Rosalin and Guiligan

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not dead... YET. Give us this day an answer to what in the world this book is talking about! I'm just kidding... But not really. So let's say this novel is super satirical. It is discussing human life like we are all on a stage. And we cannot escape that stage unless we are dead. The entire novel has no discussion of religion or God so we can go ahead and take that whole aspect out of the picture. What is the importance of living a stage life? Why is living life like it is a stage such a negative thing? I believe it is a discussion of how people control us rather than how we control ourselves. Why are Ros and Guil on the stage? Because someone put them there. Why can't they get off the stage? Because they have lines that someone has given them. They are controlled by the people around them but it seems like a force. The only problem with assuming that it is a force is that there is no "force." In this play, God is clearly not a main player as they discuss the dismal ending after death to be nothingness. What does it mean when they insist that death leads to nothing better? So life is one big play, we are on a stage, miserable, frightened of messing up, and all to just die in the end, the curtain falls, its over. Why even bother going to see a play when you know the end will come and you will no longer have connections with the people in the play and the images you saw will fade away into nothingness when that curtain falls? Because we are human. And these dismal facts make us human. Those who cannot act, die. They take their own lives, they take the lives of others, they try to survive on the happiness of others, they try to be someone else and by being someone else, do not act as themselves on that stage and they also die only in a different way: they are offstage. The only reason Ros and Guil have a play in because they were not frightened of being onstage. That is something that no all people have. Guil's philosophical nature and natural boldness keeps him on the stage and Ros's empathy and innocence keep him on stage. There are only some people who can survive the grueling thing that is living. Stoppard would like us to believe that we live for nothing but some of us have the will to do it anyway. We are much like soldiers. Soldiers fight to win one war knowing that they will fight in infinitely more wars as that is human nature. Those who are less than human cannot survive. This novel dicusses human nature in its simplest form: survival of the fittest. By using Ros and Guil, we are given the keys to living which are that their are none! You gotta do your best and understand that it may never be good enough.. really.

why dontcha DO somethin!

Music controls so much of the things around us. There is even a rhythm in literary works. For instance, when reading a novel such as Memoirs of a Geisha, it is flowing, it is like contemporary orchestral music, with an ebb and flow that is almost predictable, but calming. We then move on to a novel like Frankenstein, it is a dark opera. It is deep, moving and extremely dark. Perhaps a romantic opera, but including the gore and blood, so maybe a little bit italian! Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead definitely has a rhythm. In every little banter-sesh, there is a musical quality that makes it quick witted and SMART. That is what rhythm gives to a literary work, intelligence. The human language is a beautiful one (well, not everything but you get the idea). French is one of the most beautiful languages and can enrapture the most harsh of Americans. So obviously when put into novelistic or screen play ideas, there is a way to turn simple language into ART. What makes novels and plays art? The ability to enrapture an audience and be more than they could ever be. Tonight I had my last orchestra concert. I play in the Chamber orchestra because I ride horses and I don't have time for the constraints of Symphony orchestra (although I would LOVE to play with them). The symphony orchestra played a concerto that literally changed my life. Wes Gillis (maybe you have him as a student) played a solo part and was brilliant. I'm pretty sure my Dad was tearing up and I felt totally enraptured by his talent. The only other thing that can capture me so totally and completely is reading. When reading, I can be someone else. I can experience things that I'd never plan to experience. When listening and playing music, I AM that piece. If im playing something classic rock, I'm Peter Mercury, if I'm playing classical, I'm Tchaikovsky. When reading Harry Potter, I'm Harry. When reading Grendel, I am that horrible beast. An art is something that is more than you and can take you to that level. And I believe that as much as a literary work has a rhythm, a piece of music tells a story. As does a piece of physical art. All in all, the connections in our culture are undeniable; the things that make us special are also the things that are the most special. I am happy to live in a world where I can go anywhere and do anything using the things that God gave me.

