Would you like some cheese with that whine?

I have to admit that I quite underestimated how much I would like Hamlet. When the play was first assigned I thought, “Oh, great. Another Shakespeare.” However right from when we read the first scene in class I was intrigued to learn more about the mysterious ghost. I forced myself to work through the difficult language and prose. I was most interested in the progression of Hamlet. I wasn’t sure if he was truly crazy or if he was just putting on an act. There were so many sub-plots dealing with Hamlet–Claudius, Ophelia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern–I couldn’t wait to read what happened next.

Even though I sympathized with Hamlet in the beginning being put in such a dire situation, he infuriated me throughout the play. He was a whiny brat who caused havoc just to get his way. He verbally and physically assualted Ophelia at least two times that we know of, declaring that she was merely tempting him with her beauty. When he wasn’t causing terror in their relationship, he was ignoring her. To him, Ophelia was just a toy to play with when he was bored with the rest of his life. Even though he had a right to be mad at Claudius, I don’t think he was justified to murder him with no remorse. Trying to do so without even thinking, Hamlet accidentally killed the innocent Polonius instead, and didn’t really seem that sorry. During the play he put on trying to out Claudius, he continually interupted with pompous remarks indicating he thought he should be the king of the world, let alone Denmark. On top of all that, he was attacking Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s attempts to help him. Even though he had every right to go a tad bit crazy, Hamlet stepped over the edge and pretty much caused the death of the entire royal family. He could have easily solved his problems and expressed his dissatisfaction in more peaceful ways, and instead he looked like a complete fool.

Hey, Hamlet, Mind Your Own Beeswax!

So many of the issues in Hamlet could be avoided if the characters were less concerned with their own personal gain. Each character is at least somewhat to blame for the drama. Claudius, without a doubt, is the most to blame. Most people would realize killing your brother and marrying his wife would create drama, and not do it. Most people also wouldn’t marry their brother-in-law just a couple months after losing their husband. For whatever reasons, perhaps explained in Act V, Claudius and Gertrude found a personal advantage to their actions, and did not care about any consequences which might follow. Hamlet is essentially throwing quite a lengthy temper tantrum over the marriage and causes more controversy than needed. He sends the entire palace of Denmark into a frenzy trying to control the prince. He kills the relatively innocent Polonius and collectively his actions essentially kill Ophelia also. Hamlet is too concerned with his own dissatisfaction that he causes more stir than needed. Polonius keeps sticking his nose into other people’s business increasing his own stress and having effects on the family’s fate. By spying on Hamlet, he only sparked Hamlet’s irrational behavior even more. By telling Ophelia to ignore Hamlet, instead of getting over her Hamlet proceeded to throw an even bigger fit and cause even more drama. Spying on Hamlet during his meeting with his mother resulted in his death, and if Polonius had just minded his own business he wouldn’t have died. Each of these four characters are too concerned with themselves to realize they are all just making the situation worse, and in Shakespearean tragedies, that’s pretty hard!

The Scarlet H

While reading Act III, I noticed some connections to The Scarlet Letter. In Hamlet, Claudius committed a sin and his conscience bothers him continually. When he watches the players essentially reenact the murder, he exclaims “Give me some light! Away!” (III.ii.281) and flees the room. He has a mental breakdown and cannot live with himself knowing he committed such an act. Dimmesdale in The Scarlet Letter similarly had a mental breakdown in the middle of the night on the tower which Hester had to stand before the entire community. He witnesses Hester and Pearl’s alienated life and knows he and his adulterous sins are the cause of their adversity and the lack of a traditional childhood for Pearl. Both men have to live with the negative consequences of horrible mistakes they made. Similar to the end of The Scarlet Letter, possibly Claduius will end his own life unable to live with his conscience or after a confession of his wrongdoing.

