Why is hamlet a tragedy?

I always thought of hamlet as some grumpy old nobleman, but the version I watched showed him completely differently.  Hamlet was a moody kid who was angry at his mother and couldn't control himself around Ophelia.  Even though he was right about Claudius, he was still crazy.  Hamlet's and Ophelia's decent into madness are the tragedy of the play.

 If Hamlet weren't obsessed with revenge he might have found a way to dethrone Claudius without having to kill him.  But instead he goes into a rage and half of the characters end up dying.  Some of them like Claudius and Gertrude probably deserved revenge, but Ophelia and Laertes were innocent.

Hamlet was a childish and angry brat.  I can understand wanting to avenge your father but the way Hamlet went about it was like one long tantrum that cost 6 lives.  I think that the story had to end the way it did though.  Shakespeare was writing about murder, revenge, greed, and insanity.  I don't see how a story about those things can have a happy ending.

Sleeping and Dying?

I guess that they are similar in that when you are asleep your not interacting to the world.  When you wake up anything could have happened without you have knowing.  Sleep is also a really good metaphor for death, because at first glance it is really easy to confuse the two.

 I really like the Langston Hughes poem. I don't think that Hughes was talking about sleep and dying though.  I think that he was talking about ambitions that are left unpursued.  It really upsetting when you think about all of the dreams you had that you never acted on.  I know that I'll never be an astronaut or a test pilot, but deep down I still don't want to let go of the idea that I could be.

Sleep perchance to dream.

      Stephen King might say that people write about killing and murdering because it allows you think all of the things that your not supposed to think.  Your not supposed to think about about what it would be like to get revenge, or stone some on to death, or shoot an injured family in cold blood.  Writing about these things give the writer as well as the reader an opportunity to vent these emotions.  I think that there is some validity to that, but I think that the issue at hand is much bigger.

      I think, it is a way of trying to grapple with our mortality, to understand to some degree our last moment before it comes.  Writing about a killing or murder as opposed to the a death as the result of of cancer or act of nature, gives people a sense of control that they wouldn't have otherwise.  The sense of helplessness is still there, because I think that it is easier to relate to a victim than a murder.  However my belief is that the murder is a device used to personify death so that it is easier to understand.

      When you have someone with a motive for killing, whatever that motive is.  It makes death a little bit simpler, easier to contemplate.  I have no idea how I might react to the news of having cancer, or some other terminal illness.  When I read one of the stories like this, though.  I can place myself in that situation and by doing so contemplate what it is to die, what my dying thoughts might be, and how the world would be effected by my death.

The Moon is Down pt 2

When you are trying to figure out who won in this story you have to decide what it means to win.  The invaders have a different definition of victory then the townspeople.  The invaders were far more shortsighted then the townspeople.  I like the line about how the invaders were flies that had conquered fly paper.  I think that it highlights how trivial the invaders victory was.  In the long run the only people who really can win are the townspeople.

The Moon is Down

I don't think that anyone can truly predict how they would act in a situation like the one faced by the town.  When your up against that level of violence, all bets are off.  That said, I did notice somethings about the personalities of the townspeople and the occupiers I would like to talk about.

No one acted very different from how they would normally.  Annie was still ill tempered, it was just a good thing when she directed her anger towards the invaders.  Mayor Orden and the Doctor were still wise and contemplative.  Joesph remained a compulsive eavesdropper and gossip.  Madame Orden continued to obsess over maintaining appearances.

The biggest contrast was not amongst the townspeople reactions, but between them and the invaders.  All of the main characters in the story had a counter part on the other side.  The easiest to spot and least disputable, are the Mayor and Colonel Lanser.  Both of whom are intelligent leaders, who understand the way people think.  The key difference is that, Mayor acts on principle and respects the will of his constituents.  The Colonel on the other hand does as ordered, and expects the same from his subordinates.

I looking forward to finishing the story.  I have a feeling that Lanser's reaction to Prackle being shot will be the Rubicon crossing for the rest of what happens.

The Love Song Of J. Alfred Prufrock

T. S. Eliot was writing about the mundane drudgery of life.  Watching the smog roll in "The yellow fog that rubs its back upon the window-panes", and those little routines that rule our lives "I have measured out my life with a coffee spoon".  He is also writing about the realization that he has fairly ordinary, "No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be".

It can be a difficult realization that your nothing special and that most of the of your life has been pretty boring.  I think that Eliot is writing about a middle aged man who has come to accept that about himself.  He opens up the poem by comparing himself to an anesthetized surgical patient.  Then he ends by saying that to be awakened from our trivial lives is to die.  

The poem did have a really dry sense of humor and was very unpresumptuous.  T. S. Eliot had way of writing about life almost like an outsider looking in.  One thing that cracked me up was him constantly going back to the fact that he was going bald. This poem and all of the reading left me feeling sort of disconnected.  They were incredibly depressing in odd way that I can't quite put my finger on.  

Young Goodman Brown

     In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “Young Goodman Brown” Goodman Brown has what may or may not have been a dream about a satanic black mass in the woods.  Afterwards Brown becomes completely isolated and lives out his life as a complete loner.  The first two acts were incredibly creepy and reminded me of campfire horror stories.

   
     The most important part comes at the end though, after he wakes up in the middle of the field.  Brown was given the most brutal test of faith I’ve ever heard of and he failed miserably.  He emotionally cuts himself off to everyone he knows, including his own wife.   As a result he ends up being miserable until the day he dies.

     I felt that this story was a commentary on puritan society, how judgmental and superstitious it was.  Although he didn’t have any proof that the things he saw were anything more than a dream, it was enough for him to view everyone as traitors and heretics.  I also saw a lot of correlation to the red scares of the 20s and 50s.  After reading this I can't help but wonder if we are doing the same thing right now to Arabs and Muslims.

Hello everybody

hola