Within Hamlet a lot of death takes place within the tragic story. Who is to blame is a controversial subject. The main coordinator of the deaths was Hamlet’s Uncle, Claudius. This is due to his first action of killing Hamlet’s father. If he had not of done that, Hamlet would not have been as deeply depressed and suspicious of his Uncle and Mother’s actions. Without the killing of his father, Hamlet would have never thought of murdering his family members. In a close second was the “Ghost” of King Hamlet. The Ghost presented Hamlet with the initial thought and “fact” that Claudius poisoned his father. With the suspicion that the ghost was only a being of the Devil, Hamlet did not immediately attempt to kill his father. In combination, the ghost and Claudius, both lit the spark and fueled the fire within Hamlet. Without the actions of these two characters, most to none of the death would not have happened. Gertrude, Hamlet’s mother plays the next biggest part in the Hamlet killings due to her acceptance of Claudius and being naive to the actual truth and hiding it from Hamlet. Gertrude also seconds Claudius’s conclusion of Hamlet being crazy or mad in order to cover up the fact that Hamlet was getting close to the truth. The king’s second hand man Polonius, added to the murders just as much as Gertrude did. He was always in what was going on and added even more depression to Hamlet’s mind. This addition was due to Polonius’ demanding Ophelia to not see Hamlet and that he was doing bad things to her. Polonius, in an act of irony, gets killed by Hamlet while trying to listen in on a conversation him and his mother were having. Hamlet’s madness made his friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, get involved due to Claudius sending Hamlet to England to try to save the kingdom from his rash acts and certain craziness. These two men also get killed indirectly by Hamlet due to their involvement with the king’s operations and trying to question the heck out of Hamlet. Fortinbras and Laertes played similarly small roles in the murders but they never directly involved themselves in the actions of the royal family. Fortinbras added stress to the king while “passing through” Denmark and then invading the kingdom. Laertes arrived at just the right moment for Claudius to take hold of him and unleash a plot for Hamlet’s death. Claudius convinced Laertes that Hamlet meant to murder Polonius (which he might have) and that he should be the direction of his anger. Within the time that all of these events took place, someone had to interpret the actions of these people; that someone is Hamlet. Without him interpreting and taking others’ actions into account, none of the murders would have taken place either. The thing is that someone had to send those thoughts into motion and without the death of King Hamlet brought on by Claudius, Hamlet would not have had to think the ways he had.
0 Comments
If I were in Hamlet’s position, I would wait. The worst thing that he can do in the current circumstance is to act on his emotions and commit to a rash act. I would take my time, count my chickens, and see how things develop. Even though he just got information from a figure that claims to be the ghost of his father that may very well not be the case. In the current place in time, several stars have aligned in favor of the ghost, but in my eyes, it is not enough to act upon. The ghost claims that Hamlet’s Uncle, Claudius, murdered Hamlet Sr. with snake poison. There is no hard proof for this act to hamlet’s eyes, or to his knowledge. He should wait and continue doing what he has been until facts start to form and he has something worthy to act upon. What happens if he acts on his instincts and slaughters everyone, and is wrong in his assumption? It would give him a bad name and probably would ruin his life. I would rather act on something that I know is right and fact rather than something that I think is fact. If Hamlet takes his time to justify what the ghost had just told him and put some concrete evidence under it, and then acts with a blazing slaughter of family members and associated people, it would be the correct move in my mind. Even though what the ghost had said seems logical and correct, the ghost very well could be tricking Hamlet into ruining the Denmark throne for a sweep by the King of Norway. The code of Chivalry in the medieval era created the idea that men and women had to live up to extremely high ideals within their society. The question is, can someone actually live up to those ideals? The answer varies from whom you ask, but I think that all ideals can be reached no matter how high or extravagant they are. In order to reach those ideals, one would have to try and peruse them. If someone doesn't want to have and accomplish high ideals, then they don't have to. Within the Wife of Bath's Tale, the knight in the story starts the story by raping a virgin, something that would go against the ethical code at the time. In modern time, cops act out and may profile someone in a racial manner and then continue to treat that man/woman differently that they would to a "normal" person. Thus, this idea of high ideals is sometimes overshadowed by the bad thing people do. Furthermore, in order to have high ideals, you have to make a choice. If you choose to not meet or have high ideals, then so be it. I choose to push myself and try to reach high standards or ideals and i work hard to do so, although I could just stop and lower my ideals if I want to. Also, setting high ideals and actually reaching them is a factor that can determine or undermine what you want to do. The choice to reach, have, and establish ideals is up to the person in question, but ultimately, all ideals can be met. An exemplum is a short story that reveals a certain moral point. Within the Pardoner's tale, three rioters find a sack of gold instead of death, who they were originally looking for. At this point in the tale, the moral reason of it becomes apparent. That point is that greed makes man corrupt. This is embodied in the way that the men act after the finding of the gold. They want as much gold for themselves as they can by killing the others. Within the tale, it is ironic that the three men were looking for death an they found it but in a different and otherwise unknown form to the rioters. The moral point brought within the tale is completely portrayed when the two men kill the other by stabbing by the third kills the other two by them drinking his "wine" which is actually poison. This moral is then repeatedly mentioned at the conclusion of the work when the Pardoner wants everyone's money for religious favors. At