last one I promise...

ok... the hours. I know rewind, right? but yeah so I think the hours was a pretty chill book. I don't really feel like there was much I could get out of it. the one thing worth while was the style it was written ("an ordinary mind in an ordinary day") but the plot wasn't to astonishing nor the characters. Just typical people which is the obvious goal of the author. But yeah nothing too special. I wish I could say it was jaw dropping. but I do like the perspective the author gives on life a death and all the simplicities and complexities that lie between. so I appreciated it for the most part. but couldn't something cooler happen on this ordinary day... nothing. she bought flowers.

House of the Seven... what?

I think that I should get an "A" for being the first studen tin the history of this blogto use a picture in their post. Automatic extra credit. But yeah when I picked this book out I didn't know what a gable was. But yeah I know now... took me a while. It's a good thing that it wasn't a very critical part in the book beause I probably would have missed the whole main idea.

But moving on the book is simply a disappointment not because the actually book was bad but the fact companieslike Disney and Pixar did their best to ruin it for us all. I knew I recognized the plot once they began describiing the house with human characteristics. Sound familiar??? Of course it does. But it is still an awesome story and I recommend it to anyone looking for an awesome story that is a fairly easy to read. Have fun team...

Insanity is a sandwich sign hung on the shoulders of people who refuse to adhere to society. I will not discount the people whose brain fails to see the message the way that their optic nerve received it, like a horrible game of telephone. There are real crazy people in the world, but I can’t help but to come to the conclusion that Shakespeare either did not believe in insanity or he really found the root of craziness in those who society has deemed sane. I think that the illustrations of both Hamlet and Ophelia are very much parallel. Both have lost a father and both have lost trust in someone that they had previously held very dear to them. Although Hamlet’s soliloquies and Ophelia’s singing seem a bit pathetic and overdone, this is a drama and humans can only function with a certain number of feet on the ground; when the two characters are leveled, their feet swept out from under them, there is not much keeping the bleak horizon from closing in. For both characters, this condition is not their fault. Hamlet’s father is killed by his mother and uncle and he is enlightened of the occurrence through his father’s ghost. Ophelia’s father is stabbed to death by the man she thought was the love of her life. Both are betrayed by other people, and I think that this desolate existence is what Shakespeare was trying to depict. Not only do I think it pertains to the two lovers, but I think that it is the way that Shakespeare sees the human condition. In some ways, death is not the greatest agony, sometimes life is. Hamlet and Ophelia, undermined by the wickedness of humankind, are turned to face death as a way to be “shuffled off this mortal coil”. We complain and suffer at the hands of other humans, and even insanity can be attributed to the incompetence, ruthlessness, and greediness of people around us.

Shakespeare is a crowd pleaser. If he lived today, he would be rocking the mushroom pants, the puffy sleeves and the ruffled shirts down the red carpet. He would not be the guy making the boring documentaries or the trashy reality television shows, he would be the writing the screenplays that are making millions of dollars at the box office. He never fails to tell a story that keeps you on the edge of your seat. Incest, death, violence, lust, love, lunacy, suicide, anger, and execution… what more could he have possibly packed in there? The story is still alive. But the fact that this is the where the English language comes from baffles me. How we got from there to here seems like the jump from Neanderthal to Homo Sapien- or maybe the backwards jump- but I feel like somewhere in there has to be the missing link. Shakespeare writes in a foreign time period where people spoke the way the he wrote.

Ending it with Blood

This book, personally, was quite interesting. Sex, murder, and suicide took place in practically everyone of the scenes. I'm still trying to decide if Hamlet was absolutly crazy though. When looking back to when it all started, I honestly think it was all an act but I kind of want to hear what everyone else thinks...so post those comments!!
Good Book...Crappy Movie

