DRJ #4

Initial Reaction: The pacing of Acts IV and V is way faster than the beginning acts. Action abounds, and each bit is more unbelievable than the those preceding. My favorite part is when Hamlet's ship gets attacked by pirates, and he escapes. I thought at first Hamlet might have invented this as explanation for his escape, but all the research I've done suggests that, within the play, his boat was indeed attacked by pirates. Of course. I can't say that any part or character reminds me of anything in particular, but the abundance of increasingly ridiculous goings-on (a pirate attack, a duel, and the death of everyone) has an over-the-top quality that reminds me of theater in general. Perhaps I'm evading the question.

Character Analysis: I find Gertrude perplexing. I believe she has genuine love for Hamlet; I didn't find any evidence to suggest otherwise, and throughout the play she tells him she loves him. In other areas, though, she is twisted. There is no way that Gertrude could get married to her late husband's brother SO shortly after Hamlet Sr.'s death had Claudius and Gertrude not already been having an affair, and Hamlet suggests that his mother is an unfaithful who** several times. Without Gertrude, we could not have the story. Claudius might not have had enough motivation to kill Hamlet Sr. if there were no Gertrude to win; Hamlet would not have felt so betrayed; and thus, the need for revenge would not have been present. Even the ghost of Hamlet does not wish for any harm to come to her, suggesting that (up until the end), she was probably a good wife.

Theme Analysis: Although it is not the most significant theme in the last acts, I noticed that the characters brought up the treatment of wealthy people vs. those without money a few times. When the gravediggers are talking to eachother in act V, Second Clown (gravedigger) says to the First Clown gravedigger that Ophelia would not be getting a Christian burial, had she not been wealthy, as she committed suicide. 5.1.20-21 goes, “If this had not been a gentlewoman, she should have been buried out o' Christian burial.” Later on, when Hamlet is interacting with the irritating Osric, he says essentially the same thing; Osric is not fun to interact with, but since he has land and money, he is treated well. By having both a peasant and royalty reflect on the issue of money buying good treatment, Shakespeare uses contrast to emphasize his point.

DRJ #3

Initial Reaction: I re-read Act III, so at this point I understand it better than any other act. I feel like the pace has picked up a little bit. Hamlet's bizarre, inconsistent interaction with Ophelia reminds me of a guy I dated when I was 17. He was also rather pompous and full of himself, and would alternate between being nice and loving with me, and then suddenly dismissive without provocation. This experience was of course far less meaningful than Ophelia/Hamlet, but I also think that Hamlet is an ass.

Character Analysis: I'm going to discuss Ophelia. Ophelia is a nice, eager-to-please, obedient, naïve young lady who is emotionally sort of...weak. I would say that she does have a fatal flaw, which is that very emotional weakness. It does not happen in this act, but eventually Ophelia is worn down by Hamlet's retraction of love (and ensuing flirtatious mind games) and her father's death. She simply cannot muscle through, and succumbs to grief. Although I don't think she is a foil, Ophelia's presence and interaction with Hamlet demonstrates the type of man he is.

Theme Analysis: One theme that stood out to me the most in this act was contemplation versus action. In thesis format, here goes: Too much mulling over what action should be taken ultimately interferes with any action taking place whatsoever. The idea is mentioned at least twice within the act, so I would say that Shakespeare is reinforcing it via repetition. In 3.1.83-87, Hamlet is talking about how a person who is at first resolute weakens if he ponders for too long about the appropriate action, and that instead of considering at length, people should act immediately. Later, when the royal family is watching the play, the Player King says essentially the same thing. At 3.2.165-176, he likens inaction to fruit that dies on the tree because it stayed too long on the branch. He is saying that people lose their fiery passion to act when they pause to think. 

