and so it ends

魔女18號 (Witch 18)

개와 늑대의 시간 (Time between Dog and Wolf)

愛情風暴美麗99 (Beauty 99)

After a nine month journey, AP Lit blogs have finally come to an end. And so I’ve decided to end with something fun (at least for me): DRAMAS! (Can you see the excitement?) Of course, I’m not just going to write a whole blog on random dramas and what I think of them (though I could, believe me). Rather, I’ve decided to address certain peculiarities that I’ve encountered while watching dramas. Watching various dramas (Japanese, Tiawanese, Korean, etc.), I’ve always noticed that a lot of the symbols are not all that subtle. They’re usually either VERY obvious, like an hourglass symbolizing time running out (Niini no Koto wo Wasuranaide), or outright explained by the characters, like dolphins symbolizing communication (1 Litre of Tears). There are, of course, other symbols that are slightly more subtle. But what I always wonder about is another category: those symbols and situations that are so out of place that they must have some meaning but so out of place that it almost seems like they can’t. I can’t address every single one of them that I’ve encountered, so I chose a few that still have me scratching my head.

[By the way, spoilers ahead]

魔女18號

Witch 18 follows the story of three sisters that are all witches. The main character, Fan Jia Jia, is killed but then brought back to life with a new body and a new name, Fan Xiao Ling. When the guy she likes, Zhu Yao Wen, finally finds out who she is, he begins calling her by her original name, which makes sense considering the girl he fell in love with was named Jia Jia, not Xiao Ling. What was very unusual was a scene in the last episode, when Yao Wen thought that Jia Jia was about to die. Thinking that he’d never get a chance otherwise, he decides to propose to Jia Jia. However, in this very emotional and personal moment, he proposes using the name Xiao Ling. Now, as part of the audience, hearing “Xiao Ling” was very disconcerting. After hearing “Jia Jia” for 60 episodes before the name change, the name I associated with the character was still the same. “Xiao Ling” was simply a disguise she used to hide her true identity. So of course I had to find my own reason why he would call her that, especially when he had been calling her Jia Jia even after the name change. So I came up with several explanations. The one I personally think makes the most sense is that his use of her other name represents his acceptance of every aspect of her, whether it means accepting two physically different people (Jia Jia and Xiao Ling) or even just accepting all sides of her personality. My other hypothesis is that his use of Xiao Ling shows Jia Jia’s growth into a new person. Although Yao Wen isn’t rejecting Jia Jia’s original existence, he’s acknowledging that, during her time as Xiao Ling, she has grown and changed and isn’t the same Jia Jia he once knew. And so, regardless of motivation or meaning, Yao Wen proposes to Xiao Ling.

개와 늑대의 시간

In Time between Dog and Wolf, protagonist Lee Soo Hyun is sent on an undercover mission to infiltrate a gang. He loses his memories during the operation and legitimately believes himself to be a gang member until another traumatic situation brings his memories back and causes him to cooperate with the police again. However, when Soo Hyun’s boss sees Soo Hyun after he regains his memory, his boss comments that he’s chewing gum, a habit Soo Hyun didn’t have before he lost his memory. Soo Hyun responds by popping a bubble in his boss’s face and smiles. …And that’s it. That topic never came up again afterwards or before. Ever. I even checked twice, so unless the subtitles weren’t working… Regardless, this gum chewing is clearly a very important habit if it has to be randomly called out in the middle of a scene.  My best guess at this little bit of symbolism is that it shows Soo Hyun’s transformation. After regaining his memories, he struggles between the gangster he was and the police officer he is, which warps his character. He is no longer the determined, justice-centered man that he went into the mission as. He’s become more jaded and distrustful of those around him. His new habit shows that transformation while his use of this new habit to mock his superior officer shows how the transformation has created a determination not to be used by others. Another thought I had was that the gum, being sticky, could be seen as sealing his mouth. Considering that Soo Hyun ultimately functions an informant, flaunting his refusal to speak in front of his superior is clearly indicating a change in character from the obedient subordinate to an independent officer.

愛情風暴美麗99

And once again we have gum! What is it with gum?

Beauty 99 is about many complicated things, one of which is an illness. Near the end of the drama, the protagonist, Gao Fei, finds out that he has a disease that is most likely incurable. He decides to fly to America for treatment without telling an of his family or friends, and right before leaving for the airport he shares a moment with everyone, saying goodbye (though they don’t realize it) and chewing gum. When I first saw this scene with the gum, I was almost convinced that the actor had simply forgotten to spit out his gum before filming and the director just went with it. I half expected the gum to just disappear as the scene continued. But it stayed. They even decided to spare a few moments to show Gao Fei throwing out his gum. Oh, the symbolism! (Unless it really was an accident and they didn’t have time to reshoot it…) My first thought after seeing this was that it probably signified him moving on. He had accepted the fact that he was going to die, so he gathered up all his precious memories (by chewing sticky gum while talking to his friends and family to stick the memories together in one piece of gum) and put them behind him (by throwing out the gum right after he left the last person behind). Then I thought that maybe he was actually saving the memories. He gathered them up with the gum and then, while throwing away the physical gum with the physical presence of his family and friends, he savors the taste of the gum with the memories of the people he cares about. Gum is just so meaningful.

Anyway, that ends my long rant on random drama happenings, and with it ends my final AP Lit blog.

nature's power

Sonnet 83- Shakespeare

 

I never saw that you did painting need
And therefore to your fair no painting set;
I found, or thought I found, you did exceed
The barren tender of a poet's debt;
And therefore have I slept in your report,
That you yourself being extant well might show
How far a modern quill doth come too short,
Speaking of worth, -- what worth in you doth grow?
This silence for my sin you did impute,
Which shall be most my glory, being dumb;
For I impair not beauty being mute,
When others would give life and bring a tomb.
There lives more life in one of your fair eyes
Than both your poets can in praise devise.

