Hamlet Reimagined in a Modern War

The setting of a fictional modern war can conform to many of the plot points in Hamlet. The state of war provides the tension that they are receiving from Norway, and the hierarchy in Hamlet can easily be replicated in a military rank style. I envision Claudius as a general in the Denmark Military. He killed another General, Hamlet's father, in order to replace him and marry his wife. Although the country he serves is behind him, his nephew knows his plans. As a Sergeant, Hamlet has to keep his reputation, but still wants to do something about his uncle.

In Act 2, Scene 2, the setting is Claudius' office full of papers and maps covering medals that he did not earn. Claudius sends out spies (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) to learn more about Hamlet's plans. The spies always speak to their superiors respectfully and salute as they enter and leave. Gertrude thanks them politely and because Claudius is such a high ranking officer, he always has hand servants around. Polonius fits in very well as a military advisor, because he is constantly giving everyone advice. The military report that he receives from Voltemand will coincide well with the military theme. Hamlet is superior to Polonius in rank, so it is suitable for him to be casual when they have their one on one conversation. And the book that he is reading could be a military history of old generals.

Hamlet is so easily transferable from theme to theme and allows a lot of flexibility within its words.

Who Said it Better? That is The Question...

"To be, or not to be" performed by Ethan Hawke (2000)

"To be, or not to be" performed by Sir Laurence Olivier (1948)

Although these clips say the exact same words, they are very different. Because this soliloquy is so famous around the world, each actor tries to put their own spin on it to captivate the viewer. I picked these two movies because I wanted to observe the change in the way that the actors played the parts over time. The biggest and most obvious difference between these movies is the time, from 1948 to 2000.

In the modernized edition, the actor starts out walking slowly down an isle of movies at Blockbuster. Although it may seem minimal, the category of movies he is walking through, action, is very important. Also, the version performed by Ethan Hawke is a modernized version, so he cannot just sit on top of a rock like Sir Laurence Olivier does, he has to use the setting around him as a symbol for what is happening in the play. Walking down the action section toward a T.V. screen that plays a violent movie is foreshadowing how his actions will lead to violence.

In the scene performed by sir Laurence Olivier, Hamlet is deeply troubled and is considering suicide. His voice is too calm in the beginning, but is overly emotional by the end of the scene. This scene is much more consistent with the setting and the era that the play was written for, but the acting was not up to par. I thought that Ethan Hawke was much more convincing because he demonstrates the cycle of the welling up and suppression of his emotions much better than Olivier.

The similarities between these two scenes are, at a glance, obvious, but with a closer look, the differences became more interesting. The actors were really able to take this wherever they wanted because there is no right, original way to do Shakespeare. It is truly anybody's game.

Tip #1: Edit, edit, edit, and edit again!

In "Digging", Seamus Heaney creates a speaker through characterization who first thinks he doesn't measure up, but then realizes his potential. At first, Heaney shows that the speaker, a writer, values the hard work ethic and skill that his father and grandfather have. The speaker then becomes unsure that his abilities as a writer will measure up to the legacy his father and grandfather have left behind. Ultimately Heaney empowers the speaker with a spark of self-confidence, as he begins to believe in the power of his pen. Heaney characterizes the speaker as unsure and timid, and finally courageous throughout the poem as an example of how we should believe in our abilities as we reach for individuality.

In "Digging", Seamus Heaney creates a speaker through characterization who first thinks he doesn't measure up, but then realizes his potential to become a writer. At first, Heaney demonstrates that the speaker, a writer, values the hard work ethic and skill of his father and grandfather. Later, the speaker becomes unsure that his abilities as a writer will satisfy his family’s legacy. Ultimately Heaney empowers the speaker with a spark of self-confidence, as he begins to believe in the power of his pen. Heaney characterizes the speaker as unsure and timid, and finally courageous throughout the poem to show how the character strives to separate himself from the rest.

