Structure related to the argument...

This poem was cool. i really enjoyed reading it. Some things i didn't quite get, but others i believe i picked up on. So, to answer the question, i believe that the poem is strewn out in various stanzas, as it describes the way one's life does. This is a progression of life for the author and probably relating to anyone really. He goes from late nights and "one-night cheap hotels"- the essence of fiery love and excitement in our society. He then proceeds to describe a dog, and his own physical aging with white hair and trousers etc. He goes on to describe himself walking along the beach with mermaids singing- the depiction of a paradise, an almost blurred scene of a movie or a dream, that foretells our personal view of heaven, with an almost universal generality. The lines are divied in various stanzas that sometimes start a new description or thought, and sometimes don't. This whole poem is a random stream of conciousness of life and it's process. i believe the author may have made the intentional structure, to have no structure at all. This is life. all the words are just describing it's randomness yet with its presence of underlying beauty.

Line 43 of 4.5...

okay, i think the assignment was to analyze line 43 of 4.5. Hopefully.
"Lord we know what we are, but know not what we may be." (43) Spoken by Ohelia in the midst of her madnes. I guess i'm sorta thrown off key by her madness; i wasn't expecting her to start acting like this. I guess i also don't know really know why... could this be an act too?? hm... anyways, i believe what this line means is that humans are usually concious of who they are or what they are; the fact that they are human beings, however, we are not always prepared for what we might become. allow me to expand. throughout life, i believe everyone changes, the question is, how far? I believe instances like this could cause madness to some, especially when casualties such as these occur more regularly. Also, this could lead one to believe that personalities could somehow morph into animal like characteristics. One would then be able to obtain the madness of an animal or something with qualities unexplainable.
-to be honest, i'm not sure what i'm talking about right now. i do know, however, that this quote seems to foreshadow something that is to come...

Movie vs. Play...

Honestly, i don't know for sure. I can, however, tell my opinions on both. The play is what we originally started the whole story with, so i automatically assiciate Hamlet with the book that i hold on my hands. However, the movie does pop into my mind as we review parts from the story. The movie does assist greatly in my understanding of some of the lines spoken in the original text. Sometimes i picture things spoken differently than they are, but it helps with my understainding; usually. The director, i think, does a very good job at capturing the tine of the story with most lines. Others, however, i believe are meant to be worded differently, which may then not actually be the directors' fault, but may due to the freedom granted in the art of acting. Nonetheless, i do believe that in order to remember things better, even though out of order, the movie does a pretty good job at displaying that mood and setting of Hamlet. The one that that will always bug me about movie retakes though, is not sticking to the origianal order and form of the intended work. If i were a director, i don't care what would look best in my opinion. My goal is not to make something new with my creative ideas alone, but to base them off of someone else's. The one thing i like about books, however, is the freedom of creataivity that the reader has. Each person is able to visualize and create their own characters and places and things; that's the beauty of imagination.

Do i agree with Ham's purpose of a play?

Yes and no. I do believe that the reasons given by Ham for which a play shold be performed are quite relevent in many instances. However, i do believe they can reflect something different. Ham believes that a play is to immitate humanity; to show truth; it is art reflecting society and so on. I believe that in most cases, yes, this is true. Plays do in fact reflect an element of reality and life according to many people. However, plays can tend to over exaggerate the portrayed emotions that are actually meant to reveal a truth. I think many times this is intentional because the author wants the audience to "track" with him, if you will. In order for something to be popular, it must be understandable and interesting. This is probably the goal of most writers of play such as this. People are looking for something new and interesting. Hamlet writes this play to grab not only the attention of the people at Elsinore, but most of all, to grab the attention of the king and to essentially persude him to confess to murder; unintentionally. This would reveal the truth to all, if the king confesses that is, and thus accomplishing the goal of the author: hamlet. I guess my only objection would be that because it is acting, it is just that; an act, therefore not actually revealing reality, yet coming very close. Good actors are gifted people because they sway others to buy into their act of portraying reality.

How much of a treat is Ham to King Claud? let's investigate...

Due to the textually supported evidence regarding the character of the king, i am persuaded to believe that Ham is a huge threat to him and his kingship. We have learned that King Claud shows little interest in political affairs; ie. when his land might be attacked, and he rather shifts his focus towards Ham. This has been discused in class many a time, and i fully support the idea that Cluad is concerned with Ham's behavior. Some specific lines would be 50 of 2.2 when Polon expresses his "eureka" of an idea claiming that he found the reason for Ham's madness. The king, although engaded in previous matters, stops and says, "O, speak of that! that i do long to hear." Then follows Polon saying they should let Volti present his political statement, and only after that will his news be "fruit to [the] great feast." (this, by the way, means that the political issues are equivelant to a feast, being of the most importance, and fruit would be like the topping on a cake, or in this case the fruit; something not necessary, yet delicious.)

Furthermore, as Polon reads Hams letter to Ophelia, the king wants proof that love is indeed the reason for Hams madness as he asks, "but how hath she recieved his love?"

One last analysis, is when the king asks gert what she thinks on the matter. "Do you think 'tis this?" he asks as the quen responds, "it may be, very like." So obviously the queen has not idea what's going on, proving the weekness ascribed to her, and king claud is scared as a dog.

-in conclusion, i believe that Claud believes that Ham is a great threat to his enpowerment, (which is what he seems most concerned with obviously, since he killed the preceding ruler) and wants to find out exactly why Ham is acting like such a freak.-

Does Hamlet Love Ophelia? let's investigate...

There are several possibilities as to weather or not Hamlet loves this chick.

1) One possibility could be that everything Ham is doing (that would normally be signs of love and affection towards ophealia), could be a setup. This could contribute to Ham's goal in making everyone believe that he's going mad. I think he could definetly use this strategy to either freak out the king, or to mess with Ophelia's heart with certain intentions.

2) Ham uses various "meathods" if you will, to convince everyone that he is in fact in love with Ophealia- that is, if that's his goal. The letters read by Polonius (109...125- of 2.2) of Ham's claimed love for her could be left by Ham for the very goal of discovery. This would definetly convince anyone outside of Ham's wierd mind that he's in love.

3)One indication that Ham could be playing games is found in 2.2 -378- when Ham says to Guildenstern and Rozencrantz, "my uncle-father and aunt-mother are decieved... I am but mad north-northwest. When the wind is southerly i know a hawk from a handsaw." Just as he finishes this line, Polonius enters and Ham returns to his character of "the pursuer of Ophelia." As Ham says these aformentioned lines, i believe what he is saying is that he is emotionally stable, hence the north north-west, however, when he transforms into his other character (possibly) his emotions go south, hence his not telling a hawk from a handsaw. This is simply a possibility for the explanation of Ham's emotions and true feelings.

-In conclusion, i believe that Ham reveals himself through various personalities, in order to confuse Polonious, King Claud, Queen Gert, Ophelia (being the daughter of Polonius) and others not necessarliy close to Him, to keep secret his plan in attacking the king through theatre. I could be totally wrong, however, based on observation, this would be an appropriate explanation for Ham's behavior.-