Hamlet or The Last Game Without MMORPG Features, Shaders and Product Placement

Yes, that is the name of an indie video game created by mif2000, if you are familiarized with video games, you will understand that this one is a "point and click" adventure, if you don't understand what this means, it refers to a puzzle game in which you have to progress and discover things by clicking on elements presented on the scenery.

The important thing about the game is that you have the chance to play as Hamlet in his revenge story passing the stages of the game which are actually the acts of the play. However the game differs from the story as it is the story about travelling back in time to save Ophelia, so if you were not pleased with Ophelia’s fate on Shakespeare’s play, this may be your chance to change the story.  

If you want to play the game you can buy it here: 

http://store.steampowered.com/app/222160/?l=spanish

or maybe you can "try" it for "free" in your favorite torrent site. 

Strange Magic

        Some days ago, I was watching some movie trailers when I found one called Strange Magic, Another CGI generic movie... I tought, but it called my attention that the movie is being made by Lucasfilm, a company that I tought it was dead. The second and third things that called my attention were that the movie is a musical and it's director is Gary Rydstrom, a sound designer that won some Oscars with Saving Private Ryan, Titanic, Jurasic Park and Terminator 2: Judgement Day. I was ok with that information, I don't really like musicals (Yes, I have not seen Frozen yet) but then I read that it is inspired by William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream.

This is the official description from Disney:

“Strange Magic” is a madcap fairy tale musical inspired by “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Popular songs from the past six decades help tell the tale of a colorful cast of goblins, elves, fairies and imps, and their hilarious misadventures sparked by the battle over a powerful potion."


 ...and this is the trailer: 

    Personally,  I think is MEH... It reminded me to the trailer from the movie Epic, and I think that the inspiration from A midsumer Night's Dream will be really vague. I was specting something different but it is ok, I haven't seen the movie yet so my opinion comes from a 3 minutes video. 
ah... and I think I could recognize Puck, maybe it's him, maybe not. 

Do what you want to do!

Why do we always have to follow certain rules in order to fit in ?

Since the day that we born, we were taught that there are some social rules that we have to follow because that makes us part of a "normal" society, but the question is.. What is to be normal?. it is to be part of a society by having a proper behavior?
As we can see in Cordelia's character in King Lear, she was exiled due to the unnaceptable response that she gave to his father when he asked to his daughter to flatter him.  She did't answer what her father expected unlike her sister who gave to their father what he wanted to hear. Is that wrong?
In the context of the play it was unnaceptable to act like Cordelia did, but What about nowadays?
Do you remember " Revolucion Pinguina"? Well, during those years we could see a similar behavior in comparison to Cordelia. Students from all over the country left aside their regular, normal behavior that they were used to have due to the rules that schools have, and started with a smooth grievance but then, they revealed themself showing their disagreement with the goverment and the way in which the educational system had been working.
There were actually some students who were "exiled" from their schools due to their participation with the movement.  The goverment and educational authorities didn't see that comming, it took them for surprise.
Now, what about Cordelia and his father? King Lear didn't expect that his favorite daughter didin't give him the answer or the behavior that he wanted, so what?...  Do you thinkg that nowadays we should not show our disagreements, our real intentions, our real thoughts?
Feel free to do whatever you want !!!! Communication is crucial in a society like our, we need to comunicate and manifest
our thoughts, just... be respectful.

Mirroring in Shakespeare

There are some Shakespeare's works in which we can see different characters sharing life experiences, This generates characters mirroring other characters. Two cases that we have seen during the semester are Viola and Olivia in Twelfth Night, and Hamlet and Ophelia in Hamlet. 

In the first place, Viola and Olivia share similar characteristics: they both lost their fathers and a brother, and keep themselves apart from men by covering their beauty with a kind of disguise, but end up falling in love with someone that apparently will never correspond to their love. Even their names are anagrammatic. 

In the second place, Hamlet and Ophelia. They both suffered the murder of their fathers, became mad and finally died. Even we know very little about Ophelia apart from the relationship she has with Hamlet, as if her identity was only based on him and, once Hamlet leaves her by telling her that he doesn't love her anymore, the mirror gets empty and Ophelia has to disappear.

References: 

Takiguchi, S.; The Identities of characters and Mirror Imagery in Twelfth Night. Retrieved from  http://journal.seijo.ac.jp/gslit/student/english/pdf/eng-035-03.pdf

Showalter, E.; Representing Ophelia: Women, Madness and the Responsibilities of Feminists Criticism. (1985) 

https://www.westminstercollege.edu/myriad/?parent=2514&detail=2679&content=2680

Multiple identities inside King Lear

We have discussed in classes the big problem of identity inside King Lear. The protagonist, Lear’s identity is lost because he decides to disrupt the natural order of life inside of a kingdom. He divides his kingdom between his three daughters, leaving himself without land. In this way it is impossible for him to be a king without land, but why does he acts always as a king, even though he has lost everything?