Goodbye Memoirs

Memoirs of a Geisha is a novel the personfies how all women feel at some point in there lives. Being a woman is not easy, it requires a lot give and take. I admire the life of a geisha. When I first read this novel I thought that geisha were Japanese prostitutes but now I know that they are artists. The diction of the novel is so rich and flowing just like a piece of art. The wording of the novel is like the body of Sayuri. It flows and it is beautiful. The novel is called Memoirs of a Geisha, and every aspect of it captures the lifestyle and technique of geisha. I really enjoyed this novel although the relationships between men and women are a bit confusing at times. It has a Cinderella feel to it. Hatsumomo is an evil step sister and the Chairman is the prince. In some ways the novel seems simple, but in its themes it is not. The novel encompasses the difficulty of being a woman in society. In a way, all women are geisha. Women have to work extremely hard to look beautiful and be quick-witted at the same time. The character of Sayuri captures the reader by being relatable. Her difficulties are felt by all women and the relationships that are developed are demonstrated in real life. Sayuri is special because she is uncommonly kind and the water in her soul flows from her gray eyes. Her gray eyes give her a "marked for greatness" aspect that shows not only in the success she has as a geisha but also in the way she thinks. I will agree that sometimes her decision-making skills are POOR. But everyone has weaknesses. I would prefer to be a beautiful woman on the inside and out and maybe do something dumb behind a theater every once in a while... But lets remember, that decision led to her being united with the chairman. This novel SO screams Cinderella, it's practically AWKWARD. But lets be real here. Generally when you have a female lead, a cinderalla story is about to being. Unless you are reading Anne Frank or watching the movie "Monster". Which may I add, is AWFUL and totally not worth the money I spent at blockbuster. Taa daa! We love all this crazy love crap. I just proved it! We're all searching for our princes and I'd say that most people get them. Or they get an allusion of a prince... either way, women are all the same. I don't care who you are. Example: The Last Song. Miley Cyrus is supposed to be all hardass but then turns into a big fat softy and finds her "true love" (how irritating). So basically what I'm trying to say is that I love Sayuri. She is a womans woman! I'm holding out for my prince charming too... I'll have to run off a few Nobu's first...

Shameeelesss

Well, as you can imagine, I did not do a lot of school reading while on my spring break. Most of my time was spent on the beach, reading casually and being perfectly safe/making good decisions :) Over the break, I found myself lost in thought about college and the journey ahead. AP Lit has been a class that has tested me more than any other class. I took AP Physics and AP Chem, and although those were difficult classes, AP Lit has really pushed my boundaries. Not only is the work hard, the subject matter is hard to grasp. I will never forget one of the first things I ever learned in AP Lit: The novels that makes you feel the most uncomfortable are the ones that are the most important and the most remembered. I feel that in AP Lit we have read a lot of uncomfortable stories. When we read "A Doll's House" I have never been so disconcerted about women. I read her story and I though, how could you be so self-centered? I then I thought, what if I never found myself? Not only was the uneasiness of the book overwhelming but I felt it in my core. The story of Frankenstein is also one that moved me deeply. A novel that had to do with monsters seemed more to do with human nature than the monsters. Everyday there are scientists fighting to find the next cure, make the next robot or understand where we have come from. It is frightening to think that a man in a novel could create. It turns my whole world around being a Christian believer. It is hard to immerse yourself in a novel that fights everything you believe in but when you read such a novel that tests you and is so well written, you are completely immersed. I would say that the novel that touched me the most was Grendel. Although I cannot say that I understand Grendel, the last line will stay with me forever. "Grendel's had an accident, so may you all." The line is sinister and foreboding. The entire novel was confusing, I'll admit, and when I got done with it I scratched my head like a monkey with nothing to say but those words were powerful. They made me feel uneasy. What will my fall be? What is a monster in our world? I cannot say that I understood Invisible Man in the least but I've never really stopped thinking about it. On my way to Florida we drove past Tuskegee and I thought about Invisible Man. These novels make me question more than, what did that mean? These novels are meant to test us as humans just as math is meant to test us. The subject that tests your integrity and beliefs is truly a special one. I am looking forward to being "tested" on the AP test.

It a hard enough life...