Another connection between the two works is the revenge being sought on the sinner. Hamlet seeks to kill his uncle to punish him. He will do anything to avenge his father’s murderer including putting on an extravagant act of insanity. In a complete impulse, Hamlet stabs and kills Polonius, thinking it was Claudius. His entire mind is dedicated to avenging Claudius. In The Scarlet Letter, Chillingworth correctly guesses that there is a connection between Dimmesdale and his wife and is determined to take revenge on Dimmesdale. He tries to poison Dimmesdale multiple times and will do anything to make even. I think it’s interesting how themes of Shakespeare’s work are seen throughout other author’s works, just as the now common phrases Shakespeare coined.

Hamlet doesn’t suffer from insanity. He enjoys every minute of it! Or maybe not…

Act II reveals that Hamlet has, in fact, gone insane with his assault on Ophelia, various “pregnant” mumblings, and the impact the actor’s performance had on him. I mean, he calls Polonius a fishmonger! The footnote says its slang definition means pimp. I don’t know about you, but I don’t just go around calling people pimps, especially the father of someone I was dating. Now Hamlet asks Polonius if he has a daughter implying that he doesn’t know the relationship between him and Ophelia, but it seems that Hamlet would know the Polonius is her dad. Maybe Hamlet just didn’t recognize him in his unusual state. In Scene I, Polonius conjectures that Ophelia’s avoidance of Hamlet might be the cause for his irrationalness. Polonius might just be an ignorant fool, because I think it’s pretty obvious that Ophelia has nothing to do with Hamlet’s mood. If I lost my father, then just two months later my mom married my uncle, and then on top of all that I saw and spoke to my father’s ghost, I would be pretty out of it too. I wouldn’t have much attention to give to my love life. I think that Hamlet’s insanity is pretty justified. So far, I’m most intrigued by Hamlet. He seems to be a pretty dynamic character, and I’m interested to see how both his family woes and his issues with Ophelia play out.

“See kids, things haven’t changed since my day!”

One thing I found interesting in the first act of Hamlet is the prevelence of Hamlet’s and Ophelia’s problems in teenager’s live today. Even though the play was written over 400 years ago, the same drama exists. Hamlet is burdened by his “evil step-father” who insists Hamlet should just get over his problems and essentially tells Hamlet what to do and feel, for example forbidding Hamlet from going back to Wittenberg. “But to persever in obstinate condolement is a course of impious stubbornness. ‘Tis unmanly grief, it shows a will most incorrect to heaven.” (I.ii.92-95) Cladius basically tells Hamlet that he is less of a man because he is still mourning his father’s death and is essentially telling his to “get over it.” Teenagers today still have to deal with step-parents they do not particularly like and suffer with deciding whether to be happy for his mother or be mad about her moving on so quickly.

Ophelia also suffers with her family’s opposition to a romance with Hamlet, and many teenagers today are forbidden to see someone by their parents. Ophelia likes Hamlet, but is told that he is out of her league and he will neve truly love her. It is similar to someone liking one of the “popular kids” and being told that nothing with ever happen, because the object of their affection is too high on the social ladder. This shows the social classes and the issues attacted with them existed all the way back in Shakespeare’s day and is not a new matter. Ophelia’s dad, Polonius, explicity tells her that Hamlet does not really love her, but is just putting on a mask. “Do not believe his vows; for they are brokers.” (I.iii.127) Ophelia has no choice but to obey her father in not pursuing a further relationship with Hamlet, and still today kids love interests are not approved by their parents. I found Ophelia’s sub-plot similar to Romeo and Juliet, in that two kids want to have a relationship, but their parents will never approve. Possibly, similarly to Romeo and Juliet, Ophelia and Hamlet may secretly see each other later in the play. Even though Shakespeare wrote the play over 400 years ago, the characters in the play have to deal with the same problems of people today.

4/1 Post #2

the end of thought

i sit and watch all the
people walk by and
wonder what they are
doing
and where they are
going
and what they are
thinking.

they could be very
interesting people and
be on their way to
save the world or
fly to the moon.

they could be thinking about
complicated musical compositions or
why humans are on this planet.

or they could be very
boring people and
be on their way to
nowhere and
be thinking about
nothing.

nothing,
nothing important at all.

given the average human,
i’m guessing they’re all
boring people,
very, very
boring people.

