Blog #6: Hamlet Close Reading

Hamlet’s first soliloquy is by no means a happy one, and is in a sense suicidal.  He is extremely depressed, weighed down by the death of his father and rapid marriage of his mother.  He is conflicted, which can be seen by his use of juxtaposition between the divine and the earthly.  To Hamlet, his father was to his uncle Claudius like a “Hyperion to a satyr” (140), comparing his father to the divine sun god and his uncle to an earthly half human-half beast.    This contrast can be seen again when Hamlet says, “my father’s brother, but no more like my father / than I to Hercules” (152-153).  Simply stated, Claudius is to Hamlet’s father as Hamlet is to Hercules. His father is comparable to the gods, while Claudius is comparable to Hamlet.  The fact that Hamlet chose the repulsive, inferior creature to be himself shows his dissatisfaction with not only his uncle but with himself, which explains why he wishes his “sullied flesh would melt … or that the Everlasting had not fixed / his canon ‘gainst self-slaughter” (129, 131-132).  The self-hate is very evident in these lines, as Hamlet yearns for his body to melt and for suicide (“self-slaughter”) to not be considered a sin. His obvious contempt for both himself and his uncle is apparent in both of these metaphors, along with the great respect he holds for his deceased father. 

However, this contempt and respect greatly contributes to Hamlet’s disgust towards his mother.  Similar to Claudius, Hamlet’s mother is compared to a mortal being, a prideful woman named Niobe.  However, Hamlet goes even further and claims, “O God, a beast that wants discourse of reason /  Would have mourned longer” (150-151).  His mother is demoted prideful woman to a beast, the most repulsive representation of the earthly, due to her rushed marriage to Claudius.

Finally, I think Hamlet is experiencing some sort of identity crisis.  I don’t think it was a coincidence that he compared his father to Hyperion, god of the sun.  This reference brought me back to lines 64 and 67, as I noticed a play on word with sun/son.  Hamlet, much to his disgust, is now considered Claudius’ “son”.  As Claudius says in line 64, “But now, my cousin Hamlet, and my son.” (64) Hamlet is both a cousin and a son who is “too much in the sun” (67), or in other words, the focus of the new king’s unwanted attention.  But when brought up in regards to his true father, Hamlet refers to the sun in a much more positive light.  Hyperion is the god of the sun, and Hamlet’s father is a god to his son.  Hamlet’s use of pun and juxtaposition only further exhibits his obvious love and respect for his father, as well as his feelings of hopelessness as a son. 

Blog Response 6

In this soliloquy Hamlet voices his discontent at his mother and the situation that his father's death left the court in. Shakespeare uses food to describe how Hamlet's life has gone bad, and how Hamlet reacts to that change. He laments, " O that this too sullied flesh would melt, Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew" (129-130). The "sullied flesh" is rotten meat; Hamlet feels that with the death of his father his life rotten like the meat. His wish for it to "melt" indicates that he wishes he could go back to his life with his father still alive. This line also shows Hamlet's personality: instead of devising a plan or taking action, he is inside his mind and hoping for things to somehow change. This also comes through when Hamlet complains that "..'tis an unweeded garden that grows to seed. Things rank and gross in nature possess it merely" (136-137). The worded "unweeded" carries the connotation that the life Hamlet cultivated did not come to fruition.  Hamlet believes that the situation he's in was not supposed to happen, that it is unwanted, and the opposite of what he "weeded" or prepared for. He is out of control of his life.

Hamlet uses mythical allusions to assail the character of his mother and his uncle Claudius. He idolizes his father, and detests the speed at which his mother married Claudius, whom he considers to be unworthy and inferior. He claims his father was "Hyperion to a satyr" (140) compared to Claudius. A hyperion was one of the Titans in Greek mythology, whereas a satyr was half-man and half-horse. Hamlet Sr. was above godly. Claudius is not even human, but partly animalistic. The satyr is also associated with fertility - something that alludes to how Hamlet feels Claudius animalistically pursues Gertude. Gertrude herself is shown as weak: she cried "like Niobe" (149) for a month, but this was quickly over as soon as she married. Niobe is a Greek mythic figure that cried for eternity because her children were killed. That Hamlet says Gertrude seemed to cry like this and then quickly stop implies that her grief was somehow insincere or fake.

