Monday, December 15, 2008
Blogger Shmogger.
Blog spot postings messed up all of the formatting in my deliverables so I will just hand them all in on paper.
Activity 1.7
Hamlets transformation into a madman is one that at first sight seems to be very excessive yet this is due to the fact that Hamlet is simply a good actor (He even gives a speech on how to be a good actor which shows the extent of his acting ability). His transformation is one that is more external, this meaning that it was more of a physical madness more than anything. Mentally, Hamlet remained slightly the same character throughout the play, there were smaller alterations seen in his mental state than in his physical form. I actually seem to have gained respect for Hamlet as the play progressed because he used his logic against everyone. He put on a show and everyone believed he was simply mad, outrageous, and ludicrous!
Hamlet utilized many basic human activities as his main source for showing his madness. First of all, his speech greatly changed throughout the play. He went from being a well spoken, good natured man into someone who could be clinically diagnosed as being insane. He demonstrates this in one scene when he is taking to his mother and he witnesses his father’s ghost. The severity of the description given by Hamlet of the ghost he see’s is simply stunning:
On him, on him! Look you, how pale he glares!
His form and cause conjoined, preaching to stones,
Would make them capable. –Do not look upon me,
Lest with this piteous action you convert
My stern effects. Then what I have to do
Will want true color; tears perchance for blood.
(Act 3, scene iv, 126-131)
Once again, Hamlet is simply using his logic and education to make everyone believe he is crazy. Secondly, his actions are also a good reflection of his supposed ‘madness’. He kills Polonius simply out of fright. It’s not like Hamlet murdering Polonius was pre-meditated, but Hamlet still used this as an opportunity for him to look mad. He used the body as a kind of focus point when talking to Claudius. Claudius kept asking Hamlet where he put the body but Hamlet would simply mock him, making him all the more look crazy as he is laughing at death. Furthermore, Hamlets thoughts can also be looked at as a reflection of his transformation into madness. As the play progresses his soliloquy’s become more and more random, sinister and vivid, this sparking madness all around him. He constantly questions what mankind really is, this provoking thought to be put into how mad Hamlet actually is. Hamlets appearance also changed accordingly. At the beginning of the play, he simply looked like a man who was grieving the death of his father:
Good Hamlet, cast thy knighted color off,
And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark.
( Act 1, scene ii, 68-70
As the play progresses, the people around Hamlet begin to believe that he has gone completely mad. There is a transformation in the way people perceive Hamlet; this being what Hamlet wants everyone to believe.
heavy deed!
It had been so with us, had we been there.
His liberty is full of threats to all,
To you yourself, to us, to everyone.
Alas, how shall this bloody deed be answered?
It will be laid to us whose providence
Should have kept short, restrained, and out of haunt
This mad young man.
(Act 4, scene i, 12-19)
This is the king’s impression on what Hamlet has turned into. It is a very dark and vile description of a man who appears to be insane (although not at all). Hamlets feelings are also indicators that he had been theoretically transformed into a madman. At the beginning hatred was something Hamlet was not quite accustomed to. As the play went on, Hamlet and hatred soon became best friends. Hamlet often acknowledged his hatred towards his uncle and it would remain this way until the death of this uncle. All in all, Hamlets intents at becoming a madman proved successful.
The people around Hamlet were good indications that Hamlet was successful in becoming a madman. His mother didn’t want to believe that Hamlet had gone mad. She simply believed that he was mourning the death of this father and this was his own way of doing so. Further on in the play, she also acknowledges the fact that Hamlet’s madness may be derived from her re-marrying very quickly after her husband’s death, especially to her deceased husband’s brother. Claudius believes that Hamlet has become completely mad and will not believe otherwise. Hamlet is stirring up some trouble in paradise and Claudius doesn’t like this so he plots to kill Hamlet. It is hard to determine whether or not Ophelia actually believed Hamlet was mad because she herself is mad. It seems as if she took Hamlets madness, combined it with the grieving process she is going through over her father and simply went crazy herself. Horatio is the seemingly the only one who is actually in on Hamlet’s transformation into a madman. Hamlet uses Horatio as his side kick in the whole plot and Horatio goes along with this and explains it indirectly to everyone at the end of the play. Even Hamlet’s supposed best friends: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern aren’t even aware of Hamlet being crazy. They act as henchmen for the king and they themselves end up dying because of Hamlet. Could a madman really devise an ingenious plan to put two people who were burdened with the task of killing him, to death? I think not!
Hamlet utilized many basic human activities as his main source for showing his madness. First of all, his speech greatly changed throughout the play. He went from being a well spoken, good natured man into someone who could be clinically diagnosed as being insane. He demonstrates this in one scene when he is taking to his mother and he witnesses his father’s ghost. The severity of the description given by Hamlet of the ghost he see’s is simply stunning:
On him, on him! Look you, how pale he glares!
His form and cause conjoined, preaching to stones,
Would make them capable. –Do not look upon me,
Lest with this piteous action you convert
My stern effects. Then what I have to do
Will want true color; tears perchance for blood.
(Act 3, scene iv, 126-131)
Once again, Hamlet is simply using his logic and education to make everyone believe he is crazy. Secondly, his actions are also a good reflection of his supposed ‘madness’. He kills Polonius simply out of fright. It’s not like Hamlet murdering Polonius was pre-meditated, but Hamlet still used this as an opportunity for him to look mad. He used the body as a kind of focus point when talking to Claudius. Claudius kept asking Hamlet where he put the body but Hamlet would simply mock him, making him all the more look crazy as he is laughing at death. Furthermore, Hamlets thoughts can also be looked at as a reflection of his transformation into madness. As the play progresses his soliloquy’s become more and more random, sinister and vivid, this sparking madness all around him. He constantly questions what mankind really is, this provoking thought to be put into how mad Hamlet actually is. Hamlets appearance also changed accordingly. At the beginning of the play, he simply looked like a man who was grieving the death of his father:
Good Hamlet, cast thy knighted color off,
And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark.
( Act 1, scene ii, 68-70
As the play progresses, the people around Hamlet begin to believe that he has gone completely mad. There is a transformation in the way people perceive Hamlet; this being what Hamlet wants everyone to believe.
heavy deed!
It had been so with us, had we been there.
His liberty is full of threats to all,
To you yourself, to us, to everyone.
Alas, how shall this bloody deed be answered?
It will be laid to us whose providence
Should have kept short, restrained, and out of haunt
This mad young man.
(Act 4, scene i, 12-19)
This is the king’s impression on what Hamlet has turned into. It is a very dark and vile description of a man who appears to be insane (although not at all). Hamlets feelings are also indicators that he had been theoretically transformed into a madman. At the beginning hatred was something Hamlet was not quite accustomed to. As the play went on, Hamlet and hatred soon became best friends. Hamlet often acknowledged his hatred towards his uncle and it would remain this way until the death of this uncle. All in all, Hamlets intents at becoming a madman proved successful.
The people around Hamlet were good indications that Hamlet was successful in becoming a madman. His mother didn’t want to believe that Hamlet had gone mad. She simply believed that he was mourning the death of this father and this was his own way of doing so. Further on in the play, she also acknowledges the fact that Hamlet’s madness may be derived from her re-marrying very quickly after her husband’s death, especially to her deceased husband’s brother. Claudius believes that Hamlet has become completely mad and will not believe otherwise. Hamlet is stirring up some trouble in paradise and Claudius doesn’t like this so he plots to kill Hamlet. It is hard to determine whether or not Ophelia actually believed Hamlet was mad because she herself is mad. It seems as if she took Hamlets madness, combined it with the grieving process she is going through over her father and simply went crazy herself. Horatio is the seemingly the only one who is actually in on Hamlet’s transformation into a madman. Hamlet uses Horatio as his side kick in the whole plot and Horatio goes along with this and explains it indirectly to everyone at the end of the play. Even Hamlet’s supposed best friends: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern aren’t even aware of Hamlet being crazy. They act as henchmen for the king and they themselves end up dying because of Hamlet. Could a madman really devise an ingenious plan to put two people who were burdened with the task of killing him, to death? I think not!