Pretending

There is a lot of pretending going on in this play. Hamlet acting mad, tha actors acting out the murder, the king acting innocent, and so on. Shakespeare is trying to represent all of the acting that goes on in real life, people pretending to be who they really aren't just to conform into the society they live in. Shakespeare doesn't believe in this. First of all, all of the fake characters end up dead. Horatio who has been true doesn't die. We see that even if short gains are made by covering oneself up it isn't worth in the end. Also, most conspicuous is Polonius message to Laretes "be true to thine ownself". A prominent theme that Shakespeare reinforces throughout the play. The question Hamlet askx, "To be or not to be" is a question that each of must answer everyday. all of the characters face this question and some chosae truth and some chose false.
Additionally, I think the use of actors in the play make the play seem more real to the audience. It connects them with the characters because they can say, hey, thery're watching a play just like I am, this could happen in my life. Because Shakespeare makes his play seem more realistic to the viewers, his themes resonate all the stronger. We can see a little bits of ourselves in each of the characters and that causes us to reevalueate them and ourselves. However, he also uses royalty to paint a more intense drama and keep a little separation between entertainment and real life. I liked this play because of the drama and action portrayed by conflict between the true and fake characters.

Inevitable Death

To me it seems that a large part of Hamlet's meaning lies in the inevitablity of death. Hamlet explores this when questioned about the whereabouts of Polonius's corpse 4.3.21-28. As well as in the scene where he comes across the gravediggers, and comes to face the skull of the old jester. I think that this inevitablity is also where a large part of the purpose in killing almost all of the characters at the end is. At the end all the characters regardless of political standing, effort, or gender all die. Characters that labored away to achieve high reaching goals, regardless of how hard they struggle die. Claudius works to become the king, Hamlet & Laertes to avenge their fathers' murders, etc. All of them die. They are all equalized and become food for the worms and maggots. The amount of effort they put into life, the stature they achieved, etc. nothing can prevent their death. All men are equal before the reaper's scythe. I think that this is one of the most important central themes.

ok, for real this time; Death

one of the views that we see on death, is that death is the great equalizer of all time. Like Hamlet says in the scene where he is watching the gravedigger sing while he works, he says that the skull that the gravedigger tosses out of the grave might have been a very wealthy, very prominent man, and now they are being tossed around as if the gravedigger were playing "loggets" (5,1,94) with them. Another way that he puts it, is that one of the skulls he throws out, might have been able to sing when it was living, is dashed to the ground as if " 'twere Cain's jawbone" (5,1,79). It's seen, then, that it doesn't matter where you are in the social status, you will end up the same as the most benevolent king, even it you are the poorest, dirtiest peasant.

Stayed is The Hand...

through out Hamlet there is hesitation and its counter rash action. Too little tought leads to, acording to shakespeare to, tragedy and heated revenge but, too much tought stays the hand and leaves one's plan gone to waste. Hamlet demonstrates the worst of both worlds he wounds his "brother" and "kills" Ophelia with a rash choice but leaves him, his mother and others slain through his lack of action and too much thought.

Death from Above

As many would agree with me, this play seems to revolve around the idea of death, in many different ways. There is death from suicide, assination, manslaughter, and just mere bad luck leading to death. I can understand, from Shakespeare time, that death was a very prevalent. There was the plague, which happend to kill almost a third of the population in Europe alone. Then there were public hangings and decapatations, random duels leading one dead, and one mostlikely stabbed or hacked. Also, after Polonius' death Hamlet states the cycle of life, and how a begger may end up eating a king, by having the king burried where he is decomposing and worms start to eat the king. The worm is then picked and used for fishing bait, where the fish eats the worm, and the fish is then stolen from a stand by a begger, who is unknowingly eating the once alive King. All in all, when I was first informed that we were going to read Hamlet, I was not looking forward to it, but I enjoyed the play thoroughly even with all the death in it. I'm sure if i grew up in those times, I would have more prevalently found myself thinking of death, or I would be more acceptable of death.

shakespears to be or not to be.

its funny to read others talk about why hamlet hesitated to kill the king, and of what becomes of the rest of the characters because of that hesitation, what role does fate play in the play? :) these are all questions that Shakespear had to answer and consider when writting his tragedy. the tradgedy part pretty much answers the questions its self. shakespear chose not to be for his characters, the beauty of the play is the development of the plot, the time line in which the story unfolds and the situations Shakespear creats to allow his characters to be.