Blog Post #6 - Hamlet Soliloquy Close Reading

            The first of Hamlet’s suicidal soliloquys, this excerpt from Shakespeare’s tragic play establishes the frustration, disillusionment and even the occasional misogyny that characterize the young protagonist. Hamlet contemplates what he considers to be the only escape from the injustice that has tainted his life and the state of Denmark: killing himself. “Oh that this too too sullied flesh would melt,” laments the prince. His repetition of the word “too” reinforces his thought that his own body is holding him hostage to the misery that troubles him. He likens his life to the stale and pitiful fate that befalls an untended garden. Hamlet repeatedly uses the expression “fie,” a Shakespearean term meaning “what a shame.” This dark commentary creates a dismal mood, indicative of the sense of depressed lethargy present in Hamlet’s thoughts.

            Hamlet proceeds to remark on the seemingly traitorous actions of his mother, the Queen. In discussing Gertrude’s relationship with the late King, he invokes a mythological allusion, claiming that the King was as “Hyperion to a satyr.” While this establishes the dead King as a man of loyal character, it presents the Queen as dependent. This notion is strengthened when Hamlet proclaims, “she would hang on [the King],” conjuring up an image of Gertrude that would today be described as “clingy.” Already, Hamlet’s thoughts on his mother can be perceived as less-than-admirable. However, he goes on to degrade her further in discussing her hasty marriage to Claudius, her brother-in-law. The prince compares her to “a beast,” stripping her of dignity and all human qualities, and condemning her profligate willingness to suddenly enter an “incestuous” relationship. He extrapolates maternal disgust to include all of womankind when he asserts, “frailty, thy name is woman.” Thus, in the soliloquy Hamlet introduces an air of misogyny that will continue throughout the play. 

Blog Response #6: Close Reading of Hamlet's Soliloquy

In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the first soliloquy from the protagonist introduces us to a capricious, diffident, and sharp-tongued young prince. Slighted by his father-in-law, and held in Denmark against his wishes, he is furious with the situation he faces at home. He is even angrier that he will not return to university and escape it. Instead of unleashing this rage with a flurry of insults posed towards his mother and step-father, however, he chooses self-destruction. The first lines of the soliloquy are a metaphor that is his plea for suicide. He hopes, “that this too too sullied flesh would melt” (I.ii. 133). In fact, as the soliloquy continues he reveals the only reason he will not commit suicide is because it is forbidden by religious laws.

This initial timorous display contributes to one of the major suicidal motifs that continues to rear its head throughout the play. It forces one consider Hamlet’s role in the play, as an inactive and brooding character, but also as a man who is characteristic for unpredictable rash actions. This idea is also played upon grammatically through the use of long syntax and then short exclamatory sentences. Although the play is clearly intended for a visual audience, there is still a purpose in grammatical structure, as it is the script an actor bases his performance on. Hamlet’s long syntax is paralleled with his long and drawn out thoughts, and after much consideration, and many lines, these thoughts are finally brought out to rash, short, and quick exclamations. 

Hamlet then goes on in the soliloquy to make numerous mythological allusions to aid in his insults of his mother and step-father. He claims that a comparison of his father and step-father is like comparing “Hyperion to a satyr” (I.ii. 144). And more importantly compares his mother’s mourning to the tears of Niobe, stating an infamous line from the play before the slight, “frailty, thy name is woman” (I.ii. 150). This relates to two other motifs in the play, Oedipal conflicts between Hamlet and Gertrude and misogyny. Although it is unfortunate that Gertrude has married Claudius so quickly, there is no reason on the part of Hamlet. He never attempts to logically explain his mother’s actions. Instead in a rash and cruel manner he labels a traitor to his father’s memory and her son. Gertrude is never considered in her role as a queen. How socially acceptable it would have been for her to rule alone without Hamlet at her side; and if she must remarry would not the brother of her late husband would be a logical replacement king? That match accomplishes two major goals: it keeps the power within the members of the royal family and ensures that Denmark has a fit king. I believe that this moment in the play does speak to Gertrude’s ostensibly fickle nature, but relates to the needlessly interrogative Hamlet, as well as the convenience of such an arrangement. The thing that is rotten in Denmark here is not Claudius’ and Gertrude’s marriage, it is the likelihood of the events themselves; his father’s death and subsequently their marriage. It is the lack of consideration of the cause of the events which occurred that allows this moment to lend itself to the misogynist motif in the play.