 

From this sonnet springs forth a love rivalry between the speaker, presumably a writer, and painter, both competing for the affections of “you,” the subject of the poem. The sonnet can be broken down into four main sections. The first quatrain, grouped by an ABAB rhyme scheme, addresses the topics of painting and sight. The following quatrain, grouped by a CDCD rhyme scheme, changes the visual focus of the first quatrain to a language-centered approach, bring in writing and reading. The final quatrain of an EFEF rhyme scheme comes in as a stark contrast to the previous quatrains as it removes the stimulus presented before and addresses mainly silence and the lack of expression. These three quatrains are completed with the final couplet, rhyme scheme GG, which finally focuses in entirely on the subject of the speaker’s affections.

 

The poem begins as a response, a defense structured to block the implied accusation of the subject. “I never saw that you did painting need,” the speaker argues. This phrase immediately sets up a contrast between nature, the speaker’s lover’s actual appearance, and the work of man, the painting that was attempted by the unknown painter rival. From the beginning the speaker acknowledges the limitations of man’s work, pointing out that the subject not only did not “need” to be painted, showing a satisfaction with nature without man’s addition, but also “exceeds,” the ability to be painted.

 

However, the speaker soon finds himself in the same position as his rival as he notes that his capability to preserve through writing is just as limited as the painter’s capability to preserve through painting. This inability is highlighted by the contrast between “short” and “extant.” The subject, already described as exceeding the capability of the painter is now shown to reside beyond the ability of the writer as well as she is “extant,” protruding beyond. The writer’s capability, in contrast, is represented by the “modern quill” that “doth come too short.” As the subject “grows,” the contrast is only intensified. This is seen to contribute to the speaker’s “sleep” that is mentioned at the beginning of the quatrain, showing not only a lack of activity but also an inability to act.

 

The multiple failures of manmade creations, both paintings and literature, lead to the lack of expression and stimulus of the last quatrain, a lack that is emphasized by the inclusion of the words “silence,” “dumb,” and “mute.” The subject attributes this lack of effort on the speaker’s part as a “sin,” a thought that is contrasted with the speaker’s own belief that such a thought is his “glory.” While the silence that the subject observes implies that the speaker voluntarily refrains from action, the speaker’s knowledge that he is dumb, incapable of action, results in his joyous reception of the subject’s belief, for at least the subject still thinks of him as someone in control, a belief that the speaker knows is not true. Yet the speaker is not quite ashamed of his lack of action either, seeing instead his lack of action as a preservation of nature’s beauty. He contrasts his lack of action with “others” who “give life” to manmade creations such as painting and literature. This giving of life, the speaker notes, ultimately “brings a tomb.” In creating, the “others” have brought death to true beauty because they are unable to truly capture the unsurpassable work of nature.

 

While the speaker initially struggles with his inability to capture the subject, constantly preoccupied with the fact that the “modern quill doth come too short,” his recognition of the fact that any attempt would bring destruction calms him, creating the volta that changes from the speaker’s original agitation to the calm of the couplet and acceptance that true “life” can only be created by nature, and “poets” are powerless against such works of life.

a geisha and her danna

Memoirs of a Geisha- Arthur Golden

The novel Memoirs of a Geisha, delves into the geisha district of Gion, weaving together not only a riveting account of one girl’s journey but also an intriguing look at the world and culture of geisha. One very interesting aspect of this culture is the relationship between the geisha and their danna, the men that pay to, in a sense, keep them. This relationship, as portrayed in the novel, has several benefits for both parties, but who is truly in control?

Danna definitely exert a considerable amount of power over how geisha act, as geisha essentially live to impress men. Geisha dress in exquisite clothing, thick make-up, and at times a forced smile in order to present the best impression of themselves to men in general and their danna in particular, but at the cost of their true selves. Sayuri, after years of spending time with Nobu, realizes that “Nobu didn’t understand [her] at all.” He doesn’t even know where she was born. Sayuri has to sacrifice her past, forget about escaping to Yoroido, in order to truly excel at being a geisha. She has to live entirely for the men she entertains. Even enemies like Hatsumomo and Mameha are forced to put on a show of friendship while entertaining for fear of hurting their image in front of men.

Of course, their caution is justified, because geisha make their living from men, especially their danna. Their earnings are made from entertaining men, so to show men anything but their best side would be equivalent to risking their livelihood. Their danna in particular are indispensable to them financially. As Mameha informs Chiyo, “My danna is a generous man and bought me most of these robes. That's why I'm more successful than Hatsumomo. I have a wealthy danna.” True success for a geisha requires more money, and the greatest source of money is a danna. Therefore, geisha are forced to submit to their danna because their danna ultimately decides whether or not they will have a truly successful career. Even a top geisha such as Mameha, is forced to turn over her body to her danna, sleeping with him and having abortions at his command. The danna has final say over what the geisha does.

However, the geisha do not have to have a danna. Although danna are the key to real success, geisha are not doomed to failure without one. According to Mameha, Hatsumomo has not had a danna for several years, but she still enjoys a relatively high level of success. Moreover, danna are not permanent, and geisha can be connected to several danna over their careers. The fact that a geisha is not required to stay with her danna gives her power over her danna, because she can break of their relationship. Furthermore, depending on the situation, geisha have an emotional advantage. While danna choose geisha based on who they like, geisha often choose their danna based on who is beneficial to them. The very mask that can show a danna’s control over a geisha’s behavior also separates the geisha’s true emotions from the display she puts on for her danna, giving her control over her own emotions. Because of this, geisha are not emotional slaves and have power over their danna emotionally. Even more importantly, the final choice in the pairing of danna and geisha is made by the geisha. While the danna are the first ones to propose the relationship, it is the geisha and her okiya that make the final decision.