Ophelia in two lights

In the modernized portrayal of Act 1 Scene 3, Ophelia acts and speaks much differently than I imagined in the book. Ophelia acted much more sarcastic and rebellious in this scene than the book made her seem. When she was speaking to Laertes, she spoke more sharply and used the words of the poem much more forcefully. She defended Hamlet strictly when she spoke to her brother. Shakespeare tends to leave the exact interpretation of how to say these words up to the actor, so any one line can have many meanings and interpretations. For example, after Laertes tells Ophelia that what she has with Hamlet is just a fling, Ophelia asks, "No more but so?" (1.3.12). In the modern version of the play, the actress playing Ophelia responds to her brother with a critical tone. I do agree with this portrayal of the modern play, because I think it gives some credit to the modern woman. Ophelia is trying to speak her mind and have a civil argument that has more than one side with her rather rude brother.

Compared to the second scene, where Ophelia has tears on her eyes and is very timid, the modern scene portrays Ophelia as a strong young woman. Because the lines that Ophelia says in Hamlet are so ambiguous, the actress in the second scene was able to take the character in a completely different direction. I could tell that she was also wanting to rebel against her father and brother. I felt so bad for Ophelia in the second scene because I could not imagine myself living in a world where I could not speak my mind. As shown by the first scene, even if she did speak her mind, she was immediately shot down. Living in a world where women can speak their mind equally, our lives are much more intelligent.

My First Look at King Claudius

King Claudius is a man of ambition and personal power, but only in the presence of open opportunity. The king has swooped into Hamlet’s life and replaced his father in almost every way. He managed to take advantage of his own brother’s death, and use it to improve his own life. Frankly, it is sick how quickly King Claudius, along with Hamlet’s mother, moved on from the death of the king.

            So far, King Claudius strikes me as the kind of ruler who is very self-motivated. This self-motivation usually drives a character with passion and they take risks that have a great reward. Claudius will do anything if it means he will extend his rule. Already, Claudius has manipulated his only competitor, Hamlet, and made him an immediate family member

            Although Claudius is harsh to Hamlet, he has proven smart and calculating when it comes to the security of his rule. Claudius knows that Hamlet will want to rule the kingdom, so he does all he can to make sure Hamlet cannot claim the kingdom. Claudius takes the idiom, “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”, very literally. Rather than banishing Hamlet, where he could start a rebellion of some sort, he keeps Hamlet right where he can control and monitor his movements. Also, by keeping Hamlet trapped inside of his kingdom and marrying Hamlet’s mother, he is breaking Hamlet’s will and asserting his dominance over Hamlet.

            King Claudius also tries to control Hamlet by urging him to let go of his father’s death. He is bothered that Hamlet will not, “Cast thy nighted color off” (1.2.70). His dark clothing stand as a symbol for Hamlet’s mourning for his father, and if he lets those go, Claudius is one step closer to demoralizing his greatest competition. Claudius creates another close connection to the family by marrying Hamlet’s mother. If one leaves the mother’s odd choice out of the situation to remarry so quickly, it is obvious that Claudius is trying to justify his rights to the kingdom, and to show Hamlet that he can really do anything he pleases, including marry his mother.

"Digging" Characterization Analysis Essay

Heaney’s Characterization of the Speaker in “Digging”

            In "Digging", Seamus Heaney creates a speaker through characterization who first thinks he doesn't measure up, but then realizes his potential. Immediately, Heaney shows that the speaker, a writer, values the hard work ethic and skill that his father and grandfather have. The speaker becomes unsure that his abilities as a writer will measure up to the legacy his father and grandfather have left behind. Ultimately Heaney empowers the speaker with a spark of self-confidence, and begins to believe in the power of his pen. Heaney characterizes the speaker as unsure and timid, and finally courageous  throughout the poem as an example of how we should believe in our abilities as we reach for individuality.

