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.

Frankenstein

Frankenstein tries to act like God and that leads to disastrous consequences. For example, he says, “Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world” (52). Thus, Frankenstein is trying to break the boundaries of life and death. While life could be represented by the “torrent of life” while death could be represented by the “dark world,” the outcome of Frankenstein’s creation is ironic. Instead of producing a torrent of light and life, the monster brings even more misery into Frankenstein’s life. When Frankenstein takes tries to take on the godlike role, nothing good comes out of it. Thus, Shelley could be criticizing man’s attempt to live beyond the limits. In her criticism, technology is very much connected to crossing the preset boundaries. Frankenstein’s creation represents a new type of technology that does more harm than good. Such technology is found everywhere in the modern world. Television and video games often produce more harm than good.

As Frankenstein tries to act like God, he sins more and more. One of his worst sins is indirectly killing William and Justine. By creating a monster and then taking no responsibility for it, Frankenstein is very naïve. He simply lets the monster go into the wild with little concern for its safety or the safety of others. Thus, Frankenstein is very selfish. Because of Frankenstein’s unconcern, William dies. Furthermore, when Justine is murdered because the town thinks that she is the murder, Frankenstein does little to stop it. Once again, he has trouble accepting responsibility for his actions. Because of his naiveté and negligence, two murders occur. In fact, Frankenstein is more responsible for the murders than the monster is. It is thus hard to discern whether Frankenstein is a good or evil character.

Beowulf vs. The Dragon

Two characters in Grendel that are very similar are Beowulf and the Dragon because the both change Grendel and directly affect Grendel. The Dragon leads Grendel to start contemplating the meaninglessness of life. He says that things are simply “swirl[s] in the stream of time. A temporary gathering of bits, a few random dust specks, so to speak…..then by change a vast floating cloud of dustspecks, an expanding universe.” Grendel, although very confused, eagerly listened to the dragon, soaking up the news. The Dragon focuses on death and time passing. He even says that an apocalypse is “Not a real ending of course, nor even a beginning. Mere ripple in Time’s stream.” Grendel then believes that he is a “mere ripple” in the world, which is a pretty depressing thought. However, Grendel then seeks his own meaning. He wants to be a standard for the Danes. Later on, he even says that he doesn’t finish off all the Danes because then he wouldn’t have anything to do and won’t have any purpose.

However, when Beowulf comes, Grendel’s world is turned upside down. From the beginning, there are indications that Beowulf is different. Perhaps, Beowulf could even be a monster, at least to Grendel. Grendel has instances in which he is actually afraid of Beowulf begging the question: Who, or even what, is Beowulf? Is he a human? Is he the dragon? I become even more curious about Beowulf’s origins when he starts quoting the dragon. Specifically, he says, “A meaningless swirl in the stream of time, a temporary gathering of bits, a cloud…” Thus, Beowulf understands or at least appreciates the dragon’s words. Beowulf’s speech after he makes the statement shows that he doesn’t focus on death and passing that the dragon focused on. Instead, he claims, “The world will build green, sperm build again. My promise.” Beowulf brings up images of fertility and the environment instead of death and destruction. So then, I must wonder what Beowulf’s philosophy really is. Perhaps, he believes that there is no central meaning in the world but creation and life gives meaning. His philosophy is definitely harder to pinpoint that the dragon’s philosophy. One thing’s for sure though. Beowulf significantly affects Grendel. Grendel says, “I understand him all right, make no mistake. Understand his lunatic theory of matter and mind, the chilly intellect, the hot imagination…” Grendel believes that Beowulf’s theory is “lunatic” and continually attributes Beowulf’s win to “accident.” Thus, it seems as if Grendel is denial because he can’t believe that Beowulf is right. At the end, I feel like Grendel is closer to acceptance. Still, what really is Grendel accepting?

The last line of the novel is very significant as Grendel says, almost angrily, “So may you all” to the animals that gather around him. This is Grendel pondering the equality in the universe. The passing of time and death that the dragon talked about has finally taken Grendel, and it will take the animals around him. However, there is still the image of fertility and rebirth from Beowulf. Maybe, Grendel’s death isn’t really an end like Grendel though it would be.

Grendel's Spirits

Grendel is a very odd creature. While reading the first four chapters, I always notice that there are some spirits around him whether it’s a “dark chasm”, watchful “eyes”, or a menacing “presence.” What really do all these spirits mean? I think that they are simply manifestations of Grendel, revealing implicit aspects of him. For example, the “dark chasm” could possible represent the existential void, which is part of Grendel’s philosophy. On the next page, the “stars…torment [his] wits towards meaningful patterns that do not exist.” Grendel’s beliefs surely follow the existential philosophy as he can’t (or will not) see meaning in anything. Perhaps, the existential void parallels an internal void within Grendel. Since Gardner is an anti-existentialist, it wouldn’t be surprising that he describes the existentialist Grendel as having a void. Such an interpretation begs the question: What is that void? At the end of Chapter 1, there are subtle clues that point to an emptiness within Grendel. When the townspeople “wail…with a single quavering voice,” they express joy and some sort of communion even after Grendel murdered their fellows. Such a communion torments and even makes Grendel “shake with rage.” His rage is a product of his envy and loneliness. He longs for that camaraderie, the lack of which is creating a void within him. Looking even further into the “dark chasms” also reveals Grendel’s views towards a higher power. Grendel demands the dark chasms to “seize” him “to [its] foul black bowels and crush [his] bones.” If the dark chasms represent God or a higher being, then Grendel is challenging it. After Grendel comments that the chasms have “missed him”, Grendel is mocking God’s lack of power to punish or “seize” Grendel. Clearly, Grendel is skeptical of any notion of a higher power. Thus, when he starts seeing stars in meaningful patterns, Grendel has tormented “wits” because the patterns give evidence to a higher being that creates meaning in the world.


