Final Paper

“Sir, in my heart there was a kind of fighting,
that would not let me sleep: methought I lay
worse than the mutines in the bilboes. Rashly,
and praised be rashness for it, let us know,
our indiscretion sometimes serves us well,
when our deep plots do pall: and that should teach us
there’s a divinity that shapes our ends,
rough-hew them how we will,--

Thus Hamlet makes his transformation from the morbid, indecisive intellectual obsessed with the physical grotesqueness of death, into the transcendent prince. Throughout most of the play, Hamlet struggles with his dilemma, entirely uncertain of everything. In fact, if it were not for his uncertainty, then Hamlet would make for a very short play; Hamlet would probably have gone right out and killed Claudius and been done with it. The transformation of the character, of course, is the nature of Shakespeare’s drama, and the reason why he is venerated to this day.
This paper, however, is not entirely about the transformation of Hamlet. The reason I bring it up is that, for me, Hamlet’s life-changing recognition is of deep personal interest, and echoes in my own life experience. And that is the focus of this paper; in reading or watching Shakespeare, every individual must have some moment of perfect recognition at some point, based on the plot or the actions of the characters. That is why Shakespeare is Shakespeare, because he shows us all of human nature, and his work can resonate in each of us. But first, let me explain my own illuminating passage.
A few lines after the opening to this paper, Hamlet says to Horatio,
“Not a whit, we defy augury: there’s 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: since no man has aught of what he
leaves, what is’t to leave betimes?

It is that very moment that Hamlet has completely made the realization that, regardless of what action he takes, he can only lose in the end, so he overcomes his doubts and worries about everything, and chooses to do what he must do. He abandons his fixation with death, and focuses his attention on the task before him. This speech from Hamlet made me recall something Albert Camus wrote, which seems almost like a paraphrasing:
“The will is nothing. Acceptance, everything. On one condition: that, faced with the humblest or the most heart-rending experience, man should always be ‘present’; and that he should endure this experience without flinching, with complete lucidity.”

I compare Albert Camus to Hamlet because both of them said things I found profoundly interesting. The transformation of Hamlet is, for me, the most insightful occurrence in Shakespeare’s works, because that character’s transformation is in many ways a mirror of my self. Though it took me a while to recognize the weight and substance of Hamlet’s character, it led me to finally realize the truth about Shakespeare.
Whenever I had to study Shakespeare in an English class, I was disinterested more often than not. Of course, I thought some of his plays were entertaining, but what really dragged me down was the analyzing of all the different meanings. It seemed as though Shakespeare was a whole lot of highfalutin intellectual garbage, and, frankly, it bored me. It got to the point where I flat out said I did not like Shakespeare. I clung to this attitude more or less until I finally recognized Hamlet’s transformation (I had read the play three or four times without ever seeing it). I suddenly saw Shakespeare in a new light. I really liked Hamlet! And then I realized why my teachers always tried to teach me all those little quirks and details in the plays, and I realized why so many people loved Shakespeare for reasons I could not understand: Shakespeare has something for everyone.
Even though I was not interested in much of the character interactions and transformations in other plays, discovering my interest in Hamlet made me realize that throughout Shakespeare’s catalogue were hundreds of insights and recognitions, which were of profound interest to other people. Someone preoccupied with the difficulties of love and loss would be deeply moved by the play Romeo and Juliet. Somebody upset about the irreverence and disrespect of his children would find particular value in the character of King Lear. Whether it be Love, or Loss, or Death, or Sorrow, or Joy, there is something to be said about every aspect of human nature, which is why Shakespeare is the greatest of them all.

My poor play

Why is Titus Andronicus so reviled?

All these scholars keep saying that Titus Andronicus is awful. They say that it almost couldn't be written by Shakespeare because it's so bad. Just the other day, Dr. Morgan said that Titus Andronicus was Shakespeare's worst play.

I liked Titus Andronicus.

It was highly entertaining. And, furthermore, I thought the human interactions in the play, regardless of how vile, were entirely feasible in real life. The interaction between the characters was, at times, sublime, and some of the plot turns were remarkably complex.