Activity 1.6
Maslow’s Hierarchy greatly relates to the play Hamlet because each character lies at a certain level on this pyramid of needs. It is hard to determine which level they are all at, for they all have different needs. At the beginning of the play, I believe that none of the major characters in Hamlet fall under the first stage(Physiological) of Maslow’s Hierarchy as they all have basic human needs and necessities, even though some needs such as sex are not seen, it is fair to assume that everyone is getting a piece of that pie. This concept drastically changes throughout the play though. Firstly, Hamlet is a character that may fall in the middle of two stages, those being stage two (Safety) and three (Love/Belonging). This is because when his father (Old Hamlet) was still alive, Hamlet could have been considered to be at stage three (Love/Belonging) or maybe even four (Esteem). The reason behind this being that Hamlet is a character that seems to have a large amount of self-esteem and confidence as well as respect from his peers (until he pretends to be crazy), but he does not seem to have a lot of respect for others as he appears to be a pretty overconfident person therefore not needing to show respect to others. Since Hamlet does not fall under each category of stage four, it is fair to say that he cannot be fully considered at this stage. Hamlet does show all signs of stage three, that is Hamlet demonstrates friendship, family and quite possibly sexual intimacy (with Ophelia). As Claudius killed his father, Hamlet kind of lost the family aspect of that stage, so he must therefore drop to the next stage, that being the second. Hamlet sees Claudius as the enemy and would love nothing more than for him to be out of the picture. He knows that his mother is a good person and does not understand why she loves Claudius so much. In Hamlets eyes, no one is to be trusted. He acts insane so that he can get away with more, and this was not seen by the others. He no longer feels the security of family (and some could argue mental health) therefore he tries to regain this sense of family. He does so by seeking to avenge his father as he promised to do so, and therefore he will be content with his actions and security can once again be restored in his family life. This in turn bumping Hamlet back up to stage 3 of the hierarchy (although this stage is very short lived as his mother dies, and Hamlet ends up dying also).
Secondly, Claudius being quite a bit older than Hamlet is further up in the Hierarchy because he has had more time to complete each stage. Claudius is probably on the fourth level, because he has good self-esteem, a high level of self confidence and he not only has the respect of the people but he also demonstrates some respect in return. Claudius will not make it to the top of the hierarchy because he killed his brother, this demonstrating flaws in his morality, therefore he cannot be considered anywhere above stage four. I believe that Hamlet’s mother Gertrude can also be considered to be on stage four of the hierarchy for the same reasons as Claudius. It can be assumed that Gertrude had something to do with Old Hamlet’s death, therefore causing moral issues (her believing that taking a person’s life is right).
Thirdly, I believe Polonius can be considered to be one of the only characters who is on stage five of the hierarchy. I say this because he definitely demonstrates the requirements of all of the first four stages of the hierarchy. He also demonstrates that he has good morals as he gives a speech to his son Laertes before his departure to France:Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Nor any unproportion’d thought his act.
Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar.
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them unto thy soul with hoops of steel;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch’d, unfledg’d comrade. Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel; but, being in,
Bear’t that the opposed may beware of thee.
Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice:
Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgment.
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express’d in fancy; rich, not gaudy:
For the apparel oft proclaims the man;
And they in France of the best rank and station
Are most select and generous chief in that.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be:
For loan oft loses both itself and friend;
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all,—to thine own self be true;
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man. (Act I, scene iii (59–80) In this speech, Polonius gives useful advice to Laertes, among his advice the most important points being: keep your thoughts to yourself and do not act recklessly, hold on to old friends and be don’t be quick to trust new ones, avoid fighting but if it is unavoidable be brave, be a good listener, learn to accept criticism but do not be too judgmental, preserve an appropriate appearance, do not borrow or lend money and most importantly; be true to yourself. This speech reveals a lot about Polonius and what his stance on a lot of morals is. In this case, it is a positive outlook of what Polonius believes in, hence him being on the fifth level of the hierarchy.
Ophelia starts off being on the same stage as Hamlet (fourth level) but she is quick to drop to the first stage as her mental health spirals down into the ground. At the end of the novel she is on the first stage as she only has simple necessities and not all of them at that (sex), and then she dies. I believe that her brother Laertes is part of the fourth stage at the beginning of the novel but this gradually begins to change as the play progresses. He is slowly making his way to the fifth stage but throughout the play ends up moving down to the first stage like his sister. He lost his family as well as his security of family, his respect from others, his friendship and his morality. This bumping him down into the first stage, until he dies (which is shortly after he reaches this stage).
Secondly, Claudius being quite a bit older than Hamlet is further up in the Hierarchy because he has had more time to complete each stage. Claudius is probably on the fourth level, because he has good self-esteem, a high level of self confidence and he not only has the respect of the people but he also demonstrates some respect in return. Claudius will not make it to the top of the hierarchy because he killed his brother, this demonstrating flaws in his morality, therefore he cannot be considered anywhere above stage four. I believe that Hamlet’s mother Gertrude can also be considered to be on stage four of the hierarchy for the same reasons as Claudius. It can be assumed that Gertrude had something to do with Old Hamlet’s death, therefore causing moral issues (her believing that taking a person’s life is right).
Thirdly, I believe Polonius can be considered to be one of the only characters who is on stage five of the hierarchy. I say this because he definitely demonstrates the requirements of all of the first four stages of the hierarchy. He also demonstrates that he has good morals as he gives a speech to his son Laertes before his departure to France:Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Nor any unproportion’d thought his act.
Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar.
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them unto thy soul with hoops of steel;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch’d, unfledg’d comrade. Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel; but, being in,
Bear’t that the opposed may beware of thee.
Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice:
Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgment.
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express’d in fancy; rich, not gaudy:
For the apparel oft proclaims the man;
And they in France of the best rank and station
Are most select and generous chief in that.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be:
For loan oft loses both itself and friend;
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all,—to thine own self be true;
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man. (Act I, scene iii (59–80) In this speech, Polonius gives useful advice to Laertes, among his advice the most important points being: keep your thoughts to yourself and do not act recklessly, hold on to old friends and be don’t be quick to trust new ones, avoid fighting but if it is unavoidable be brave, be a good listener, learn to accept criticism but do not be too judgmental, preserve an appropriate appearance, do not borrow or lend money and most importantly; be true to yourself. This speech reveals a lot about Polonius and what his stance on a lot of morals is. In this case, it is a positive outlook of what Polonius believes in, hence him being on the fifth level of the hierarchy.
Ophelia starts off being on the same stage as Hamlet (fourth level) but she is quick to drop to the first stage as her mental health spirals down into the ground. At the end of the novel she is on the first stage as she only has simple necessities and not all of them at that (sex), and then she dies. I believe that her brother Laertes is part of the fourth stage at the beginning of the novel but this gradually begins to change as the play progresses. He is slowly making his way to the fifth stage but throughout the play ends up moving down to the first stage like his sister. He lost his family as well as his security of family, his respect from others, his friendship and his morality. This bumping him down into the first stage, until he dies (which is shortly after he reaches this stage).
Activity 1.5
Thesis: Would Ophelia have gone mad, even if her father had not died? No Ophelia would not have gone mad. (it is impossible to find examples from the text for this thesis, it is simply a prediction therefore only explanations are given).
Reason #1: If changes are made in the past, this will drastically alter the future.
Explanation: Ophelia had gone mad from the result of both her father dying and her losing the love of her life: Hamlet. If changes are made in the past, this will drastically alter the future. If you go back to the scene were Hamlet was having a heated conversation with Gertrude, while Polonius stood hidden behind a curtain, since Polonius didn’t die (change in past) than this would mean that there would have been drastic changes in the future, ie: Hamlet not becoming a murderer.
Reason #2: Since Polonius did not die; Hamlet did not kill Polonius this meaning he would not have been shipped out to England. This in turn meaning that Ophelia would not have lost her lover, this being the only other factor that could have influenced her mental instability. Explanation: Since Polonius was not killed by Hamlet, Hamlet would not have to be shipped out to England. This meaning that Ophelia would not have lost the love of her life. This resulting in no changes in her life meaning that she would not have gone crazy.
Reason #3: Ophelia has not lost her father nor the love of her life, therefore she has no reason to become mentally ill simply out of the blue.
Explanation: Before losing her father and Hamlet, Ophelia was a very mentally stable person. Throughout the play there were no other factors that could have impacted Ophelia’s mental stability besides her losing her father and Hamlet. Since her father didn’t die and she didn’t lose Hamlet, she would have no reason to go crazy.Conclusion: If Polonius hadn’t died than Ophelia would have no reason to go crazy. Polonius not dying means that Hamlet would not become a murderer and get shipped out to England therefore Ophelia would not be losing her love and her life would simply go on. There are no other factors in Ophelia’s life that could have influenced her mental stability.
Reasons for believing otherwise: Hamlet would have still killed Claudius even though he didn’t kill Polonius and this might have affected Ophelia’s mental stability slightly. She may have simply looked at Hamlet in a different perspective, she would not completely go full blown crazy.
Reason #1: If changes are made in the past, this will drastically alter the future.
Explanation: Ophelia had gone mad from the result of both her father dying and her losing the love of her life: Hamlet. If changes are made in the past, this will drastically alter the future. If you go back to the scene were Hamlet was having a heated conversation with Gertrude, while Polonius stood hidden behind a curtain, since Polonius didn’t die (change in past) than this would mean that there would have been drastic changes in the future, ie: Hamlet not becoming a murderer.
Reason #2: Since Polonius did not die; Hamlet did not kill Polonius this meaning he would not have been shipped out to England. This in turn meaning that Ophelia would not have lost her lover, this being the only other factor that could have influenced her mental instability. Explanation: Since Polonius was not killed by Hamlet, Hamlet would not have to be shipped out to England. This meaning that Ophelia would not have lost the love of her life. This resulting in no changes in her life meaning that she would not have gone crazy.