oh Hamlet

facebook... ha ha never. this is way better than facebook. the only problem is no chat... ha ha. but moving on. I think that Hamlet is a really pathetic guy. honestly. you see this same type of drama on Jerry Springer. (not to this extreme) but non the least they have weird family issues that usually involve murder and incest. so I think he over reacted for sure. and too be honest I'm glad he died. it was like karma. that's what you get for trying to kill other people, one day you have to die yourself. and I think Ophelia croaking over, was also payback for hamlet's over reaction. He needed to chill out and understand that it's hard to lose your dad. and especially when your uncle is the one that kills him. but he could have acted a little bit more mature like. talked to him about it, have him admit it, then kill him. but you don't have to do all this crazy manipulation because then neither win. and that is made evident when they both die at the end along with hamlet's mom and true love frined and foe. what wieners.

Death, Love, Betrayal and Horrid Facial Hair

This play is most definitely ranked higher in my book of books than any other novel we have read in this class, sorry Lavender. There was a lot more action and a lot more drama to keep me completely entertained.

"Love"
The romance in this novel is not as important of a part as the other themes, however it is present. The only true romance is between Ophelia and Hamlet, the feelings between the King and Queen are fake and disgusting. Ophelia and Hamlet do truly love each other, however, his act at being insane ruins their relationship. There is love between the family members but it is a different kind of love obviously. Hamlet loved his father and that is what drives him to end the life of his father's killer. Laertes loved his father and sister and that is what pushed him to want to destroy Hamlet. The family bonds are very strong in this novel and I admire that.

"Betrayal"
The family bonds are strong, however, Claudius is an exception to that. He put power ahead of the love for his brother and nephew. After betraying his brother by poisoning him and stealing his thrown, he attempts to murder his suspicious nephew, Hamlet. I hate Claudius for everything he put his family through. I blame everything on him. Had he not murdered his brother, Hamlet would not have pretended to be crazy and drive Ophelia to suicide. Polonius wouldn't have been hiding from Hamlet and wouldn't have been slain. All of these peoples deaths can resort back to Claudius' mistake.

"Death"
Shakespeare seems to always have the main character die, he thoroughly enjoys it I am convinced. I do think that all of these deaths were necessary though. It adds onto the betrayal idea. The consequences of betrayal and murder are proven to be extreme at times.

Death

deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathd
eathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathde
athdeathisprevelentinHamletyadeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdea
thdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeat
hdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath

.... nead i say more?

???

throughout the play hamlet is found thinking about what to do more than actually doing something, i think he could have been more decisive. But i do see why its not like that, it keeps your mind racing and it keeps you reading. I was very satisfied with the whole play, especially the ending, i love how its not like everything else that ends all happy. The ending is brutual and amazing, its so cool how eveyone just gets poisoned and dies. It could have had a little more action, but it was good. I love how sick and twisted this play is, the uncle kills the dad then picks up the mom. Its so f***ed up and i really love it. I love how it was a play within a play that was pretty crazy. There wasnt really anything i didnt like it had sex,violence and some crazy twists. GOOD PICK LAV DAWG

Hamlet

Overall, I really enjoyed this book. It has some very interesting plot and themes to it. I by far thought the play inside the play was one of the best scenes. "The Mouse Trap" was a perfect way to show that the king was guilty and to put the pressure on him. Hamlet does an amazing job with his revenger, although it doesn't exactly go as plan. I can't believe that Shakespeare killed off so many people it the end. It was just so strange with all of the poison going around. It was done very well in the book, but the movie not so much. It was way too cheesy. Overall I think this is probably my favorite book that we have read so far. It's got some very interesting characters, some pretty out there scenes. It was a fun read and i'm excited to write an actual paper on it.