Hamlet is posed as an intelligent but inactive figure in this soliloquy. The final words seemingly seal his fate, “...I must hold my tongue” (I.ii. 164). It is this holding back that results in his rash actions, the lack of confrontation of issues, and ultimately the tragic demise and subsequent ending of the play. 

Blog #6: Close Reading

In act I, scene II, Hamlet delivers his first important soliloquy. His speech hints about suicide. In lines 129, the use of “too” twice in a row stresses his “sullied” flesh. Hamlet continues to lament about wishing his skin could “melt,/ Thaw, and resolve...” but he cannot because it is against God to “self-slaughter.” Shakespeare compares an “unweeded garden” to Hamlet’s life. By using “gross” and “possess it merely” creates a negative connotation and reflects Hamlet’s situation; Hamlet is obviously unhappy with his current situation – the loss of his father and seeing his uncle marry his mother – and he believes he has no power to control it, which is similar to a garden overtaken with weeds. He sees life as “weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable.”

Shakespeare also uses allusions to mythology. He sees his father as Hyperion – the sun god – while his uncle is merely a satyr (a half-man and half-goat). Through this allusion, Hamlet believes his father to be a far superior king than his uncle. Hamlet does this again but with a reference to Hercules in lines 152-153. “Niobe” in line 149 references his mother’s nonstop crying during her husband’s funeral, but then creates a contrast with how fast (within a month) she stopped her mourning and married Claudius.

Besides the last two lines, the rest of the periods end in the middle of a line. The use of commas and dashes emphasizes Hamlet’s stream of thoughts and complaints. The use of periods at the end of the last two lines creates dramatic pauses and ultimately foreshadows that nothing good will come out of this marriage, but also Hamlet’s hesitancy to speak out.

Close Reading of "Hamlet"

Lines 133-164 make up Hamlet's first soliloquy in the play. He is dejected, frustrated, angry, and disgusted. He compares "all the uses of this world" to an "unweeded garden/That grows to seed." This metaphor describes the corruption and (more specifically) incest that he is experiencing directly. THe world is turning against his will and he is losing control of his own life. Moreover, he's seeing his uncle as a weed in his life, and his life as a garden. Clearly, he wants to take the weeds out of his garden; this is the first sign of Hamlet's desire to get rid of Claudius. This is even before he meets his father's ghost and finds out the truth of how he died.

There are three mythical allusions that stand out: "Hyperion to a satyr," "Niobe, all tears," and "I to Hercules." Hyperion is the sun god, and a satyr is a Greek creature that is half-man, half-goat. King Hamlet is compared to a god while Queen Gertrude is compared to an inferior being (or that is what I presume). This evokes Hamlet's disgust at his mother, who now seems like such a pathetic person compared to the shining figure his father was. Hamlet is more repulsed by his mother than he is by Claudius, and this is even more apparent when he cries, "O, must wicked speed, to post/With such dexterity to incestuous sheets!" (line 156-157) He also compares Gertrude to Niobe, who was a queen who taunted Leto, the mother of the gods Apollo and Artemis, with her abundance of offspring. Apollo and Artemis retaliated by killing all of Niobe's children, reducing her to endless tears. Her unending grief prompted Zeus to turn her into stone, from which tears still poured out. Hamlet clearly sees his mother with contempt; she may have cried at the king's funeral but she married again in a month. He is implying that her tears are all for show.
Hamlet also mentions Hercules, a strong Greek hero famous for being a man of action. He says that his "father's brother" is "no more like [his] father," saying that Claudius will never measure up to the former king. This is important because Hamlet doesn't know that Claudius murdered his father; we can see that Hamlet has disliked his uncle from the beginning. It's also notable that he brings the comparison back to himself, stating that he will never measure up to Hercules, just as his uncle will never measure up to his father. We see here that Hamlet knows that he is weak in action, foreshadowing his inaction for the remainder of the play. Someone like Hercules would have done something by now, whereas Hamlet is all words.

