Thomas Brown’s AP Language and Composition Blog

 1.  Why does Hamlet wait so long to kill Claudius?  What are the reasons for his hesitation?  How valid are they?  How many times does he have the opportunity to attack Claudius?  What are his reasons for not doing so?

          Hamlet waits so long to kill Claudius because he is unsure of himself.  On the one hand, a ghost, supposedly his recently deceased father, has told him a heart-wrenching story of betrayal and demands vengeance, but on the other hand, it could be a demonic spirit that is trying to entrap Hamlet in a tragic series of events that would only lead him to the fiery pits of Hell.  Thus, Hamlet waits a while until he is sure that his uncle was the murderer of the late king and waits to catch him in a time of sin.  His waiting is valid, because it would be utterly pointless to do the work of a demon or to send a murderous villain to Heaven when intending to send him to Hell.  As for the times that Hamlet has the opportunities to kill his uncle, there is only one that pops into mind immediately, which is when the uncle is praying.  However, killing him then and there would only send the man to Heaven, so Hamlet was wise to wait for an opportune moment to kill him in his treacherous lusting. 

2.  Hamlet claims that his madness is feigned, an “antic disposition” which he puts on for his own purposes (I.V.172).  Why would Hamlet  want to feign madness?  How can an appearance of insanity help him achieve his ends?  Is he really sane throughout the play, or does he ever cross the line into madness?  What about Ophelia’s mad scene?  Is it real or feigned?  Is there “method in her madness” as well, or is she entirely irrational?  Why has she gone mad?  (What two reasons do her songs suggest?)

          Hamlet would want to claim that he is mad for two main reasons.  The first is that it gives him an opportunity to proclaim things that would get the people thinking that the king had murdered the last king without getting Hamlet into too much trouble.  The second is that it will make him appear irrational and incapable of plotting against his uncle, which will allow him to plot far more cunningly than if he simply had to hide his murder plot.  I think that Hamlet is sane for the most part, but there are definitely some times where I thought he had flown off of his rocker.  When attacking his mother in her chambers, Hamlet had gotten really carried away with his yelling, and whenever his anger surfaced, it was apparent that the stress and frustration building up from the death of his father and the remarriage of his mother had taken their toll on him.  On the other hand, Ophelia was completely crazy after her father died.  Not only had Hamlet completely rejected her and thrown away whatever they had, but her father died, leaving her alone and helpless in the world.  In combination with the song and the suicide, I can’t say that there was any method to her madness and that she was just pushed too far over the edge.

3.  Pay attention to the treatment of the women characters Gertrude and Ophelia.  Is there any basis for the Freudian interpretation of an Oedipal attraction between Hamlet and his mother?  Hamlet does seem obsessed with his mother’s sexuality.  How old is Hamlet?  How old do you think Gertrude is?  Is Hamlet’s disgust at Gertrude’s sexuality justified?  To what extent is Gertrude guilty?  Was she “in on” her husband’s murder?  Has Claudius confided in her since the murder?  How does Hamlet’s perception of his mother affect his behavior or attitude toward Ophelia?  Why does he tell Ophelia to go to a nunnery?  Does Hamlet really love Ophelia?  If so, why is he cruel to her?

          I couldn’t really tell if there was any basis for the Freudian interpretation of Hamlet’s relation with his mother.  However, he did seem rather obsessed with his mother’s attitude towards sex and his idea of purity.  It could be that Hamlet’s anger towards his mother was just masking his desire for her?  Maybe?  Anyways, Hamlet seems fairly young; in his tweens or so.  Gertrude probably isn’t too old, maybe around 45 or 50 based off of the fact that she had greying hair in the second half of the movie.  I think that Hamlet’s disgust with Gertrude’s sexuality is justified because he saw her as his mother and a queen.  Based off of Hamlet’s reaction to Gertrude’s remarriage, it is plausible to state that Hamlet most likely believed his mother to be loyal to the late king until death.  However, the queen quickly remarried and very obviously enjoyed her new partner instead of mourning her last husband.  I don’t know if Gertrude was really guilty or not.  I would say that she is definitely guilty in the sense that she didn’t seem too loving of her first husband, but not guilty of being an accomplice to the murder of Hamlet’s father.  The apparent confusion she displayed in her bedroom and the fact that she seemed to believe Hamlet’s madness would make her an unlikely accomplice for murder.  I believe that Hamlet’s perception of his mother’s sexuality affected Ophelia in that Ophelia appears as a potential backstabbing harlot.  Though Hamlet could not be with her, he still loved her.  However, the words that he hurls at Ophelia, including the comment about the nunnery, suggest that he believes that all women are the same and that they should be forced to live chaste lives to prevent them from falling into ways of corruption.