The pain that the story's we read explicate create situations for our own learning. At some point in all of our lives we will experience pain, suffering and the like. Perhaps not every day, or every month or even every year, but inevitably we will ALL experience pain. In Invisible Man, the main character experiences pain of a lack of identity. Although he experiences many painful situations in his life they all stem from his initial blindness which coincides with his invisibility. You could also say that the pain that Grendel feels comes from a sort of personal identification problem. In his situation he is a monster (physically) in a purely human accepted societal area. This lack of control and comfort in his own body (lack of acceptance from others) leads to his demise and ultimately his suicide. In Memoirs of a Geisha the pain she feels comes from the losses she experiences as a child and the losses she begets in her own skin as an apprentice geisha. She loses her parents and her only sister. She loses the men she loves and she seems to be constantly taken from. It reminds me of the foo fighters song "best of me." In the song it says "has someone taken the best of you, the hope, the not, the broken hearts, the pain you feel, the pain it's real." Sayuri is plagued by those around her. The baron, Hatsumomo, the chairman, her father, mameha and everyone else pushes her and pushes her but she proves that she WILL NOT be broken. I find that most of the characters in the other novels we have read and beaten by their weaknesses but Sayuri is not. Why is this? Memoirs of a Geisha is a slightly true story. Although molded by Arthur Golden it is an actual human life. In real life, although we are plagued often, our "downfall" is not always accomplished so easily. Always looked for, novels are always trying to push our mental limits. Otherwise, why would we read them? There would be no point. Generally the most memorable novels are the most magical ones or the ones that hit life on the head. The ones that show people out there, raw, exposed. Both of these are ideas that cannot be grasped "generally" in modern life. People are just not that open. Imagine how ahead everyone would be if we were that open? We could really help eachother.

Geisha life. the BOMB DIGGITY.

I am officially in love with the geisha lifestyle. I mean other than the never marry thing... Or maybe thats a plus? what? did i say that? It is very much an early renaissance type of thing. It reminds me of an asian pride and prejudice in the way that the women have to know many trades and be very intelligent but at the same time these women are different. They genuinely require street smarts because essentially, they are women of a business world. They are 1920s asian business women who work hard enough to take care of themselves. They are truly artists of lifestyle. They are not only beautiful but dress in kimono and are forced to act like perfect ladies, telling jokes, telling stories, pouring tea in perfect form. They are pushed to be "perfect" women. The great part about it is that this novella shows the imperfections of geisha. While most people who have ever experienced geisha in real life would find them to be perfection, the reader understands that they are not. Geisha go through many trials and tribulations to achieve this "perfection" which they barely get by the tips of their fingers. The diction of the novel is intoxicating along with the geisha themselves. I believe that is part of the overall motif and theme of the novel. The entire novel is about the non-stop working and determination that achieves perfection but also the fact that it will never be achieved. Perfection in writing will never be achieved but when you read the novel you believe that the wording is endless and diction is extremely touching. The imagery and imagination that is put into the novel pushes you towards a whole other world and realm of thinking. It is a novel that touches you deeply and pushes your feeling without you even being aware of it. I feel caressed as well as mentally exercised by the novel. No part of it is overwhelming although I believe that on a whole note, the novel will be touching and memorable. The motif of water is repeated a lot not only in their personalities but in general. It is usually associated with death. Such as Chiyo believing Hatsumomo would push her into a river. The water is what makes her special but she also believes it is what could cause her demise. She is not the cleverest of girls although this sentiment is heavily repeated. Perhaps this lack of cleverness is caused by the deep presence of water in her personality. Chiyo is a very special character and I am excited to see how she grows in the novel. Hopefully she truly will attain cleverness eventually.

Its a funny world we live in.