There, I said it. I liked it. Take that, all you Shakespeare snobs out there.

I think this is true

She's the Man

Okay, check this one out:

Everybody has a secret... Duke wants Olivia who likes Sebastian who is really Viola whose brother is dating Monique so she hates Olivia who's with Duke to make Sebastian jealous who is really Viola who's crushing on Duke who thinks she's a guy...

This is a short tagline for the recent movie, She's the Man.

Need I say more?

What a ripoff.

Titus Andronicus in Gladiator

When I started reading Titus Andronicus, I was struck by how similar it was to the film Gladiator. The farther along I read, the less similar they seemed, but at the beginning there was a lot.
Here's what I saw when I began, with the main points higlighted:
A Roman general is victorious in war against the Goths. This general is in every way loyal to Rome. As he returns to Rome, however, the Emperor dies, leaving a brat of a son as a potential emperor. The general is offered the position, but does not want the post, regardless of the prestige. Even with his ultimate sacrifice and loyalty to Rome, the general is betrayed and persecuted by the ungrateful aristocracy in his homeland. Thus, the true barbaric nature of Rome is revealed.

This introduction to Titus Andronicus is soo similar to the plot of Gladiator. But, as I read on, the two became more and more different. In Gladiator, the general Maximus (played by Russel Crowe) turns out to be a much more honorable man than Titus. Furthermore, the story of Gladiator goes in an entirely different direction after the initial betrayal bythe new emperor. Still, I get the feeling that the movie may have been partially inspired by this play.

This one may be a stretch...

But it's something, right?

One day in class, when we were finding links between modern culture and Shakespeare, the term "the usual suspects" came up. Where did this term come from? Someone suggested the film, The Usual Suspects. Actually, the name of that movie comes from Casablanca, a movie with Shakespearean elements, when an investigator says, "round up the usual suspects."

Well, having seen The Usual Suspects, there was one thing that could possibly be related to Shakespeare. Probably 99% of people who read this will say, "No way," but, like I said, this is a stretch.

The main guy in The Usual Suspects was a man named Verbal Kint. Verbal is a very clever man, and throughout the movie, he manages to outwit several police investigators as well as several career criminals, just by talking. Well, Kint sounds a lot like Kent. In King Lear, the character Kent is also a very skilled speaker, and makes a complete fool out of Oswald with his words. So Kint is based off of Kent! Right?! Verbal Kent!!
Uhhh...yeah.
I said it was a stretch.

Topic of the Semester:

Shakespeare's lasting influence.

Not really coming up with anything creative to write about, so
why not explore Shakespeare's lasting influence in modern film?

To begin...

In class, we discovered the main difference between tragedy and comedy; at the climax of the play, when all the major characters are together, either everyone dies, or everyone lives (in general). If everyone lives, then it's a comedy!

The movie Friday is all about a guy's weekend in the 'hood. Basically, a whole lot of tension builds between the main character, Craig (Ice Cube), and some other guys in the 'hood who don't like him. In the very last scene, EVERYBODY is out on Craig's lawn in the middle of the night, and Craig's enemies attempt a drive by shooting. Miraculously, nobody gets killed; all's well that ends well. There is even a "fool" character, a local thief, who makes his exit by stealing the bully's bike and saying "I'm a steela not a keela!" A surprisingly Shakespearean movie!

Travel: Get Thee to a Play

Newsweek
March 13, 2006 issue - All the world may be a stage, but many of this year's best productions will be mounted in Stratford on Avon this spring. England's Royal Shakespeare Company is launching The "Complete Works" festival in the Bard's hometown. Starting April 23 (Will's birthday), the yearlong festival will feature all 37 of Shakespeare's plays and all his poems.

