"To be or not to be"

When I started analyzing the “to be or not to be” speech for the paper, I noticed many interesting lines that seem to connect to other parts of the play. For one, his words made his later harsh words to Ophelia clearer. For example, when Hamlet brings up the “pangs of despised love,” it is almost as if Hamlet is remembering this misery from past experience. When I first read the soliloquy, I thought that Hamlet was simply listing troubles in life, and those troubles were generalized to everyone. However, Hamlet, with his mention of love, seems to be truly about Ophelia’s earlier rejection. Thus, when he says “I did love you once,” Hamlet rejects Ophelia because he can no longer take all that pain. Similarly, when Hamlet mentions the “patient merit of th’ unworthy,” he describes the rejection and denial that he feels. This rejection and denial also seems to be a product of his mother’s betrayal. Later in the play, Hamlet talks rudely towards his mother, and all his resentment is expressed in this speech. Considering all his relationships with women, it isn’t surprising that Hamlet feels so hopeless and life and is considering committing suicide.

Another thing that I found interesting was the references to suicide. While I vaguely knew that the speech was about suicide, I didn’t find all the specific hints that Shakespeare placed in the speech. For example, he includes “mortal coil.” While it could be clutter/fuss (as my footnotes say), I realized that it also alludes to a coil of rope. Thus, the mortal coil is subtle imagery for hanging oneself, especially since the coil is mortal. Still, the “mortal coil” could also point to Hamlet’s wanting to end Claudius’s life because. Another instance of suicide imagery is when he discusses the “bare bodkin.” A bodkin, a tool like a dagger, was especially used as a means of suicide in the ancient times. Therefore, there are many indications that Hamlet wants to commit suicide.

While reading the speech, I also wondered why he always equated sleep with death. This metaphor reveals much about Hamlet’s attitude towards death. I think that sleep is a supposedly peaceful time, and Hamlet now thinks of death as a way to bring peace. It is debatable, however, whether or not the death of Hamlet or the death of Claudius will bring peace. In the end, it seems as if both deaths bring the peace. Finally, I saw a fascinating connection when Hamlet says, “sicklied o’er with the pale cast.” This line connects to disease and sickness. In fact, it shows why Hamlet progressively becomes mad throughout the play. It is all the pains of being alive that make Hamlet go crazy. Although Hamlet is partly aware of his madness, his miserable thoughts in this speech and the other speech show that not of all his madness is feigned.

Analyzing his speech has been challenging especially since I feel like Hamlet is very repetitive. However, when I read it over again, I realize that each line adds new meaning. It is especially difficult to analyze because there are so many potential meanings in his speech.

The Nameless Narrator

There are many motifs that I have noticed in the beginning pages of Invisible Man. The narrator always seems up to bring up sight and seeing. For example, in the prologue, there is a comment about “inner eyes,” which are “those eyes with which they look through their physical eyes upon reality.” These inner eyes pass judgment upon the narrator, and such judgment results in the narrator’s invisibility. Although the “physical eyes” may literally see the narrator, the inner eyes—or the mind behind those eyes—refuse the narrator’s own presence. However, I find it particularly peculiar that he is “not complaining, nor [is he] protesting either.” Why does he not want to be seen? Shortly after, he says, “it occurred to me that the man had not seen me.” It is almost as if he uses not being seen to his advantage. After beating up the man, he is amused by the fact that he was “mugged by an invisible man!” I think that this incident was a turning point in his own view towards his invisibility, or his “blackness.” Presently, he is accustomed to such invisibility.

The image of “blackness” recurs once again in an important, yet odd scene in the novel. In the song, “…there was blackness” but the black is “bloody.” There is an important contradiction within the song, as the black is red. Since the darkness—or invisibility—is also blood, the invisibility is like a wound for the narrator. This wound has become a part of the lives of African Americans. However, the woman that breaks from the unified voice at the end was distinct from the blackness and invisibility because she loved a white man. In other words, she does not blend in with the fellow African Americans in one unique respect, but this one important distinction results in an attempt to break free from that invisibility. Perhaps, her “freedom” arises from no more darkness.

I also want to consider the significance of his home, better known as his “hole.” His “hole” is underground, so it could possibly be a symbol of hell as it is almost like a “hellhole.” This hell comparison becomes especially pronounced when he describes his place as warm. However, the similarities break down when he seems to like his hole. Maybe, he has simply become part of the hole and can’t recognize the misery around him. Or, perhaps, he thinks that his hole is much better than the prejudiced world above him. Interestingly enough, his residence is below everyone else, just as African Americans were supposedly below the whites in the time period after the Civil War.