I have no idea what to blog about so I am going to ramble on about random literary topics. It is going to be AWESOME. Let's begin with invisible man. I am extremely confused as to why this guy is invisible! What does it all MEAN. I personally enjoyed the book. It was a quick read, it was interesting, but I felt that it was too deep for me to understand. The funny thing about AP literature is that you feel like you don't get it, and your the only kid in the class who feels retarded and then you talk to everyone else and they didn't get it either. And we all just collaborate and after a seminar or two, we actually do understand the novel. So hopefully within the next couple weeks I will actually understand this "invisible man." I just feel like he shouldn't be invisible. In the novel he affects SO MANY people. So what, he gets kicked out of college. Thats cool! I would say he was a quiet kid in college who blossomed into a great civil rights activist. He's a young Booker T. Washington, and yet, hes invisible? I feel like Ralph Ellison tried to sneakily tell his own story, but it wasn't his story and the guy wasn't actually invisible. Ralph Ellison was. And when Ralph Ellison realized that his story made no sense, he let the little invisible man drop into a manhole and ta da! story. This is going to sound really bad, but the only reason we read it and its popular and famous is because it is about a young black man being a civil rights activist and feeling put down by the white man. It's borderline simplistic. I feel like I'm heading in unchartered waters but this is my blog! This man really only wrote one "good" novel and the rest were pointless short stories that no one has heard of. But I suppose a lot of peoples careers are like that... I reckon I'm purely frustrated because of my lack of understanding. What is the purpose of the manhole? Manhole: hell, dark, secrets. Unlocking hidden inner secrets maybe? I'm lost. But i do love sonnets. I wish i had the talent to write really inctricate love sonnets. But unfortunately I think you have to be a really sentimental man to achieve those types of talents. I wish guys still wrote them but with women, you never know what there actually going to like. Like the guy who wrote like a billion and she just totally turned them down. Can we go back to gender roles? I really enjoyed those. I play the weirdest one. I like man trucks and romantic comedies... what? I should write a book about my awkward ad extraordinary life. maybe not.

Sonnets... early forms of the "chick flick" ?

I enjoyed reading the sonnets in class VERY much. That is most likely because I am an absolute sucker for anything moderately romantic. If you know me, your probably thinking I'm lying, but seriously, I cry at movies at the drop of a hat. I especially enjoyed the Spenserian sonnets. Spenser invented his own sonnet form which is more intricate than the others, but makes sense in what he is writing about: love. There is nothing uncomplicated or simple about love. Everyday people fall in and out of love, and while in love, they fall in and out of their very complicated feelings towards the other person. It's complicated. Of course, I personally wouldn't know, but I've watched enough chick flicks to have a general (and shallow) idea of what love is all about. The line "Till I in hand her yet half trembling took" is absolute magic. I totally understand what this is all about. You have the girl (deer) wild, and beautiful, she's a striking type, and the kind of safe, nerdy guy who wants her SO bad. For years he chases her, perhaps through adolescence, all the way to adulthood, but she runs, and plays with his feelings, she likes to "quench her thirst at the next brook." Until finally, she gets tired of going to new brooks and running away. She sees a type of safety in the hunter because he has been around for so long. She is trembling, scared to love him, but once she walks to him, she knows she is safe. It's all so adorable that I can't even stand it. The next sonnet is a little dark, but I like it. It shows a less "happy-go-lucky" side to the hunting. He talks about a vain girl that he chased and chased. He knows shes knows she's a fox and that she could have anyone she wants. This irritates him because he thinks she is making the wrong choices (not him) so he back lashed HARDCORE. Some good disses in this sonnet. It says, "All other fair, like flowers, untimely fade," which is obviously pointing to the idea that looks do not last forever. So although he was tempted by her looks (along with everyone else) he is basically saying "you ain't gonna be pretty forever sweet cheeks, so you better change the TUDE" and "I don't want your vain butt anyway, you soon-to-be old hag!" It the harsh but honest truth. Men are not as dumb as we would like to think. Well, some of them... and finally we get back to the gushy stuff. "Our love shall live, and later life renew." Poetic, simple, defining. Thank you Spenser! Again he is trying to prove to a woman, that love does not mean fear. Be bold, love and you will be rewarded with a full and nurtured life. Is this guy really a dude? I think I'd be flattered but kind of turned off if he wrote me one these sonnets. Just proves what women really want, a butt head. We can't decide what we want, and there are so many poor Spenser's running around trying to figure it out.