We're All Fodder

Towards the end of Act Four when Hamlet arrives at the revelation that all beings are one in the same; the web of life is all that connects us as creatures living on Earth. When being interrogated as to the whereabouts of Palonius’ corpse Hamlet describes the cycle of life quite poignantly, “…we fat all creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots.” Inevitably we all survive off each other, we fatten up the cows to drink their milk and eat their meat, and we die after surviving off the cow and feed the decomposers below. Each species is interconnected and relies upon one another. This theme of things and people being connected is developed further when Hamlet delves into the realm of insanity after his father’s death, this lunacy eventually leaves Palonius’ bloody, morbid corpse lying motionless on the floor after Hamlet stabs him. Ophelia hears of her father’s death and is also driven insane, the loss of her beloved father is too much to bear just like Hamlet. This madness is eventually the death of both Hamlet and Ophelia. The insanity also indirectly steals the life of Claudius, Gertrude, Laertes, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and Palonius, in the end Hamlet’s obsession with his father’s death and taking revenge inevitably leaves each main character in the play lifeless. This fascination serves as the web that connects each character, like the web that connects each species; the web of life.

Hammy

Personally, i thoroughly enjoyed Hamlet. The themes it addressed kept me intrigued and my mind wondering. I found the familial aspect and the respect for royal blood to be my main point of focus. The obligations and desires of each family member send the plot spiraling downward to one final, climactic scene; the fencing match between Laertes and Hamlet. This scene depicts everything Shakespeare was trying to convey with this work. The struggle between life and death, hesitation, and absolutes.
The introduction of Fortinbras and his ability to act brashly provides the plot with two ends to a spectrum. You have Fortinbras who conquers Denmark on a whim, without hesitation, and then you have Hamlet, who cannot act without first thinking the situation over deeply, often resulting in overthinking, which then results in a missed opportunity and a contribution to his self-destruction.

NOTHING to do with Hamlet!

Due to tech problems...this is simply a test to see if anything of mine will blog...

Playing with the Kings Mind

I had a very strong attraction to the scene where Hamlet calls out the king on killing his father. I feel like this is a crucial scene in the play and makes the intesity level of the murder increase a mass amount. In the beggining of the book the intensity of the murder just wasn't there but once Hamlet found out that his uncle killed his father, the intesity level rose. This is seen when Hamlet directed a play for his mother and father to test their strenghth on the death of Hamlets father. If the King got uncomfortable Hamlet would know for sure that his uncle killed his father and if he didn't he either had to find a new way to make Claudius show his weakness or just have to go with the fact that Claudius was telling the truth. Without this scene I think that the play would be ruined because this one main scene really starts off the whole Uncomfortable.

hesitation

throughout the play i was very annoyed with Hamlet's inability to make decisions. A great amount of the play was just him thinking about what to do. In my opinion, it was much too long and could have been more enjoyable without someo fthe pointless seeming dialogue. Hamlet does think too much. Given the circumstances i'd think there would not be another option besides revenge. I guess i feel that the story is somewhat weak in that regard, also it does nothing for me to know that these events about a real place have fake characters and they didnt really happen.

The Mind

"Frailty, thy name is woman." I absolutely love that line. Though I disagree with it, as it stands there, completely alone. The reason humans can be "frail" or strong is the mind. The essence of thought is what can make a person waver; thoughts can be the poison that slowly kill us. Hamlet had no intention of going mad. (Then again, who does?) Then again, it is almost like telling yourself a lie so much that you begin to believe that it is true! I truly do believe that Hamlet does go mad, because he is allowing his mind to corrupt every situation. A man of thought, his actions are consequently insane! Without the power of thought, we would be nothing. Civilization would not exist. I am not ridiculing the power of the mind, but I am asking if Shakespeare was aware of how fragile the mind could be. Under certain stress -the loss of a loved one, the desire for revenge, the images of ghosts appearing to you and only you- there are limitations that the mind can and cannot handle. Because the mind is so capable of brilliance, do we often overlook the fragile qualities? Action is a result of thinking, and, in Hamlet's case, hesitation is the result of over-thinking. Do we bring madness upon ourselves? Is this tragedy the idea of human psychology and the result of trauma being insanity, always? Do we not see Laertes go mad with the want of revenge? Polonius mad with a twisted jealousy? (In the sense that he could not fathom Hamlet taking Ophelia to his bed, because he was an overprotective father.) Do we see a hint of remorse in Gertrude at the end, when she can quite clearly hear the despair in Claudius' voice yet she still drinks the poisoned drink, and this remorse causes severe action of suicide? Is Ophelia not mad with anger and betrayal? Who in the play does not give into the weakness of their own mind?