This conflict of control cannot be solved so easily. It is neither the geisha nor the danna that has complete control over the other. Rather, depending on the aspect that you are looking at, the answer changes. Emotionally, financially, socially. Moreover, every relationship is different. While Mameha had no true emotional connection to her danna, in Sayuri’s relationship with the Chairman, the feelings were mutual. Just like any other human relationship, the relationship between a danna and geisha is far more complex than pure business.

immoratlity

Because I could not stop for Death- Emily Dickinson

Because I could not stop for Death,
He kindly stopped for me;
The carriage held but just ourselves
And Immortality.

We slowly drove, he knew no haste,
And I had put away
My labor, and my leisure too,
For his civility.

We passed the school, where children strove
At recess, in the ring;
We passed the fields of gazing grain,
We passed the setting sun.

Or rather, he passed us;
The dews grew quivering and chill,
For only gossamer my gown,
My tippet only tulle.

We paused before a house that seemed
A swelling of the ground;
The roof was scarcely visible,
The cornice but a mound.

Since then 'tis centuries, and yet each
Feels shorter than the day
I first surmised the horses' heads
Were toward eternity.

In “Because I could not stop for Death,” Emily Dickinson explores the human relationship with death, asserting that, while humans often do not realize how much control death has over them, death ultimately takes everyone and in death humans are able to find an immortality that is impossible in life.

As the poem begins, the speaker displays the perception that death has no control over her. She “could not” stop to accommodate death, indicating that she was above death and could choose whether or not to stop for death. However, her perceptions are quickly proved to be no more than fantasy as, regardless of the speaker’s perceived inability, death stops to take her. From that point on, death is able to completely control the speaker. While the speaker “could not stop,” as if too frantic and worried about life to consider death, death knows “no haste,” displaying death’s ability to force the narrator to slow down. In reaction, the speaker gives up both her “labor” and her “leisure,” work and play, the two main halves of human life, and in doing so symbolically surrenders her life to death.

However, death does not simply control the speaker as a single person. Rather, death is able to control all humans from the moment of birth. This point is emphasized in the “children” that the carriage passes. The narrator specifically emphasizes that it is not the two of them passing, but rather death that “passed us.” This phrase implies choice, suggesting that death made the decision to pass the children with his carriage and not take them as well, and in doing so was allowing them more life. However, the fact that death chose to leave the children also suggests that death always has the power to choose meaning that, regardless of whether or not a human is actually taken by death, all humans are always under the control of death. Death can occur at any time, even as a child.

Ultimately, the speaker finds, everyone dies, even if the person “could not stop for death” and did not have the time. The speaker and death reach a “house that seemed a swelling of the ground,” bringing to mind a grave which, when open, is nothing more than a hole in the ground surrounded by a mound of dirt that swells out of the ground. This imagery of a grave continues as the speaker notes that the “cornice [is] but a mound.” So the speaker finally comes to her grave, controlled by the death that controls all humans, but the speaker does not view this end as a negative development rather, throughout the poem, the speaker suggests that, in death, she is coming home. The speaker “put away” her leisure and labor, suggesting a willingness to give up her life. Dickinson even uses the words “kindly” and “civility” in describing death, portraying death as gentle and welcoming as opposed to unwanted. Death itself is portrayed as a home, as the grave that symbolizes it is seen as a “house,” a place for living. Death becomes a second life where the speaker and humans can find the “eternity” of immortality that is impossible in life before death, the “immortality” that the speaker only encounters for the first time in death’s carriage.

jack

Invisible Man- Ralph Ellison

Jack the bear. Brother Jack. Jack Rabbit. Ball the jack. Invisible Man is filled with jacks, yet each jack takes on a slightly different role and plays a slightly different part in the narrator’s journey. The most obvious and persistent role is in Brother Jack, the man who draws the narrator into the world of the Brotherhood.

As the narrator finds out when Brother Jack reprimands him for organizing Clifton’s funeral, Brother Jack only has one eye. While this partial sight can represent Brother Jack’s blindness and inability to understand anything more than the partial truth of the world, it also brings in the term one-eyed jack, a term used in poker. The one-eyed royals, which include the two jacks (spades and hearts) and one king (diamonds), can be used as wildcards in poker. This represents Brother Jack’s role quite well as his personality and actions are something of a wildcard. At one moment he is supporting the narrator to become the face of the Brotherhood’s activities and the next he’s sending the narrator to an obscure area to lecture on the “Woman Question.” Not only are Brother Jack’s actions unpredictable, his role in society, and by extension the role of the Brotherhood in society, is never completely fixed. While claiming to help the people, the Brotherhood also finds no problem with abandoning the less powerful for a “greater good.” Even the narrator, part of the Brotherhood, finds it difficult to determine whether the members of the Brotherhood are friends or enemies. However, the one-eyed royals are also the only group of cards that if unified across ranks and suits. Brother Jack advocated the exact same thing in society. The unity of the blacks and the whites, the rich and the poor. Connecting this unity to the unpredictability of Brother Jack and his organization shows that the narrator is wary of the possible effects of uniting people across the boundaries created by society.

The concept of card games is also brought back into the novel by the one-eyed jack, a concept mentioned earlier by the vet who advised the narrator to “play the game, but don’t believe in it.” Through the vet’s word’s, life becomes a game, a game with high stakes, no doubt, but a game nonetheless. But just as the one-eyed jack suggests, there is always a wild card; life cannot be predicted so easily, nor can it be so easily controlled. The game of poker that the one-eyed jack is used in is one based on both luck and skill, clearly indicating that life cannot be controlled by skill alone, as the narrator believed when he first tried to force his way through life in college through hard work and dedication. Yet there is nothing for humans to do other than use what little control they have, leading to the vet’s advice to “play the game.” However, even in playing, the vet tells the narrator, “don’t believe,” hinting to him that the game that society has made life into is nothing more than a sham and therefore, in order to play, he cannot believe. The player must always suspect others while acting himself in order to take part in this grand game of acting and pretending that is life. The key to success in life is the ability to play without being drawn into the lies and to see past into the truth, a truth that the narrator does not find until he stumbles into the world of Rinehart. The wildcards and one-eyed jacks thrown at the narrator throughout him journey are numerous, yet he continues, searching for the truth while trying to play his way through the lies.