Finally, I was also interested by the brutality of the battle royal juxtaposed with the sophistication of his speech. I wonder why the narrator chose to engage in the battle and why he feels the need to submit to the whims of the whites. Does the nameless narrator believe that his submission is actually a form of action? The resulting speech shows that he has the competency and skills of an educated person, but he is still forced to engage in demeaning tasks. Still, the whole scene at the ballroom is still confusing and I’m not sure of its import. To me, the narrator’s submission is frustrating, and I wonder if the “action” he discusses in the first paragraph will become a reality.

The Dust in "Church Monuments"

I thought that the poem “Church Monuments” was a very interesting read despite its difficult language. In the first stanza, the speaker seems to be praying in a church as his “soul repairs to her devotion.” However, the speaker then starts talking about his “flesh.” He at first says that he “entombs” his flesh, most likely referencing when he dies and his body is buried. The third line provides evidence for the speaker’s attitude towards his flesh. He believes that the flesh will “make an acquaintance with dust.” The mention of dust almost reminds me of Grendel, where the dust signified the passage of time. In the same way, the speaker hints to the flesh’s own passage into dust. The flesh will become dust with the “blast of death’s incessant motion.” It almost seems as if the speaker regards death as a negative and destructive force. Still, he realizes that everyone must feel death’s “motion.”

In the second stanza, the speaker says that he “gladly trusts [his] body to this school.” I think that the “school” refers to the earth of the graveyard. When he says to “find his birth written in dusty heraldry and lines,” the dusty heraldry and lines refers to the tombstones that discuss the details of the body. Still, the tombstones will eventually disintegrate into dust just as the body does. As the body knows dust will become dust, the “jet and marble put up for signs” are almost comical because they hint at permanence that isn’t there. The speaker then asks the sole question in the entire poem—“What shall point out them,/ When they shall bow, and kneel, and fall down flat/ To kiss those heaps, which now they have in trust?” I am actually not sure about the significance of the question, but it might be mocking people that “kiss the heaps of dust.” In other words, those that revere the dead do not know that the body has simply turned to dust just as everything does.

Finally, in the fourth stanza, the speaker gives advice to his body. He first warns against when the body should get “wanton in cravings.” He says that “flesh is but the glass, which holds the dust/ That measures all our time; which also shall/ Be crumbled into dust.” In other words, flesh shouldn’t gain so much pride because it is the only holder of dust. Flesh holds the spirit and soul “that measures all time”. However, just as flesh becomes dust, the spirit and soul also become dust. Despite the flesh’s subservience to the soul, both entities become dust. Finally, the speaker prepares his flesh for the impending death. He says that the ashes are “tame and free from lust.” In the same way, flesh should calmly and freely accept death.

For me, this poem was probably one of the hardest poems we have looked at so far. Many of the lines don’t point to a direct interpretation, but I think that its complex nature is fitting because death and dust are both very complicated subjects.

"My Papa's Waltz"

Since our poetry fishbowl discussions are tomorrow, I thought that I would offer some of my insights on the poem assigned to me—“My Papa’s Waltz.”

-The first line is “The whiskey on your breath.” Such an opening brings up an image of drunkenness. Furthermore, the fact that the speaker, a man looking back on his younger days, can name the exact drink—whiskey—suggests that the father’s drunkenness is actually regular and significant.

-In the second line (“Could make a small boy dizzy”), the reader learns that the narrator seems to be remembering his days as a young boy with his father. While the incorporation of the word “dizzy” is part of the fact that the boy is engaged in a waltz, the word also has a negative connotation. It’s almost as if his father’s destructive behavior is making him dizzy.

-Finally, the third line shows that the waltz isn’t something that is exactly enjoyable. The boy “hung on like death.” The word “death” implies that there is some darkness associated with the waltz. Furthermore, “hung” can also refer to death by hanging. Perhaps, by dancing with his father, the boy is slowly dying as he witness his father’s destructive behaviors. He then goes on to say that “such waltzing was not easy.” Such a statement is ironic because dancing should be easy and free. In fact, it’s not just the waltzing that’s not easy; being with his father is hard.