The essay More nature needs: the disruptive identity superflux in King Lear postulates that the real problem in King Lear is not really the loss of identity of Lear, but the multiple identities of him that clashes through the play.

Lear is a father, and because of that he cannot be an infant. During the play Lear becomes an infant because he gets mad. He cannot think rationally, so he is more like an infant than like a father.  In the same way he wants to be a king, and he never left aside his kingly attitude, and this can be demonstrated in the storm scene, because he maintains his attitude as a king.

This bunch of contraditions is what makes Lear get mad according to this essay.

References: 

Shakespeare, William. King Lear. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007.

Liao, Tiffany. "More than Nature Needs": The Disruptive Identity Superflux in King Lear. 2010

Morality.

We all act according to what we think is right or wrong -according to our different set of values-. For that reason, most of the times we do something we know might not be completely correct, and then we find ourselves feeling bad afterwards. We blame ourselves for doing something morally wrong, but then again, we do them anyway. This doesn't make us bad people, neither does it mean that we are like this in all aspects of our lives.

If there's only one way to define morality is unquestionably one of the topics people have been debating for many years. Perhaps, we could say that the moral sense constrains our every action, and that it gives us the capacity, the mental ability, to separate or distinguish between good and evil. On the other hand, this is also a sign that there are people who cannot do that, or that maybe have their own concept of righteousness and sinfulness. Not all people act according to our beliefs.

 Now, in Hamlet, we come across Claudios. He is, we might say, our villain. He disguises his evilness by using clever words and false emotions; he hides his sins because he knows he's done something terrible, but is incapable of regret. 

In act III, sc. III, we see the King confessing his crime for the first time. He does have a conscience. He knows what is going on, what he has gained. He is able to reflect on what he's done, he looks into his soul and kneels to pray just for the guilt to go away, but in the end understands that whatever happens, even if his sins are forgiven, his absolution will not be genuine. He accepts that even if he is forgiven he will still have all the things he got out of committing murder. And he is proud of that.

However Claudios is not a bad king. In fact, according to Machiavelli's theory, you don't have to be beautiful to turn me on... ok sorry. (I was doing so good, such serious work) According to this theory you don't have to be a nice person, or do the right thing in roder to become an oustanding, successful king, which might sound weird and wrong to you, but sounded pretty okey in Shakespeare's times. Claudios just doesn't allow his conscience get in the way between him and what he wants. And it seems that what he wants, he has.

At any point of our lives we might be a little bit like Claudios, -let's hope not completely like him, and if you're feeling like you might kill anybody you need to speak to somone right away- repetitively doing something we know it's wrong but getting something good out of it and then feeling bad again. But we're like that.

Having a conscience doesn't turn you into anything, it just means that you are just as prone to committing a sin as I am.


Shakespeare,W. Hamlet.
http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/full.html
 

Hamlet: a timeless play that needs to be represented

One of the main problems that literature teachers have to face is how to make Shakespeare plays relevant for students' lives .If we think of Hamlet, it is important to have in mind that representation of plays can serve as a great tool for students to understand  the importance of tackling life struggles and reflect on them, especially in an era when we know so much about everything that it gets really hard to be aware that there is truth in many positions, and that this path towards the truth, with intended and not intended consequences can make people find themselves in the same situations as Hamlet.

Hamlet's soliloquies  are a clear example of a man trying to determine what his place in the world is. He, at the same time, goes through a process of modernization to a perpetual renewal: by uncovering the truth he became someone unfamiliar to everybody. This helps to see how children who are part of a family with a step father might feel, because they can experience great sense of resentment and unless this topics are addressed in school life perhaps they will not  be able to handle these situations.

Not only Hamlet's desperate reactions are useful to help children overcome life struggles. For instance, Laertes, who take actions based on biased information, help students not to rush on making decision but to get to the roots of a problem.

This implies two things: as long as human nature doesn't change Hamlet will be useful for students, and that teachers should cope with the design of different classroom activities to encourage kids to see or read Shakespeare plays.

For more information, guidelines and classroom activities ideas, have a look at:

http://courses.u3anet.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Language%20and%20Literature/Shakespeare%20and%20the%20Modern%20World.pdf

References:

De Gracia, Margaretta. «When did Hamlet become modern?» Textual Practice (2010): 485-503.

What is love?

As we have covered in class, love is something (for most people) that cannot be measured. The problem presented in King Lear of him wanting to know how much Lear’s daughters loved him has to do with this. Everyone is always willing to know how much the people they love, love them back. This is demonstrated by Lear in the first part of the book:

“Tell me, my daughters

Since now we will divest us both of rule,

Interest of territory, cares of state),

Which of you shall we say doth love us most,

That we our largest bountry may extend

Where nature doth with merrit challenge. Goneril,

Our eldest-born, speak first.”