4.  Suicide is an important theme in Hamlet.  Discuss how the play treats the idea of suicide morally, religiously, and aesthetically, with particular attention to Hamlet’s two important statements about suicide: the “O, that this too too solid flesh would melt” soliloquy (I.ii.129-158) and the “To be, or not to be” soliloquy (III.i.56-88).  Why does Hamlet believe that, although capable of suicide, most human beings choose to live, despite the cruelty, pain, and injustice of the world.

          Hamlet seems to judge suicide as a path that no human in their right mind would dare tread.  He blatantly states in one of his soliloquys that men put up with the fear, cruelty, and pain of their lives not because they desire to feel these terrible marks of the living world, but because they fear the unknown even more.  Not only is the afterlife completely unknown (except for, ya know, the part where Hamlet’s father talks about the daily routines of Hell), but the possibility that it would turn out to be worse than one’s life would make suicide an unappeasing choice indeed.

5.  Choose a soliloquy in the play to look more closely at.  Paraphrase it and then connect it to the larger themes in the play.  “Alas, poor Yorick!  I knew him, Horatio:”  (5.1.190-202)

          Basically, Hamlet is recounting in this passage how even the merry jester, Yorick, had departed the world and how he now was nothing but a skull and a pile of bones; buried under the rubble of the earth forgotten.  Hamlet focuses quite a bit on the idea of death and what happens after the flame of life is extinguished.  Just as Hamlet’s father had died and been forgotten, this poor jester had been buried and lost for years without anyone so much as giving a second thought to him.  In this soliloquy, Hamlet remembers Yorick for who he was and notes that death has taken away all but the memory of him.

I feel that the website seemed to cover the basics of the synthesis essay and even gave some considerable guidance on what to do once the essay started.  However, I feel that it would be beneficial to directly include an example of a synthesis essay that was used in the past and then go step-by-step through the process of writing in.  While going through the steps, it would be helpful to point out what the writer thought of when he wrote each sentence and how he was going to connect it to the main thesis.  Proceeding to then show what purpose each sentence served, as well as the comparitive strength of different pieces of possible evidence, would show some students a strong example of what exactly the graders are looking for.  Although the site hammered out the specifics pretty well, I feel that it could definitely leave some students questioning what is most desired.

Pro-Choice:

 Against:

         Women who decide to have abortions are killing human beings who have the potential to live a full life.  These women are people who are choosing to terminate a life without even giving the option to the child-to-be.  They are murdering the person inside of their womb.  Though it is their body, they should not have the right to choose whether a life that is not their own should exist or end.  Giving women the right to have abortion is equivalent to giving parents the right to murder their child if they feel like it would just be a hassle in the long run.  Abortion is bad.

For:

          Women who choose to have an abortion are making a very difficult choice.  That little life form inside of them is as much an individual as it is a part of them.  Those who have abortions don’t do it out of sadistic joy, and they feel the painful scars long after the abortion is complete.  Moreover, the child is still part of the woman’s body.  She has ultimate control and responsibility of the child.  If the child-to-be would not be able to live happily or live at all after birth, the lady has to consider whether or not it would be humane to terminate the fetus’ existance immediately or to risk forcing a person to live a cruel life.  No normal person could go through the idea of having to abort a pregnancy without a lot of emotional pain, and when the decision is made, it is made for a good reason.  Women should have this right.