betrayal

Betrayal seems a common theme through out the play Hamlet. Hamlet, betrayed by his father (sort of, not intentionally) is left to deal with the betrayal of his mother and his uncle. Their incestuous relationship sickens the prince and his grief for his father's death only grows. Although, Hamlet is not the only one betrayed. His uncle in ways is betrayed by him. At first, true he might be plotting against his nephew but there is also a hint of acceptance that this man who is younger than him will one day be the king of denmark. Claudius was alsto betrayed by Rozancrantz and Guldenstern, but in turn so was Hamlet. The pair made out fine until, they themselves were returned with betrayal from Hamlet in letter to England. Laertes suffers the most, maybe not of betrayal but of misfortune because of betrayal. The death of his father directly has a part in Claudius' betrayal of Hamlet and the death of his sister also has a part in Hamlet's own betrayal of Ohpelia (and Polonius' betrayal of his own daughter in not letting her love who she pleased.) Being a tragedy, all betrayal comes to an end when the characters are found dying off quickly and by the means of poison and trickery-turned-bad. The only person not to die, ironically is Horatio, the only character who has lived sincerely, without betrayal through out the entire play. He has stuck to Hamlet's side and knows everything, the only one who knows the truth. So maybe this scews the idea of tragedy?

Madness

Obviously madness plays a very large part in Shakespeare's play Hamlet, however the madness that pervades throughout both the play and the characters isn't all the same.  First we have the guards, the men who see the ghost first.  Since ghosts are more a figment of the imagination than an actual thing, this is the first place we see madness.  This scene is  very important for setting the stage for the rest of the play.  This scene introduces the madness that will be seen throughout the play.  The next place we see madness is when Hamlet talks to the ghost.  Again we have a character essentially talking to himself.  This scene sets the stage for Hamlet's future madness, although Hamlet decides that he will pretend to be mad, there is a certain level of real madness that Hamlet experiences.  Hamlet's madness, like Ophelia's stems not from a biological predisposition, but rather from grief.  The loss of his father and the quick remarriage by his mother causes Hamlet much grief.  Instead of using typical outlets for that grief Hamlet begins to hallucinate, he convinces himself that in order to avenge his father he must pretend to be crazy, he must bring hardship to his life and to the lives of those around him.  Furthermore, his craziness leads him to place blame, while the blame isn't baseless, it's not entirely proved either.  Hamlet's craziness leads to anger, frustration, and the need for revenge.  The typical trio for men.  On the other side of the spectrum we have Ophelia's madness.  Her madness stems from grief as well.  However, instead of looking to avenge her father, her craziness results in suicide.  Ophelia and Hamlet's craziness both stem from grief and their end result, whether intentional or unintentional, brings pain to those around them.  

I believe that Shakespeare used his character's craziness to provide insight into both their character's minds as well as gender differences that are seen in everything.  The fact that he had the two lovers Ophelia and Hamlet go mad shows the two sides of craziness, the violent and conniving side, as well as the depressed and suicidal side.  I believe Shakespeare's overall theme was grief, but the way that he chose to represent his theme was through madness.  Hamlet, was a way for Shakespeare to explore grief to it's fullest extent.  

Hamlet

I thoroughly enjoyed Hamlet. I actually found the writing extremely interesting and the themes very poignant. With Kirk reading them I often found myself trying to read it before he got there so I could better understand them (even then I failed occasionally). The majority of the meaning, came out of the class discussions. My personal favorite passages were the now infamous "To be or not to be" sollioquoy and the passage about "the fall of the sparrow"

To me they really exemplified the language and themes of the play. In the passage "To be or not to be..." Hamlet really explores the meaning of life and suicide, which often leads to actors over-playing the speech, and in "the fall of the sparrow" he discusses fate and the inevitability of death, which in itself is kind of a throw back to the "To be or not to be..."