DRJ#2

Allison Hartsell

DRJ #2: Hamlet, Act II

Initial reaction: I don't feel that I know enough about the characters at this point to be able to compare them to anyone I know. I am beginning to think I am deeply uncreative, but there's nothing here that reminds me of my life or any movies apart from other Shakespearean works. So I'll go ahead and compare one work of Shakespeare to others. In this act, everyone seems to want to use some sort of trickery to find out the “truth” about another character. Trickery is very common for old William S. Shylock is tricked in the Merchant of Venice by Portia, who is dressed as a man; Juliet tries to trick the people of Verona into believing she is dead in order to have the opportunity to run away with Romeo.

Character anaylysis: I am going to focus on Polonius. He seems to be a caring father, certainly interested in the welfare of his children. His love is demonstrated in some odd ways, though, as he sends Reynaldo to spy on his son Laertes in Paris, and first forbids Ophelia from interacting with Hamlet further, then intends to use her to determine if she's the source of Hamlet's insanity. He also seems kind of obnoxious, rambling on to the queen instead of getting to the point. I think he is a supporting character, whose motives and interactions with Hamlet serve to show us something about Hamlet, rather than Polonius. Hamlet's extreme seriousness contrasts with the goofiness of Polonius, and Hamlet seems to be mocking Polonius throughout their interactions. For example, at 2.2.175-210, Hamlet and Polonius engage in a dialogue in which Polonius seems utterly confused by everything Hamlet says. Then later, at 2.2.354-380, Hamlet outright insults Polonius. Polonius tells Hamlet that the actors have arrived, and Hamlet responds with “Buz, buz,” accusing Polonius of being boring.

Theme analysis: Several characters in this act plan to use some form of trickery to find out the truth. Polonius intends to use Ophelia to see if Hamlet is really in love with her, without Hamlet knowing that Polonius will be spying; Queen Gertrude and King Claudius use Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to find out what is wrong Hamlet; and Hamlet intends to use the traveling actors and their play to determine if Claudius really killed Hamlet's father. In short, I think one theme of this act is our inherent desire to understand the truth in our reality, even if we have to deceive in order to do so. Shakespeare uses repetition of this theme—desire for truth—using many different characters, to reinforce this idea.   

DRJ #1: Act I

Allison Hartsell

No one in Act I reminds me of anyone I know specifically. When Polonius warns Ophelia to guard her virtue from Hamlet, it seems a very common warning from fathers to their daughters. King Hamlet being killed by his shady brother (possibly) sounds a bit like The Lion King.

I am going to focus on Claudius, because I sense that I'm going to like him the least. If the ghost of Hamlet Sr. is not a liar, then Claudius is not a hero, but certainly has a fatal flaw: greed. I don't know yet if he wanted Hamlet's kingdom or simply his wife, but in either case, the willingness to murder his own brother by sneak attack is just...shady. I would not say that the conflict he creates is caused intentionally (yet—hard to say right now, as I'm only through Act II); I don't think he wanted anyone to find out about his murdering of Hamlet Sr. He should be quite comfortable, having inherited the queen and the kingdom of Denmark. The supposed purity and perfection of the dead King Hamlet quite contrasts Claudius' intentions and behavior.

If I had to choose one theme to focus on during Act I (and it turns out I do, because that's the assignment), I would say it is this: through the way he has constructed his female characters, he is suggesting that women are easily seduced. *Disclaimer: I do not agree with this, I'm just accusing Shakespeare of thinking so. At 1.2.146, the protagonist Hamlet says, “Frailty, thy name is woman!” This is sparked by the fact that his mother recovered from the death of Hamlet Sr. so quickly, easily trapped by Claudius. Shakespeare probably would not have used his most significant character to state such a thing if he did not believe so himself. In addition, Ophelia needs directions from both her brother and father to protect her virtue from Hamlet. Ophelia suggests to her father Polonius that Hamlet loves her, to which Polonius responds, “Affection!Pooh! You speak like a green girl/Unsifted in such perilous circumstance.” (1.3.101-102). Both of these women require little coaxing to fall in love/lust with men, and both approach romance with naivete.  