battle royal

Invisible Man- Ralph Ellison

In Invisible Man, the narrator is thrust into the world of being used by whites through the battle royal. The humiliation he faced for the sake of the wealthy men’s entertainment was a gateway into his college years. Although he believed that he would be able to achieve something through college, the narrator is once again left at the disposal of wealthy men in power, both black and white, kicked out of college for not being manipulated satisfactorily. Yet even after this, the narrator believes in the possibility of a bright future. It isn’t until the narrator encounter’s Emerson that he finally realizes that he was being used from the very beginning. At that moment, when the narrator decides to change and find a new life, there is hope for a better future. But doesn’t the narrator just fall into the same trap all over again with the brotherhood. Although the battle royal doesn’t literally take place, the narrator is once again manipulated into being controlled by someone else, and everything around him brings back the battle royal for so long ago.

First of all, both processes began with a speech. In the case of the battle royal, it began with his graduation speech in which he asserted that “humility was . . . the very essence of progress.” Those in power around him realized that his words fit their purpose from that moment decided the use him. In the case of the Brotherhood, it all began with his speech during the eviction of the old couple. Just like the powerful whites in the area in the narrator’s childhood, the Brotherhood realized that the narrator’s words matched their purpose and decided to use him. In both case, the ability of those in power to control the narrator came through something that the narrator wanted (the opportunity to continue his education and a job to support himself). However, while the whites and the Brotherhood were both controlling the narrator by asking him to speak for them, the narrator was convince that it was through his own power that he achieved the opportunity, calling his graduation speech a “great success” and being so proud of his capabilities in the Brotherhood that he gets offended when he gets left out of the leaders’ meetings.

Despite the narrator’s lack of suspicion towards those in power and inability to realize that he is being used, he does notice something is abnormal before he speaks in both cases. More specifically, he notices that he is isolated. Before the battle royal, the narrator notices that, in the elevator and waiting to enter the boxing ring, all the other boys seem to be separate from him, excluding him. In the same way, before the narrator’s first speech for the Brotherhood, he notices that Brother Jack takes “two of the other men by the arm and [retreats] to a corner.” The narrator outright states, “I am alone.” This isolation that the narrator feels in both cases continues during the events, as he is left alone in the battle royal and singled out for criticism after his Brotherhood speech, continues throughout his time in college and the Brotherhood as he tries to establish himself and finds no one to depend on other than himself.

Of course, the most obvious parallel of all is the location. A boxing ring. Fighting. A clear hint at what is to come for the narrator. He is never given a chance to live in peace. Rather he is constantly fighting. For the rights of others, for his own rights, for his own identity. A fight that is often fought against the very people that brought him to the boxing ring for his “opportunity.”

and then there was one

Hamlet- Shakespeare

…And then everyone except for Horatio dies. But of course Hamlet can’t go out without a bang, so he brings everything to a close with an entire audience to see the violent and passionate end of his revenge. However, innocent causalities aside, Hamlet is very successful in obtaining what he wanted. When Hamlet is presented with the opportunity to kill Claudius before, he hesitates to go through with the act, deciding instead to kill him in the middle of “some act that has no relish of salvation in ‘t,” hoping that he’ll be able to guarantee Claudius’s imprisonment in hill. Given that Claudius had just created a plan with the evil intentions of killing Hamlet, a plan that also dragged in the deaths of Laertes and Gertrude, adding to the blood already on Claudius’s hands, Hamlet couldn’t have picked a better moment to force Claudius to bare his sins to be judged. To complete his revenge, Hamlet lets the whole world know of his uncle’s deeds, using Horatio as his mouthpiece to tell the world the truth as he knew it. However, even in his dying moments, Hamlet does not forget the destruction he has caused and attempts, to some extent, to repair it.  His kingdom, which would have most likely otherwise been torn by chaos at the sudden change in leader, is more smoothly delivered to Fortinbras with Hamlet’s support at his side.

Oddly enough, the last few minutes of Hamlet’s life are quite productive, a contrast to the Hamlet that can be seen in earlier acts. Hamlet tears himself in two trying to decide whether or not he should go through with his revenge and how he should complete the task. He even gives up an opportunity to kill his uncle earlier. However, in his last minutes, he kills Laertes, forgives Laertes, kills Claudius, assigns Horatio the tasking of telling Hamlet’s story, and secures a future for his kingdom in Fortinbras’s leadership.

Hamlet notes earlier that the “pale cast of thought” causes great plans to “lose the name of action.” By thinking too much, one loses the motivation and drive to go through with the task, a perfect description of Hamlet’s treatment of his revenge mission. Because he wasn’t sure whether he could trust the ghost and didn’t know how he should go about killing his uncle, he began to think and reason to the point that his almost religious passion and determination to live only by his father’s “commandment” was watered down to an uncertainty about the vest course of action. However, right before Hamlet begins his fight with Laertes, he tells Horatio, “Let be.” In this seemingly simple command, Hamlet expresses his desire to put an end to his overthinking. Instead, he plans to allow what happens to happen without questioning. It is with this mindset that Hamlet is able to accomplish everything that he avoided during the rest of the play within the span of a few minutes.

Nonetheless, what Hamlet left behind is nothing short of destruction, causing the death of Polonius’ entire family as well as ridding Denmark of both King and Queen and bringing about the deaths of his friends using the hands of the English while he was at it. The confusion and disorder these actions will cause among the people of Denmark and the surrounding countries is undeniable. The one beam of hope that Hamlet leaves behind is Horatio, the only one standing, left to guide everyone else through the chaos.

fight

Bells for John Whiteside’s Daughter- John Crowe Ransom

There was such speed in her little body,   

And such lightness in her footfall,   

It is no wonder her brown study

Astonishes us all.