Thesis:  According to author George T. Kenman, “For reasons highly complex, we Americans place upon ourselves quite extraordinary
obligations of conformity to the group in utterance and behavior, and this feature of our national life seems to be growing
rather than declining.”
  I.  First Argument:  In any country, people in groups may act cooperatively to form one solid opinion.
    1)  In groups, people who are otherwise obedient, lawabiding individuals may riot or cause mayhem.
    2)  Those who are subject to hearing a group’s opinion may side with the group to feel accepted and to lessen the possibility of conflict.
    3)  Staying in a group puts pressure on an individual to be accepted in a free community where conformity builds strong bonds.
  II.  Second Argument:  Since America is based off of the concept of free speech and individuality, the
need to be in society’s favor becomes a great strength.
    1)  Those with connections with those who have the highest popularity will have the highest chances of
doing well in the United States.
    2)  The United States is a nation where popularity, looks, skills, intelligence, and fashion are everything; many people latch onto another’s fashion or popularity in order to be more accepted by the general population.
    3)  It is based off of social acceptance that shows thriving off of flaunting the rich and criticizing the unfortunate exist.
  III.  Third Argument:  The fact that the society of the United States relies heavily on popularity will only make it more dependent on being popular.
    1)  There is always the risk of being unpopular or unaccepted by society as well as the possibility of going further up the social ladder.
    2)  Since individuality is being disregarded in a search for being socially accepted through conformed thoughts and actions, it will become more severe as individuals desire to stay popular in a society that constantly changes what is popular and accepted.
    3)  Since acceptance by a group is desired, and since it is power in this society, there will be fewer and fewer individuals who keep their individuality and fewer still who stand against what may be popular.
  IV.  Conclusion

The purpose of this piece is to draw attention to the vast number of impoverished people in the author’s town, Dublin, and the problem it is creating for the rest of society. The satire puts the problem in the spotlight by first outlining the situation created by the needy and then offering a ridiculous solution to the problem that no sane person would accept. By bringing out an idea that nobody will accept, the author forces the reader to think more about the situation the author is discussing and how it could be solved. For example, when the author first introduces his idea to the audience, he mimics the language that a person would use if they genuinely thought up a creative idea. “But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the children of professed beggars: it is of a much greater extent….they shall, on the contrary, contribute to the feeding, and partly to the cloathing of many thousands.” In this passage, Jonathan Swift is stating that he will not approach the problem that so many others have approached it, but that he will see it from a completely new angle, which suggests to the reader that the author has some credibility to his words and should be heard out. However, this combines with the fact that the author does not actually mean any of what he is saying to go in contrast with what the reader expects and forces him/her to think of what other options exist. One of the powers of satire is the ability to consider a ridiculous position with absolute seriousness. “I am assured by our merchants, that a boy or a girl before twelve years old, is no saleable commodity, and even when they come to this age, they will not yield above three pounds, or three pounds and half a crown at most, on the exchange; which cannot turn to account either to the parents or kingdom, the charge of nutriments and rags having been at least four times that value.” Though this point continues on into even more logical argumentation, Swift points out that by the time children are of an age to where they could be useful if sold, they could only bring in an amount of money equal to a fraction of what it took to raise them. Swift is saying that it will result in a net loss for whoever is left with the task of raising unwanted children, which, though logically sound, is something that is assumed to be accepted by other solutions to the poverty problem. Finally, what Swift stated near the end about opponents proposing alternative solutions attempts to ironically solidify his position on the subject by attacking what other ideas would have accomplished. “I desire those politicians who dislike my overture, and may perhaps be so bold to attempt an answer, that they will first ask the parents of these mortals, whether they would not at this think it a great happiness to have been sold for food at a year old…and thereby have avoided such a perpetual scene of misfortunes, as they have since gone through, by the oppression of landlords, the impossibility of paying rent without money or trade, the want of common sustenance, with neither house nor cloaths to cover them from the inclemencies of the weather, and the most inevitable prospect of intailing the like, or greater miseries, upon their breed for ever.” Swift’s statement strongly plays on negative images of the impoverished being trapped in a cycle of inescapable torment and debt and pins those images onto the possibility of others putting up other ideas to counter his own. All in all, Swift’s satire and the rhetorical strategies he uses in this ironic piece all work together to create a strong influential piece that causes the reader to think about the situation he has brought to light for his audience.

Revolutionary Methods of Breathing Drastically Reduce Suffocation Deaths

Crazy Baby Screams Semi-Understandable French National Anthem

Nation’s Schools Funnel More Money Into Better Coffee; Claimed to Be Revolution in Learning

Preschoolers Overturn Terrorist Invasion

Kung-Fu Attack on Police Trying To Return Asian Immigrants; Jet Li Called In To Retaliate

Voice Actors of Kid’s Cartoon Sue Warner Bros. for Being Moved From Three Voices to Five