The watchful “eyes” are also a very interesting part of the novel. First, there is definitely a distinction between those eyes and Grendel’s mother’s eyes as he says, “Then all at once there they’d be again, the indifferent burning eyes of strangers. Or my mother’s eyes.” Honestly, I still have a hard time grasping who the eyes are or what the eyes represent. I do have a theory that all the eyes are, in a way, Grendel’s eyes—his search for meaning throughout the world. Before the tree incident, Grendel’s existential philosophy isn’t present, and Grendel really finds meaning in his mother. Thus, “Of all the creatures [Grendel] knew, in those days, only my mother really looked at me.” Since only his mother looked at Grendel instead of through him like the others, Grendel’s mother is the only one that has meaning for him. During the tree incident, the absence of his mother (and “her” eyes) shows that Grendel can no longer see meaning within his mother. Finally, I want to consider that mocking “presence” within Chapter 4. To me, even the “presence” is internal and a part of Grendel. It isn’t an external entity, and is perhaps a manifestation of Grendel’s own self-doubt. The presence responds with “Why not?” to Grendel’s thoughts about the Shaper’s influence and how the “Shaper could enrage [him] so.” It is almost as if Grendel is responding “Why not?” to his own thoughts and beliefs. The Shaper changes men. Why not? The Shaper changes Grendel. Why not? The Shaper changes the world. Why not? With all of the Shaper’s change, he becomes a new God or higher being for Grendel, which contrasts from Grendel’s existential theories. Thus, Grendel doubts his own theories and, as a result, doubts himself.

I always thought that a relationship between Nick and Offred would occur. It seemed so obvious that Atwood juxtaposes Offred’s relationship to Nick with Offred’s relationship with the Commander. I always thought that Offred feels something closer to love with Nick, while the Commander is simply her vessel into the previous world because she needs memories of the older world to survive. During the first time Nick and Offred have sex, Offred says “To cover up the sounds, which I am ashamed of making” (263). On the other hand, when Offred is alone with the Commander, she commands herself to “Fake it…Bestir yourself. Move your flesh around, breathe audibly” (255). Clearly, the physical aspect of Offred’s relationship with the Commander is not as fulfilling as the aspect is with Nick. Such a disparity between the same acts with different men arises from the presence of love. With Nick, she feels as if her act is shameful because it “is a betrayal” to Luke (263). She is started to fall in love with Nick, and the enjoyable sex with him simply confirms that love. In addition, Offred has sex with Nick in the section labeled “Night,” and night is the time of Offred’s freedom. However, she doesn’t feel like she is betraying Luke with the Commander because there aren’t any feelings of love involved in that relationship. Offred partly continues the relationship because the Commander has real power over her. She also needs the connection to the old world that the Commander gives her. However, sexually and spiritually, Offred is simply indifferent to the Commander as she “lies there like a dead bird” in the hotel room with him (225).

In addition, the flower imagery in this part is still ever-present. The most distinctive reference to flowers occurs with a reference to dandelions. Offred states, “Not a dandelion in sight here, the lawns are picked clean. I long for one, just one” (212). The choice of dandelion is very significant. First, dandelions are wild flowers that are very free, and their spread their seeds to a variety of places. Since there are no longer in Gilead, it seems has if there is no longer any freedom, and seeds aren’t spread to a variety of places. Instead, men and women alike must only give their seeds to the people that are assigned to them. Thus, the removal of the dandelions signals the removal of freedom. In addition, dandelions are considered weeds. As a result, the lack of dandelions shows that Gilead seeks to remove the weeds from there society.

Finally, I also want to consider the ending of The Handmaid’s Tale, which is pretty ambiguous and pretty frustrating. At the end, we don’t know whether or not Offred goes into the “darkness” or in the “light.” At first, I, like my Lit Circle members, believed that Offred would forever remain in darkness because she spiritually died in Gilead especially after Moira, her symbol for hope, eventually submits to the new society. Offred even says that Moira is frightening her. Throughout the whole novel, Offred alludes to Moira, and it seems that she is a beacon for strength, but the loss of strength proves to be frightening in the end. But then, I just have started to consider why Atwood would even give the possible of light or hope if there isn’t any in the first place. Perhaps, Offred’s encounters with Nick and secret conversations with Ofglen represent the renewal of life after Offred has been “freezing to death.” Maybe, Offred’s rebellion leads her to bigger and better things, and the light is finally within reach for her. I really want the light to be there for her.