Reason #3: Ophelia has not lost her father nor the love of her life, therefore she has no reason to become mentally ill simply out of the blue.
Explanation: Before losing her father and Hamlet, Ophelia was a very mentally stable person. Throughout the play there were no other factors that could have impacted Ophelia’s mental stability besides her losing her father and Hamlet. Since her father didn’t die and she didn’t lose Hamlet, she would have no reason to go crazy.Conclusion: If Polonius hadn’t died than Ophelia would have no reason to go crazy. Polonius not dying means that Hamlet would not become a murderer and get shipped out to England therefore Ophelia would not be losing her love and her life would simply go on. There are no other factors in Ophelia’s life that could have influenced her mental stability.
Reasons for believing otherwise: Hamlet would have still killed Claudius even though he didn’t kill Polonius and this might have affected Ophelia’s mental stability slightly. She may have simply looked at Hamlet in a different perspective, she would not completely go full blown crazy.
Activity 1.3
Each character in every novel or play has his or her own constructed reality. In Hamlet, everybody views themselves as more or less, a good person because not everyone is aware of everything that goes on. Gertrude has a constructed reality that least resembles actuality. She does not know that Claudius killed her husband. She has no idea about Hamlet seeking revenge upon Claudius. She simply believes that King Hamlet died of some natural or unknown cause and to keep her position as queen she must marry Claudius. She also believes that Hamlet has gone mad, although Hamlet is just putting on a show for everyone. In the end she dies because Claudius was trying to kill Hamlet using poison and she ended up drinking the poison.
Hamlets constructed reality is completely different. Hamlet sees Claudius as the enemy and would love nothing more than for him to be out of the picture. He knows that his mother is a good person and does not understand why she loves Claudius so much. In Hamlets eyes, no one is to be trusted. He acts insane so that he can get away with more, and this was not seen by the others. In the end Hamlet is killed.
Claudius believes that Hamlet is crazy. He thinks that it should be pretty easy to kill Hamlet, because he is crazy. Claudius knows that he had done a terrible thing by killing his brother, but he thinks that it was for the right reasons, and he is also unaware that Hamlet knows the truth about the whole ordeal.. He believes that he is a good person. In his reality Hamlet is mad, and Gertrude loves him. The actuality of it is that Hamlet is not insane, although Gertrude does seem to love him. In the end Claudius is killed.
Now, after seeing the constructed realities of some of the different characters in the play, it is easy to see how important the family unit is not only to the members of the family but also in society. Firstly, the family unit is very important to the members of the family because it is a sort of reflection on how well each member interacts with each other. If the overall outlook of the family is one that is optimistic than this means that there is a healthy relationship between its members. Conversely, if the family seems to be dysfunctional than this means that the relationship between members is either lacking or just not solid. Hamlets family is one that is dysfunctional because there is not a solid relationship between its members. Each family member has a different constructed reality therefore no one is really on the same page. If Hamlets family would have all shared a common reality than maybe their relationship would have been better.
The family unit may be one of the smallest units of society, but it is without a doubt, one of the most important. The family unit is very important to society because it ensures a standard welfare and care amongst its members. The family unit that a child is born into offers the child safety and stability and later on nurturing and advice. Further on down the road, a family offers a kind of intermediate step between the safety of the family home and the harsh real world. If a child is brought up in a world without a family unit than this child will have serious difficulties growing up. There is no one really there to offer them care and nurturing so the child will most likely have a rough childhood. This child may go on to do bad things, such as commit crimes, but can you really blame the person in this case? They never really experienced being in a family, therefore they were never really properly cared for. The family unit is important to society because it (generally) prevents children from growing up into bad people by offering them nurturing and care at a young age. Hamlet seemed to have experienced a good childhood but the same cannot be said about his later years. He grew up in a healthy family, and this stayed the same until the death of his father. After his father’s death, one could argue that Hamlet took a turn for the crazy (the reason for this being his fathers death) and this ended up costing him his life.
The family unit is very important, although it is often taken for granted by people these days. If ever you have a problem, the family unit is always there for you. If ever you just need someone to talk to, the family unit is always there for you. People do not generally take the time to think about how much family actually means to them. This reflection actually made me appreciate my family and how much they mean to me. I don’t know what I would do without my family, and I think the same can be (hopefully) said for everyone.
Hamlets constructed reality is completely different. Hamlet sees Claudius as the enemy and would love nothing more than for him to be out of the picture. He knows that his mother is a good person and does not understand why she loves Claudius so much. In Hamlets eyes, no one is to be trusted. He acts insane so that he can get away with more, and this was not seen by the others. In the end Hamlet is killed.
Claudius believes that Hamlet is crazy. He thinks that it should be pretty easy to kill Hamlet, because he is crazy. Claudius knows that he had done a terrible thing by killing his brother, but he thinks that it was for the right reasons, and he is also unaware that Hamlet knows the truth about the whole ordeal.. He believes that he is a good person. In his reality Hamlet is mad, and Gertrude loves him. The actuality of it is that Hamlet is not insane, although Gertrude does seem to love him. In the end Claudius is killed.
Now, after seeing the constructed realities of some of the different characters in the play, it is easy to see how important the family unit is not only to the members of the family but also in society. Firstly, the family unit is very important to the members of the family because it is a sort of reflection on how well each member interacts with each other. If the overall outlook of the family is one that is optimistic than this means that there is a healthy relationship between its members. Conversely, if the family seems to be dysfunctional than this means that the relationship between members is either lacking or just not solid. Hamlets family is one that is dysfunctional because there is not a solid relationship between its members. Each family member has a different constructed reality therefore no one is really on the same page. If Hamlets family would have all shared a common reality than maybe their relationship would have been better.
The family unit may be one of the smallest units of society, but it is without a doubt, one of the most important. The family unit is very important to society because it ensures a standard welfare and care amongst its members. The family unit that a child is born into offers the child safety and stability and later on nurturing and advice. Further on down the road, a family offers a kind of intermediate step between the safety of the family home and the harsh real world. If a child is brought up in a world without a family unit than this child will have serious difficulties growing up. There is no one really there to offer them care and nurturing so the child will most likely have a rough childhood. This child may go on to do bad things, such as commit crimes, but can you really blame the person in this case? They never really experienced being in a family, therefore they were never really properly cared for. The family unit is important to society because it (generally) prevents children from growing up into bad people by offering them nurturing and care at a young age. Hamlet seemed to have experienced a good childhood but the same cannot be said about his later years. He grew up in a healthy family, and this stayed the same until the death of his father. After his father’s death, one could argue that Hamlet took a turn for the crazy (the reason for this being his fathers death) and this ended up costing him his life.
The family unit is very important, although it is often taken for granted by people these days. If ever you have a problem, the family unit is always there for you. If ever you just need someone to talk to, the family unit is always there for you. People do not generally take the time to think about how much family actually means to them. This reflection actually made me appreciate my family and how much they mean to me. I don’t know what I would do without my family, and I think the same can be (hopefully) said for everyone.
Activity 1.2
Hamlet’s family tree
Gertrude- - - - - Late King Hamlet------ Claudius
Prince Hamlet
Hamlet’s family is one that seems to be very dysfunctional, this causing many problems among his family. Hamlet has suspicions that Claudius killed his own brother in order to take the throne and his wife. Hamlet thinks this because a ghost, who turns out to be his father’s spirit, approaches him and tells him that Claudius did in fact kill him. Claudius takes the throne and marries his brother’s wife Gertrude. Hamlet is very angry with his uncle and plans to kill him. He attempts to, but only ends up killing Polonius, who is the father of Prince Hamlet’s lover. In the end Claudius attempts to poison Hamlet, but ends up poisoning his wife as well. Gertrude dies, then Hamlet kills Claudius, then Hamlet dies while reciting a very moving speech. The family does not cope with their problems very well, because their only solution seems to be death and in the end everyone dies. This is appropriate though as it is a Shakespearean tragedy. The family that the reader is seeing is not a typical nuclear family because Hamlets father is not his real father. If Hamlet’s father would have still been alive then they would be categorized as a nuclear family, but since he is not, they’re not. However, even with Claudius not being Hamlets real father, all the roles are filled in the nuclear family, so it does somewhat resemble one. Polonius’ family tree
Polonius
Ophelia---------------------Laertes
The problems that this family faces are not really within the family itself. Each of the family members has their own problems, but they do look out for one another. For example, at the beginning of the play when you first find out that Ophelia and Hamlet are in love, Laertes is quick to warn his sister not to mess around or something bad will happen. When Palonius is killed by Hamlet, his children have very mixed emotions. Ophelia starts off being ridiculously sad and then later on goes insane. Once Laertes finds out that Hamlet is responsible for killing his father, he decides that the right thing to would be to kill Hamlet. In trying to kill Hamlet, Laertes ends up dying himself. Ophelia ends up drowning after going for a stroll one day(although this did not make much sense in the movie considering the movie was cast in the middle of winter). Again, the only outcome to all of their problems was death. They could have definitely coped with their problems better, by maybe taking less action and thinking things through. Considering it is a Shakespearean tragedy though, the outcome is appropriate. People went to go see Shakespeare’s plays to be entertained. If Ophelia and Laertes would of simply thought their problems through then Shakespeare would have been hearing crickets in the audience. If Ophelia and Leartes coped with their problems better, than maybe they wouldn’t have died. This family does not resemble a nuclear family because there is no mother in the family. There is simply Polonius and his two kids. There is never any mention of their mother throughout the whole play.