Her wars were bruited in our high window.   

We looked among orchard trees and beyond   

Where she took arms against her shadow,   

Or harried unto the pond

The lazy geese, like a snow cloud

Dripping their snow on the green grass,   

Tricking and stopping, sleepy and proud,   

Who cried in goose, Alas,

For the tireless heart within the little   

Lady with rod that made them rise

From their noon apple-dreams and scuttle   

Goose-fashion under the skies!

But now go the bells, and we are ready,   

In one house we are sternly stopped

To say we are vexed at her brown study,   

Lying so primly propped.

This poem describes the speaker’s memories of a little girl who has now passed away, causing the speaker to compare her former personality to the lifeless body he sees before him. In “Bells for John Whiteside’s Daughter,” John Crowe Ransom comments on the brevity of life and notes that our aversion towards death causes us to view life as a battle against death.

The poem begins with the reminiscing of the speaker, remembering the little girl almost as a sprite. He uses the words “speed” and “lightness” to describe her, words that bring to mind flying and freedom. This freedom is immediately contrasted to uncharacteristic “brown study,” a state of deep thought and reverie, suggesting that her current motionless state is a prison, a result of her defeat at the hands of death. Even as the speaker begins to describe the little girl’s life he describes it as a battle. Her “wars” are what come to his mind, even her games seen as a fight for life, protecting herself and fearing so much that she “took arms against her shadow.” The fact that her enemy is her own shadow shows that she was fighting not quite against herself but against the darkness that her own body produced: her death.

Then the “lazy geese” enter. Contrasting the laziness with the little girl’s liveliness, the geese are immediately paired with the motionless “brown study” of death that has taken over the little girl. They are further associated with death through a contrast of colors. The geese are described as “snow clouds,” covering the “green grass” with their “snow.” Considering green symbolizes life and energy, the geese seem to be taking away that life. The white of the snow drips on the green, going against the green of life and therefore bringing death. But not only does the white death mean that the green of life is gone but it also means that death has conquered life, bringing back the belief that life is a battle against death. Furthermore, the cold nature of the geese’s “snow” freezes, bringing to mind motionless which is immediately associated with the little girl’s “brown study” and contrasted with the “speed,” “lightness,” and freedom that she had in life. It is against these geese of death that the little girl fights, using a “rod,” a weapon, in order to make the geese “scuttle,” asserting her power over them and, through them, her power over death.

Finally the speaker comes back to the little girl’s present, making it very clear that she is dead through the “bells” that sound, creating a sense of finality that marks the end of her life. But even in her death, the onlookers do feel sad that she has passed away, but rather “vexed at her brown study.” They are once again focusing on death as the enemy, hating it and blaming it rather than mourning the girl’s passing. This view of death as something to be fought against stains the memories of the speaker, preventing him from remembering anything about the little girl’s life other than her “wars” against death and causing the speaker to have a much grimmer view of life. This poem suggests that it may be because of our preoccupation with death that we cannot cherish life fully.

identities

Hamlet- Shakespeare

Throughout the play Hamlet, Hamlet slips into various identities. Six of these identities that are particularly interesting are savior, philosopher, fool, artist, poison, and coward. Our discussion in class was focused on the philosopher, but the discussion had barely begun before we had roped in several other identities, which just goes to show how interconnected they are. As we considered Hamlet’s philosophical thought, we noticed how uncertain he is. In his “to be or not to be” speech he even debates between death and life, unsure of what he is supposed to do. Yet at the same time we noticed his role as moral judge and savior. Hamlet, who himself is unsure of what should and should not be done, judges others on what they have done.

At first we thought this was awfully hypocritical of Hamlet, considering he doesn’t even seem to have concrete morals to judge others by yet he judges them with such certainty and harshness. But after some discussion, we wondered if it was not hypocrisy because Hamlet acted as the savior despite his indecisive philosopher side but rather a painful inner struggle because Hamlet was forced into the role of savior even though he had yet to establish his beliefs through his role of philosopher. When Hamlet first speaks to his father’s ghost and is assigned his task of judging and punishing other, Hamlet says, “O cursèd spite that ever I was born to set it right,” clearly showing that he is anything but eager to act as savior and judge. So why does he? Because he was told do. His father even says he would be a “fat weed” if he did not do what was asked for him. He sees as a mission assigned to him by “heaven,” something that cannot be debated with. Therefore although Hamlet feels that heaven has “punished” him, Hamlet forces him into the hypocrisy to do what he believes he should.

However, such a role clearly does not come to Hamlet so easily considering two acts have passed since he swore to seek revenge for his father and his father’s murder still run lose with no punishment whatsoever. Because Hamlet sees it as his duty to avenge his father, his inability to complete that revenge leads him to question him own worth, asking himself, “Am I a coward?” Therefore, it seems as though Hamlet is not truly a coward, but is simply being held back by a set of morals and goals that differ from what his father’s ghost has mandated him to do. Luckily, Hamlet is able to find a method through which to exact his revenge: playing the fool. The king’s fool, a jester, was the one that entertained everyone, always using humor. A seemingly innocent roe, but it was because of this role as entertainer that jesters were able to speak the ugly truth disguising it with a veil of humor. Therefore, it is through Hamlet’s role as fool and madman that he is able to search for and reveal the truth. Hamlet even comments on this when talking of the players saying, “they do but jest, poison in jest.” But then does that mean that the truth is poison? Or perhaps Hamlet is the poison?

in his head

Hamlet- Shakespeare

Act III, Scene 4: Return of the Ghost. But is it really? Unusual though it seems, the appearance of the ghost in the first act seems to be real. It is seen by multiple people on multiple occasions and all of them confirm his presence with each other, even talking about what the ghost is wearing to make sure they are all seeing the same thing. Furthermore, when Hamlet speaks to the ghost, the ghost gives him a very specific story as to how he died. The claim that Claudius was the murder was later substantiated by Claudius’ confession that he had committed the crime of “a brother’s murder.” Even the method of murder that is described by the ghost gains credibility, but isn't completely proven, in Claudius’s reaction of abruptly standing up and leaving the play when it is revealed that the murderer “poisons him in the garden.” The accuracy of the ghost’s statements and acknowledgment by many of his existence lead to the conclusion that the ghost did really appear.