I modeled my poem mainly off of Bukowski’s usual structure and subject matter. I have sentences that are broken off between lines and very simple language. Bukowski often included slight satire or sarcasm in his poems, as I did in the last stanza. Bukowski often commented on common people and modern society,
which is the subject of my poem.

4/1 Post #1

I really liked this project because it was different from other projects I’ve done in the past. It was a lot less stressful than writing a research paper. I did find it difficult to find much scholarly research and blogs which actually analyzed poetry, as opposed to just having the poem. I also found it was easier just to comment on my classmate’s blogs, since many other blog websites require you to log in before commenting. Overall, I really liked this because it allowed me to really dig in to Bukowski’s poetry, who I had liked before the project but never really deeply analyzed. It was really fun to read and comment my classmate’s work, learn about poets I didn’t know before, and receive comments as well. I think blogging is a good medium for a project like this because soon the internet will rule over paper and books, and it teaches how to use the internet and create websites well.

COMMENTS:

http://bridgetegr1.edublogs.org/2009/03/11/01/#comments

http://maddieegr1.edublogs.org/2009/03/09/adrienne-rich-biography/#comments

http://carolineeegr1.edublogs.org/2009/03/23/first-325-post/#comments

http://natalieegr1.edublogs.org/2009/03/24/intertextuality-2/#respond

Hey Natalie! I think it’s interesting that Diane Wakoski and Charles Bukowski have similar opinions on the mentality of poetry. Wakoski believes that “poetry eventually resides in the internal world of the emotions,” and Bukowski believes that the individual should have total control of his or her ideas. For both poets, it is vital that poetry comes from the inner, unbiased mind of the poet. The emotions drive the poet to create the poetry, and only the poet can control those emotions.

Bukowski writes in a narrative form similar to Wakoski, but also cannot be coined as a confessional poet. Bukowski interestingly almost takes pride in the vulgar and unpure subject matter he writes about, and by no means does he confess any wrongdoing.

Mrs. Hazle, my comment on Natalie’s blog is “awaiting moderation,” so I don’t know if it would show up for you, which is why I included the whole comment.

3/25 Post #2

Charles Bukowski worked with, and later influenced Neeli Cherkovski as a poet. Cherkovski and Bukowski co-wrote Laugh Literary and Man the Humping Guns, a literary magazine, according to R.L. Crow. Although they only wrote a few issues and the magazine is only remembered for Bukowski’s connection,  it is evident that Cherkovski was influenced by Bukowski. Bukowski was twenty-five years older than Cherkovski and probably served as a mentor. Cherkovski came from the Los Angeles underground scene, as did Bukowski. Cherkovski’s poem “A Prison Poem” shows Bukowski’s influence, shown in this excerpt:

where has our America gone?

who is innocent, anyway?

I want to cover the President with buddha
and free the prison guards
from their angry empty lives
and bring them language
as they have brought us
a landscape of fear

Cherkovski writes about the same liberties and anti-establishment for the common man that Bukowski did. Bukowski might have used the light metaphor of “I want to cover the president with buddha”, implying the opposition to the current government. Even though Cherkovski wrote the poem in 2004 after Bukowski’s death, the similarities still apply. The Bush Administration was in office during this time, and held conservative philosophies which Cherkovski, Bukowski, and their underground contemporaries all would have opposed. The first two lines in this excerpt parallel Bukowski’s writing style. The rhetorical questions represent Bukowski’s similar narrative voice. Bukowski often written as if he were speaking to an unidentified audience. Cherkovski also mostly uses short lines and common language, although he has a distinct lyricism, similar of Whitman’s, which pulls him away from Bukowski. The lyric qualities aside, Bukowski influenced which contemporary Cherkovski.

