynaldo will report back to Polonius and retain the misconception of being a weirdo. 

   Once he discovers the truth that Claudius killed King Hamlet, Hamlet resolves to exact his revenge. And while Hamlet harshly criticizes and beats himself up for not taking action quicker and rather acting like a coward, he never once wavers in his determination to avenge his father's death. He even goes through the trouble of putting on a play that would elicit a reaction from King Claudius (and Queen Gertrude) to confirm his murdering King Hamlet. But everyone is critical of themselves; it's human nature. So Hamlet reprimanding himself isn't all that strange. At times he can be harsh, telling himself that he's a great coward and emotionless son. But all that is from the intense feelings that bubble inside him. 

   There is one specific instance that Hamlet no doubt acts unnecessarily rash and harsh: when he absolutely blows up at Queen Gertrude. Granted, she wasn't acting her best in front of him, but that doesn't justify Hamlet cruelly insulting her. On the other hand, Hamlet had been holding in most of his feelings for a long time, and Gertrude's approach was just the catalyst of the explosion. Hamlet calls her nasty names, scolds her for marrying Claudius, acting like a terrible son. And while Gertrude hasn't been the best, Hamlet's actions and words towards her are unwarranted because she is still his mother. Polonius enters and gets stabbed by Hamlet who acts nonchalant and uncaring about it. But Polonius was always an ingratiating scoundrel so he wasn't completely undeserving. But that was one of the rare times Hamlet acted a little less than in control and "normal". 

   The category of insanity can be an ambiguous one, but it is safe to say that Hamlet does not fit in it. He is far too calculated and smart. Hamlet fools everyone in the castle so he can get around them to kill King Claudius. He carefully plans out his steps, evades being sent away to England, even directs a play to confirm what he already knows so he can get justification. These calculated actions are not characteristic of madness. He knows what to say under pressure, how to get out of sticky situations and keep the impression that he's merely a stewing prince with no other motives. He has been able to bypass everyone so far, not an easy feat. So Hamlet, a mad man? More like Prince Hamlet the genius.