The RSC's many theaters, as well as the surrounding streets, will be filled with all things Shakespeare, including a free outdoor film festival and the sonnets set to music by artists like Natalie Merchant. The RSC is staging 23 of the productions itself, while companies from such places as India, Japan and South Africa will contribute 30 more, including an American "Hamlet" featuring tiny ninja figures (Ophelia drowns in a glass of water). Our picks: "The Tempest," starring Patrick Stewart; Ian McKellen in "King Lear"; "The Baghdad Richard" featuring an Arabic cast, and a musical version of "The Merry Wives of Windsor" starring Judi Dench.

Buy tickets to the festival at rsc completeworks .co.uk. Prices range from $9 for standing room to $95, with discounts for students and families. Tip: RSC members get priority booking, so consider joining for about $62 (www.rsc.org.uk).
Stratford on Avon is about 100 miles north of London, but don't try a day trip, since you'll still be in the theater when the last train leaves ("www.centraltrains.co.uk). Check into the Shakespeare Hotel, which dates back to 1637 (from $240; macdonaldhotels .co.uk) or really splurge at the Menzies Welcombe Hotel (www.menzies-hotels.co.uk). But, as King Lear said, "Nothing comes from nothing," so start planning now.

Never thought of that before

Our recent guest teachers made me realize how important it is to actually see Shakespeare performed. The Shakespeare experience is so limited on paper. When I see people doing (or interpreting) his plays I become so much more involved. I think I will try to rent a movie this weekend, to see what I've been missing!

English 432 ejournal Starts Here

Hooray for Shakespeare.

Final Paper

For a (short) sample of the song, click here, then click on the "Play Sample" icon next to #36, If I Was Santa Claus. (ok it's either #36 or #66 they keep changing it on me)

For complete lyrics, click here.

When I signed up for this class, I did not really know what to expect. I was not sure what aspects of Biblical and Classical traditions would be emphasized, and I did not even slightly know what they had to do with each other. When the semester began, I learned how different they really were. The moral, altruistic world of the Bible was altogether the opposite of the individualist, amoral, Pagan world of Classical mythology.
And yet, this was still only my preliminary impression. As time passed, and we delved deeper into both sides, it became more and more clear to me that the two traditions were not so different after all. Even though the classical world is mostly hedonistic and indifferent, it is not without principles; classical heroes are often bound by feelings of love and loyalty, which can be construed as Biblical. And then there is the book of Ecclesiastes, which seems out of place in the context of the rest of the Bible. It is concerned with the impermanence of life, and the necessity of an ephemeral happiness, not the eternal consequences in the afterlife.
Yes, there was more lurking under the surface of these two seemingly opposite world views. When I first glimpsed their most obvious characteristics, it was like looking at two great nations, completely separated in ideology, and constantly at war with one another. But each tradition was ultimately more complex than it first appeared. Both have a fair share of stories to represent their values, but neither has a “summary.” There is no narrator, no guide, to say “This is what we mean.” Although there are several stories that seem to have clear messages in them, I was ultimately left to my own interpretation after reading them.
As we probed further and further into stories and myths, it slowly dawned on me that, rather than two separate monoliths of belief, the two traditions were like twins separated at birth and raised in completely different circumstances. But, for all their cultural and environmental differences, they are still conjoined by that ancient primordial bond: the human condition. Even though the two traditions largely represent different ideals, they inevitably have their share of similarities, and the reason they are similar is that they both come out of human experience. Nobody can devote one’s self strictly to one tradition or the other, because both have a ring of truth that echoes in real life.
The foremost example of this comes to mind: the stories of Job and Prometheus. In these stories, we witness a primary difference between Classical and Biblical thought. When God finally confronts Job, Job bows to the grandeur of that awesome power, knowing himself to be insignificant in comparison. However, when Zeus accosts Prometheus, Prometheus raises his lip in defiance, and is thus chained to a rock for all eternity, but nevertheless remains defiant. The stories have entirely different outcomes, but their origins are the same; both Job and Prometheus question the divine will, and that is why we all have a little of Job and Prometheus inside us. Furthermore, we all have a tendency to either submit or revolt to the powers that be, whether by fear of the consequences and acceptance of inferiority, or in the name of justice and the spirit of revolution. Both stories grew out of the same human ambivalence, and one story could not exist without the other.
What really got me thinking about this was one day when I was listening to a Hip-Hop song, of all things. It is called If I Was Santa Claus, by a group called Atmosphere. These are the (partial) lyrics, which mainly support my point:

If I was a rich man,
I’d buy you some shoes,
Tall boots, for all the dirt you walk through.
And what would that do?
Enable you to deal?
Without schooling you on how to touch what’s real?