The great soliloquy

Is it weird that I want to write a soliloquy? I feel that maybe it could make all of my thoughts make a little bit of sense. But Hamlet didn't exactly hit the nail on the head in his... What was going on in his head? To be portrayed as such a smart guy, his inner articulations made nearly no sense and were complete awkward. I have decided in my analysis of my soliloquy that Hamlet is not that intelligent. He isn't even one of those annoying people who thinks he is too smart to believe in God, he just thinks the complete opposite about spirits and God as anyone else. If anything he believes more than most people because of his clear belief of his ghost father. So maybe Hamlet is just plain gullible. Maybe he is one of those people I absolutely LOATHE. The people that act like they know EVERYTHING when they know nothing and trick all of the other people who know nothing into thinking they know everything. He even tricked me! But only for so long. I figured him out. So really this whole play is about some dumb, confused guy who goes all "christ figure" and dies for nothing. If he really wanted to get back at Claudius he would have thought of something better than simply killing him (and everyone around him). I am thinking that maybe Shakespeare was not trying to make Hamlet the smartest guy after all. Perhaps he was criticizing the way we face our fears or combat against injustice whether it is in our own lives or displayed around us. Does Shakespeare feel that leaving things alone and living your life the best way you can will lead to revenge? After all, Fortinbras did come in the end of the play and he most likely would have taken mercy on Hamlet since he was in nearly the same situation as himself. Hamlet clearly did not think his plan through which would make sense if he was younger but he is thirty years old! He should really be able to make a plan that will genuinely help him because he is carrying on for his father. Perhaps Shakespeare is analyzing juvenile qualities in adults because some people never grow up. It would seem appropriate for Hamlet to not be able to grow up because he grew up in a castle as a prince. Perhaps with everything being catered to him, he lacked the ability to know right from wrong and make an educated decision about what to do. So what is this play about then? It is about a young man's inner struggle to find his place after his father's death. He clearly made the wrong decision but what is the right one? We'll need a Hamlet 2 to explain that one

Invisible man to save the day!

In my blog I would like the explore the possibility that the "invisible man" is gay. In the portion of the novel that I am in, he has displayed no possibility of being straight. He seems unaffected by girls and the earlier mentioning of the hospital with the male nurses fooling around with the male patients makes me a little worried... Perhaps this novel is not about being black in a white world. Or maybe that's exactly what it is. Since soddom and gommorah, God has told us that he is not big on the whole, "homosexuality thing" and therefore, people who partake in this type of behavior are sinners. Sinning leads the imagery of evil, crimson stained, BLACK with sin. People who do not participate in this type of behavior has white souls and consciences. Throughout the novel, white people are continuously referred to as being closed minded and generally "small" in thought whereas black people are dominating in intelligence and importance. In life, the people who are "townies" and church goers are generally thought of as less than genius as well as small minded. This especially pertains to homosexuality. Ask my primitive baptist, barnesville aboding, preacher uncle about homos and he would say its not real and its not right. All of the white people in the novel are generally that type of person, they live in the deep south, they go to church on Sundays, etc. So, in my exploration of this connotation of the novel, why would the author do this? Because when his novel was written, although slavery and race issues were nearly out of the way and okay to write about, being homosexual is still a hot button issue that people are very afraid to face. SO, lets disguise it as a black vs. white (race) novel. Everybody wins. In the characterization and portrayal of the white characters, I see a lot of animosity towards them. Perhaps this author was made fun of a lot by the "white" members of his societal background. I get a lot of negativity from this author, it is a very different novel than anything I have ever read. I am probably totally wrong about this theory and in the next chapter he going to become a swinger but if that never happens, its totally a go gay book. Im on it! I don't really care that the author is black, it doesn't matter because he is still a guy. Someone during his time would be rejected for his gayness as the invisible man is rejected for his lack of intelligence about being a black man in a masochistic white world. I'm all about speaking out, but lets be clear about it! If its not about that than its extremely clear... almost too clear for a novel for AP lit!

Invisibility...

