The Dark Lady

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damask'd, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground:
   And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
   As any she belied with false compare. 

Reading this Shakespearian sonnet, I couldn’t help but wonder: Who are these people? More specifically, I wanted to know who the dark lady was. I’m also curious as to whether this was actually real or not. The two main people I found that the dark lady could be were: Lucy Morgan and Mrs. Florio. Lucy Morgan was a black brothel owner. The dark lady is arrogant and caters to all, so the owner of a brothel is a likely choice. I also saw that the lady might be Mrs. Florio, wife of an Italian translator. This choice is more appealing because the dark lady is definitely married. The dark lady, in addition to her arrogance, is a wanton wife who had children.

I thought it was interesting that the narrator continues to describe his mistress in a negative manner. Her lips are not red. Her eyes don’t shine. Her breath reeks. Her voice isn’t soothing. Even her walk is ungraceful. Yet, he loves her. Perhaps this is a message about love going deeper than the surface. However, if that was a poem about me, I would be a bit offended. At least, I would be until the couplet. Re-reading the sonnet, I realized it served as parody for love. The mistress defies all stereotypical characteristics of love and beauty. Still, the love is all consuming. He loves her anyways. Thus, the typical theme of love prevailing against all odds is upheld.

Shakespeare Sonnet 18

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date: 

Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance, or nature's changing course, untrimm'd;

But thy eternal summer shall not fade
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st;
Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou grow'st; 

So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee. 

This is one of the young man sonnets, so the love interest is most likely the man. The narrator could also be giving advice about love. The first quatrain compares the young man to a summer day, saying he is lovely and fair, but he doesn’t last. The second quatrain builds upon this by explaining that sometimes the sun, aka the young man, is too bright and other times he fades. I saw the last quatrain as the main point of this poem. The young man will last forever. He will not fade. Even Death won’t get in the way. Of course, this is typical of most sonnets. Much like other sonnets, this sonnet also deals with love lasting over time. The coda is “eyes.” It links back to the second quatrain in which the eye of heaven, the sun, shines. In the couplet, the eye belongs to a human. The coda is the third quatrain summarized. As long as men exist, love will last. This is, again, typical of sonnets, which usually concern love. The significance of being compared to summer and to the sun and then to an eternal summer is the heat. Summer is hot; it is dull and drags on. On the other hand, summer is also the fun, light season. Thus, the connotation of summer could be negative. That is likely why the narrator says, “thou art more lovely and more temperate.” Basically, he is summer, but less extreme. I think it is interesting that this is a young man sonnet, however. The sonnet seems to be written romantically. It is about love. This makes me wonder if there was a love triangle in which the narrator, later on, loves both the woman and the young man. This also makes me wonder who Shakespeare was. Who was the man that loved a man who loved a woman, and then also loved that woman? It’s a confusing triangle, and it might be fictional, but I still wonder.

Enlightenment and the Apocalypse

For most of invisible man, I assumed that the Invisible Man would eventually be enlightened. Following Plato's Allegory, this meant he would come out of the cave, see the light, and then return to share his knowledge. However, the ending is full of violence. Additionally, the invisible man goes into the cave, not out of it. He literally goes in a manhole; he goes into the dark. Still, based on the prologue and epilogue, an enlightening clearly takes place.

I came to a possible explanation for this as I was researching the apocalyptic imagery prevalent throughout the ending. The word apocalypse comes from the greek word apocalupsis. The literal translation from Greek is "to uncover." The Oxford dictionary also describes it at an "unveiling." This is significant because the statue at Invisible Man's closet was veiled. The narrator also wasn't sure if the veil was being lifted or not. Thus, this veil is the cave from Plato's Allegory. The veil is related to the heavy smoke and haze and dreams mentioned repeatedly throughout the novel. The darkness is when the Invisible Man can finally see. Thus, his enlightenment is a result of the darkness. Plus, it isn’t until he is in the darkness that he sees real light. The supposedly brightest places of society aren’t even bright enough.

Still, I was very surprised by the apocalyptic imagery. The apocalypse is supposed to create a Heaven on Earth, but that doesn’t happen. The world is still full of blind or sleeping people. This led me to wonder whether the apocalypse was then a personal one? Or maybe the enlightenment of just the Invisible Man is the apocalypse. One theory that I had, that nobody else really agreed with, was that the Invisible Man, who is given no identity, is meant to represent humanity. Thus, the apocalypse hasn’t happened yet, but the novel is a version of how it could happen. Honestly, I’m just trying to figure out what all of it means. The black horseman, who should represent Ras as he comes in on a black horse, is famine. However, Ras isn’t bringing famine. Unless the riots turn into a full-scale debilitating war, nobody really should die of starvation. So, is Ras the black horse? Is the apocalypse actually happening? Or is Ellison just referring to the apocalypse to emphasize the severity of the event?