King Lear demonstrate in this few lines his deep desire to know how much the love of his daughters could reach, without noticing that whatever they may say would be only words, not real feelings, because feelings as absolutes as love cannot be expressed by words.

Love should be an absolut, so why are we always looking to know how much people love us instead of thinking of love as this absolut thing? Maybe, when we feel that we love someone, but within certain boundaries, this is not really love. It may be respect, or admiration or even infatuation, but it is not love as many people may think.

So, this is why we find all this lame songs about love. People desire to know that they are loved, but they want to know how mcuh can reach this love, which should be impossible because, as I said before, love should be unmeasurable.

An example of this song, and that reflects what I have stated before is the song presented above, which I assume most of us have heard more than once. This rong represent the desire for people to really know what is love, how much can reach love and the desire to be shown what is it and how much people is loved.

Song:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCadlN8fexk

References:

-        Shakespeare, William. King Lear. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007.

Freud’s view on Hamlet: Why does he desire revenge?

Hello everyone!

As we all know, Hamlet’s story has to do with his desire of revenge against his uncle. But why does he desire so hard this revenge?

According to Freud and his followers, Hamlet’s desire of revenge has to do, as we all know, with the fact that he had killed King Hamlet. But why does it take so long to take revenge for this action?

First of all, it is said that Claudius represented the most inner childhood fantasies of Hamlet. The dreams that he had since he was a kid of becoming the king. Hamlet associated himself with Claudius because Claudius was the one living his dreams, this is the main reason why Hamlet hesitates on killing Claudius in the first place and this is why the end of Claudius is the reason for Hamlet to die too. In the murderer of Claudius, a part of Hamlet dies too.

Also, Hamlet evident rejection for sexuality when talking to Ophelia has to do with his mother, Gertrude, having this strong relationship with his uncle. The deception of Hamlet toward his mom at the moment of the death of his father, represents his deception towards women in general.

Even though there are many detractors for this theroy presented by Freud, It is an interesting theory. So why do you think? Do you agree with Freud?

References

Now mother, what’s the matter? Retrieved from:  http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/bierman/Elsinore/Freud/freudSolved.html

King Lear no Higeki (King Lear’s tragedy)

When referring to Shakespeare’s tragedies, several concepts come and crush into our minds: envy, betrayal, rebellion, revenge, death. The story follows the worst possible course of action, leading the reader into an understanding of a no-going-back point. Surprisingly, there is another vision and interpretation for this situation. According to Coversi, L. (2014), “the word TRAGEDY cannot only be used to loosely describe any sort of disaster or misfortune, but also to refer to a work of art that probes with high seriousness questions concerning the role of man in the universe”. In that sense, it is quite common among readers to associate the personification of that branch of Shakespearean Drama with Hamlet, but the prince of Denmark is not the only character who actually plays a role in a gruesome murder-like story.

King Lear tells the story and tragedy of a king who decided to step aside and “confer to the younger strengths” (his three daughters) the duty of rule the kingdom of Britain. However, the dominion would be divided by considering how much the women love his father. The consequences of his decision led Britain into a state of anarchy and chaos where love is what seems to be triggering the course actions from the beginning to the end of the play.

Surprinsingly, the story can be also found in the 1985-Japanese-French epic film directed and co-written by Akira Kurosawa: Ran. The mighty Hidetora Ichimonji, an elderly Segoku-era warlord, has decided to abdicate as a ruler and to let his three sons: Taro, Jiro, and Saburo (direct analogy with Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia) to govern. Stepping aside was the first step to led the kingdom fall into a strife, destroying not only the authority Ichimonji once had but also the familiar connection as two of the brothers indulge for greed, lust of power and revenge.      

As Lear’s only wish lies on what could be defined as a succession for his future incapacity to take care of his dominion:  

Meantime we shall express our darker purpose.

Give me the map there. Know that we have divided

In three our kingdom: and 'tis our fast intent

To shake all cares and business from our age;

Conferring them on younger strengths, while we

Unburthen'd crawl toward death.

(Act I. Scene I.)

Hidetora only wants to spend the rest of his life as an honored guest in any of his son’s castle. Unfortunately, the two older sons -blinded by envy and greed- attempt to conspire against the monarch and everything he possesses.   

Apart from the ones mentioned, there are also lots of similar aspects that establish a direct connection with the Shakespeare’s play, but what makes this film interesting and worth watching is its adaptation of the tragedy to modern times, integrating different elements of the oriental art.

Work Cited

·         tragedy (Encyclopedia Britannica)

http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/601884/tragedy

·         King Lear: Entire Play (King Lear: Entire Play)

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/lear/full.html

Is ignorance a bliss?