Gertrude- - - - - Late King Hamlet------ Claudius
Prince Hamlet
Hamlet’s family is one that seems to be very dysfunctional, this causing many problems among his family. Hamlet has suspicions that Claudius killed his own brother in order to take the throne and his wife. Hamlet thinks this because a ghost, who turns out to be his father’s spirit, approaches him and tells him that Claudius did in fact kill him. Claudius takes the throne and marries his brother’s wife Gertrude. Hamlet is very angry with his uncle and plans to kill him. He attempts to, but only ends up killing Polonius, who is the father of Prince Hamlet’s lover. In the end Claudius attempts to poison Hamlet, but ends up poisoning his wife as well. Gertrude dies, then Hamlet kills Claudius, then Hamlet dies while reciting a very moving speech. The family does not cope with their problems very well, because their only solution seems to be death and in the end everyone dies. This is appropriate though as it is a Shakespearean tragedy. The family that the reader is seeing is not a typical nuclear family because Hamlets father is not his real father. If Hamlet’s father would have still been alive then they would be categorized as a nuclear family, but since he is not, they’re not. However, even with Claudius not being Hamlets real father, all the roles are filled in the nuclear family, so it does somewhat resemble one. Polonius’ family tree
Polonius
Ophelia---------------------Laertes
The problems that this family faces are not really within the family itself. Each of the family members has their own problems, but they do look out for one another. For example, at the beginning of the play when you first find out that Ophelia and Hamlet are in love, Laertes is quick to warn his sister not to mess around or something bad will happen. When Palonius is killed by Hamlet, his children have very mixed emotions. Ophelia starts off being ridiculously sad and then later on goes insane. Once Laertes finds out that Hamlet is responsible for killing his father, he decides that the right thing to would be to kill Hamlet. In trying to kill Hamlet, Laertes ends up dying himself. Ophelia ends up drowning after going for a stroll one day(although this did not make much sense in the movie considering the movie was cast in the middle of winter). Again, the only outcome to all of their problems was death. They could have definitely coped with their problems better, by maybe taking less action and thinking things through. Considering it is a Shakespearean tragedy though, the outcome is appropriate. People went to go see Shakespeare’s plays to be entertained. If Ophelia and Laertes would of simply thought their problems through then Shakespeare would have been hearing crickets in the audience. If Ophelia and Leartes coped with their problems better, than maybe they wouldn’t have died. This family does not resemble a nuclear family because there is no mother in the family. There is simply Polonius and his two kids. There is never any mention of their mother throughout the whole play.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
The big ISU.
Well I was going to hand it in on paper, but since it is a snow day today I figured I might as well post it on my blog.
The Darkness! The Darkness!
Heart Of Darkness (1902) is a novella written by Polish born writer Joseph Conrad. The highly symbolic tale is one that is metatextual. It follows the story of Marlow, as he recounts his journey into the heart of Africa- the Congo to be more precise. Marlow enlists as a ferry-boat captain, in which his task is to transport ivory; however, a more pressing task arises, that of retrieving a man named Kurtz. Throughout the novella, various aspects of darkness as well as racism are explored by Conrad. Searching for continuity, for the meaning of darkness in the novella seems to be a task that is close to impossible. Various aspects of darkness are presented, all open to various interpretation. When skimming the surface of the novella, darkness takes more of a physical form. The darkness represents the people residing in Africa as well as their societal customs; that of savagery. Furthermore, darkness can also be a metaphor for the unknown. Man has come to fear the unknown, therefore in a sense darkness is to be feared by man. Moreover, Marlow encounters various feats that embody dark themes on his journey to the heart of the Congo, this being the river that is used as a means of transportation. Secondly, at the center of every human being lies a heart of darkness (some more prominent than others) and this is the driving force behind the evil found in mankind. In the novella the white men-having been exposed to more developed societies, prove to be nothing but greedy, selfish people who are looking for nothing but self gain. They do so by taking advantage of the less experienced and civilized black people of the Congo. These types of men can be termed “hollow men” as their degree of human decency is lacking. The darkness in this sense is that found within mankind. Finally, on top of the various aspects of darkness seen in the novella, there are also numerous accounts of racism. Conrad portrays the black people of the Congo as being inferior beings to white men by contrasting the two. White men, as well as things associated with white men taking the position of “good” and the natives taking the position of “bad” respectively. Right until the end of the novella, numerous aspects of darkness and racism are seen.
As previously mentioned, the first form of darkness the reader is introduced to is that of physical darkness. What is meant by this, is that darkness represents the people(their skin color) residing in the Congo, as well as their customs. Upon first arriving to the Congo, Marlow’s first impression of darkness is seen by a group of young black men:
You could see from afar the white of their eyeballs glistening. They shouted, sang; their bodies streamed with perspiration; they had faces like grotesque masks-these chaps; but they had bone, muscle, a wild vitality, an intense energy of movement, that was as natural and true as the surf along their coast (Conrad,16).
This gave the reader a fairly positive outlook on how darkness could be perceived in the physical form, until Marlow actually reached his desired destination. Once arrived at the outer station, Marlow (as well as the reader) begins to see how black people are being treated:
Six black men advanced in a file, toiling up the path. They walked erect and slow, balancing small baskets full of earth on their heads, and the clink kept time with their footsteps. Black rags were wound round their loins, and the short ends behind wagged to and fro like tails. I could see every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots in a rope; each had an iron collar on his neck, and all were connected together with a chain whose bights swung between them, rhythmically clinking (Conrad, 18).
As it stands, the white men are taking advantage of the black people. The black people of the Congo are only used to savagery, it is their societal custom. The white men, who come from a more modern civilized society are taking advantage of the black people. Darkness now represents not only the black people of the Congo, but it also represents how they are being treaded, that is, unjustly, which is a bit of an understatement in itself. Throughout the novel, Conrad gives numerous vivid descriptions of the black people of the Congo: “They were dying slowly-it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now-nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish gloom[…]”(Conrad,20). The reader comes to develop a certain degree of pity for the black people in the novella. Eventually, the black people begin to be associated with evil, more precisely evil acts, therefore darkness now taking the form of evil. For example, one day a fire breaks out. Since no one knows who, let alone what is responsible for the fire, the white men are quick to blame a black man:
A nigger was being beaten near by, they said he had caused the fire in some way; be that as it may, he was screeching most horribly. I saw him, later on, for several days, sitting in a bit of shade looking very sick and trying to recover himself: afterwards he arose and went out-and the wilderness without a sound took him into its bosom again (Condrad,28).
This without a doubt being a form of racism against black people, which will further be discussed later on in this essay. Altogether, darkness as a physical form is used by Conrad to represent the black people of the Congo, their savagery and the way they are treated.
Furthermore, Conrad also uses darkness as a means of representing the unknown. One could conceivably argue that the “heart of darkness” in the novella is in fact the Congo, which is greatly unexplored, therefore making it the unknown to the white men. As Marlow states: “We penetrated deeper and deeper into the heart of darkness[…]We were wanderers on a prehistoric earth, on an earth that wore the aspect of an unknown planet”(Conrad,43). Marlow’s use of the “heart of darkness” here is used to represent the unknown and he describes it as being something “prehistoric” like something humans have never encountered before. Throughout history- and literature, the concept of humans fearing the unknown has greatly been explored, for example; the lord of the flies greatly investigates this phenomenon. Since darkness is used to represent the unknown than wouldn’t it be logical to assume that man should fear darkness? If so then why would one want to explore the unknown? At the beginning of the novel a very revealing piece of evidence is given about Marlow, that is: “Marlow was not typical (if his propensity to spin yarns be expected)[…](Conrad,6). Marlow not being typical would therefore allude to the fact that he was not accustom to things a typical man would be to. This would hence him not necessarily fearing the unknown and this is why he took up the position as a ferry-boat captain and plunged into the immense darkness of the Congo. As the story progresses, the unknown now becomes explored and recognized by Marlow and his crew, as well as the reader. The result being that the unknown is seemingly now less feared by man. Further evidence supporting the claim that darkness is used to represent the unknown is seen in the last sentence of the novella. Marlow is recounting his journey to the Congo while sailing to a location that is unknown to the reader. Once again, Marlow uses the heart of darkness as a metaphor for the unknown: “The offing was barred by a black bank of clouds, and the tranquil waterway leading to the uttermost ends of the earth flowed somber under an overcast sky-seemed to lead into the heart of an immense darkness”(Conrad,96). Since the reader is not informed of where Marlow’s journey is taking him, it is fair to assume that this location is unknown, hence him heading into the heart of an immense darkness.