One of the first rhetorical strategies that I notice G.K. Chesterson using is alluding to the Bible and Cyrano de Bergerac saying “I need giants” in Latin. By alluding to the bible and a somewhat obscure, (for me at least) but presumably influential and popular individual in the art community, Chesterson is showing that he can take the words of others and have them somewhat support his claim. After including Bergerac’s Latin phrase, Chesterson shows that he is educated enough to know of popular phrases in other languages, which adds to his ethos. With the inclusion of the Bible allusion, Chesterson again shows that he is educated not only in language and art, but also in higher forms of reading than mundane books. This also adds to Chesterson’s ethos by showing that he is educated, but also has a tiny sense of logos/humor in that he is trying to show his audience an ironic look at something from a well-known literary piece.
Another rhetoric strategy that I noticed was that Chesterson said that he had a bit of experience looking at this situation and everything about it before realizing the idea of using the ceiling and sitting in bed. This adds to his ethos in that it shows that he’s tried other options but they have all come to naught. He knows what he is talking about and that he knows best from his experience in attempting everything until he finally did what he is advocating to the audience.
A technique close to the experience technique would be the anecdote technique where he specifies exactly what he did and what he tried when getting to the solution of painting on the ceiling. This then led to his belief that people should do similar things and lay in bed for absolutely no reason whatsoever. It leads from a specific example of what the author did to something general that everyone can do, thus making the person logically believe that there is a good reason for following the author’s advice.
One small bit where I noticed a rhetoric technique was where the author was comparing himself to Michael Angelo. Though not directly shouting out in bold letters “I AM EXACTLY LIKE MICHAEL ANGELO,” the author does say “Yet I am certain that it was from persons in my position that all the original inspiration came for covering the ceilings of palaces and cathedrals with a riot of fallen angels or victorious gods. I am sure that it was only because Michael Angelo was engaged in the ancient and honourable occupation of lying in bed that he ever realized how the roof of the Sistine Chapel might be made into an awful imitation of a divine drama that could only be acted in the heavens.” By comparing his thought processes to those of Michael Angelo, he is saying that he is both artistic/intelligent and deserving of praise/recognition, which definitely adds to his credibility.
The final rhetoric strategy that I noticed the author using was debunking any argument against his own by using the scarecrow technique. Instead of directly confronting any issues that might come up against his own claim, the author brings up something vaguely connected but relatable to the issue at hand and tries to convince the reader of his claim by destroying the opposition of the similar claim. “The tone now commonly taken toward the practice of lying in bed is hypocritical and unhealthy. Of all the marks of modernity that seem to mean a kind of decadence, there is none more menacing and dangerous than the exultation of very small and secondary matters of conduct at the expense of very great and primary ones, at the expense of eternal ties and tragic human morality. If there is one thing worse than the modern weakening of major morals, it is the modern strengthening of minor morals. Thus it is considered more withering to accuse a man of bad taste than of bad ethics. Cleanliness is not next to godliness nowadays, for cleanliness is made essential and godliness is regarded as an offence. A playwright can attack the institution of marriage so long as he does not misrepresent the manners of society, and I have met Ibsenite pessimists who thought it wrong to take beer but right to take prussic acid. Especially this is so in matters of hygiene; notably such matters as lying in bed. Instead of being regarded, as it ought to be, as a matter of personal convenience and adjustment, it has come to be regarded by many as if it were a part of essential morals to get up early in the morning. It is upon the whole part of practical wisdom; but there is nothing good about it or bad about its opposite.” Thus, the author convinces the audience through this strategy that the reader should view the opposing viewpoints toward his claim as the reader views the opposing viewpoints toward the unrelated claim. This helps cover the weak points of the author’s weak points as he goes on to stronger points to defend his view.

          Back when North America was still a relatively new colony, people came in from England in hopes of creating a new life free from the poverty that seemed to cut off their every option.  The social inequalities between the poor and the rich drove the poor to go so far as to even sell themselves to American colonists for seven years in order to make it over to the New World and start a new life.  As one impoverished immigrant, John Downe, eagerly points out to his wife in England, “If a man like work, he need not want victuals….This is a country where a man can stand as a man, and where he can enjoy the fruits of his own exertions, with rational liberty to its fullest extent.”  Downe is insisting to his wife that, if she and the children were to take the time to come to America, things would be well for the whole family and that there would be no more worries for the family.  There would be plenty of food and allies across the land.  Thoughts of poverty and superiority/inferiority would not take place as long as each man were to tend to his own needs.  Downe embodies the hopes and desires of newcomers to the New World.  Saying that there are no problems in his current situation draws his wife from across the globe by putting a positive spin on a good situation.  Downe ignores the potential problems of his new home to declare that the social inequalities of England are only a burden to the impoverished.