            In the beginning of the poem, the speaker has respect and deference for hard work. Toward the beginning of the poem, the speaker admits, “the old man could handle a spade” (Heaney 15). The father is a potato farmer who provided for and raised his child by hard work and diligence. Here, the speaker shows his adoration for the skill and mastery that his father has. The respect that he has had for his father all his life has led to intimidation and a feeling of adherence to his family. The speaker reveals his concern for bringing the end to a valuable legacy when he shares that “[his] grandfather cut more turf in a day / Than any other man on Toner’s bog” (Heaney 17-18). His grandfather cuts turf; needless to say, a less than glamorous job, to support the family. The speaker realizes that his role in supporting his own family is arriving slowly, and tries to decide what kind of legacy he wants to leave. The pressure to decide his path escalates, but the pressure has only been applied at his own hand. The speaker admires his father and grandfather, which is making the decision to write, instead of become a potato farmer, feel more and more dissident as the poem moves forward.

            Throughout the poem, the speaker doubts that his writing measures up to the diligent drudgery of his father and grandfather. Once, when the speaker was a young boy, he “carried [his grandfather] milk in a bottle / corked sloppily with paper” (Heaney 19-20). This would not be so important usually, however it is the only memory he recalls from his childhood, so it can be assumed it is important in understanding the character. The speaker still feels that he can only do a simple, childish task in comparison to the neat and organized demeanor of his grandfather. Later in the poem, the speaker believes in the power of his pen, “but [he has] no spade to follow men like them” (Heaney 28).  The speaker realizes, with a sense of regret, that his character and passions do not point to him following the legacy left by his father and grandfather. The speaker has become afraid of what his family will make of him straying from the job that is so closely tied to his family. The speaker wants to take his life in a different direction, but throughout the poem, his connection to his family have brought doubts.

            At the end of the poem, Heaney turns the speaker’s view and gives him a sudden spur of self-confidence. Heaney gives the speaker this boost when he begins the last stanza, “Between my finger and my thumb / The squat pen rests” (Heaney 29-30). Although almost an exact copy of the first two lines, Heaney leaves out, “snug as a gun” (Heaney 2). In the last stanza, the speaker has had a shift in the way that he views his situation. He is no longer defensive, he has realized that if he is meant to be a writer, his pen does not need to be a weapon, but a tool to escape. In the last line of the poem, “I’ll dig with it” (Heaney 31) stands alone, the last sentence of the poem, in which the speaker convinces himself that although he will head in his own direction, he is still digging. The speaker has gained confidence, and began to realize his abilities. The speaker has become independent in his method, but not in his roots. The speaker identifies himself as a writer, yet he keeps in mind the work ethic and determination of his father and grandfather.

            Heaney uses characterization to show the speaker’s struggle to reach his own individuality, when he already feels so engaged in his family’s work. Heaney characterized the speaker through instances with his father and grandfather, which lead to an internal struggle as the speaker comes of age.  The speaker plays out a role that most of us face at a time in our lives. To have to make a decision between the ones who have loved you for so long and what you are passionate about may be the most difficult decision of all.

New and Improved Short Story Intro with Outline

Seamus Heaney uses characterization in "Digging" to create a speaker who first thinks he doesn't measure up, but then realizes he has a valuable skill. Immediately, Heaney shows that the speaker, a writer, values the hard work ethic and skill that his father and grandfather have. The speaker becomes unsure that his abilities as a writer will measure up to the legacy his father and grandfather have left behind. Heaney ultimately empowers the speaker with a spark of self-confidence, and he begins to believe in the power of his pen. Heaney uses the speaker as an example of how we should believe in our abilities as we reach for individuality.

I.               In the beginning of the poem, Heaney shows us that the speaker respects hard work.

A.                 “By God, the old man could handle a spade. / Just like his old man.”

B.                  “My grandfather cut more turf in a day / Than any other man on Toner’s bog”

II.             Throughout the poem, the speaker does not believe that his writing measures up to the hard work of his father and grandfather.