However, his appearance in Act III is not as definite. For one thing, unlike the ghost’s first few appearances, in Act III, the ghost only appears to Hamlet. The ghost appeared multiple times to people other than Hamlet (Horatio, Marcellus, Barnardo, etc.), so it seems unusual that all of a sudden only Hamlet sees and hears him while Queen Gertrude sees nothing and worries that Hamlet truly is crazy. This is not the only difference between the ghost of Act I and the ghost of Act III. Their attitudes toward Hamlet also differ. When the ghost of Act I speaks to Hamlet, he is filled with anger, his sole purpose in appearing being to demand that Hamlet “revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.” He has no consideration for his own son, telling him he would be a “fat weed” is he didn't do as his father instructed. This harsh personality is completely turned around in Act III when the ghost is described as “piteous.” Given these difference, one begins to wonder if the ghost really appears or if he is merely brought to life by Hamlet’s mind.

If the ghost really is Hamlet’s creation, then Hamlet’s discourse with the ghost would be a conversation between Hamlet and his own subconscious. So what is the purpose of this conversation? Considering the ghost’s main concern, Queen Gertrude, it seems to be Hamlet’s attempt to free his mother from judgment. Throughout the play, Hamlet judges everyone morally, especially his mother. He calls her no more than a “beast” and accuses her of “[killing] a king.” However, if the ghost is Hamlet’s own subconscious, he seems to be battling himself. He’s torn between being the “scourge and minister” that “heaven” has called his to be and being simply Hamlet, son of Gertrude. Unwilling to condemn and hate his mother yet unwilling to abandon his morals, he depends on his father’s ghost’s words, to “taint not thy mind, nor let thy soul contrive against thy mother aught” to justify his wish to let his mother go. It is this wish that manifests itself in the form of his father’s ghost in his mind to relieve the stress of his inner struggle. So maybe Hamlet doesn't actually hate as mother as much as he says he does.

gertrude

Hamlet- Shakespeare

Gertrude, Queen of Denmark, isn’t very easily categorized as good or evil. Should she be thrown in with Claudius as wife of the enemy of the protagonist? Or should she be placed alongside Hamlet as the last of the protagonist’s family?

Hamlet himself seems to be torn by the issue, but he clearly separates his mother from Claudius. While he ignores Claudius’s requests, he specifically mentions that he will do his best to obey his mother. Not only does this display Hamlet’s distaste for Claudius, but it shows Hamlet’s view of his mother as different from Claudius. Although he looks down on Claudius to the point of refusing his requests, he does allow himself to follow his mother’s requests. However, despite a certain level of kindness towards his mother, Hamlet definitely seems to favor labeling her as evil, especially after his talk with the ghost of his father. Even before he heard of the possibility of his mother’s infidelity, he calls his mother little more than a “beast” considering her speedy remarriage. This quick recovery from her husband’s death does bring up some questions. Was Gertrude having an affair before King Hamlet died? Is she on Claudius’s side of the whole conflict? She does seem more than willing to forget about King Hamlet, telling her son to “cast thy nighted color off” less than two months after his father died, treating his death as “common” and nothing to make a fuss about. Considering this was the woman that used to “hang” on the King as if addicted to him, the change in loyalties does seem disconcerting.

Even the King’s ghost’s testimony seems to work against the queen, calling her a “seeming-virtuous queen,” implying that the virtue that is normally attributed to her is nothing more than a façade. However, the King also seems reluctant to place full blame on the Queen. The one he identifies as “traitorous” is Claudius and not his wife, and the King specifies that Claudius “seduced” the queen, seeming to take all the blame off of the queen and place it in Claudius. He turns the queen from guilty to victimized. He even makes sure that the queen will not get caught up in the revenge plot by instructing Hamlet to never “let [his] soul contrive/against [his] mother.” The anger that the King hold for the queen seems too little for a reaction to an affair. Rather, the King seems to be upset with the Queen’s current relationship with his brother, but does not blame her. Following this view, Gertrude could simply be concerned about the state and her son after her husband’s death and therefore decided to take responsibility by becoming queen and encouraging her son to move on. However, it could also be true that the Queen really did have an affair, but the King can’t bear to blame her out of love (as Hamlet said, the King was “so loving to my mother/that he might not beteem the winds of heaven/visit her face too roughly”).

So, in the end, Gertrude is still not clearly good or bad. However, following Hamlet’s reaction to her and Claudius’s requests and the King’s reluctance to blame her, the Queen is clearly not to be grouped together with Claudius in terms of enmity. She’s escaped being categorized as completely evil, and now she sits somewhere in the ambiguity around good.

ghost

Hamlet- Shakespeare

Act I, scene 5. Enter ghost. A very important character that drives Hamlet to revenge, but who, or what, exactly is this creature? A “spirit of health”? A “goblin damned”? Or maybe neither? In my humble opinion, the ghost is neither, merely the remnants the former King. He even says that he is doomed to be a ghost for a “certain term” until his sins are “purged away,” a description that seems to perfectly describe Purgatory.