In The tragedy of Hamlet Prince of Denmark, we had a Hamlet who was going to have it all. In fact, he had been trained to be a King and to rule Denmark one day ever since he was a kid. However, everything changes when King Hamlet died and right after that Queen Gertrude married to Claudius, Hamlet’s uncle.  Hamlet had mixture of different feelings towards his mother’s decision, but when he saw and talked to his father’s ghost everything turned to be even more complicated. Indeed, nothing would ever be the same inside Hamlet, a riot started in his mind and soul.

One of the first example of the battle that was starting inside Hamlet’s heart and mind was when we first saw him next to his mother and Claudius now his father/uncle. He said:

“Hamlet: (aside) A little more than kin, and less than kind.

Claudius: How is it that the clouds still hang on you?

Hamlet: Not so, my lord. I am too much I’ the sun.”

(Act I, Scene 2)

In that moment Hamlet is stating and showing his disagreement to the wedding, to his mother and to everyone in Denmark. These persons are there smiling and celebrating in fact the murder of late King Hamlet.  Hamlet had to cope with these emotions and by wearing clouds cloths and claiming that he was in the sun, he began to send ambiguous messages to state his discontent and eventually seek for his revenge.

It is from that moment on that Hamlet is left in a state of complete desolation and questions. Prince Hamlet will no longer become a King, nor could he ever trust someone again in his own country.  Is in this context when Hamlet’s roles start to change; he will not be a king; therefore, he has to find a new role in life. Who is him? Could ever be Hamlet a loving son? Could ever be Hamlet a loving husband? Could ever be Hamlet a good King? Could ever be Hamlet happy? All these questions have to be answer in order to find the truth and the real Hamlet. I believe that we had to take into consideration the fact that Hamlet is not any more a child; he is a grown man who suddenly had been left without a future. This crisis is what it takes over Hamlet and starts to question everything. And when we question everything can we be happy? Can we be in peace? And even though, you find an answer would that ever be enough?

As human we are meant to search and look for answers, but when we get obsessed with the truth can we really find truth? And even, if we find the truth, are we able to differentiate?  Even when Hamlet had the truth, he knew that Claudius was the murder of his father; he had to look for something else. He wanted revenge. But was revenge enough? After, he had his revenge by killing Claudius was Hamlet happy?  I have to said that no, even when we get our revenge, we can never be the same. We had gone through a process that not only change your outside, but also change your inside. Even if we want to go back, we could never be the same. That is why I believe that the only real solution for Hamlet was to kill himself after revenge his father and himself. So, is necessary to seek for truth? Or are we happier when being ignorant? How would have been different if Hamlet had taken another path?

Ian McKellen on King Lear

I found a video of the world-known actor talking about the character he played and I must say he makes some interesting points.

The first one is about religion. He sees Lear as a ”priest-like king”. He says that all character have some sort of relationship with the gods, especially Lear. But as the play goes on, he starts losing his faith in the gods because of all that happens to him. It is during this process of losing faith in the gods that he discovers his humanity. Although he dies, he is able to find some redemption from his previous actions. We must keep in mind that there is a close relationship between kings and religions, as kings are thought to be ruling by divine right.

McKellen also makes a fair point when referring to Lear’s decision to divide his kingdom before dying. Lear feels he is growing old and he wants to retire, but he had such an enormous power that he does not want to resign to it. He divides the land between his daughters but he is still the King, or at least he feels like that. As he visits his daughters and they mistreat him, he begins to realize that his decision was not a wise one and that he has lost most of his power.  

As I said at the beginning, McKellen’s ideas on the character Lear are quite interesting, and I invite you all to take some time and listen to him.

Reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahFtoCq6CHw

Cordelia VS The Fool

In Shakespeare's King Lear, there are two important characters that are completely opposed, but similar at the same time: Cordelia and the Fool. But, how are this two different characters similar?

The Fool's actions often anger the King, and lead to an increase in his madness. He causes distress by insulting him, making light of his problems and telling him the truth. On the other hand, Cordelia's actions more often calm Lear, and coax him back into sanity. She steadies him with compassion, understanding and truth. Another commonality between the Fool and Cordelia is their honesty, as I mentioned before. Both the Fool and Cordelia are frank with Lear, though he may not always appreciate that they do so for for his own good.

Though both the Fool and Cordelia are forthright with the King, they are dissimilar in other crucial ways. The scenes that involve the Fool are fraught with madness an are confused at best, while the scenes involving Cordelia deal with love and are restrained. 

As a summary, the two characters want what is best for the king. Although the Fool and Cordelia are similarly candid towards their King, they never interact to each other because the Fool is a chaotic influence while Cordelia is a stabilizing force. 