The meanings behind these two passages leads me to a question though, why has every book we read since Jane Eyre dealt with suicide, at least theorhetically? I mean, Madame Bovary Emma kills herself, Flaubert's Parrot Braithwaite's wife killed herself, Mrs. Dalloway Septimus kills himself and Clarissa considers it, The Hours Richard kills himself, Laura Brown considered it, and Virginia Woolf killed herself (although that is a historical fact), and now Hamlet Ophelia kills herself and Hamlet considers it many times. I'm just trying to figure this out.

Back to Hamlet, I have to acknowledge that supplementing the reading with watching Kenneth Brannagh's version really helped.

A great work...

At first, Hamlet was nothing more than a slur of words put together that, to some, was a work of literary genius.  I did not see the attraction, however.  I could not grasp anything that was going on, and for the most part picked out the overall message and theme.  After making way through the book, however, I began to appreciate the novel, page-by-page, and understood what the rave was about.  In Hamlet, and presumably his other works, Shakespeare employs many intricate, albeit gruesome themes and scenes, through his thoughtful, well-written acts.  The writing is what is most intriguing to me about Shakespeare's works.  The tediousness that Shakespeare uses in Hamlet is evident within his work.  I really enjoy having to contemplate what I just read, finding the deeper meaning within his comprehensive sentences.  In Hamlet there is plenty of room to be able to do this.  Shakespeare's word choice and sentence formation is unrivaled in modern literature.

Although I like Shakespeare's writing, his story line is hard to accept.  The number of people that are offed seems to be almost too much.  In the last scene, we see the end of most of the major characters of the play.  Could this be because Shakespeare needed to end the play in tragedy form, or did he just get bored and found an end to his extensive play?  Was this the norm for the time?  I'm sure whatever the reason, it was a good reason.  This does not, however, satisfy my need for an ending.  To me, it just seemed like there was too much death, and not enough happiness.  Shakespeare could have done many other things with the characters at the end, but instead found it easier to simply kill all of them.

Nonetheless, I truly enjoyed this play.  Many aspects of this play are very admirable in the literary world, and there is no wonder in my mind why Hamlet is revered in the literary world.

Hesitation

Hamlet's inability to act, and his over hastiness, has dire consequences for every character in the play, and indeed gives this "tragedy" its obsession with death. If he had been able to kill Claudius when he was at prayer, Polonius would not have been killed, Ophelia wouldn't have been driven insane, and Laertes and Hamlet would not have killed each other. But instead, unlike Fortinbras, he finds himself a man of thought rather than action, which as Shakespeare believes what makes us human, rather than animal, and the product of an intelligent man. He finds himself unable to commit the many dirty plans that he has quickly laid out for Claudius to fall upon, but when given multiple chances, he fails to act. I am a person of action, often rashly and impulsivly, though usually preceeded by some thought, I know that opportunity goes away at the drop of a coin. Yes, when someone makes a choice, they close many other doors, but if you wait, all of your options go away, and you are forced to do something that you didn't conceive of before.

The Lovely Destruction

The familial relationships throughout "Hamlet" lead to revenge and death. The family unit is so twisted and warped throughout "Hamlet", it is outrageous. Shakespeare has a brother killing his other brother to get at his wife, and two sons bent on revenging their father’s deaths. It seems as though none of the characters can trust one another, and eventually all of their scheming turns around and is their undoing. In "Hamlet", love is a direct path to destruction, and the presence of any type of devotion ultimately leads to death. It starts with Claudius, jealous of Hamlet Sr.’s marriage with Gertrude, deciding to murder the King. Because of Hamlet Sr.’s death, Hamlet turns against his mother and uncle out of fury and grief. Hamlet’s love for his father leads him on a path of destruction, and his grief from the loss of his father inadvertently sets off a chain reaction with all the other characters, causing them to fall to their doom. His love kills Polonius, which makes Laertes mad with grief. His love destroys Ophelia, first breaking her heart by “deflowering” her and then proceeding to drive her mad with the death of her father. It seems the only character unaffected by the entire tragic scheme is Horatio, who has no family connections in the play, and because of just being an onlooker, he is the only character left alive at the end of the novel. Perhaps Shakespeare is trying to highlight the problems love can cause once it turns around and becomes evil. Love breeds revenge and jealousy, which are both present in the play in familial relationships or other types of connections between the characters.