Just the other day when I was walking home, I noticed a cat walking down the streets searching for some food and water. It was wary of anyone who walked anywhere within its field of vision. It drank from a dirty puddle formed in the side of the road after a rainy night and glanced up to give me a dirty look before diving under a nearby car. Since then I have never seen that cat again and it may or may not have already perished in some forgotten corner of the city. With this cat in mind, I decided to use the two pictures I have now: the first being a cat that is loved and cherished by his owner and the second being a raw image of two stray cats being discovered in a dark alley.
Both pictures are in black and white, but the quality of both of the pictures combine with the situation they depict to make a powerful statement. The first image of the household cat is clear and very well defined. The elaborate stripes of dark fur are amplified by the picture’s grayscale scheme. Individual hairs blend together to create a well-kept look that shows care and concern for the animal. The piercing gaze is brought strongly into focus by being close to the middle of the picture, bringing the eyes near two focus points created by the rule of thirds. The cat itself takes up a lot of the picture and fades off into the background, making a lot of the picture positive space and giving the cat a calm look. Altogether, the picture has the feel of a content creature oblivious to the hard life and eager to feel the warmth of companionship that its master so clearly shares. On the other hand, the second picture is a far more melancholy one. It shows an instant snapshot of two stray cats wandering the night, possibly searching for meager food and insufficient shelter. The image has a grainy and raw texture, further adding to the image’s overall feel of being caught in the moment without anything being staged or refined in the slightest. A line of focus follows the strangled light coming from the end of the alley, drawing the viewer’s attention along to the two cats and beyond. In contrast to the first picture, there is a great deal of negative space created by the empty black of the dark walls, focusing attention on what is visible. The negative space in combination with the grainy texture and subject material of the picture intensify the idea that the cats appear high-strung, alert, and distant.
The strong differences between the two types of cats shown in the two pictures I chose definitely add to the contrast between them because cats are the epitome of dependent household animals. When one thinks of cats, one thinks of slinking, lazy animals that meow for food and do nothing useful around the house other than provide companionship and comfort for the dying. However, they can be just as easily neglected or thrown away to fend for themselves in this cold, modern world. The first image fits into the stereotypical mental mold of what a cat is: it is laying playfully on its side staring intently – but curiously – at the camera. The second image, however, typifies what happens when creatures that seek comfort are left abandoned on the streets: a raw image of startled alley cats.
The fact that cats are dependent upon their masters for food, water, shelter, and caring leaves them in an extremely vulnerable position. In the same way, human beings need food, water, shelter, and caring from someone else. When they slip through the cracks, society can just turn its head and leave them to fend for themselves. While society glamorizes the people who are the best of the best, a blind eye is turned to those who are in trouble or whose woes go unheard by the masses. There are people who do not have the luxury of having a stable life and must resort to a lesser state of being to scrape by. Like cats, these people stand back in society while everyone else moves on. This says something about the human condition in that people can either adore life or throw it away. Though all life is precious, not all lives are created equal. Not every creature is destined to be the subject of care and consideration. Human beings can throw away things as precious as lives even in today’s world of moral standards.

Websites:
Glenox. “My Norwegian Forest Cat.” Flickr. 16 Jan. 2007. 15 April 2008 http://flickr.com/photos/glenox/359669760/>
maggot. “rendezvous.” Flickr. 8 Jan. 2005. 15 April 2008 http://flickr.com/photos/maggot/3127125/>

Voice:  The author of this review seemed very informal and relaxed about the book review.  He didn’t take it seriously and even mocked the author on the front cover.  He would boast about how he had craftily cut corners here and there in school and how he had a profound ability to know things without reading the material.  All in all, the voice came across as one person casually talking about something (the book) to someone else and as such it was easier for the author to interpret what he was saying and to accept what was said.

Detail:  The author of this book review doesn’t have too many details in his writing, but he does know the basic idea of the book and how the concept functions.  He is aware of the book author’s intentions and the purpose of the book and therefore puts in enough detail to mix with his casual, sarcastic tone to give the whole review the sense that it is thorough enough to understand the essence of the book.

Evidence:  One of the stronger evidence points that I recall from the review was that the author stated that the book was more or less a series of lists.  This indicates that the book is not very well written and that the author intentionally condensed his main points to tell the audience how not to read a book rather than take the time and effort to make a thought-out piece that would provoke thought and inspire future generations not to read.