On his journey through the Congo, Marlow also encounters many endeavors that embody dark themes, here darkness taking more of mystical, supernatural form. At the beginning of the novella when Marlow is looking at a map of the highly undeveloped continent of Africa, he peered upon the Congo and the river he was going to use to venture to and from his desired destination. Upon viewing the map, Marlow states: “However, I wasn’t going into any of these. I was going into the yellow. Dead in the centre. And the river was there-fascinating-deadly-like a snake”(Conrad,11). All this to say that the river resembled a snake. Snakes in Greek mythology were used to represent the guardians, or messengers of the underworld, this making the river seem very dark and ominous as it does in fact resemble a snake. This gives the reader the impression that Marlow is heading to a primordial, dark, ominous, evil place. Later on in the novella, Marlow states that: “The river resembled an immense snake uncoiled and it fascinated me as a snake would a bird"(Condrad,43). Therefore, Marlow has made the transition from the above world, which can be viewed as being Europe, to the underworld, or in other words the Congo. This resulting in the novella seemingly becoming more and more dark and ominous as well as it demonstrating elements of the supernatural. Also, while on their journey through the vast Congo, Marlow and his crew encounter a strange and mysterious fog. This fog adds to the whole darkness of their journey because it causes fear to arise:
When the sun rose there was a white fog, very warm and clammy, and more blinding than the night. It did not shift or drive; it was just there, standing all round you like something solid[…]Before it stopped running with a muffled rattle, a cry, a very loud cry, as of infinite desolation, soared slowly in the opaque air[…]The faces twitched with the strain, the hands trembled slightly, the eyes forgot to wink(Conrad,48-49).
What the people are fearing in this passage is the unknown, or darkness as previously mentioned. They do not know what is going to happen to them, if someone is going to attack them, if there is a strange beast lurking around, they are fearing for their lives. This fear that is caused by the fog reveals a lot about man. It shows that man does in fact fear the unknown, and in this case the darkness that is associated with all of these endeavors that embody dark themes.
Secondly, Conrad’s use of darkness, or “heart of darkness” in this case is used to represent the evil that lies within mankind. All throughout his journey Marlow encounters numerous men who possess a “heart of darkness”. What is meant by this is that they are not only committing dark, or evil acts, but it is what they aren’t doing that is really causing them to be classified as having a heart of darkness. They saw the Congo as being an opportunity to prosper economically as there is a lot of money to be made in the ivory business. To make money, these men were not actually willing to do much work. They simply used their experience of coming from a more evolved and civilized society as their advantage over the people of the Congo who are use to nothing but savagery. They took the people of the Congo as slaves who would be used to retrieve ivory which would in turn get them rich. Now, about the men having a “heart of darkness” because of what they didn’t do has to do with slavery itself. Instead of someone waking up one day and realizing that slavery is wrong, and that these people are humans too, they simply just figured, “hey, we are making money, I can sleep well at night”. No one stood up for what was right and this is because of the darkness that lies within mankind itself. People were blinded by greed, by the lust for self gain, by profits themselves and they weren’t going to suddenly have an epiphany and see the light. One day, Marlow even questions a man on his reasons for being in the Congo: “I couldn’t help asking him once what he meant by coming there (Congo) at all. “To make money, of course. What do you think? He said, scornfully”(Conrad,24). This man was in the Congo for nothing but profits. He couldn’t care less if black people were dying around him each day, he didn’t care for anything else in the world but himself. Even though these men may have a “heart of darkness”, they can be termed “hollow men” as their degree of human decency is lacking. What is meant by this is that these men do not do anything to benefit mankind, if anything they are setting mankind back in time. They do nothing but think for themselves and they will never amount to anything good. Marlow even notices this phenomenon one day as he is talking to someone: “[…]and it seemed to me that if I tried I could poke my forefinger through him, and find nothing inside but a little loose dirt, maybe”(Conrad,31). It is simply sad if one is termed a “hollow man” as you are being compared to dirt. Dirt is nothing! These “hollow men” are nothing! The famous poet T.S. Elliot wrote a poem in 1925 on the phenomenon of “hollow men” and it had an epigraph relating to a line from Heart Of Darkness, that is “Mista Kurtz- he dead”(Conrad,87). The poem was indeed titled The Hollow Men and the first couple of lines are as follows:
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
This directly relating to the “hollow men” of Heart Of Darkness for many reasons. First of all, it talks about hollow men being nothing but men stuffed with straw as straw is not living, alluding to the fact that these men cannot think for themselves. Furthermore, “Our dried voices, when We whisper together Are quiet and meaningless” literally means that their words are worthless. They are not trust worthy, they are not worthy of anything. Whatever they say really does not mean anything as they cannot think for themselves. Whatever they will do will simply be for themselves. These “hollow men” lack a true heart, they cannot do anything good for the sake of mankind, which is why Conrad uses darkness to represent the darkness hidden within mankind.
Furthermore, the last lines of a very important character from the novella also reveal a lot about himself and mankind. Kurtz’s last words before dying are: “The horror! The horror!”(Conrad,86), and this can be interpreted in many different ways. First of all, it can be viewed as a reflection on his own life. Kurtz, although praised as a man being worthy of a saint, turns out to be nothing but a “hollow man” himself. “The horror! The horror!” can be viewed as a reflection of his life. Throughout his career, Kurtz took advantage of many people in order for him to gain success and all of this ended up taking its toll on Kurtz. “The horror! The horror!”, in a way being a confession of a “hollow man”. “The horror! The horror!” can also be looked at as a reflection of the horror found within man. Kurtz had many acquaintances throughout his life and he was exposed (and part of ) to many horrible things the men had done in the Congo. He has seen what horror man is capable of committing and this is his indirect way of admitting that man is accursed from day one. “The horror! The horror!” could also represent the horror of the whole project that went on in the Congo. The fact that men were sent there because of imperialism, which in turn is a reflection on man always wanting more, caused nothing but horror. All in all, Conrad uses darkness to represent not only the darkness and evil found within mankind, but it also represents what mankind is capable of doing, that is evil and terrible things.
Finally, as numerous accounts of darkness surface in the novel, the novel also possesses a great amount of racism. Before discussing racism, it is first necessary to get a solid understanding of what racism is and the outlook on racism at the time. Firstly, racism can simply be described as being: the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Racism is greatly portrayed in Heart Of Darkness, but one cannot fully blame Conrad for this. When the book was written in the eighteen hundreds, people conformed to racism. Conrad would not have considered a racist at the time, compared to today’s standards. It is possible for Conrad to be racist in Heart Of Darkness as Conrad is able to be racist in the story as he uses Marlow as a narrator so he himself can enter the story and say things how he would like to say them.
Heart Of Darkness casts Africa, or the Congo as being the complete and udder antithesis of Europe itself. The novella starts off with Marlow sailing on the Thames river, the sky being perfectly blue, the water tranquil, but the actual story itself will be set in the Congo. What the reader is told about the Congo is that “going up that river was like travelling back to the earliest beginning of the world”(Conrad,42). Conrad seems to be saying that one river is “better” than the other, one being good and the other being bad. The impression of the Congo river does not give the reader a very positive outlook on the continent of Africa itself, making it look bad compared to the Thames river. This alluding to discrimination towards the country itself, the majority of the racism lying in the descriptions of the people of the Congo.
We were wanderers on a prehistoric earth, on an earth that wore the aspect of an unknown planet. We could fancied ourselves the first of men taking possession of an accursed inheritance, to be subdued at the cost of profound anguish and of excessive toil. But suddenly, as we struggled round a bend, there would be a glimpse of rush walls, of peaked grass-roofs, a burst of yells, a whirl of black limbs, a mass of hands clapping, of feet stamping, of bodies swaying, of eyes rolling, under the droop of heavy and motionless foliage. The steamer toiled along slowly on the edge of a black and incomprehensible frenzy. The prehistoric man was cursing us, praying to us, welcoming us-who could tell?[…] The earth seemed unearthly. We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there-there you could look at a thing monstrous and free. It was unearthly, and the men were-No, they were not inhuman. Well, you known, that was the worst of it[…](Conrad,43-44).
This excerpt is one that reveals a lot about Conrad himself and the racism found within Heart Of Darkness. Conrad starts off by saying that “We could fancied ourselves the first of men taking possession of an accursed inheritance…” this basically saying that it didn’t matter who had discovered the land first, as long as the white men have arrived, they can now claim it as their own. This in turn degrading the black people of the Congo because it essentially shows that they are worthless compared to the white man. This is further demonstrated by the very vivid picture Conrad paints of them by saying “as we struggled round a bend, there would be a glimpse of rush walls, of peaked grass-roofs, a burst of yells, a whirl of black limbs, a mass of hands clapping, of feet stamping, of bodies swaying, of eyes rolling, under the droop of heavy and motionless foliage”. Conrad casts the black people of the Congo as basically being comparable to an animal; savage, untamed, as if it being some sort of national geographic program. The black people are probably thinking the same thing of the white men, yet nothing is ever mentioned of this throughout the novella. Conrad gives the impression that the black people are “bad” people for living the way they do, compared to the “good” white people. Conrad goes on to say “It was unearthly, and the men were-No, they were not inhuman. Well, you known, that was the worst of it”, as if it’s a shame that these men are actually considered human because of the lifestyle they inhabit. Conrad is being completely racist here, a human is a human, no matter what color their skin is or where they live.