I don't know what everyone is talking about... I personally enjoy invisible man. At least for the first 200 pages that I've read... It's an extremely interesting novel. At least the stories that are told are borderline RIVETING. I mean sure, you have your gross line every once in a while but on a whole, at least it is entertaining. I can sort of relate with the main character. I know that sounds odd, but I believe that at some point in everyones life, they are a little bit invisible. I do not mean to sound like a sad sap from The Princess Diaries, but I can understand his type of invisibility. It is as though you are just going along with the waves of live but not really riding them. Boogy boarding the waves of live but not surfing them and carving out your new path. Sure, boogy boarding is fun, but when you can surf, you are definitely going to leave your boogy board at home. The only issue is that some of us like being invisible. I believe the protagonist in Invisible Man actually partially enjoys being invisible. He likes the fact that his respect and honor to white people has gained him a spot in college and the ability to be better than he could be otherwise. I also think that there are great things to be learned outside of the box. I am not sure that people who live outside of the box are the more happy than people who live inside the box, but people who live outside of it seem like the types who would always be trying to prove that they are better and their lifestyles are better so it seems like a fact. Anyway, I'm totally invisible, but I like it. I go to school, I get good grades, I try to be respectful to my parents/teachers/trainers. And I enjoy my life. I like the strict scheduling and the ease of always knowing where you belong and what you are supposed to do. Yes, I have thought of switching to the dark side. After all, it gives you more power and you can become more powerful than a Jedi, you can be strong and be a sith lord! Woah, off topic. But anyway, I am sure that the main character is going to break out from his "boring life" and become some kind of I hate whitey dude and start some rally or something... I'm calling that early. But for now, I love this kid1! He gets stuck in the most awkward situations and it makes me laugh because it reminds me of my life. When he starts getting all depressed and brooding, I'm going to be a little upset and wish it would go back to his straight laced awkwardness. Anyway, it had to be expected that I wouldn't find the gross sections that bad because I did read The Red Tent... Nothing is shocker for me anymore. THAT IS FOR SURRRE.

Mmmm Hamlet!

So while acting out Hamlet in class I could see that with the three movies we watched of the nunnery scene and they three acts performed in our class that each group kind of portrayed each portrayal from each movie. The group that did that Hamlet knew they were there seemed a lot like the BBC version, when hamlet didn't know it was like the Mel Gibson version and when he kinda knew it was like the brannaugh version (but less intense, haha). So its quite interesting how although we should all have interpretations of interpretations they all kind of went hand in hand. Funny how the human mind works... But anyway, HAMLET! The Brannaugh version is my personal favorite and although the Gibson version is interesting, I like the craziness of the BBC version as well. While acting Ophelia, I didn't really know Ophelia. Who is Ophelia, really? Is she an oppressed woman or a b****? Hard to say... I think she's a just a cruel person. That is how I acted it out. In that way, it is more fun. She could have been his lover, a maneater! How FUN! But instead pretty much all the versions had her as a whiny, oppressed little girl. She couldn't really handle herself and kept getting knocked down.. It certainly does not say in the play that she is supposed to be pushed but in all three versions domestic violence is part of the A game acting. I would have liked to have seen him fight and her fight back. In my mind, I believe Shakespeare both giveth and taketh away from women. I believe that Gertrude is supposed to be the oppressed, annoying pushover woman and Ophelia is the bad girl. She has a illegitimate relationship with Hamlet which is purely sexual and then right when her father needs help getting ahead, she is there to do the dirty deed. In my opinion, that makes for the most interesting play because all people want to be able to relate. With an oppressed, annoying Ophelia, the women who know how to get things done have no where to go... That is why the Mel Gibson version is good. I like the Mel Gibson Ophelia and Brannaugh as Hamlet. The Gibson Ophelia is spritely and smart and I like her... Brannaugh is a smart alec and instead of seeming emotionally "mad" he is actually mad. I guess I'm a bit of a drama queen and I want them all to be able to handle themselves and put down their opressors with ease. What's the fun in Byronic heroes and protagonists if their all crazy and can't make for an interesting show? I don't want to watch a madman take revenge for his father because for all I know, his father died of a heart attack and was a mean guy and his mother was actually saved by his death and his uncle taking his place and keeping her as a wife. SO, I want a little more action that is mentally planned that MENTAL planned ideas..

Getting almost toooo pumped over Shakespeare...