And if I was a smart man,
I’d tell you everything that I knew,
And give it to you every time you need a talking to.
And what would that do?
Teach you my guidelines?
So you could be a cheerleader at your game on the sidelines?

And if I was a driver,
I’d keep my headlights on,
To see the difference between right and wrong.
I’d wear my seatbelt, even when I’m in park,
Cause I don’t trust the other fools
Who cruise through these parts.

And if I was a better cook,
I’d hook up a feast.
Set a table full of food for the children to eat.
I’d encourage the nourishment,
So we can breathe with the knowledge
That we got something accomplished

And if I was Santa Claus,
I’d fight for the cause,
Wouldn’t expect nothing in return.
I’d give you everything you want,
I’d be everything you need,
You could take my hand,
And I could take the lead.
….
And if I was you,
I wouldn’t hear a word I said.
Wouldn’t trust nothing to start it up inside my head.
I’d make a conscious effort to live,
Instead of trying to kill the monsters
That reside underneath the bed.
….
And if I was a wise man,
I’d climb to the top of the mountain peak
To think about strength versus weakness.
I’d find a point that rests a couple of feet above your head,
And figure out how I could try to help you reach it.

And if I did have a choice,
I’d never want to live forever.
Just let me have a voice so I can make my points.
I can’t imagine running a race
With no finish line.
Just let me keep my pace and make the most of my time.

I love giving,
But I’m bad at receiving.
The truth is I prefer to be the one bleeding.
But I’m a paranoid
That stays between play and work,
Cautious and aware, cause I’m afraid of being hurt.

Which brings me to the issue,
And that would be this:
How often must I ask myself why I exist?
I feel like a freak,
This world is a circus,
Just trying to find myself,
As well as my purpose.

And if I was Santa Claus,
I’d fight for the cause,
Wouldn’t expect nothing in return.
I’d give you everything you want,
I’d be everything you need,
You could take my hand,
And I could take the lead.


This song eloquently sums up the ambivalence we feel in our lives between Classical and Biblical wisdom. The speaker, who’s name is Slug, is constantly switching between the two life views. As “Santa Claus,” he would live for others, fighting for the cause without expecting anything in return. He would feed the children of the world, and prefers self-sacrifice to rewards. His main goal would be to help others. On the other hand, he has a Classical streak in him which recognizes that people need to be individuals who serve their own needs. After all, if we rely entirely on the help and wisdom of others, then we have nothing to call our own, and we are effectively not living our own life. Furthermore, he has a sense of the indifference of the world, and an inherent mistrust of others. And finally, the last part of the song (If I did have a choice, I’d never want to live forever…how often must I ask myself why I exist) could come from both traditions. He is accurately depicting the Classical notion that we have but one life to live, but at the same time his existential angst could have come directly out of Ecclesiastes. But the most interesting line is this: If I was you/I wouldn’t hear a word I said/Wouldn’t trust nothing to start it up inside my head/I’d make a conscious effort to live/Instead of trying to kill the monsters/That reside underneath the bed. Essentially Slug is advising a third, invisible wisdom, which is to reject conventional wisdom and all its “monsters” and to simply live life according to one’s own standards. Even though we arguably live life in the image of our Classical and Biblical traditions, there is something to be said for individual perspective, which has nothing to do with broad social and cultural standards. After all, someone could live his or her life entirely in the image of Jesus or Odysseus or Iphigenia, and never even realize it.

Speaking of New Yorker cartoons

By George Booth (click image to get a bigger view)