A.                 “Once I carried him milk in a bottle / corked sloppily with paper”

B.                 “But I’ve no spade to follow men like them.”

III.           At the end of this poem, Heaney turns the speakers view and gives him some self-confidence.

A.                 “Between my finger and my thumb / The squat pen rests.”

B.                 “I’ll dig with it”

Post 4: DRAFT Introduction Paragraph for Process Essay

Characterization is a tool that has as great importance as any character in a story. Without characterization in "Digging", the poem would have no muse, no voice to give meaning and value to the words of the poem. Characterization in “Digging” provides crucial information about the character and insight into his reactions to the world. Heaney uses the characters in this way to relate to the challenges that we confront when trying to become individuals.

Blog Post 3: Miniver Cheevy (Wishes and Dreams)

In the poem "Miniver Cheevy", Miniver is not living in the past, but wishes he was born in that time. Many people often wish that they had been born in a different era, but Miniver takes this dream to a whole new level.

Miniver destroys the life that he has for something that he really cannot control. He wishes that he could live in a time, "When swords were bright and steeds were prancing" (Robinson Line 6). Obviously this dream that he has is not at all possible. He frets and complains throughout the day because he cannot have exactly what he wants. I think that Miniver is extremely arrogant and ridiculous, to want something so much yet do nothing about it.

Miniver makes me want to hate him. I bet that many other readers feel the same way. In a childish way, it seems that he is dreaming of some happily never after, when really he is just a pretentious guy drinking his valuable life away. I could see how one would feel sympathy for Miniver, blocked from the bright light of life, as his brain sulks in misery.

Robinson is trying to tell us to pull ourselves out of the situation that faces us and realize that there is more than that. I think that Miniver represents a blip in our everyday lives that most of us see as adversity and take on, while some can get stuck like Miniver, just, "Scratching his head" (Line 30).

Post 2: Isn't it Ironic?

Sometimes funny, sad, or mostly misinterpreted, irony is around us every day. In the poem "Barbie Doll", the irony is heavy and laid on thick by Marge Piercy. She conveys an often portrayed message of being who you are, but in a very different way. Piercy uses irony throughout the poem to make her point. An example of this Irony when Piercy says in lines 5 and 6, "Then in the magic of puberty, a classmate said:/You have a great big nose and fat legs" (Piercy). Magic, a word that normally has a positive connotation has suddenly taken a dark turn for the worse. Piercy uses the word magic to signify childishness and and innocence, but it has been completely turned around in this situation. A great example of verbal irony is in the last line of the poem, "To every woman a happy ending." In this short line Piercy is able to say a lot to gather up the poem. the girl in this poem has all of the characteristics, except one, of a girl who would have a fairytale happy ending, but instead she took the beauty that she had within and traded it for a twisted kind of acceptance into society.

Post 1: Which Text Spoke to Me The Most?

"The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas" by Ursula Le guin, was my favorite text from the summer reading. The text got my attention right away and it still holds my attention long after reading it. The book captured my attention by confusing me, rather than the excitement of the plot that usually gets me. I was struck by the decision that the citizens of Omelas needed to face, or decide not to face. It was horrifying to me to realize that if a utopian city has to sacrifice the happiness of one child, what we must sacrifice to simply function as a state, nation, and world.

In the story, the citizens know about an old musty room, and "[i]n the room a child is sitting" (Le Guin). The child is suffering, but the people of the city do nothing about it. For some reason, I love that they did nothing because it makes for a better story for me. The most outstanding and "rebellious" thing that these citizens do is to leave, and not live knowing it is at another's expense. My favorite part of the story when the speaker says, "Do you believe? Do you accept the festival, the city, the joy? No? Then let me describe one more thing" (Le Guin). For me this passage provides all of the excitement that I could need from a story. Sitting on its own between two paragraphs, it jumped out at me and spoke to me directly, but left me dangling off a cliff. Sometimes I find myself in a situation of "should I stay or should I go" and usually I don't fully realize the consequences of either decision until after I make it.