Throughout Heart Of Darkness, Conrad constantly referred to the natives of the Congo, by using the most derogatory terms such as : black savages, niggers and brutes. This displaying ignorance toward the African history and racism towards the African people. Conrad also wrote that , Black figures strolled out listlessly[…] the beaten nigger groaned somewhere (Conrad, 28). They passed me with six inches, without a glance, with the complete, deathlike indifference of unhappy savages (Conrad, 19). It is easy to tell that Conrad, or Marlow in this case had a problem with black people.
All throughout the novella, Conrad constantly contrasts black and white. Whenever there is a white man in the scene, he makes the darker look even darker, or in other words, the bad look worse. The most famous account of this is when Marlow finally meets Kurtz face to face for the first time:
The glamour of youth enveloped his(Kurtz) particoloured rags, his destitution, his loneliness, the essential desolation of his futile wanderings. For months-for years-his life hadn’t been worth a day’s purchase; and there he was gallantly, thoughtlessly alive, to all appearance indestructible solely by the virtue of his few years and of his unreflecting audacity. I was seduced into something like admiration-like envy. Glamour urged him on, glamour kept him unscathed[…]I(Marlow) looked around, and I don’t know why, but I assure you that never, never before, did this land, this river, this jungle, the very arch of this blazing sky, appear to me so hopeless and so dark, so impenetrable to human thought, so pitiless to human weakness (Conrad,68-69).
It is easy to see the contrast being identified here. Marlow is praising Kurtz and in doing so realizes how dark and hopeless his surroundings are, this a direct contrast between white and black. White in this case obviously being Kurtz and black being the Congo.
The analysis of darkness and racism in Conrad’s Heart Of Darkness results in their being various aspects of each that surface. Searching for continuity for the meaning of darkness in the novella is a task that is harder than it seems. Conrad uses the natives of the Congo and their societal customs to represent darkness as a physical form. Furthermore, Conrad also uses darkness as a means of representing the unknown, which is generally feared by man, therefore man in turn fearing darkness. Moreover, Marlow encounters various endeavors on his journey to the heart of the Congo, all which embody dark themes, in which darkness takes the form of the supernatural or mystical. In addition. darkness is also used by Conrad to represent the darkness that lurks within mankind as well as the evil man is capable of doing. Throughout the novella, various elements of racism surface, with white people being associated with good and black people with bad. Conrad is able to explore elements of racism by using Marlow to represent what he really believes. Various contrasts are also made between white and black, resulting in the dark becoming even darker, or bad becoming worse. If there is a lesson to be learned from Conrad’s Heart Of Darkness is that there is a heart of darkness in all of us, but it is up to the individual to determine if it will consume them or not.
The Darkness! The Darkness!
Heart Of Darkness (1902) is a novella written by Polish born writer Joseph Conrad. The highly symbolic tale is one that is metatextual. It follows the story of Marlow, as he recounts his journey into the heart of Africa- the Congo to be more precise. Marlow enlists as a ferry-boat captain, in which his task is to transport ivory; however, a more pressing task arises, that of retrieving a man named Kurtz. Throughout the novella, various aspects of darkness as well as racism are explored by Conrad. Searching for continuity, for the meaning of darkness in the novella seems to be a task that is close to impossible. Various aspects of darkness are presented, all open to various interpretation. When skimming the surface of the novella, darkness takes more of a physical form. The darkness represents the people residing in Africa as well as their societal customs; that of savagery. Furthermore, darkness can also be a metaphor for the unknown. Man has come to fear the unknown, therefore in a sense darkness is to be feared by man. Moreover, Marlow encounters various feats that embody dark themes on his journey to the heart of the Congo, this being the river that is used as a means of transportation. Secondly, at the center of every human being lies a heart of darkness (some more prominent than others) and this is the driving force behind the evil found in mankind. In the novella the white men-having been exposed to more developed societies, prove to be nothing but greedy, selfish people who are looking for nothing but self gain. They do so by taking advantage of the less experienced and civilized black people of the Congo. These types of men can be termed “hollow men” as their degree of human decency is lacking. The darkness in this sense is that found within mankind. Finally, on top of the various aspects of darkness seen in the novella, there are also numerous accounts of racism. Conrad portrays the black people of the Congo as being inferior beings to white men by contrasting the two. White men, as well as things associated with white men taking the position of “good” and the natives taking the position of “bad” respectively. Right until the end of the novella, numerous aspects of darkness and racism are seen.
As previously mentioned, the first form of darkness the reader is introduced to is that of physical darkness. What is meant by this, is that darkness represents the people(their skin color) residing in the Congo, as well as their customs. Upon first arriving to the Congo, Marlow’s first impression of darkness is seen by a group of young black men:
You could see from afar the white of their eyeballs glistening. They shouted, sang; their bodies streamed with perspiration; they had faces like grotesque masks-these chaps; but they had bone, muscle, a wild vitality, an intense energy of movement, that was as natural and true as the surf along their coast (Conrad,16).
This gave the reader a fairly positive outlook on how darkness could be perceived in the physical form, until Marlow actually reached his desired destination. Once arrived at the outer station, Marlow (as well as the reader) begins to see how black people are being treated:
Six black men advanced in a file, toiling up the path. They walked erect and slow, balancing small baskets full of earth on their heads, and the clink kept time with their footsteps. Black rags were wound round their loins, and the short ends behind wagged to and fro like tails. I could see every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots in a rope; each had an iron collar on his neck, and all were connected together with a chain whose bights swung between them, rhythmically clinking (Conrad, 18).
As it stands, the white men are taking advantage of the black people. The black people of the Congo are only used to savagery, it is their societal custom. The white men, who come from a more modern civilized society are taking advantage of the black people. Darkness now represents not only the black people of the Congo, but it also represents how they are being treaded, that is, unjustly, which is a bit of an understatement in itself. Throughout the novel, Conrad gives numerous vivid descriptions of the black people of the Congo: “They were dying slowly-it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now-nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish gloom[…]”(Conrad,20). The reader comes to develop a certain degree of pity for the black people in the novella. Eventually, the black people begin to be associated with evil, more precisely evil acts, therefore darkness now taking the form of evil. For example, one day a fire breaks out. Since no one knows who, let alone what is responsible for the fire, the white men are quick to blame a black man:
A nigger was being beaten near by, they said he had caused the fire in some way; be that as it may, he was screeching most horribly. I saw him, later on, for several days, sitting in a bit of shade looking very sick and trying to recover himself: afterwards he arose and went out-and the wilderness without a sound took him into its bosom again (Condrad,28).
This without a doubt being a form of racism against black people, which will further be discussed later on in this essay. Altogether, darkness as a physical form is used by Conrad to represent the black people of the Congo, their savagery and the way they are treated.
Furthermore, Conrad also uses darkness as a means of representing the unknown. One could conceivably argue that the “heart of darkness” in the novella is in fact the Congo, which is greatly unexplored, therefore making it the unknown to the white men. As Marlow states: “We penetrated deeper and deeper into the heart of darkness[…]We were wanderers on a prehistoric earth, on an earth that wore the aspect of an unknown planet”(Conrad,43). Marlow’s use of the “heart of darkness” here is used to represent the unknown and he describes it as being something “prehistoric” like something humans have never encountered before. Throughout history- and literature, the concept of humans fearing the unknown has greatly been explored, for example; the lord of the flies greatly investigates this phenomenon. Since darkness is used to represent the unknown than wouldn’t it be logical to assume that man should fear darkness? If so then why would one want to explore the unknown? At the beginning of the novel a very revealing piece of evidence is given about Marlow, that is: “Marlow was not typical (if his propensity to spin yarns be expected)[…](Conrad,6). Marlow not being typical would therefore allude to the fact that he was not accustom to things a typical man would be to. This would hence him not necessarily fearing the unknown and this is why he took up the position as a ferry-boat captain and plunged into the immense darkness of the Congo. As the story progresses, the unknown now becomes explored and recognized by Marlow and his crew, as well as the reader. The result being that the unknown is seemingly now less feared by man. Further evidence supporting the claim that darkness is used to represent the unknown is seen in the last sentence of the novella. Marlow is recounting his journey to the Congo while sailing to a location that is unknown to the reader. Once again, Marlow uses the heart of darkness as a metaphor for the unknown: “The offing was barred by a black bank of clouds, and the tranquil waterway leading to the uttermost ends of the earth flowed somber under an overcast sky-seemed to lead into the heart of an immense darkness”(Conrad,96). Since the reader is not informed of where Marlow’s journey is taking him, it is fair to assume that this location is unknown, hence him heading into the heart of an immense darkness.