References:

-Shakespeare, W. (n.d.). King Lear.

-The Fool And Cordelia: Opposing Influences On King Lea. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.123helpme.com

Blindness

Blindness is a very important concept that appears through the whole play of King Lear. Let's see what it represents.

On the one hand, we have King Lear who makes her daughters express with words how much they love him to decide which one of them will deserve the biggest piece of the kingdom. During this scene, his blindness does not allow him to go beyond rhetoric. Furthermore, he enjoys so much being flattered that when Cordelia refuses to do it under the premise that words are lies and silence is truth, he gets furious. Here, he made the huge mistake of disowning Cordelia for disloyalty and he orders her " out of his sight" at which Kent tells him " see better, Lear" suggesting that he is wrong because Cordelia is the good daughter and that he's blind since he cannot see the truth. So we can identify a metaphoric blindness.

On the other hand, there is Gloucester who is the mirror image of King Lear as he makes the same mistake of distrusting the good son Edgar, instead of Edmund, the evil one. However, here blindness is depicted metaphorically as well as literally. The former when he cannot recognize his good son disguised as a beggar and the latter when his eyes were plucked out.

Did you find other scenes in which blindness appears?


References:
Shakespeare, William. King Lear. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007.

Extreme love

Hello everyone,

I found a very interesting video about King Lear. The speaker says that his favorite play to teach is King Lear because for him the play is a family drama and how is it like to be part of a family with all that it involves.
He also mentions the concept "extreme" and all this feelings related such as sorrow, pity, hatred, and anger. All this concepts seen as bad and negative. I must say that I agree with him and I think that the play shows us all these bad things and more; it shows us all the bad things that we can find in families.
However, he also mentions another feeling: Love. And for him, love is expressed through compassion, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Here is where I agree the most with the speaker. I think that King Lear is a play about love. For the Cambridge Dictionaries Online, love is "To have a strong affection for someone...". And sometimes love can be extreme.
It might seem that King Lear is a play of contradictions, but for me it is a play that shows us the truth. To have a family is not always a perfect experience; sometimes there are bad moments, but overall, to have a family is to have love.
There are always lessons that can be learnt from our families, we can be better people if we think about the others.
What I personally think is the meaning of King Lear, and what I would love to teach my students when reading the play: Family means love.

What do you think?

Cheers!

Video

Sources:
 Cambridge Dictionaries Online http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Claudius as the new Politician

As we discussed when we first started analyzing Hamlet, there is a problem of power in the sense that King Hamlet died and the throne of Denmark should have been taken by Prince Hamlet, but instead his uncle Claudius took the throne for himself after marrying Queen Gertrude in what seemed to be an elaborated plan.

Now, as older societies were very respectful of their traditions, one would have thought they would see Claudius claim of the throne as an illegitimate one, but here’s when Claudius great mind first come to stage. Claudius, unlike old King Hamlet, is a true politician, a diplomat. He’s no soldier. And as the good politician he is, he is able to make his way out of uncomfortable situations through words.

Claudius is the representative of a new order, one that makes use of words, diplomacy or plots to achieve its goals. King Hamlet and Hamlet himself represent an old order in which only actions matter. One of Claudius’ first move as King is to send ambassadors to Norway to sort out the Fortimbras’ situation, whereas King Hamlet would have sent his army or he would have fought Fortimbras himself, as he did with King Fortimbras. Here we can see the paradigm shift, using words instead of arms.

Examples of Claudius’ use of words are plenty, like the speech he gives to Hamlet when trying to get him out of his mourning (I.ii.68). Even in the final moments when he tries to kill Hamlet, he tries to make it look like an accident so that no one can link him with Hamlet’s death. He is aware of the impact of Hamlet’s death can have in Denmark, thus showing again glimpses of his politician nature. His first attempt is through Guildenstern and Rosencrantz and the letters he prepared to arrange Hamlet’s death, but Hamlet discovers such plot and changes the letters having Guildenstern and Rosencrantz killed. He then returns to Denmark just after Laertes has returned from France. Once again, Claudius mind is set to work as he encourages Laertes to take action against Hamlet to avenge the murder of his father (IV.v.98).

Whether the way in which he got to the throne is questionable, we cannot argue his qualities as a politician and his ability to use words at his favour.

References: 

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/150/the-manipulative-nature-of-claudius-in-shakespeares-hamlet

Celebrating Shakespeare's 450th anniversary, one Hamlet at the time.

The Guardian published a collection of 45 different Hamlets for Shakespeare's 450th anniversary. 45 different adaptations of the marvelous tragedy. It has been many years since the play was first published and with this very interesting gallery we can see the huge influence that it has made on art and theater through the years.

We can see different artists (Such as Jude Law, John Gielgud, Richard Burton, Kenneth Branagh, Mel Gibson, and Benedict Cumberbatch) interpreting the prince of Denmark. 