I'm starting to think that Byronic heroes are located in all novels. Lets some of the examples just using novels from this year: Jack Burden, Grendel, Frankenstein, Hamlet, Tess of the D'Urbervilles... I believe that nearly every knowledgeable character who is tormented is a Byronic hero... Maybe I'm completely off base but I think that in every great novel, the protagonist is a Byronic hero. And if they aren't a "byronic hero" then they are a "christ figure" but really they are both. Those that are tormented and take a stand are generally either taken negatively (Grendel) or positively (Harry Potter) but they are actually the same thing. Grendel is actually working to show people how grateful they should be for acceptance and a place in the world where Grendel is forced to be confused and have a lack of direction in life. The funny thing is, the characters that are rejected from normal society but are endearing and loved in novels are Byronic heros instead of christ figures. It's ironic because the whole point of using Byronic heroes is to show the negative attention they get in society but their true giving and caring qualities. It STILL prejudiced! Instead of giving Frankenstein the good name of Christ figure (which we have definitely played around with) we call him a "Byronic Hero." I started thinking about this when we began reading Hamlet because I'd like to think that Hamlet is a Byronic hero. He's an average human but with the loss of his father and the torment he is plagued with because of his mother's decisions, he is a little mad but also is fighting for his father's good name and the good of his country. His madness would definitely put him out of the running for a Christ figure. Why would Shakespeare do this? Because Byronic heroes are cooler. When i think of Hamlet, i think he's hot, sarcastic and crazy and this makes him sort of sexy. Not gonna lie. I totally think Lord Byron when im thinking about Hamlet... I think its the soliloquies and eloquent speech but who knows! Anyway, i think its ironic that Shakespeare would create a novel where the protagonist is 100% not a christ figure. Shakespeare is like no other writer. He was probably one of the first people to use a more byronic hero character instead of the more practical christ figure. Shakespeare writes about disease, death, love and intense situations. Romeo is one of the most desired characters in fiction. Everyone wants a Romeo! And maybe some people want a Hamlet... the disgruntled, older, sexy one... Maybe thats just me, but its still an interesting idea. Maybe he wasn't always desired as an adult and so he made a variety of men that all women would DIE for in order to fulfill his secret desires. Anyway, i like both romeo and hamlet.. such interesting male characters.

Hamlet...He kind of reminds me of someone...

I really do wish I could take Hamlet seriously but unfortunately, I am having a touch of trouble with it. Romeo and Juliet is one of my favorite plays so it's not that Shakespeare makes me giggle but there is something there. I think it's the ghost. I don't really like scary movies so I don't usually watch them unless it has something as completely ridiculous as a ghost or a poltergeist. When you start throwing ghosts into the picture (and having people constantly trying to chat them up) I am going to have a bit of trouble being completely serious about it. I have already come up with some ideas about why that ghost is not really a ghost... Of course :) There are two reasons that Shakespeare has put in this ghost: As a symbol or as a "not" ghost ghost. I'm thinking it's a symbol because everyone can see it. Ghosts: gray, Casper, creepy, Halloween, dusty, usually have reasons for still being on Earth... I believe that the ghost combines inner torture of his brother, ex-wife and Hamlet (you have to make sure that everyone is clear on the fact that his brother marrying his wife is not right) but I also believe he represents things that do not exist in reality, existing in Shakespeare's plays and in the characters lives. Just like on Secret Life of the American Teenager, their is WAY too much drama that you cannot stop watching, Shakespeare does the same thing by making fiction into fact. I also like how a whole love saga is about to begin begin Hamlet and Ophelia. It is no mystery why people enjoy Shakespeare and why he is SO infamous. He created the perfect formula for great plays, novels, movies and anything else theat involves a story. First you start out with violence. This captures the audiences attention extremely quickly, add some crazy reasoning, some very interesting and slightly confusing characters followed by a trifle between families, something that is not real (love or ghosts) and put in at least a small section of a love story and you have encompassed every person, genre and idea that anyone could ever find interesting. Hamlet reminds me of someone who I know but someone whose name I cannot speak of in this blog :) I believe that in life, we have characterization about people and those correspond to people in novels because although we are all different, we are all the same. Like novels, we all stem from each other both physically and mentally. In this way, the traits we exhibit in real life correspond to the characters in the novels we read and now I am starting to see everyone I know as a Daisy Buchanan or a Jack Burden... It's the painful truth of being an AP lit student. Everything is about everything... in life and in literature. I believe that everyone has a small amount of Hamlet in them. I don't think anyone is a direct Hamlet because that is too much sarcasm and baggage for any one person to carry around but it does occur in everyone. All people experience struggle and strife so we are either enticed because we have not experienced it yet or we are enticed because we have.