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.