insanity

Hamlet and Ophelia are both as crazy as one could get. Although Hamlets is feigned, he does a very good job playing the part. It would be so hard to be act insane the whole time but Hamlet pulls it off with ease. He is very convincing with his skills in acting crazy. Ophelia on the other hand, is a psycho. When she hears of the news that her father has been killed, it sends her off the deep end and into the looney bin. I know that dealing with a fathers death would be one of the hardest things to cope with, but for the death to lead to insanity, you would have to be very very close with your father. Ophelia and Hamlet are in two completely different situations, situations that they both do not want to be in. Hamlet wants people to think he has gone mad but he really has not, and Ophelia is a psycho but doesnt want people to think this. All in all, this book has been a fun read, especially towards the end with all of the different drama going on.

"Sex and Violence"

The combination of lust and murder throughout Hamlet creates clashing outlooks for the female roles. Although there Shakespeare crams a lot of themes into his plays, which make the tales of Romeo and Juliette, Taming of the Shrew and many other Shakespearean stories relevant to contemporary life, the overall acknowledgement of women in Hamlet, does seem more negative than that of today.
Right off the bat Gertrude is perceived as an “incestuous” bride for marrying within a month of Hamlet’s father’s death (Act 1.2). The audience never hears a soliloquy or independent speech that givers Gertrude’s point of view. Even though she probably doesn’t deserve it, there is never time to find out whether or not there is true love between her and Claudius. It is all from Hamlet, the man’s point of view, and women are initially seen as deceiving and “whore-like.” We never really get to understand what Gertrude’s motives and involvement were with the death of her husband, it almost seems as if her reputation as a character is sought after more than the power hungry Claudius. It is evident from the initial introduction of Gertrude that women are not perceived as they are today (which is partly due to the fact that it was in the era, but isn’t Shakespeare supposed to be this genius who writes meaningful plays that have lasted for centuries as a form of “excellent writing??)
Then there is Ophelia. Between her brother telling her that Hamlet’s love will be short lived, her father conspiring against her lover with her letters, and Hamlet telling her to go to a “nunnery” (Act 3.1), it is no surprise she is driven mad. Ophelia’s mistreatment and her road to madness makes me give a second thought to Shakespeare’s motives. Shakespeare obviously understood the public disdain and mistreatment towards women or it wouldn’t have been included in his plays, however by having Ophelia go mad is he trying to represent how it’s surprising that all women don’t go mad because of all the discrimination during this era? I don’t know how if I want to give him credit for this because throughout the play Hamlet’s is constantly calling his mother and Ophelia whores as well as metaphorically integrating it into the rest of his language.
In a roundabout sort of way this comes back to the combination of lust and murder throughout the play. In between all the discrimination of women there is all this violence succumbed by the essence of love. Ophelia drowning herself and Gertrude remarrying so quickly cause turmoil that has the potential to turn dangerous. I wonder if Shakespeare had some kind of “hater-feelings” against the actuality of love and blamed women for it. But at the same time it seems that Shakespeare could have considered the fact that because of society’s indiscrimination it wasn’t entirely women’s fault that they invoked corruption, and in a sense Shakespeare intended to give most women credit for not going mad and drowning themselves. The many messages distributed throughout Hamlet can all be seen from different point of views, was Hamlet mad or was he faking it, are women viewed as “whores” or actually accredited in a “hidden” meaning (if they should be accredited why should it even be hidden??), no matter what the true meaning Shakespeare definitely had some talent up his sleeve.