-By the second stanza, the destruction becomes even more pronounced. As the speaker says “we romped until the pans,” the inclusion of “romped” makes it seem as if the dance is more than just horseplay. In fact, it shows that the dance is actually violent. It is so violent, in reality, that the “pan’s slid from the kitchen shelf.”

-When the speaker says, “My mother’s countenance/Could not unfrown itself,” it at first seems as if the mother’s disappointment lies in the pans falling from the kitchen shelf. However, the mother is so upset that she was never smiling and always had a frown on her face.

-Finally, the third stanza gives evidence to physical abuse. The speaker says, “The hand that held my wrist/Was battered on one knuckle.” The hand was battered suggesting that the father has been beating the boy. Even the fact it was on one “knuckle” shows that fists have been made, and acts of aggression have happened.

-The next line says, “At every step you missed/My right ear scraped a buckle.” While this could show the dancing, it also shows that the father is using a belt—often a form of beating children. When the father misses a step, it seems like he is almost stumbling and is beating his child under the influence of alcohol.

-Finally, the speaker says “You beat time on my head.” Again, the word “beat” is relevant to the abuse that seems to be occurring. However, I am not sure why the speaker says he beat “time.” What is the significance of time? Does it have to do with the time of the day? Or perhaps it is important because it signals how much time the boy has left to endure the abuse?

-Throughout the whole poem, the child seems to obey his father despite the abuse. The poem, interestingly enough, is also in iambic trimester, which is similar to the beat of a waltz.

Gender Roles

While reading an analysis by David Bevington, an editor of one of the editions of Hamlet, I was especially interested in Bevington’s beliefs that “Ophelia is more innocent than her father and brother, and truly more affectionate towards Hamlet.” The specific gender roles in Hamlet are very much apparent. Ophelia, a woman, is seemingly more “innocent” and “affectionate” that her masculine relatives. Still, I included “seemingly” because I am still not sure how to define the relationship between Ophelia and Hamlet. In the two movies we have watched, there have been two different interpretations—one in which Ophelia is frail and innocent and the other in which Ophelia has already submitted to her relationship to Hamlet. Therefore, while Bevington might suppose Ophelia as innocent, appearances are deceiving, as evidenced by Hamlet’s and Claudius’s own respective facades.

However, while I’m not completely sure about Ophelia’s innocence, I can still sympathize with Ophelia. She is under the control of three men and isn’t free to exert her own independence. In fact, Ophelia and even Gertrude both have very few lines in the play, showing their relative unimportance and lack of strength. Ophelia demonstrates her passivity by simply conceding to the commands of her father and her brother. Even today, when we acted out the scene between Ophelia and Hamlet, Hamlet grabs Ophelia’s arm with such a tight hold in a way that is perhaps Hamlet’s way of declaring his power over her.

I feel that it is also important to compare the two central female characters in the play, Ophelia and Gertrude. Both women are defined by their relationships to men. Gertrude, at first married to Hamlet’s father, is now married to Hamlet’s uncle. Whether she married the uncle by choice or was forced to, Gertrude doesn’t seem to have much role in the kingdom except as wife. In a similar way, while Hamlet seems to be a large part of Ophelia’s life, Ophelia is of limited concern to Hamlet. It is no wonder that Hamlet exclaims “frailty, thy name is woman” because the two women in his life are subservient to men and rarely follow their own will.

Besides Ophelia and Gertrude, I also want to comment on Hamlet’s own almost frail state. Hamlet, acting like a madman, seems to be committing the same rash decisions that he accused his mother of doing. I think that, as we read the novel, we are going to realize that Hamlet’s mental state stems from his belief that the world itself is an “unweeded garden/ That grows to seed. Things rank and gross in nature/ Possess it merely.” Hamlet has little faith in the world, and thus, seems to have awakened his own tragic flaw. As he seeks revenge for his father, I think that Hamlet is frail and weak in the sense that he succumbs to his feelings of revenge and hate. Hamlet may not realize it, but just as his mother supposedly “succumbs” to his uncle, Hamlet is falling prey to another evil—an evil that may eventually lead to his downfall.

"The School Children"

“The School Children” by Louise Glück was one of the poems that I found especially interesting because only close analysis reveals a deeper, more significant meaning. Just on the surface, the poem seems to be about a simple life moment—young children going to school. However, the poem is actually more about a struggle between the mothers and teachers. As the children “go forward with the little satchels,” the mothers “have labored.” The images of hard-working mothers suggest that the mothers’ work makes the children go forward. Even the structure of the poem indicates that the mothers dictate the children’s actions. The first stanza and last stanza are the only stanzas that mention the mothers. It is almost as if the mothers enclose the children as they try to protect them from the outside world. Such analysis then begs the question—what is the outside world?