The gallery provides a sort of timeline of Hamlet and its influence on theater and film. The different pictures represent different types of ways that actors have found to bring Hamlet's madness to life. Different adaptations and points of view, different representations and, most probably, the same reactions; being amazed by Shakespeare's piece of art.

I wanted to share this with you because I think I will help us see Shakespeare in a different way. As a big influence, as an "always alive" play.

I hope you can enjoy the gallery and see with your own eyes how many different adaptations with different actors there are, and how Shakespeare and Hamlet are still alive.

The Gallery

Sources:

The Guardian News and Media, 2014. 

Did King Lear die of a broken heart?

Before answering if King Lear died of a broken heart, I will discuss what is understood by a broken heart. According to Milne (2002), there two forms of interpreting Lear’s death. The first one is related to the grief because of Cordelia’s death.  Even though King Lear had a strong body, his heart couldn’t stand so much grief. On this account, “what is meant by heart is not the physical heart but a metaphorical heart, where heart stand poetically for Lear’s heart and soul” (Milne, 2002, p. 60). On the other hand, the second interpretation of a broken heart is related to King Lear’s mental state. “If Lear’s flesh is strong while his mind is weak, then perhaps Lear’s mind gives up the ghost” (Milne, 2002, p. 60). This means that it was King Lear’s mind instead of his heart what caused his death. This also implies that King Lear was in an altered mental state, feeling guilty, grief and sorrow because of Cordelia’s death.

In these days, science has revealed that it is actually possible to die because of grief. According to Marc Gillinov, and Steven Nissen (2012) “Grief can cause two different cardiac problems: a reversible condition called ‘stress cardiomyopathy’ or, more commonly, a standard heart attack” (psychologytoday.com).

Based on those facts, there is no doubt that there is a strong connection between the heart and emotions. Since King Lear, at the end of the play, demonstrates symptoms of a heart attack, do you think he dies from one? If so, what could have caused it: grief or his own mind? What version of a broken heart do you think is the correct one?

References

            Gillinov, M., & Nissen, S. (2012, January, 19). Can You Really Die of a Broken Heart? Retrieved November 21, 2014, from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/heart-411/201201/can-you-really-die-broken-heart

            Milne, D. (2002). What Becomes of the Broken-Hearted: King Lear and the Dissociation of Sensibility. In Shakespeare Survey 55 (1st ed., Vol. 55, pp. 53-66). Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Cambridge University Press.

OPHELIA THE OUTSIDER

When talking about Hamlet and getting to know Ophelia, who is supposed to be Hamlet’s non-official-girlfriend people may think that she is an stupid young woman. But, why? Reading Hamlet makes you pity this woman because she has no own will, she is always acting to make another person happy, or she is always obey someone else than her heart or her mind, she plays primarily the dutiful daughter because even though she loved Hamlet deeply and truly, she has to make a decision between what her father asks her and what her heart asks her. As every character in the play, she has decisions to made, whether to be loyal to Hamlet or her father. In Elizabethan England, women were seen as a will-less-being because they had to be submitted first to their fathers, since they were their daughters and had to obey them without hesitation, the father had the task of getting the daughter a husband, so that the next “owner” would be her husband; women were not allow to do whatever they wanted to and I would say that first of all I rather die than submitting my will to someone else, not being allow even to think by myself, just obeying-obeying-obeying which I consider a kind of slavery and not fair-thing-to-do to a human being since we were created equal, and also I think that feminism could have started in Queen Elizabeth’s time and women could have done a huge revolution, why did they wait so long? Since England was ruled by a woman, she has a lot of power and also she has million people submitted to her will, so that I wonder why didn’t she help the rest of the women speak up their voices? Well, we would never know, maybe she was too selfish and wanted all the attention for her (as many women want). Going back to Ophelia, the outsider, she is the daughter of Polonius who sent her to spy on Hamlet, which she didn’t want to do, but does obeying to her father will, in this moment she feels she is not being true to herself and when talking to Hamlet, he despises her, he told her

          “Hamlet:[…] I did love you once.