On his journey through the Congo, Marlow also encounters many endeavors that embody dark themes, here darkness taking more of mystical, supernatural form. At the beginning of the novella when Marlow is looking at a map of the highly undeveloped continent of Africa, he peered upon the Congo and the river he was going to use to venture to and from his desired destination. Upon viewing the map, Marlow states: “However, I wasn’t going into any of these. I was going into the yellow. Dead in the centre. And the river was there-fascinating-deadly-like a snake”(Conrad,11). All this to say that the river resembled a snake. Snakes in Greek mythology were used to represent the guardians, or messengers of the underworld, this making the river seem very dark and ominous as it does in fact resemble a snake. This gives the reader the impression that Marlow is heading to a primordial, dark, ominous, evil place. Later on in the novella, Marlow states that: “The river resembled an immense snake uncoiled and it fascinated me as a snake would a bird"(Condrad,43). Therefore, Marlow has made the transition from the above world, which can be viewed as being Europe, to the underworld, or in other words the Congo. This resulting in the novella seemingly becoming more and more dark and ominous as well as it demonstrating elements of the supernatural. Also, while on their journey through the vast Congo, Marlow and his crew encounter a strange and mysterious fog. This fog adds to the whole darkness of their journey because it causes fear to arise:
When the sun rose there was a white fog, very warm and clammy, and more blinding than the night. It did not shift or drive; it was just there, standing all round you like something solid[…]Before it stopped running with a muffled rattle, a cry, a very loud cry, as of infinite desolation, soared slowly in the opaque air[…]The faces twitched with the strain, the hands trembled slightly, the eyes forgot to wink(Conrad,48-49).
What the people are fearing in this passage is the unknown, or darkness as previously mentioned. They do not know what is going to happen to them, if someone is going to attack them, if there is a strange beast lurking around, they are fearing for their lives. This fear that is caused by the fog reveals a lot about man. It shows that man does in fact fear the unknown, and in this case the darkness that is associated with all of these endeavors that embody dark themes.
Secondly, Conrad’s use of darkness, or “heart of darkness” in this case is used to represent the evil that lies within mankind. All throughout his journey Marlow encounters numerous men who possess a “heart of darkness”. What is meant by this is that they are not only committing dark, or evil acts, but it is what they aren’t doing that is really causing them to be classified as having a heart of darkness. They saw the Congo as being an opportunity to prosper economically as there is a lot of money to be made in the ivory business. To make money, these men were not actually willing to do much work. They simply used their experience of coming from a more evolved and civilized society as their advantage over the people of the Congo who are use to nothing but savagery. They took the people of the Congo as slaves who would be used to retrieve ivory which would in turn get them rich. Now, about the men having a “heart of darkness” because of what they didn’t do has to do with slavery itself. Instead of someone waking up one day and realizing that slavery is wrong, and that these people are humans too, they simply just figured, “hey, we are making money, I can sleep well at night”. No one stood up for what was right and this is because of the darkness that lies within mankind itself. People were blinded by greed, by the lust for self gain, by profits themselves and they weren’t going to suddenly have an epiphany and see the light. One day, Marlow even questions a man on his reasons for being in the Congo: “I couldn’t help asking him once what he meant by coming there (Congo) at all. “To make money, of course. What do you think? He said, scornfully”(Conrad,24). This man was in the Congo for nothing but profits. He couldn’t care less if black people were dying around him each day, he didn’t care for anything else in the world but himself. Even though these men may have a “heart of darkness”, they can be termed “hollow men” as their degree of human decency is lacking. What is meant by this is that these men do not do anything to benefit mankind, if anything they are setting mankind back in time. They do nothing but think for themselves and they will never amount to anything good. Marlow even notices this phenomenon one day as he is talking to someone: “[…]and it seemed to me that if I tried I could poke my forefinger through him, and find nothing inside but a little loose dirt, maybe”(Conrad,31). It is simply sad if one is termed a “hollow man” as you are being compared to dirt. Dirt is nothing! These “hollow men” are nothing! The famous poet T.S. Elliot wrote a poem in 1925 on the phenomenon of “hollow men” and it had an epigraph relating to a line from Heart Of Darkness, that is “Mista Kurtz- he dead”(Conrad,87). The poem was indeed titled The Hollow Men and the first couple of lines are as follows:
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
This directly relating to the “hollow men” of Heart Of Darkness for many reasons. First of all, it talks about hollow men being nothing but men stuffed with straw as straw is not living, alluding to the fact that these men cannot think for themselves. Furthermore, “Our dried voices, when We whisper together Are quiet and meaningless” literally means that their words are worthless. They are not trust worthy, they are not worthy of anything. Whatever they say really does not mean anything as they cannot think for themselves. Whatever they will do will simply be for themselves. These “hollow men” lack a true heart, they cannot do anything good for the sake of mankind, which is why Conrad uses darkness to represent the darkness hidden within mankind.
Furthermore, the last lines of a very important character from the novella also reveal a lot about himself and mankind. Kurtz’s last words before dying are: “The horror! The horror!”(Conrad,86), and this can be interpreted in many different ways. First of all, it can be viewed as a reflection on his own life. Kurtz, although praised as a man being worthy of a saint, turns out to be nothing but a “hollow man” himself. “The horror! The horror!” can be viewed as a reflection of his life. Throughout his career, Kurtz took advantage of many people in order for him to gain success and all of this ended up taking its toll on Kurtz. “The horror! The horror!”, in a way being a confession of a “hollow man”. “The horror! The horror!” can also be looked at as a reflection of the horror found within man. Kurtz had many acquaintances throughout his life and he was exposed (and part of ) to many horrible things the men had done in the Congo. He has seen what horror man is capable of committing and this is his indirect way of admitting that man is accursed from day one. “The horror! The horror!” could also represent the horror of the whole project that went on in the Congo. The fact that men were sent there because of imperialism, which in turn is a reflection on man always wanting more, caused nothing but horror. All in all, Conrad uses darkness to represent not only the darkness and evil found within mankind, but it also represents what mankind is capable of doing, that is evil and terrible things.
Finally, as numerous accounts of darkness surface in the novel, the novel also possesses a great amount of racism. Before discussing racism, it is first necessary to get a solid understanding of what racism is and the outlook on racism at the time. Firstly, racism can simply be described as being: the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Racism is greatly portrayed in Heart Of Darkness, but one cannot fully blame Conrad for this. When the book was written in the eighteen hundreds, people conformed to racism. Conrad would not have considered a racist at the time, compared to today’s standards. It is possible for Conrad to be racist in Heart Of Darkness as Conrad is able to be racist in the story as he uses Marlow as a narrator so he himself can enter the story and say things how he would like to say them.
Heart Of Darkness casts Africa, or the Congo as being the complete and udder antithesis of Europe itself. The novella starts off with Marlow sailing on the Thames river, the sky being perfectly blue, the water tranquil, but the actual story itself will be set in the Congo. What the reader is told about the Congo is that “going up that river was like travelling back to the earliest beginning of the world”(Conrad,42). Conrad seems to be saying that one river is “better” than the other, one being good and the other being bad. The impression of the Congo river does not give the reader a very positive outlook on the continent of Africa itself, making it look bad compared to the Thames river. This alluding to discrimination towards the country itself, the majority of the racism lying in the descriptions of the people of the Congo.
We were wanderers on a prehistoric earth, on an earth that wore the aspect of an unknown planet. We could fancied ourselves the first of men taking possession of an accursed inheritance, to be subdued at the cost of profound anguish and of excessive toil. But suddenly, as we struggled round a bend, there would be a glimpse of rush walls, of peaked grass-roofs, a burst of yells, a whirl of black limbs, a mass of hands clapping, of feet stamping, of bodies swaying, of eyes rolling, under the droop of heavy and motionless foliage. The steamer toiled along slowly on the edge of a black and incomprehensible frenzy. The prehistoric man was cursing us, praying to us, welcoming us-who could tell?[…] The earth seemed unearthly. We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there-there you could look at a thing monstrous and free. It was unearthly, and the men were-No, they were not inhuman. Well, you known, that was the worst of it[…](Conrad,43-44).