Hamlet sees the love that his mother had for his father as an "appetite." He recalls "Why, she would hang on him/As if increase of appetite had grown/By what it fed on." Even here, he is looking down on his mother, comparing her to a hungry human and his father to a succulent and satisfying feast. It also gives a feral connotation, as if he is already thinking like a savage.

This soliloquy gives a lot of insight into how Hamlet felt even before he knew about the murder, and foreshadows his deep-rooted desire for revenge, yet his lack of action to achieve his goal.

Blog #6

Close read Hamlet's speech in Act 1 Scene 2 lines 133-164. Pay close attention to metaphors, motifs (nature, food/eating), allusions (especially mythological allusions), repetition (as revision), and other figurative language. 

OR

Famous literary critic Harold Bloom claims that Hamlet is "always about to be," and that "tentativeness is the peculiar mark of his endlessly burgeoning consciousness; if he cannot know himself, wholly, that is because he is a breaking wave of sensibility, of thought and feeling pulsating onward." He also suggests that Hamlet spends most of his time "self-revising." Where can we go in Act I to substantiate Bloom's claims? How might we complicate them?

Blog Response #5: Literature and Categories of Identity

In America media of communication are pervasive in all their forms - literature, visual arts, and musical arts. The former of the three contribute to categories of identity created in our world. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin is an excellent example of a work that created a category of identity: the gentle kind pious Christian abolitionist. Her work was a reflection of slavery and its oppressive tendencies, but the chilling manner in which she presented the institution was key to creating that separate identity. Stowe also contributed to an understanding of identity and classification within slave culture itself. Through the use of the terms “mammy” and “Uncle Tommer” she established the idea of various roles that were fulfilled in the slave community. In fact both terms are still used quite often today, as insults, but as terms that possess their own categorical identity. 

Literature is able to create these categories of identity through its use of archetypal characters and a lack of knowledge to make impressions upon a large population as well. In Cecily von Ziegesar’s young adult series, Gossip Girl conceptions of elite Upper East Side youth are created. Beyond brash generalizations about the Manhattan youths’ opulent lifestyle, the books also pose the teenagers as cruel, sadistic, and vindictive bullies. The original novel has spun off into another novel series, a highly rated television show, and a series of graphic novels. Why is it so successful? Because it features all the literary archetypes wanting in a plot-driven story: a kind and innocent protagonist, a cruel antagonist, and a well-intentioned love interest. When these archetypes are featured in literature, whether the submissive Uncle Tom or the sadistic Blair Waldorf often readers will allow themselves to accept the categories of identity that are portrayed and created by literature because of their lack of interaction and experience with something.

Literature and Identity: Spanglish

I don't think I can honestly speak with authority about capital L Literature and capital I Identity, but I think I can speak a bit from experience.

Like many kids with a penchant for reading, I started venturing into the world of young adult literature as a preteen. I read a lot of "coming-of-age" novels about, well, kids coming of age, and started to identify with them as, well, a kid coming of age. I saw the characters in those books as role models for, among other things, how to deal with growing up, and identified with them on a level of basic human experiences, regardless of their background. However, these books didn't necessarily produce an identity, at least for me, but instead mirrored the broader experiences I had. 

Sandra Cisneros's The House On Mango Street, as well as Gary Soto's poetry, helped produce in me a unique category of ethnic identity as not just Mexican, and not just American, but as both. I identified with their characters not just on a human level, but based on the cultural and linguistic traditions I had only seen before in my family. Most notably and symbolically for me, both Cisneros and Soto wrote in Spanglish, a uniquely Latin-American mix of Spanish and English words, phrases, and sayings. Their characters code-switched all the time, something I only saw in my family and community, and in this way of speaking and writing produced an identity fully its own, as neither halfway between Mexican and American nor as only one or the other, but as completely both. The House On Mango Street was the first book I read that really addressed my experience as bilingual and bicultural. Through the characters' traditions and linguistic quirks, Cisneros, as well as other Chicano/a writers, didn't just reflect their own experiences, but produced a strong piece of my identity in the process. 

