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.

Ozymandias

Ozymandias

Percy Bysshe Shelley

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: `Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear --
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.' 

            First, Shelley’s use of two narrators also reminded me of Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley. In Frankenstein, there are circles of speakers. Similarly, in “Ozymandias,” there is the reader, the narrator, and the traveler.  I thought it was interesting that Percy Shelley would use this technique. Both works were written at about the same time: 1818. Since they were close, I’m assuming they shared ideas and, thus, used the same techniques.

Furthermore, Shelley, in “Ozymandias,” seems to mock Ozymandias.  He points out that the King once had everything, but is now left with absolutely nothing. At first, I wondered if Percy Shelley was a Christian. Ozymandias is the pharaoh Ramses the Great; Ramses is commonly mistaken for being the Pharaoh of the Exodus, but that was Ramses I. So, I initially wondered if Shelley was mocking the Pharaoh for his downfall. After looking it up, I realized, Ramses the Great was considered the “Great Ancestor” by most Egyptians after his time. He held multiple festivals, and his empire flourished during his time. Shelley was using him as an example that even a great pharaoh could fall. Ramses is mentioned in almost every excavation site within Egypt, proving his importance to Egyptian culture. He is the most famous pharaoh; He led many campaigns and even built cities. However, a couple thousand years later, he is left alone. He has nothing. He has no works to “Look on…” Shelley is using Ozymandias to comment on all of humanity. In a thousand years, nothing truly matters. None of Ramses’ great accomplishments affect the world now. He uses this example and applies it to all of humanity. None of humanity’s accomplishments matter over time. Humans have a fleeting impact within the world. Everyone, even the mighty, will fall. I see this as a rather pessimistic way of viewing the world. Percy Shelley, essentially, seems to be saying that nothing matters in the end. This view reminded me of the Dragon from Grendel a little bit—nothing matters. Either way, I’m not sure I want to believe it.

The Invisible Man

            The invisible man in Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man isn’t a superhero or a supervillan, at least not as of yet. He isn’t invisible due to magical powers but because people simply don’t notice him. He is invisible because most are completely unaware the he exists. Even where and how he lives goes unnoticed. This lack of attention is the reason he rebels and throws his little temper tantrum; he is similar to a teenager or toddler.

            The man is angry with the people who ignore him. He reacts violently, at first; even beating up one man. However, he realizes that he is like an apparition for them and decides against murder—he’s a saint, right? This initial reaction is one of rebellion. As if he is a misunderstood teenager, lashing out, or a small toddler, throwing a fit. Of course, I understand that his pain is much deeper, and that he does have a reason to be angry; I don’t, however, agree with his method of dealing with the world. The beginning starts at the end, hinting that this is how he ends up, so maybe he did try to fix the problem. However, he ends up passive-aggressively fighting the power of the sleep-walkers (those who don’t see him). He steals electricity and speaks about it as if it were the funniest prank. He laughs that the company must think it is going into the Harlem, although he lives just outside of it. He wires the inside of his home—I use this word since it is where he lives, but it’s really just an abandoned space—and fills it up with light. The light represents knowledge and good in the world, especially since he specifically states that the brightest places in the city lack it. His comment means that New York City lacks the knowledge that would allow people to see him. Anyways, he is, essentially, filling his home up with knowledge. My problem is that he doesn’t share it. This invisible man sees the injustices of the world and gathers knowledge, yet he doesn’t do anything about it. Maybe I am judging him too harshly, but I hope he speaks out at least at one point during the novel. I’m not sure what he is waiting for.

            The invisible man constantly says he is hibernating. Hibernation implies that the animal will one day awaken and come into action. Thus, if the invisible man in in hibernation right now, then at some point, he must come alive and do something. At least, that is what I’m hoping. The hibernation does, however, confuse me a little bit. If this is the end, then I’m really curious as to what happened to him. He says he is going to share his story, but I think it’s odd that somebody would end up in hibernation. Usually, a protagonist will start off in a resting state and then come to action as things unfold. However, it seems as if the invisible man will be forced back into a hole by the things that happen to him. He literally lives in a hole by the end.

            Honestly, the novel is interesting so far, but I can’t wait for more to happen. The prologue has made me curious as to what the man’s backstory is. It’s also interesting because it starts at the end, causing multiple questions to arise; most of these will hopefully be answered at some point in the novel.