This excerpt is one that reveals a lot about Conrad himself and the racism found within Heart Of Darkness. Conrad starts off by saying that “We could fancied ourselves the first of men taking possession of an accursed inheritance…” this basically saying that it didn’t matter who had discovered the land first, as long as the white men have arrived, they can now claim it as their own. This in turn degrading the black people of the Congo because it essentially shows that they are worthless compared to the white man. This is further demonstrated by the very vivid picture Conrad paints of them by saying “as we struggled round a bend, there would be a glimpse of rush walls, of peaked grass-roofs, a burst of yells, a whirl of black limbs, a mass of hands clapping, of feet stamping, of bodies swaying, of eyes rolling, under the droop of heavy and motionless foliage”. Conrad casts the black people of the Congo as basically being comparable to an animal; savage, untamed, as if it being some sort of national geographic program. The black people are probably thinking the same thing of the white men, yet nothing is ever mentioned of this throughout the novella. Conrad gives the impression that the black people are “bad” people for living the way they do, compared to the “good” white people. Conrad goes on to say “It was unearthly, and the men were-No, they were not inhuman. Well, you known, that was the worst of it”, as if it’s a shame that these men are actually considered human because of the lifestyle they inhabit. Conrad is being completely racist here, a human is a human, no matter what color their skin is or where they live.
Throughout Heart Of Darkness, Conrad constantly referred to the natives of the Congo, by using the most derogatory terms such as : black savages, niggers and brutes. This displaying ignorance toward the African history and racism towards the African people. Conrad also wrote that , Black figures strolled out listlessly[…] the beaten nigger groaned somewhere (Conrad, 28). They passed me with six inches, without a glance, with the complete, deathlike indifference of unhappy savages (Conrad, 19). It is easy to tell that Conrad, or Marlow in this case had a problem with black people.
All throughout the novella, Conrad constantly contrasts black and white. Whenever there is a white man in the scene, he makes the darker look even darker, or in other words, the bad look worse. The most famous account of this is when Marlow finally meets Kurtz face to face for the first time:
The glamour of youth enveloped his(Kurtz) particoloured rags, his destitution, his loneliness, the essential desolation of his futile wanderings. For months-for years-his life hadn’t been worth a day’s purchase; and there he was gallantly, thoughtlessly alive, to all appearance indestructible solely by the virtue of his few years and of his unreflecting audacity. I was seduced into something like admiration-like envy. Glamour urged him on, glamour kept him unscathed[…]I(Marlow) looked around, and I don’t know why, but I assure you that never, never before, did this land, this river, this jungle, the very arch of this blazing sky, appear to me so hopeless and so dark, so impenetrable to human thought, so pitiless to human weakness (Conrad,68-69).
It is easy to see the contrast being identified here. Marlow is praising Kurtz and in doing so realizes how dark and hopeless his surroundings are, this a direct contrast between white and black. White in this case obviously being Kurtz and black being the Congo.
The analysis of darkness and racism in Conrad’s Heart Of Darkness results in their being various aspects of each that surface. Searching for continuity for the meaning of darkness in the novella is a task that is harder than it seems. Conrad uses the natives of the Congo and their societal customs to represent darkness as a physical form. Furthermore, Conrad also uses darkness as a means of representing the unknown, which is generally feared by man, therefore man in turn fearing darkness. Moreover, Marlow encounters various endeavors on his journey to the heart of the Congo, all which embody dark themes, in which darkness takes the form of the supernatural or mystical. In addition. darkness is also used by Conrad to represent the darkness that lurks within mankind as well as the evil man is capable of doing. Throughout the novella, various elements of racism surface, with white people being associated with good and black people with bad. Conrad is able to explore elements of racism by using Marlow to represent what he really believes. Various contrasts are also made between white and black, resulting in the dark becoming even darker, or bad becoming worse. If there is a lesson to be learned from Conrad’s Heart Of Darkness is that there is a heart of darkness in all of us, but it is up to the individual to determine if it will consume them or not.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Tragedy in the common man
1. In his essay, Tragedy in the common man, Miller describes classical tragic heroes as being “fit only for the very highly placed, the kings or the kingly, and where this admission is not made in so many words it is most often implied”. By this he means that the classical hero must occupy a position fairly high up in the great chain of being i.e.: a noble man or a king. Furthermore, this phenomenon might not always be distinctly stated but it is usually implied. Miller also believes that a tragic hero-modern or classical, must be ready to lay down his life, if need be, to secure his sense of personal dignity. The individual is attempting to gain his place in society.
2. Miller prefers for a common man to be a tragic hero. He believes the common man to be more fit for the position because “if the exaltation of tragic action were truly a property of the high-bred character alone, it is inconceivable that the mass of mankind should cherish tragedy above all other forms, let alone be capable of understanding”. What miller means by this is that if tragedy were exclusively to be something only higher class citizens were capable of being a part of, the majority of the population would not be able to relate- or let alone understand the tragedy itself. ‘If rank or nobility of a character was indispensable, then it would follow that the problems of those with rank were the particular problems of tragedy’, therefore it is more suitable for a common man to be a tragic hero.
3. Miller says tragedy is a consequence of “a man’s total compulsion to evaluate himself justly”. A man’s compulsion to evaluate himself clearly will without a doubt cause flaws in this man to surface. A flaw in this case, not necessarily being a weakness, it is simply a crack in the character. A flaw is a challenge to one’s dignity and only those who act against the scheme of things that degrades them can be considered a tragic hero.
4. Miller claim’s that those who are passive, those who accept their lot without active retaliation are “flawless”. This meaning that those who do not evaluate themselves justly, or simply do not act against the things that degrade them are “flawless”. They are not willing to take any risks therefore tragedy cannot be cast upon them. Miller believes it is better to be flawed because those who are flawed are the ones who will act against the scheme of things that degrades them. In doing so, everything we have accepted out of fear or insensitivity or ignorance is shaken before us and examined. The result of this re-evaluation of everything we have accepted out of fear or insensitivity or ignorance is terror and fear that is classically associated with tragedy. It is better to be flawed because it shows you have guts, you are willing to question things. You must think for yourself and question authority and to question authority you must think for yourself.
5. Tragedy is not necessarily pessimistic in a sense because it reveals a lot about a character himself. The tragic hero will come to a realization(V8 moment) and with this is fulfilled. The tragic hero has done what had to be done and is now content. It may be pessimistic for the readers but for the tragic hero the outcome is optimistic. You must put yourself in the hero’s shoes.
6. Pathos, in a tragedy, and in the sense that Miller uses it is the suffering and experience that a tragic hero goes through in order to achieve their desired result. Whether it be questioning society or questioning oneself, there is always a lesson to be learned. The tragic hero has fought a battle he could not possibly have won but has learned through suffering and experience. Pathos is usually viewed by the pessimist but tragedy needs a balance between what is possible and what is impossible.
Standerdizing final.
. The race factor's symbolic powerGlobe editorialBarack Obama's election as the first black (or, more accurately, biracial) president in the United States will not rescue black children from poverty, or sound the death knell for racism or inequality. Yet it is a profound and moving achievement. In the year he was born – 1960 – his parents' marriage would have been illegal in more than half the country. Everyone of middle age in the United States remembers, or should, the terrible violence that enforced those rigid social codes. “In many parts of the South, my father could have been strung up from a tree for merely looking at my mother the wrong way,” Mr. Obama wrote in his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father. His very existence, in other words, was legally forbidden in parts of the country where he is now the president-elect.It is tempting to say that his race or skin colour doesn't matter any more. The election, after all, was not really about race. It was about the best person for the job. And the symbolism – compelling though it may be – won't fight al-Qaeda, or bring home the troops from Iraq, or ease the financial crisis. Role models for black children, though helpful, are no substitute for creating the conditions that breed success in large numbers.And yet, as president he will be not only the chief executive but the head of state. He is the world's most powerful man. He is, in other words, no ordinary symbol. He will drive cultural change simply by being who he is.His presence should, for instance, galvanize black communities to become more engaged in the federal political process. More subtly, it may alter the culture of expectations within black communities. “We just assume that young people in our communities won't aspire to higher education and we are not surprised when they drop out,” he said in a 2004 speech, as he ran for the Senate. “We are not shocked that there are more African-American men in prison than there are in college. And when it comes to Washington, we just assume that the game is fixed for the powerful, for the special interests.” The essence of his campaign, he said, was to “no longer accept the unacceptable, to raise the bar, to set a new set of standards, to start thinking differently about what is possible in our communities and in our politics.”This son of a Kenyan father and a white mother also has no ordinary grasp on the politics of identity. There is nothing insular about him. He spent many of his formative years outside the U.S., allowing him to see it more clearly. Thus, in his speech distancing himself from some extreme comments of his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother, who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.” Black or white, to be flawed is human; but human beings are much more than the sum of their flaws. Here was a vision of acceptance and reconciliation.The United States at a difficult moment in its history voted in a black man as president because he was the best candidate. That's why people all over the world celebrated, and shed tears. Because race didn't matter, at last.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081105.werace06/BNStory/specialComment/home
Standardized Form:
1. Barack Obama's election as the first black president in the United States is a profound and moving achievement.
2. The election, after all, was not really about race. It was about the best person for the job.
3. Thus, Barack Obama wa the best person for the job.
4. Therefore, race does not matter anymore.
Standardized Form:
1. Barack Obama's election as the first black president in the United States is a profound and moving achievement.
2. The election, after all, was not really about race. It was about the best person for the job.
3. Thus, Barack Obama wa the best person for the job.
4. Therefore, race does not matter anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