Ophelia: Indeed, my lord, you made me believe so.
Hamlet: you should not have believed me…I love you not.” (Hamlet III, 1, 99-100)

We know that poor Ophelia cannot be with Prince Hamlet anyway because she is too simple, she doesn’t belong to the royalty, she doesn’t have a will, she can’t even interpret things by her own, and she let her father interpret things for her. So that, she has no place in the play, but we have to agree that Ophelia is a tragedy within a tragedy, Hamlet is a tragedy, and every single situation that Ophelia encounters is a tragedy too, she drowns because she couldn’t bear being responsible for her father’s death. Bradley pointed out that the character of Ophelia is one of unselfish affection because she does what she is asked to, she doesn’t behave as she will want to, she has to obey her father, she loved dearly Prince Hamlet, but her love was not correspondent, so …. Yes we have to pity her, she was too cute immerse in a masculine world. Ophelia “cannot cope with the unfolding traumatic event after other” (Mabillar, 2000) so that she has to die, she cannot bear being by herself if all her life she was controlled by her father, her brother and Hamlet too in a way. Ophelia is an innocent young woman who enters scene singing, removing the petals of flowers –this might be an illustration of her loosing her virginity, as we would never know if Shakespeare connected Hamlet and Ophelia in a sexual relation more than the “words relation” they had through letters- and she had to obey her father and brother because they were “her owners” and leave her love for Hamlet aside in order to accomplish what her father had commend her to do.

Poor Ophelia couldn’t be a daughter truly because she didn’t feel like obeying her father deep in her heart since she loved Prince Hamlet, she couldn’t be Hamlet’s girlfriend since she was not part of the royalty, so that she has no rank to marry a Prince, and also she wasn’t true to herself since she was subdue to everyone else and couldn’t speak her voice.

After everything said above, there is no way you couldn’t pity Ophelia, and I wouldn’t wish her life not even to my enemies since I truly believe that if we cannot have a will of our own, if we cannot speak up for ourselves, we are not living our lives, we are living someone else’s live, we are playing a role that other people want us to play.

 So, Ophelia was an outsider, she didn't belong to the world of Hamlet, more than that her story wouldn't be possible without Hamlet, so that she would be outside anyway, she is an element that can be discarded from the play, she was outside the play all the time. 

References:

Bradley, A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996.

Mabillard, Amanda. Ophelia: Shakespeare Online. 20 Aug. 2000. http://shakespeare-online.com/plays/hamlet/opheliacharacter.html

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003.

Revenge or Justice?

Revenge or justice?

Hello everyone,

As we have seen throughout all this semester, William Shakespeare was a pioneer in his time because his plays were completely different from any play that had seen at that time. He created new phrases and word trying to explore the human nature. Hamlet is Shakespeare’s most famous character maybe due to his famous line: “to be or not to be”, and maybe because it's a play where revenge is one of its main themes.

Most of the plays during the Elizabethan era were a typical tragedy with twist and turns that keep the audience attention. Hamlet is an example of a revenge tragedy of the Elizabethan theater era because it deals with the theme of murder (Hamlet’s Father) and conflict. Revenge in the play began when Hamlet becomes convinced of Claudius’ guilt in relation to the murder of his father.

But in real life, why people seek revenge? Who are the people that seek revenge? According to the American Psychological Association, people who are more revengeful are those who are motivated by power and by the desire for status. In this sense, people with authoritarian attitudes are the ones who are more likely to be vengeful. But if revenge can’t make us feel better, so why people are willing punish someone? Maybe is because within the revenge there is a sense of justice that could be hidden. It is something that provides a way to keep order just like in Hamlet's play.

What do you think? Why some people are able to seek revenge?

References: 

- American Psychological Association. Revenge and the people who seek it: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/06/revenge.aspx

- Peter Mercer, Hamlet and the Acting of Revenge 
http://books.google.cl/books?id=K5cLMRPcJgMC&pg=PA6&dq=revenge+in+hamlet&hl=es&sa=X&ei=psRuVJesL_P_sASs0YCYDg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=revenge%20in%20hamlet&f=false

Who is the Hero in Hamlet?

First male hero in Shakespeare

As we know and have seen through the Literature lessons we have had, all the heroes in Shaky's plays are women that have to disguise themselves as men in order to succeed and show up hersleves, but in Hamlet, women are portrayed in a different way.

In the history of theater [1] when women started acting in the plays, all the interpretations of the characteristics of the play changed and everything was new. 

Throughout the novel, Ophelia starts losing her power until she disappears when her existence come to an end when drowning. We can come to the conclusion that Hamlet would have been the same story without Ophelia, but Ophelia would't have existed without Hamlet [1]. Thus, Ophelia, seen just as an object by Hamlet, is forced into madness--probably schizophrenia--which was probably caused by the lose of his father and also because of Hamlet's rejection that finally lead her to her end.

OPHELIA

[Sings]

And will he not come again?
And will he not come again?
No, no, he is dead:
Go to thy death-bed:
He never will come again.
His beard was as white as snow,
All flaxen was his poll:
He is gone, he is gone,
And we cast away moan:
God ha' mercy on his soul!
And of all Christian souls, I pray God. God be wi' ye.
Exit

(Act IV sc V, Lines 23-27) 

 After that she disappears, we could notice that Hamlet continuous on his duty on revenge. At the end, he becomes a hero, a tragic hero to be specific, because of his tragic flaw. He states "How all occasions do inform against me, and spur my dull revenge"(Act IV sc IV, lines 31-32) when he is facing Fortinbras' army going to Poland and is in that moment when he realizes that it could be an other inconvenient in his plan to kill Claudius.
At the end, he would not survive to see the achievement of his goals come true and that's what finally turned him into a tragic hero. His most inner thoughts made him to procrastinate so that he posponed the death of Claudious until the end of the play.