So the ghost is neither devil nor angel but a soul in Purgatory, no more evil or good than King Hamlet was. That being said, the ghost does seem quite selfish in his requests. He commands his son to “revenge his foul and most unnatural murder,” but he gives little thought for the consequences. Denmark has just lost its King and is learning to adjust to a new one. Such a process is hard enough without a fight for the throne to confuse and tear apart the nation. If such a thing were to occur, the rebels that Fortinbras gathered, already a threat to the nation, would be able to seize the chance to overthrow the government and throw the state into even further chaos. Even is that wasn’t a concern of the ghost’s he should at least consider his son. Instead of allowing his son the liberty of deciding what to do for himself, he essentially commands him to revenge, telling him he’s worth less than a “fat weed” if he does not follow his father’s instructions. If Hamlet were to attempt revenge and fail, his life would certainly be in danger. Claudius would not simply sit back and allow his nephew to threaten him life, especially if he’s aware that Hamlet knows of the murder he committed. Even if Hamlet were to succeed, would he truly be able to continue to keep the nation united? Would the nation be able to trust him after so much conflict surrounding the throne? Even with success, Hamlet’s future is questionable. Despite this danger, the ghost sends Hamlet forth on a journey of revenge.

So why does Hamlet accept? Hamlet doesn’t exactly seem to be jumping for joy that he’s been entrusted with this mission. As the scene ends, he even says, “O cursed spite/That ever I was born to set it right,” lamenting the fact that he’s been commanded to revenge. This makes it clear that Hamlet is not going through with his father’s command due to genuine desire for revenge, but rather due to a sense of duty, perhaps a sense of duty towards his father. Considering his praise of his father in scene 2, likening him to Hyperion, Hamlet seems to hold his father in very high regard. Since Hyperion is a god, one can almost say that Hamlet worships his father. This makes it very likely that Hamlet feels a need to impress his father or rove to his father that he is worthy of calling King Hamlet his father. He has even been spurred on by his father comment that, unless he seeks revenge, he’s a “fat weed.” For a son seeking a father’s approval, such a comment seems enough to prod Hamlet into seeking revenge against his wishes. This certainly says a lot about Hamlet’s character, perhaps making him more endearing than his previous actions do, but it also says a lot about the former King. This man was worshiped by his son, yet he doesn’t even consider his son’s future when plotting his revenge? Yes, he was murdered by his own brother, and he is a victim, but one begins to wonder how much of a Hyperion he truly is.

isolation

Hamlet- Shakespeare

As Hamlet opens, Shakespeare goes to great lengths to isolate Hamlet from the other characters from the moment he appears onstage. Surrounded by the colorful festivities of a wedding, Hamlet is set apart by his somber clothes of black. Although Claudius claims that the whole kingdom still mourns for the recently deceased king, he leads the court in the celebration of his wedding in colors presumably very bright and joyful. Hamlet alones stands in memory of the old king in his uniform of black mourning, yet in doing so, he clearly sets him apart from everyone else. But his separation is not just physical. Of course, his mourning is clearly contrasted with the celebration of the others, but the black he wears amid the festivities also brings to mind a more sinister idea. Perhaps he, the darkness among happiness, represents a threat to the reign of Claudius or on a broader level, the happiness of the kingdom in general. Or perhaps the dark colors represent to lack of clarity as Hamlet is mired in confusion, torn between treasuring the living and honoring the dead while everyone around him has already clearly chosen to move on.

His isolation shows through in his relationships, particularly in his relationship with his mother and uncle. When his uncle first addresses him, Hamlet clearly separates their existences with the phrase “a little more than kin and less than kind.” Noting that technically they have a two-fold relationship, that of uncle and nephew as well as father and son, but at the same time stating that their relationship is unnatural and he hardly sees him in a positive light. Even in acknowledging their relationship, Hamlet separates himself from Claudius by discrediting the legitimacy of their relationship. Later he continues to separate himself from his uncle by refusing to heed his counsel and cast away his clothes of mourning. Even when he finally agrees to one of Claudius’ requests, he makes clearly that he does it not for Claudius but rather for his mother. But even Hamlet’s relationship with his mother is sour at best as he cannot understand how she agreed to marry Claudius so quickly after King Hamlet’s death. Although he agrees to her request to not go to Wittenberg, he says he will “obey” her, as if it’s his obligation and not due to his love for her. Hamlet even implies that she is “common,” vulgar, when she tries to convince him to stop mourning his father. Reaching the point of insulting his own mother, it’s clear that he no longer feels a deep connection with his mother, and it seems he didn’t have a close connection with his uncle to begin with. Isolated from his immediately family, Hamlet has no one to whom he can freely express his thoughts.

Cursed with such isolation, would Hamlet be more likely to trust the ghost of his father that appeared to him. Because he knows that he cannot freely speak to anyone among the living, the sight of his father must have excited him beyond imagination as he recklessly decides to follow it wherever it goes despite warnings from his friends, lured by the ability to confide that he associated with his father. This trust was clearly not present in everyone as Horatio frantically warns Hamlet that the ghost might kill him. However, Hamlet trusts. When the ghost claims that the queen had an affair, Hamlet easily believes him because he himself has become isolated. This isolation has led his to rash decisions that do not match his previously displayed cleverness. Even someone who considers himself high enough to judge others can be influenced by emotion.

treasures

Those Winter Sundays- Robert Hayden

Sundays too my father got up early

and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold,

then with cracked hands that ached

from labor in the weekday weather made

banked fires blaze. No one ever thanked him.

I’d wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking.

When the rooms were warm, he’d call,

and slowly I would rise and dress,

fearing the chronic angers of that house,

Speaking indifferently to him,

who had driven out the cold

and polished my good shoes as well.

What did I know, what did I know

of love’s austere and lonely offices?

An experience that most have had: the parent sacrificing for the child. Yet Hayden does not simply dismiss this occurrence as a common part of daily life. Instead he delves into the experience to pull out a revelation so often overlooked in such a mundane scene. Hayden uses the poem “Those Winter Sundays” to emphasize the extent to which humans can sacrifice for a treasure while at the same time bringing to light a human tendency to overlook the treasures we possess until they are no longer in our possession.