Blog Response 5

Writing and language are the things that separate human beings from all other intelligent species; writing is part of what defines us as humans. Because writing is such a fundamental human need, most social, political, or religious groups have their own texts that separate them from everyone else. Literature can create groups, and a book or essay is often the rallying point of an organization. For example, Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto not only outlined the principles of communism, but it gave communists something to adhere to, and something to define themselves with. It undoubtedly also attracted more people to the idea of communism, which essentially means that the Manifesto created more communists. This also applies to national identity. The Constitution is what made America what it is today, and thus it also plays a part in who we are as Americans. To go back to the prompt, the Constitution not only reflects what's important to Americans, but it created the values that Americans hold dear. To an extent, it created the American identity.

Literature can also create an identity for someone who identifies with a certain way of thinking. During the Enlightenment, writers like Voltaire were the people who spurred the new philosophical movement. His Candide, highlighting the absurdity of the conventional religious and optimistic ways of thinking, no doubt was an important factor in more clearly defining the Enlightenment. Thus it was also important because it spread a new ideology to people, and thus a new way of thinking and a new identity.

Blog #5: Literature and Identity

Personally, I think that religious texts have played one of the most vital roles in the production of categories of identity.   Religion provides very diverse categories of identity, and although religion itself was not really “produced” by literary works, the use of these sacred texts has created very distinct and separate categories of people. Whether it’s the Bible, the Qur’an, the Tanakh, the Vedas, the Book of Mormon, Buddhist texts, etc., each one of these books is accompanied by a specific group of people that live by its teachings.  Depending on their degree of religious commitment, these people’s morals, core beliefs, and outlooks on life are largely influenced by, if not completely based on, the sacred texts of their religion.  So much so, in fact, that the connotations associated with these groups of people create completely segregated categories of people with completely different identities.  These different religious identities, in turn, can also affect other major “categories of identity”, such as sexuality, gender roles, and in some cases ethnicity.  While this does provide diversity and differing perspectives, these different categories can also be the cause of hostility and intolerance.  Religious categories can be very strictly defined, as can many other categories of identity, and in some cases don’t allow much leeway. 

Blog #5

How and to what effect does Literature *produce* (not merely reflect) categories of identity (race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, etc.)? Provide examples.

Blog 4

Feet are only referenced several times in Oedipus the King, but when viewed as a larger idea they are more powerful.  The most important mention of feet is in the story of how Oedipus received his name: that he was bound by his ankles in his birth.  The clear symbolism is that Oedipus has been bound to his fate—to kill his father and marry his mother—from birth, and there is nothing he could have done to affect that fate. Because Oedipus was bound from birth, it represents the later binding he has with the divine destiny set for him by the gods, and repeated by all of the prophets.  But I think it is interesting that while Oedipus had his feet bound “from the cradle,” all that was left was a scar (1134).  While the gods may have set a path for Oedipus, it hasn’t changed since birth, and you have to believe that there were chances for Oedipus to avoid his destiny that once bound his feet together.  Throughout the story, he has been free to move his feet, and free to alter his life, but the damage was already done when we are first introduced to Oedipus.

Blog #4: Feet in the Oedipus the King

Feet, faith, and fate are all metaphorically connected in Sophocles’ Oedipus the King.  The first time feet are mentioned is on page 159, when Oedipus says, “I would be blind to misery/not to pity my people kneeling at my feet” (14-15).  His people, desperately searching for some guidance from their king, throw themselves at his feet with the utmost faith in his counsel.  They have lost faith in both life and themselves, and instead turn to Oedipus to simply hand out their fate and the solutions to their problems.  Similarly, on page 209, a foot metaphor is used when the chorus says, “No footing helps, all foothold lost and gone” (268).  This quote too brings our attention to the loss of faith: they have no sturdy footing to rely on, nothing to keep them upright and hopeful.  But while feet in these two examples are being related to faith, they are also very closely connected to fate.  An infant whose ankles were bound together characterized the prophecy that dictated the fate of Laius and his family, once again drawing attention to feet.  In the words of Jocasta, “my son—/he wasn’t three days old and the boy’s father/fastened his ankles, had a henchman fling him away/on a barren, trackless mountain” (790-793).   In order to escape their fate Laius and Jacosta bound their child’s feet and chucked him off a cliff, which in reality only secured the fate they were trying to avoid.  They lost faith in free will and chance, instead submitting to the fear of fate.

All in all, feet are often used to represent a loss of faith and fear/submission to fate.  But, lo ad behold, the connection does not stop there. All three words  happen to start with the letter "f", which is kind of cool.