which point it is obvious that the Pardoner is corrupt and driven by greed. This moral is strong an relevant to the readers due to it being prevalent and all around the world we are in. The protagonist within the book The Hobbit is Mr. Bilbo Baggins accompanied by 13 dwarfs and a wizard. He has been taken on an adventure with the dwarfs to go to the Lonely Mountain to retake their gold and spoils. Bilbo is facing challenges that he wouldn't have faces in his reclusive lifestyle. He is facing fears of being away from his home, the absence of a multitude of meals. These as well as facing a pack of Wargs and a journey into a goblin horde. The Troop has traveled into the mountains and encountered terrible weather. This forced them into a cave and to get kidnapped by the goblins. Within the goblin caves, Gandalf the wizard saved the dwarfs and Bilbo by assassinating the Great Goblin. The dwarfs then escape the caverns and caves only to leave Bilbo behind. Bilbo then finds a golden ring and then wanders into the realm of Golum. After a near death experience there, he escapes the goblins and rejoins the dwarfs. Following the goblins the troop gets surrounded by giant wolfs only to be saved by giant eagles. The eagles then take them away from both the goblins and Wargs. The troop then, by Gandalf's lead, travel to Beorn's house to get help and to rest up. Beorn gives them advice and tells them the way to their destination glad to hear the wizard's/dwarf's story. Currently the troop of fifteen are heading towards Mirkwood along the great river. Sleep has been restless and Bilbo has become increasingly uncomfortable within this new environment. With the group working their way towards a gate described by Beorn is where I have left off. 1. What can jump but has no legs,
What can grow but isn't alive, What can reach but has no hands, What can run but has no feet, What can climb but has no arms? What am I? 2.I can mold into many forms, I can fold with the use of hands, I can be heated, I can be cooled, I can be hard with heat, I can be soft with water, I am used to form many useful things things. You can see me......everywhere. What am I? 3. I hate trees and other tall objects, People fear my might, My roar deafens my enemies, I am the ruler of my realm, Seek cover when I show. What am I? True love only exists in certain situations. Most of the time, when someone thinks of true love they are mislead to that outcome. For example, when a High School student claims to have met someone and believe that their attraction in true love but in actuality, it is just speculative thinking. True love is the type of attraction that would include taking your own life for theirs, but not when that opportunity happens. True love is something that happens after the fact. Post mortem is when those feelings happen. Before that it’s more of less a feeling of right or wrong that in unbelievably sugar-coated. When a relationship begins it is a choice to say, “Is this a good feeling or a bad feeling?” In the case of the video, the love is throughout their lives but is even more apparent to Fred after losing his wife. Love is as much a feeling as a character in a Disney film. There is not anyone in the world that knows what is love is or if it’s happening to them. This conclusion is due to the fact that love only exists when the couple is enjoying each other, and it is a choice to except that presence. Does love exist when a relationship can be aborted at any moment? Love is also something that people use to describe relationships. Normally someone says that the couple loves each other. Saying, “I love you” is just a sort of checking the box to say that the relationship exists.
Grendel and his mother are similar beings. The thing is that they have some glaring differences. Grendel was a strong practically invulnerable being that attacked with ferocity and strikes with fear. His mother, on the other hand, was much weaker than himself. When Grendel took handfuls of warriors, his mother only took a few. Grendel killed for revenge of his banishment under the earth while his mother was killing to revenge his son. Both lived at the bottom of a lake with many other earth dwelling monsters. Beowulf killed Grendel at the hall while he killed Grendel's mother at their home. Grendel's mother is not as ruthless and Grendel was but she still is disgusting and ferocious. Grendel used to live with his mother at the bottom of the huge lake but he moved to cave closer to his killing zone, therefore leaving his mother alone, only to return without an arm and to defeat. Grendel was a ferocious humanoid figure while his mother is described as a She-Wolf. She is more meticulous than that of Grendel, taking the more quality prizes instead of the more quantity. In the text, Grendel's Mother only takes one trophy from the Great Hall but that trophy is the king's , essentially right hand man. All in all, Grendel just wants to kill to revenge his family, while his mother thinks about who she kills more that what, and why. Schools prepare you for what you need now. Most try to prepare for the time of tomorrow but the drawback is that the administrators do not have a clue of what to teach or what is the knowledge of tomorrow. The future is an ever changing environment. Schools can prepare for tomorrow by offering a larger pool of classes covering a wide range of subjects, but then it is up to the student to prepare themselves for that new environment. I look forward to what the future brings. If the technologies coming out currently are amazing me, what about the tech of the future? I think that most people are scared of what the future can bring, most are stuck in a sort of time freeze where they like how it is now and don't want it to change. This idea of being stuck in a certain time period, I believe, if from a sense of comfort. These people are used to the current communities and how they work. People from an age where certain technologies did not exist are not adept to that environment so they don't want to move forward. When you open your mind to the possibilities of what the future holds, it can be incredible. Like the video said, computers are taking over the world, so learning how to code is not just an invaluable skill, but in trains you to think in different ways and solve problems accordingly. I want to be an engineer or a computer scientist when i graduate from college, if I don't think about what is to come, my job field leaves me in the dust so a level of thinking that could be described as "outside of the box" is something that I can not succeed without. |
Alex FujaPart time nerd, Full time geek. Archives
March 2016
Categories |