(Something has to be wrong with this guy) In Shakespeare’s series of sonnets he loves to compare beauty to nature and by beauty I mean women. If Shakespeare had his way all women would be flowers (well hopefully not because if so they probably wouldn’t get married). But for both his sonnets and Hamlet women are definitely the clear focus. At first I would say that Shakespeare has a positive view of women after reading his sonnets, but after a closer read I wouldn’t think so. After reading I am convinced of his misogyny, granted it may not be entirely his fault but simply the result of the time. From the sonnets I read, 116,1,18, and 29 he always refers to the woman as beautiful and discusses other things such as love. All of this is fine and dandy until the shifts. Here especially in sonnet 1 it seems that he implies that a beautiful woman has to be a kind person as if to say he is stereotyping them. But still I fall to see a true connection between his sonnets and Hamlet mainly because from my interpretation AND RESEARCH the sonnets are supposed to be read as if they were a story. The story split into 3 parts the first describing the woman, possibly a mistress, who he loves but is eventually betrayed. And having only read 4 of the sonnets spaced apart very broadly it isn’t fair to fabricate the man’s views based on fragments. But if the whole sonnet story is true then I can see a connection that would explain his views on women.
1. a) By the end of Hamlet, Hamlet’s actions are not morally justified. To start off, Hamlet doomed himself from the very beginning of the play when he chose to avenge his father. By doing so he committed himself to commit a sin, in addition the very same sin that in result killed his father and the original king slain by his father. Regardless of the motive that whole royal line was built upon a sin and because of his actions was increased exponentially as though unintentionally as they were his anger (another sin wrath) lead to the direct death of Polonius and indirectly Laretes. As a result, since so much was lost as a result of a sin, one that Hamlet showed no desire to be forgiven for himself, his actions are definitely not morally justified. However, Hamlet’s love for his father is to be admired, but his lust(sin) for Ophelia/Gertrude, his hatred for Claudius(sin), and thoughts of his own suicide (thoughts of sin) make him an unlikeable character for me.
b) By the end of Hamlet,Hamlet’s actions are morally justified. To start off, Claudius so wrongfully stole the throne from King Hamlet. In addition, Claudius in his almost death scene showed no remorse, or regret for his actions and played the role of the villian who liked being a villian, which is villiany. In addition, it isn’t apparent that any other cast member was aware of King Hamlet’s murder, and at the very least showed no true emotion or emotional response for the King including his wife, but not including his only son Hamlet. Hamlet’s love for his father is very admirable, and despite his own personal problems decided to seek justice and avenge his father’s murder. Hamlet even goes as far as to eternally damn his uncle, so that he may face true punishment for his crimes by sharing the same fate as the man he killed which is for sure fair. From this the only negative thing that can be said for Hamlet, is that he never makes Claudius guilt public, but perhaps that it appeared that no one really cared.
William Blake was quite an interesting fellow. Oddly enough, some of his poems like the chimney sweeper give the impression that Blake may have grown up poor, but no this like many of his other works was the result of things he witnessed during the industrial revolution. In addition, a lot of Blake’s works reflect a religious attitude, but like his writing style is one that was different then the norm during his time period. Blake’s Moravian background had him receive a negative outlook on organized religious institutions such as the catholic church and the church of England, attitudes again shown his chimney sweeper poems. However, a little surprisingly Blake wasn’t very popular during his time as his style of writing was one that didn’t seem to fit that era but after his life his works fitted in more with the Romanticism era which gave him his rise to fame and why this blog post was even made.
Sadly, I hate to say it but I got to say. I like waiting for godot. (gasp) But what I didn’t like was the play. In truth I’m a very visual person, like for every song I hear there is either a story, or non existent music video in my head for each song same goes with books, and this play. I personally envisioned waiting for godot in the manner it was presented, stage setup, character design, and all. But then to the reason I don’t like the play. This is just where what I envisioned isn’t what became the play, by this I mean it didn’t sound the same to me. I read the cover before reading the play and noticed it said tragiccomedy so in my head i pictured a comedy with fast-paced witty dialogue that I found humorous (that’s probably where the problem is). The play was indeed fast paced, but in my head the speed of conversation was closer to that of a south park style kyle and cartman argument very rapid and emotionally charged, AND THOUGH THATS WHAT THE PLAY DID I personally think it was just the direction that made it seem somewhat less emotional and intense making it seem less humorous to me. Honestly, I personally enjoyed reading play more because it actually had me laughing at times versus the “play” which barely got me to smile at it. But one thing that the play did for me was make me realize somehting that i hadn’t when reading. When the live play talked about the evangelicals I got the realization of a void. Its weird because this is how i pictured it when i was reading but i dont think it hit me in the way it did when i HEARD the story again. Though some may think I’m crazy for I dont care I got a feeling i’m on to soemthing on how the evangelicals tie into the characters of the play an i dea i believe is worth investigating.
One thing that I’ve found challenging very recently in fact was the song “Radioactive” Imagine Dragons. But, don’t get me wrong my problem isn’t with the song (entirely) but more of its Grammy winning and nominations for best rock song.LIKE WHAT!!? What I fail to understand or comprehend about the fact that this song won a Grammy at all is beyond comprehension. I personally, like the beat, and the song as a whole is okay, BUT THAT’S THE PROBLEM ITS ONLY OKAY. Like if you’ve ever listened to it the entire song is about 3-4 minutes of a chorus on repeat. Lets take away my opinion out of this, but it really is the chorus on repeat, just how is it this song made it so far, when its lyrics seem to like almost any depth, or true meaning. Like the fact that this song received the Grammy nominations it did has to reflect the widespread generic music funded to play on radio stations. I still do not understand how or why this song was nominated, like it is honestly a very challenging subject for me that I intend to research, but otherwise all i can do is just vent my frustration silently (except for this post).