The very first line of the poem opens with hardship: “Sundays too my father got up early.” The fact that the speaker emphasizes “too,” clarifying that his father was subject to the same fate on a regular basis, suggests a life of hard work and little rest, possibly physically as well as mentally. It also creates an atmosphere of repetition, as if the father has no escape for this daily toil. This is highlighted by the fact that even on a Sunday, a day typically reserved for rest, the father still adheres to his normal schedule of work. The father’s emotions are hinted at by the “blueblack cold” in which he dresses, mixing together the blue of sadness as well as the black of the unknown, as if the father himself has lost sight of his goal. The “cold” around him illustrates the fact that there is no one providing body heat around him, bringing up the loneliness of the old man. However, that very man is the one that made “fires blaze,” symbolizing the companionship he provides for the speaker despite his loneliness.

The speaker, on the other hand, did not endure nearly as much suffering as his father, dressing himself in rooms that were “warm” due to his father’s work as opposed to the cold that his father was forced to change in. Despite this, it is the speaker “fearing” of what could happen to him, displaying a very self-centered view which emphasizes all the more the lack of consideration the speaker has for his father. This is made even clearer in the speaker’s tone toward his father, as he speaks “indifferently,” indicating ignorance as to the extent of suffering that his father has gone through for him.

This lack of appreciation is made all the more hurtful when considering the fact that the father has not just suffered through cold to warm the speaker, but he has sacrificed his life in order to help the speaker achieve a higher position in life. The father has worked so much for the speaker that his hands have already become “cracked” from diligence. He was willing to protect the speaker from the “angers of that house” which may not only be the physical building around them but the society around them that the speaker cannot deal with himself, leaving it to his father instead. The speaker’s father even “polished [his] good shoes,” suggesting that the speaker must soon go on a journey, possibly the journey of life, that the father has prepared him for. Unfortunately, the father’s efforts are met with ungrateful words, displaying the child’s tendency to overlook the essential part played by parents, causing them to look down on the parents instead of treasuring their contributions.

However, the speaker makes his regret very clear. “What did I know,” he laments of his ignorance. Throughout the poem this feeling of regret is emphasized through the contrast between the speaker preoccupation with self and the speaker’s acknowledgement of his father’s sacrifices. However, the past tense used throughout the poem makes it clear that the regret that the speaker feels cannot be changed because his mistakes were in the past where he clearly no longer has influence. The acknowledgment of his mistake as well as his inability to correct it emphasizes Hayden’s message that what we should treasure we often do not until it is too late.

decisions

The Age of Innocence- Edith Wharton

碧血剑 (Sword Stained with Royal Blood)

I was recently browsing through a few of the dramas I had watched when I came upon the revelation that one of them, Sword Stained with Royal Blood, had one aspect that was strikingly similar to The Age of Innocence, and not in a good way. They both had a protagonist that simply could not decide between two women. Of course, if that was the only aspect I needed to declare a strong similarity, then there would be countless dramas that fall into that category. But these two works had more than just the mutual ability to frustrate me beyond my wits with the protagonist’s indecisiveness (though that was the main reason why I noticed the similarity). The relationships of the protagonists and the women they struggle between begin to draw in the influence of society’s expectations.

On one side we have Newland Archer struggling between May, his soul mate in society’s eyes, and Ellen, the girl that he truly desires. May represents everything that society loves- a soft-spoken, innocent, conforming girl- and everything that Newland has begun to hate. He’s tired of society’s “sameness” which is why he looks to Ellen, the essence of uniqueness, with such desire. Yet she’s another man’s wife, a woman who has even been accused of running away with another man. It would be impossible for society to approve a relationship between her and her cousin’s fiancé, thought of as an exemplary member of New York’s upper class, almost as if it refused to let him pursue his desires.

Yuan Cheng Zhi is in a very different yet very similar position. The leader of an alliance seeking to help bring down the Ming Dynasty, Yuan Cheng Zhi’s life is far from the passive existence that Newland Archer leads, but he’s torn by the same romantic troubles. Wen Qing Qing was given to him to take care of by her mother and is a fellow rebel, a seemingly perfect match for Yuan Cheng Zhi. Yet his interest lays with Ah Jiu, a princess of the Ming Dynasty and the daughter of the man he’s trying to kill. For obvious reasons, those around him would not be very approving of such a union.

Initially, both protagonists seem to cave to the opinion of those around them. Newland Archer goes through with his marriage with May while Yuan Cheng Zhi avoids Ah Jiu and reassures Qing Qing of his feeling for her. But in both cases the harmony does not last for long. Newland “[begins] to fear” his penchant for noticing the undesirable aspects of his wife, almost as if they drive him away from being perfect husband that society expects of him. Yet ultimately, he decides to break away from expectations and pursue his desires, and he once again begins to see Ellen, even beginning to think of running away with her. Through this desire, Newland is able to taste a freedom, a hope, that he cannot get from May. Yuan Cheng Zhi also tries to escape reality with Ah Jiu, although his reality isn’t just the disapproval society but also the death and destruction that results from the clash between her father’s men and his men.

However, neither man finds much success in his pursuits thanks to reality’s interference. May reveals that she’s pregnant, causing Ellen to leave after recognizing the hopelessness of her relationship with Newland. Ah Jiu realizes that even with Yuan Cheng Zhi the despair of reality won’t despair and decides to become a monk while Qing Qing reminds Yuan Cheng Zhi of his promises to stop him from following Ah Jiu. Ultimately both Newland Archer and Yuan Cheng Zhi make the decision to stay with the women that society approves of, but in both cases, the result is stagnation. Newland Archer looks back on his life and sees he’s fallen into a “deep rut” stuck in one place and unable to move on to become the accomplished man he once hoped to be. Yuan Cheng Zhi gives up fighting for a just government and decides to run away from the result of his actions to find a less eventful life elsewhere. They have finally chosen a woman and accepted society’s expectations, but in doing so, they seem to have given up their dreams.