Thesis #2: Chopin

Louise does not “come to life” until she has processed the fact that her husband is dead. In the beginning she is a delicate woman with a heart problem; as she sits in her room turning over the news that she is “Free! Body and soul, free!”, her eyes are “keen and bright,” holding the very essence of liveliness. This is in stark contrast to how she imagines her husband will look, “fixed and gray and dead.” The descriptions surrounding Louise's reaction revolve around energy, spring, an open sky, her coursing blood; at one point she is likened to a “goddess of Victory.” Chopin intentionally uses lively descriptions only when we believe Louise to be a widow, suggesting that marriage is life-draining for women.

Allison Hartsell

SSRJ #2: Colette

Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette's short story The Hand made me feel uncomfortable. The young wife, whose name we never learn, goes from gushing newlywed to resigned, disgusted matron within a matter of hours at most. The element that stood out as interesting to me was the setting; the entirety of the story takes place within a bedroom. In many ways, the story only takes place within the mind of the wife, as the plot follows her growing realization that she is married to someone she doesn't know.

The young wife is at first girlishly devoted to her new husband. She thinks, “'Too happy to sleep,'” as she supports the slumbering head of her husband on her shoulder (Colette 282). As she studies her handsome husband, she has nothing but wondrous admiration for his athleticism, his mouth, even his hand—at first. The appearance morphs from just manly to threatening, ready to attack, and squeezes the blanket with “the methodical pleasure of a strangler” (Colette 284). But when Colette moves the focal point to his hand in particular, it becomes the centerpiece of the story. In moving the focus from courtship to the hand and giving it a role in the story, Colette makes a statement about what marriage meant for women: lack of power, a life of subservience. The marriage that at first seemed so pefect and shiny, like the superficial gleam of the husband's nail varnish, turns ugly upon close inspection. By its closing, the nameless young lady has realized what the hand, or marriage, really is; and the once energetic girl begins “her life of duplicity, of resignation” (Colette 284), and kisses the hand in disheartened understanding. She has lost her freedom, and belongs now to her husband. Colette intentionally left the bride and groom nameless. The fact that neither the wife nor the husband have names indicates that this could have been any couple in the early 1900s, and all married women were destined to be owned and stifled.

The Hand states very quickly that this new husband is recently widowed. Are we supposed to think that the marriage killed her, or the husband? 

Allison Hartsell

SSRJ #1: Straight

       Straight's short story Mines made me feel both sympathetic for the protagonist Clarette, and overall upset. She is in a difficult situation, with two young kids and a decent-paying but emotionally taxing job, and she can't quite find a way out. The element that stood out to me most was the tone. It is grim but determined; the sentences are short, and often not even technical sentences at all: “Big roundhead fool magnets”; “Nothing in his skull”; “twins. Girls. EGYPT and MOROCCO.” She tells her story with the tone of an curt person talking. Nothing occurred in the story that is similar to my life, however, I completely understand the feeling of being deeply unhappy with life but carrying on anyway.

       Susan Straight uses the setting of Mines to parallel Clarette's life. She is a correctional officer in a youth jail, and most of the story takes place there. Although Clarette simply works in a correctional facility, rather than being incarcerated in one, she is imprisoned. Clarette has two young chidren she must take care of—she is the dutiful, responsible sort—and her husband isn't much help. Finally she has found this job, that offers “bennies” and a salary, that allows her to be home when her children are done with school, but she is trapped. The very fact that her job is stable makes it nearly impossible for her to justify trying to find a different job that wouldn't make her so miserable. She is stuck there just as the prisoners are. Clarette is also trapped in her unhappiness; she rises early to work, gets off of work in time to greet her kids after exiting the bus, and spends the rest of her time drudging through household duties, exhausted and headache-plagued. The story doesn't even mention how a weekend might be for her, as though each moment she is working on behalf of somebody else.

       One part of the story mentions Clarette going to college with her friend Tika, and how Tika is now teaching, whereas Clarette “married Ray.” Does the character seem bitter about this decision? Like the mere mention of it suggests that Ray is also a job, and not one she enjoys?