3/25 Post #1

Charles Bukowski’s poetry is evident to be influenced by the work of William Carlos Williams. Williams used short lines and simple diction, as did Bukowski. Both poets did not create an elaborate, deep analysis of the world; they just wrote about everyday happenings and anecdotes. In William’s poem “This is Just to Say,” Williams incorporates these traits:

I have eaten
the plums
that we in
the icebox

and which you were probably
saving
for breakfast

Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold

The longest line is just five words, most three or smaller, and the sentences are broken up among the lines and in between the first and second stanza. The subject matter is not deep, just a recount of how he simply stole someone’s plum. The last stanza gives a satirical voice saying ‘I’m sorry I took your plums, but not really because they were so good.’ Williams felt he could get his point across in just a few blunt words, instead of in long, elaborate phrases. “His purpose was not to point a moral or teach a lesson; rather, he wanted his readers to see through his eyes the beauty of the real. He was content to rest with the assumption that the reader could duplicate Williams’s own sense of importance…and thereby dismiss the need for symbolism.” (Wagner-Martin). Bukowski brings a similar attitude to the paper, notably in his narrative poem “The Promise.” He doesn’t explain exactly what happened, or the extenuating circumstances, he just told the story, partially through dialogue.. In an excerpt of “The Promise”, Williams’ style is completely evident in the work:

she stumbled once and almost
fell on her ass.
then she ran up her steps
and was gone through her door
to her place upstairs
running with all those paintings
on top of her head.

Bukowski breaks up the sentences into to small lines, creating the simple look and style to the poem as Williams’ did. Bukowski’s plain language also contributes to the simplicity. He isn’t writing in complex or abstract prose; he’s writing just as how a common person would speak. He provides an objective detachment just as Williams’ does. Neither poet analyzes the subject matter, nor provides a strong opinion on it. They just tell it like it is.

Both Williams and Bukowski add sarcasm and light humor into their poetry. Bukowski shows this in “The Promise”:

it was one of the funniest damned
things I ever did see.
well, I guess I’ll just have to
paint 40 more.

Bukowski ends the poem on this sarcastic banter. He did not really care about the fate of his paintings, he just did not really want her taking them, and simply laughs off the sight of her walking down the street stumbling over 40 paintings. Williams ended “This is Just to Say” the same way.

Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold

Williams’ was not really sorry for eating the plum; he is just adding sarcasm and humor to the situation. This also adds to Williams’ and Bukowski’s use of common language. People often use this sort of sarcasm in every day conversation. Unlike other poets who use very serious, complex, and often boring prose, these two poets common language makes their poetry light and entertaining.

“Much of [Williams'] prose is carried through dialogue that makes Ernest Hemingway’s seem contrived and redundant.” (Wagner-Martin). Hemingway is known for his concise language and his desire to write “one true sentence.” If Williams, and Bukowski, are more concise and brief than Hemingway, they’re pretty concise. Unlike other poets who use very serious, complex, and often boring prose, these two poets common language makes their poetry light and entertaining.

3/18 Post #2

i met a genius

i met a genius on the train
today
about 6 years old,
he sat beside me
and as the train
ran down the coast
we came to the ocean
and then he looked at me
and said,
it’s not pretty.

it was the first time I’d
realized
that.

Andrew Madigan comments that “the individual’s need to have total control over his or her ideas, actions, and sensations” is a major component of Bukowski’s works. Today’s massive society rejects the ideals of individualism, and Bukowski’s attraction to the counterculture defies that. However, in “I Met a Genius” he accepts the boy’s opinion as fact without a second thought. Bukowski is contradicting his own philosophy by having the boy control his thoughts. He could have formed his own opinion on the beauty of the ocean, but even Bukowski is “conditioned to accept unconditionally that which society posits as true.” He was astonished when he heard what the boy said and was almost shocked to hear this new truth, He immediately accepted it without second thought. He didn’t feel depressed for losing the beautiful value of the ocean, but rather relieved for knowing the truth.

Madigan, Andrew, J. “Bukowski’s ‘I Met a Genius’.” The Explicator 55.4(1997): 232-233.