Do you believe that he can be cataloged as a hero?
What is your personal opinion about Ophelia? Do you believe she was really insane or that she was just a victim of the consequences?


References: 

[1] Elaine, Showalter. Representing Ophelia: Women, Madness, and the Responsibilities of Feminist Criticism. 1985

Shakespeare, William. King Lear. Oxford: Globe Theater Press, 2005.

Hamlet Impact

We all know that Shakespeare's works are widely popular all around the world, especially Hamlet. Who didn't have to read it at school? Even in non-English speaking countries it has become part of the cultural ground. Just take a look at the famous quote "to be or not to be, that is the question", I've heard little ones saying it without even knowing who Shakespeare was; the image of Hamlet with the skull on his hands that I think is one of the most famous scenes; Hamlet's personality which has become so understood that you can say "I feel Hamlet-like today" and everybody gets that you are down or depressed, and you're questioning the meaning of life, etc.

Moreover, there are all kinds of arts inspired by this play. One of them is Ophelia (1851-1852) by the british artist Sir John Everett Millais.

She is portrayed singing in the river in Denmark where she drowned.

Another one is The Young Lord Hamlet (1868) by Philip H. Calderon.

Inspired by Hamlet's imaginative scene in the graveyard when he takes the skull of Yorick, the jester.

Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rises at it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen? Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must come; make her laugh at that. (Act V, Scene 1)

Hamlet's influence can also be seen in songs such as "Ophelia" by The Band which refers to Ophelia's madness.

And in animated television series such as Animaniacs and The Simpsons.

Sources

http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2012/04/10-great-shakespeare-inspired-songs.html

Symbolism in Ophelia's Suicide

Shakespeare's "Hamlet" has one female character that really caught my attention, basically because of the way she decided to commit suicide: drowning herself. Some authors point out that her death might have been an accident, while others clearly believe it was suicide. I'll choose the latter. 

Sir John Everett Millais' "Ophelia" (1851)

Many famous female characters have decided to kill themselves, such as Juliet from "Romeo and Juliet", Sybil Vane from "The Picture of Dorian Gray", Ophelia from "Hamlet" and even Virginia Woolf herself. Most of these deaths are usually related to madness, but there is a huge variety of symbols behind their deaths. Although not all of them commited suicide in the same way, two of them (Virginia Woolf and Ophelia) did. 

Here I'll  pay especial attention to the symbolism behind Ophelia's suicide.

According to Gaston Bachelard (1983), there is a symbolic connection between women, water and death: drowning was usually associated with female fluidity, in contrast to masculine aridity, where drowning becomes a truly feminine death. Water represents the profound symbol of the liquid that a woman's body possess: milk, amnotic fluid, blood and crying eyes (this last part is a bit confusing and eye-opening at the same time since Laertes says that "when these -tears- are gone, the woman will be out" meaning that once he stops crying over Ophelia, his acting like a woman will be done, in connection with male aridity too). Some authors also state that female insanity was sort of a stimulant to male sensitivity, which is sort of messed up if we see it with 21st Century Western eyes. Maybe female insanity was the only way in which a man would really pay attention to a woman, after leaving her full uncertainty and crazy. 

Ophelia wasn't able to handle it all, so the dilemma of being obedient to her father and playing the role she was forced to play versus being true to herself and be who se wanted to be made her unstable. Her desperation literally drove her crazy, and she had no way to heal herself, so she decided to commit suicide. Even when Ophelia died she was seen as she was always seen: pure, natural and quiet. 

Many authors connect Ophelia's madness with patriarcal pressure and abuse from both Hamlet and her father who basically pushed her to hate her role in society, then try to be herself and finally kill herself, and I couldn't agree more. I believe that Ophelia couldn't handle so much pressure and besides being mad, she just let it happen, she didn't even try to save herself when she was drowning and saw it as the perfect opportunity to escape from Hamlet, her father, society and their expectations.

I hope my post made sense!

References:

• Bachelard, G. (1983). Water and dreams: An essay on the imagination of matter. Dallas: Pegasus Foundation.
• Knights, L., & Knights, L. (1966). Some Shakespearean themes, and An approach to 'Hamlet' Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
• Parker, P. (1985). Shakespeare and the question of theory. New York: Methuen.
• Showalter, E. (1985). Representing Ophelia: Women, Madness, and the Responsibilities of Feminist Criticism. Pages 77-94. London: Methuen.