A Posion Tree by William Blake

A Poison Tree

I was angry with my friend:
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe:
I told it not, my wrath did grow.

And I watered it in fears,
Night and morning with my tears;
And I sunned it with smiles,
And with soft deceitful wiles.

And it grew both day and night,
Till it bore an apple bright.
And my foe beheld it shine.
And he knew that it was mine,

And into my garden stole
When the night had veiled the pole;
In the morning glad I see
My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

This poem is impactful because it differentiates between friend and foe. The narrator, in the first line, is already being upfront and honest with his friend. The wrath is put to bed-- it is over. However, the foe gets a much different treatment. Here, his wrath is kept quiet, secret. So, it grows. Thus, the first stanza creates a basis for a poison tree. At this point, I assumed the tree would grow and overpower the narrator's life. I assumed the poem was about letting go of grudges-- cliche, I know.
The second stanza didn't surprise me much. However, this stanza does emphasize that the narrator is hung up on it. The tree is being watered with tears, night and day. The "smiles" and "deceitful wiles" remind me of how people act when they're being fake-- when somebody they hate walks by, but they have to be nice. The fake smiles and compliments struck me partially because of the rhyme scheme, but I will talk about that in a bit.
The main allusion throughout the last two stanzas is the Garden of Eden. This tree that the narrator has grown has created an apple-- the fruit that tempted Eve. Will this fruit tempt the narrator as well? Instead, it is the enemy who is tempter. He "knew that it was" the narrator's and had to have it. The narrator isn't just God, but he is also the serpent. He is the devil sent to tempt Eve into eating the forbidden fruit... The narrator created the tree and is using it as temptation. Of course, we know how this ends-- in tragedy. The foe lays dead. This poem struck me because usually, death is grieved. However, the narrator is overjoyed.
The rhyme scheme also stood out to me. The ABABAB rhyme scheme gives the poem a song-like quality. It sounds like a nursery rhyme a child might run around singing... but it's about death. It's about temptation. It's about enemies. This rhyme scheme juxtaposes, and thus highlights all of these elements. 

Hamlet the Moral Judge

Honestly, Hamlet really annoyed me throughout the play. He didn't DO anything. He just sat around judging everyone else. I thought he would move mountains to get revenge.... he holds a play... AND he thinks he can be the moral judge...?
Hamlet likens himself to a God while determining the fate of others. He didn't just want Claudius dead. He wanted Claudius in Hell. Ummmm, sorry Hamlet, but I think that's for God to decide. At the end of scene three, Hamlet decides to kill Claudius "when he is drunk asleep, or in his rage, or in the incestuous pleasure of his bed... then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven, and that his soul may be as dam'd and black as hell..." (Act 3 Scene 3). Hamlet, who may possibly have had intimate relations with Ophelia and then basically abandoned her, is judging somebody else's love life. Even with Ophelia, Hamlet attempts to control her. He acts like God, commanding her to "take thee to a nunnery." He calls her a whore and says she needs to leave, because HE knows best.
He is very prone to judgement when it comes to women in general. I didn't think Hamlet would be misogynistic. Angry at his mother for re-marrying, he denounces ALL women by declaring "Frailty thy name is woman" (Act 2 Scene 2). He tried to judge the women and then interfere, trying to save them. He tells his own mother what to do... "either shame the devil or throw him out" (Scene 4 Act 3). He's running around tell everyone what to do. There is also the other meaning of nunnery. It is possible that Hamlet is also trying to save Ophelia here by telling her to go away because this world is so harsh. He could be trying to protect her. But even if he is trying to save his mother or Ophelia, he still doesn't get to run around pretending he knows best.
Honestly, I was surprised that Hamlet wasn't a teenager. Hamlet is very much like Grendel, judging and throwing fits, and even the existential void. But, Hamlet is an adult. He is 30 years old... He should know better. He ought to be mature at this point.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern

For some reason, Hamlet really reminds me of Harry Potter. I think it’s just because some of the characters from Harry Potter movies play characters in Hamlet. What really struck me was that the same actor played Peter Pettigrew and Rosencrantz. Peter was Harry’s father, James’, friend throughout Hogwarts. Once they were all adults, and Voldemort was hunting for James and Lily Potter, Peter switched sides. He betrayed them. Peter told Voldemort where the Potters were hidden in order to save himself; it was for personal gain. Similarly, Rosencrantz is betraying Hamlet. Rosencrantz is spying on Hamlet for Claudius and Gertrude. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Hamlet’s friends; he should be able to trust them. The queen even says “And sure I am two men there is not living/ To whom he more adheres” (2;2;20). Essentially, the queen is saying that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are close friends of Hamlets. I wonder if this is really even true—were they good friends? Hamlet told Horatio about the ghost and even had Horatio help watch Claudius during the play. However, there isn’t any evidence that Hamlet told Rosencrantz and Guildenstern this same information. Did he not trust them?

Once Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are assigned to spy on him, Hamlet catches on to them rather quickly. Hamlet knew that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were trying to play him like a pipe, even calling them out for it from time to time. Hamlet clearly seemed to be the smarter one out of them. Hamlet even accuses Rosencrantz of being a sponge. Why? Well, a sponge would “soak up the king’s countenances, his rewards, his authorities…” just like Rosencrantz did, making him a sponge (4;2;15). Hamlet calls Rosencrantz out for being a sycophant. Of course, this made me wonder if they were trying to gain favor or if they just did as they were told all the time.

The King seems to use Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. He tells them to spy. He makes them take Hamlet to England. Does he tell them that Hamlet will die if he reaches England? I don’t think so. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, between their jokes about strumpets and blind obedience, don’t seem to be very smart. Hamlet knew what they were doing right away. He would have figured out if they were trying to kill him. Plus, if that were the case, if they were actually smart enough to help plan or execute a murder, they wouldn’t leave the note laying around. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were the pawns, meant to be used in the chess game between Claudius and Hamlet. After all, despite being friends, he is the one who sends them to their deaths in the end. He had told his mother they would be the cause of their own deaths. They fell on their own sword.

Overall, while I don’t strongly love or hate Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, I think their betrayal was low, and only proved they were never Hamlet’s true friends. Plus, they weren’t smart enough to be his enemies and know about the plan to have Hamlet killed. They were simply there to be used.

Hamlet and his Mother

Hamlet's relationship with his mother is tense throughout the first Act. He seems to listen to her, yet he clearly doesn’t respect her decision to re-marry. It is obvious that he listens to her, because when Claudius and Gertrude are telling him to stay, and not go back to school, he says he will “obey you, madam” to his mother (1.2.124). This implies that she is the only one he will listen to; he won’t obey his step-father/uncle. Thus, it is obvious that he still treats her as him mother; however, he no longer respects her. In his soliloquy he calls her a beast, and accuses her of incest. In his eyes, she has betrayed the late King Hamlet, his father. This is clear since in his soliloquy he mentions that she had cried for his father, but then a few months later, she is married to the uncle. Personally, I agree with the version of Hamlet we are watching in class. I think Gertrude was in love with Claudius even before the king died. At first I thought she just wanted to be queen, but after reading scene 5, I think it’s possible that she was cheating on Hamlet’s father with Claudius. The Ghost says she is “seeming-virtuous” which implies that it was an act—an illusion (1.5.53). I do realize, however, that the movie-version that we watched in class could have swayed my mind. I think Gerturude’s relationship with Claudius is strange, though, and I would love to find out what exactly happened—although I doubt I will. However, I’m not sure what to think of her relationship with Hamlet. I can’t tell if she cares about Hamlet or not. Did she help poison the king? I wonder because she tells Hamlet to stay. Is she just doing what Claudius tells her to? Does she actually want Hamlet to stay? Is she plotting with Claudius? All of these questions make me sympathize with Hamlet. His relationship with his mother must be incredibly complicated. Although I don’t agree with his sweeping declaration that “frailty thy name is woman,” I do understand his frustration. He sees his mother as weak; she re-married. Perhaps he thinks it was to keep the crown. I think he just doesn’t understand why she would move on from a god (his father) so quickly. I wonder if his relationship with his mother affects his relationship with Ophelia. We haven’t actually seen the two of them interact with each other yet, but hopefully Ophelia disobeys her father. Overall, Hamlet’s mother, Gertrude, confuses me quite a bit. I want to know how she was involved in everything, and what exactly is going on.