The outside world could be the school, filled with judgmental and powerful teachers. Although the mothers struggle to send their children to the teachers, they continue to work to impress the teachers. Still, the apples gathered are “like words of another language.” There is a certain disconnection between the teachers and mothers as the teachers are “on the other shore.” It seems like the children are caught in the war between the teachers and the mothers. Amidst the overbearing teachers that wait “behind the great desks” and the mothers “scour the orchards,” there is no good for the children. In fact, the line “How orderly they are—the nails/ on which the children hang” makes it seem as if the children are themselves hanging. Perhaps then, Glück has a very negative attitude towards schooling. Although the mothers seek their children’s success, their labor is having the opposite effect. Finally, the last line of the poem reaffirms the fact that there is a subtle war between the teacher and mothers possibly for control over the children. The inclusion of the word “ammunition” suggests that gathering the apples is a way for the mothers to still maintain control over the children and their school lives. However, there is “little ammunition,” implying that the mothers lose the war in the end.

After reading “The School Children,” I started working upon my own poem. However, I realized that capturing a life moment is very difficult. Even more, I must capture that moment in an artistic and beautiful way. Now that I am working on my own poem, I appreciate the work of gifted poets so much more. The fact that Louise Glück could incorporate so much meaning into so few lines astounds me. Even the colors in the poem have their own meaning. The “gray” limbs of the tree could point to the gradual aging of the children as they go from their mothers’ hands to the teacher’s hands. Or the “gray” could be representative of the gray area that is present between the teacher and the mothers. Furthermore, although Glück might not have intentionally added all the meaning that I see, I think such analysis allows me to understand the poem in a much more personal way.

Frankenstein and "Tintern Abbey"

I thought that the allusion to “Tintern Abbey” in Frankenstein is actually very significant. Shelley makes this reference to Wordsworth’s poem after the monster meets Victor and tells him his story. Alienated and lonely, the monster demands that Victor create him a female companion otherwise he will wreak havoc and destruction upon the world. Fearing the worst, Victor sets to work on the monster and goes to London with his dear friend Clerval. Shelley seeks to highlight the contrasting attitudes of the two friends in London with the inclusion of “Tintern Abbey.”

In “Tintern Abbey,” the speaker has almost three selves, each respectively representing the past, the present, or the future. When the speaker is younger, nature is “all in all” for him, and, as a boy, the speaker finds great pleasure and joy in being with nature. In fact, the speaker ponders memories in which he needed nothing but nature and could genuinely and fully appreciate nature. While he no longer has that same boyish love, he sees some new young appreciation in his sister, his friend. The two people in ‘Tintern Abbey” are significant in Frankenstein because they parallel Victor and Clerval.

First of all, both works show the main element of Romanticism, the love of nature. Clerval is actually very representative of the speaker when he is younger. Clerval, like the speaker, almost has an appetite for nature and simply revels in the joy of being with nature. Thus, the poem highlights Clerval’s passion for nature. By including a poem, the emotions of the speaker become reflected in Clerval. But then, just as the older speaker differs from his younger self, Victor differs from Clerval. Although Victor isn’t physically older than Clerval, Victor is mentally older because he has gone to college and has definitely experienced the darker aspects of life. While Victor does appreciate nature, he doesn’t love it with the same passion that Clerval does. By making the parallels and connections between the two poems, I see how Victor’s burdens make him so different from the inexperienced Clerval. Victor actually can understand the “still, sad music of humanity.” Perhaps then, Shelley is criticizing experience and the darker aspects associate with it. I also thought that Clerval could then be a parallel to the younger sister. Victor actually finds delight in his Clerval’s joy in the same way that he old speaker that his sister has a passion for nature in its beauty. Then, the poem also acts as a way to characterize both Victor and Clerval and show some of the evils of age and knowledge.

I also had a few questions about Frankenstein—Is the monster evil? Or is he just a product of Victor’s own evil? What really is the significance of the blind man? Is the blind man, in fact, the only own that’s not blind to the monster’s goodness? In addition, how then does the misery of the De Lacey family affect the monster? This book really makes me think about the responsibility of own’s actions and the meaning of a higher being.