Hey everyone. So today we started out with the diction paper, and then randomly proceeded to talk about Sean’s Chinese ear. Mr. E also said that on this blog there are a bunch or resources to help us. We then talked about how enjaming poetry makes it sound better. We were then taught that english is naturally iambic. All the poetry things can be found on the second to last page of your Hamlet study guide. Since we were talking about poetry anyway, Mr. E started rhyming. Ya he has mad skills. We then talked about Hamlet. The play is about revenge and so now it is even further complicated with Hamlet’s murder of Polonius. (Off topic) A mexican standoff is when two guys are holding guns pointed at each others heads and they can’t shoot or holster up since it will mean certain death either way. Cladius doesnt have a certain grasp over his kingship, and he is very untrustworthy and paraniod. This reasures us that he killed Old Hamlet. Fortinbras, Laertes, and Hamlet now have reasons for revenge. Fortinbras was rewarded for going though Norway to attack Poland, and Cladius’s reaction to this assures us he is unfit to be king. Denmark is rotten because of its rotten king. Hamlet is mad with the thoughts of his mother’s crimes. His mother focuses him and he is meant to be killed when he gets to England. Then we took the quiz, which again was a beast. Comon guys we have to do good on one of these. See you guys tomarrow.
Krigmont
Period 5
To start 5th period, diction worksheets were passed out (oh, and there were cries of, “EWW, WASH YOUR HANDS!!!” coming from the corner of the room in which zach and dessouky were in). The passage was a poem by John Milton about a “grinding sword” that was “discontinuous” (we didn’t go very into depth about what the passage meant). Instead, Mr. Eldridge told us about the way the structure of the lines impacts the meaning. According to our Hamlet packets, the lines of poetry from the diction worksheet were “enjambed”, which meant that they ran together and were not in iambic pentameter. When the lines are enjambed, the stress is different in the sentence (different than iambic pentamenter), and we learned that often authors use it to change or emphasize the meaning of the sentence; it is also used to create emotion & action.
Then, Eldridge told us to put away the diction worksheets. We started talking about why Shakespeare was so difficult to read, and Mr. E said was because it was different from movies and books nowadays, which don’t make you think– they are replayed over and over so that one could understand it even if they were distracted. He went on to say that our world is full of noise, and is constantly trying to distract us…. When we read Shakespeare, we should close our minds to everything else around us and shut out all distractions.
Later, Mr. Eldridge told us that some people suppose that Hamlet only really wanted to sleep with his mom and kill his father/uncle (or in Anthony’s words, “funkle”… haha ;D) to explain why he was so upset about his mother’s re-marriage. Then, Mr. E made a chart on the board explaining why the characters’ situations in the play were set up for destruction:
Fortinbras: father killed by Old Hamlet –> Fortinbras will get revenge by conquering Danish lands
Hamlet: father killed by Claudius–> will get revenge by killing Claudius
Laertes: father killed by Hamlet–> will get revenge by killing Hamlet
Mr. Eldridge couldn’t find the Act 4 quizzes, and we were all pleasantly delighted because we thought we’d be able to take it tommorrow…. Until he found them, and we rushed to finish before the bell. (I’m sure you all did as well as I did!! ;] ) And don’t forget to finish the diction worksheet.
@Eldridge and Henry:
I really like Hamlet’s idea of calling Claudius “mother”.
It categorizes Claudius with Hamlet’s adulteress mother, and unreliable (and now dead) ex-girl friend.
@ Eldridge: Question!!
Was Hamlet’s mother aware of Claudius’ crime, or did she just not care and/or oblivious?
Act 4, Scene 2 (lines 25-28)
______________________
Hamlet-
The body is with the king, but the king is not with the body.
The king is a thing-
Guildenstern-
A thing, my lord?
Hamlet-
Of nothing. Bring me to him. Hide, fox, and all after.
______________________
The king is a thing of nothing……
Is nothing implying that Hamlet is calling the king a woman….
and therefore inferior?
And let’s not forget Act 4, Scene 3 (lines 51-55)
____________________
Hamlet-
I see a cherub that sees them. But com, for England.
Farewell, dear mother.
Claudius-
Thy loving father, Hamlet.
Hamlet-
My mother. Father and mother is man and wife, and man and
wife is one flesh, and so, my mother.- Come, for England!
____________________
@stejones, The body is with the king, ie., the king has a body (for the time being), but the king is not with the body, ie., the king does not have the body of state–implying that he either does not have political control over Denmark, or that he will be deprived of both bodies by Hamlet’s dagger.
Oh, yes, I think a pun is in order, for if Shakespeare is anything he is punny.
Nothing = um, well, you know.
Nothing = is also pronounced “Note-ing” in Shakespeare’s dialect, so it also implies that he is just a king in appearances (notings), not in truth.
He says this to R&G, of course, who don’t understand at all. Poor fellows. Out of their league, I’d say.
I really liked Kriakin’s idea of calling Claudius-
Hamlet’s funcle. (father-uncle)
It’s concise, and it makes sense. =)
[Reply to comment]
Actually, @Henry, that was Hamlet’s idea. He calls them his father-uncle and aunt-mother. (2.2, to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern)
[Reply to comment]
@Eldridge and Henry:
I really like Hamlet’s idea of calling Claudius “mother”.
It categorizes Claudius with Hamlet’s adulteress mother, and unreliable (and now dead) ex-girl friend.
@ Eldridge: Question!!
Was Hamlet’s mother aware of Claudius’ crime, or did she just not care and/or oblivious?
[Reply to comment]
Reference lines (not math) for my comment above:
Act 4, Scene 2 (lines 25-28)
______________________
Hamlet-
The body is with the king, but the king is not with the body.
The king is a thing-
Guildenstern-
A thing, my lord?
Hamlet-
Of nothing. Bring me to him. Hide, fox, and all after.
______________________
The king is a thing of nothing……
Is nothing implying that Hamlet is calling the king a woman….
and therefore inferior?
And let’s not forget Act 4, Scene 3 (lines 51-55)
____________________
Hamlet-
I see a cherub that sees them. But com, for England.
Farewell, dear mother.
Claudius-
Thy loving father, Hamlet.
Hamlet-
My mother. Father and mother is man and wife, and man and
wife is one flesh, and so, my mother.- Come, for England!
____________________
Huzzah for logos!
[Reply to comment]
@stejones, The body is with the king, ie., the king has a body (for the time being), but the king is not with the body, ie., the king does not have the body of state–implying that he either does not have political control over Denmark, or that he will be deprived of both bodies by Hamlet’s dagger.
[Reply to comment]
well, then it is not a pun?
[Reply to comment]
Oh, yes, I think a pun is in order, for if Shakespeare is anything he is punny.
Nothing = um, well, you know.
Nothing = is also pronounced “Note-ing” in Shakespeare’s dialect, so it also implies that he is just a king in appearances (notings), not in truth.
He says this to R&G, of course, who don’t understand at all. Poor fellows. Out of their league, I’d say.
[Reply to comment]