Madness

It's pretty strange, the difference between Hamlet's "madness" and Ophelia honest-to-goodness craziness. I mean, Hamlet's idea of going crazy was just to be rude and crude and generally tick people off, whereas Ophelia was prancing around, singing about this and that, honestly being insane. When Hamlet goes "mad," his friends and family do what they can to try and figure out the caue of his craziness, but to no avail. They can never figure out what was this impetus for his disturbance, and he does very little to show what's bothering him (that is, until the actors come to town). Ophelia, however, has no problem letting everyone around know what's on her mind and what's bothering her. She sings on and on about her father and his grave and so on and so forth. Hamlet's fake insanity was angry and vengeful. Ophelia's real insanity was pure and honest, and much more sad.
I don't really have a main idea that I'm trying to convey here, I'm just musing. Maybe the type of insaity suffered by Hamlet and Ophelia reflects the cause of their respective insanities? Because Hamlet's was fake, a part of a vendetta scheme, his craziness was louder, causing him to say vulgar things, and just generally be a nuisance. Ophelia's craziness, however, was true, and the effect of suddenly having her father killed, not in an attempt to avenge him. Perhaps this shows the innocence of the characters? Hamlet was a sneakier person, while Ophelia represented a purer person? I don't know, really, haha.

Love and Madness

Hamlet, hmmm...where to start. Although, the play was hard to understand at first throughout the play the development of the madness in the character caught my greatest attention.  Lets face it, Hamlet is a crazy person who I would run away from if I saw him.  The cause of all of the madness through Ophelia and Hamlet is a result of loss of love and compassion from someone.  Hamlet starts to go mad after the death of his father and the discovery of how the King murdered his father.  Shakespeare shows the value of love and the impact of broken trust through the deterioration of Hamlet's relationships which caused him to go mad.  The strongest and most psychotic breakdown of Hamlet was after he killed Polonius and after the altercation he partakes in with Ophelia.  Shakespeare creates the split-personality of Hamlet to show the dimension and true impact and value of love.  With the love of family and that "special person" life seems to have more meaning, Shakespeare had the loss of his father affect Hamlet so greatly to show his point.  The destruction of Ophelia and Hamlet's relationship was a result of Hamlet's mental breakdown. The result of the lack of intimacy and love that Hamlet provides for Ophelia drives her literally insane.  Ophelia and Hamlet are put in the same mental state as they have both experienced the grave sorrow of the loss of a father.  Why does Shakespeare have them both lose a father and then go crazy? To attract more influence on the importance of family relations and the impact of love.  I will admit that I had a hard time keeping my attention toward Hamlet.  With all of the crazy nonsense of Hamlet's tantrums and the unpredictable deaths written in Shakespearian ways, it was hard for me to follow at times.  There is a lot of crazy behavior, which  Shakespeare intended to draw attention to the lack of love and the drive for power in a corrupt system.  

To Act or Not to Act

Are the consequences of acting hastily worse than those from acting too late? In so many things, a split-second hesitation and all is lost. But reckless action can have a devastating aftermath. When Hamlet kills Polonius in a thoughtless blunder, it leads to the insanity and death of Ophelia, and Laertes’ and Hamlet’s duel and subsequent deaths, which results in the queen’s poisoning. Thus Shakespeare seems to feel that mindless action is certainly the wrong path to take. But if Hamlet hadn’t hesitated, when before he holds his dagger above the praying king, none of those terrible events would ever have occurred. So does Shakespeare think deliberation is worse? The only problem with compulsively murdering Claudius for Hamlet was that his uncle would have gone to heaven. Yet afterwards Claudius says his prayers didn’t reach heaven anyway. Perhaps with this irony Shakespeare chooses wild action over thoughtful indecision, and just rubs in it Hamlet’s face.

Hesitation

Hamlet's hesitation at the one point when he had a chance to kill Claudius is what really turned the whole play into a tragedy and not just a tale of revenge. Hamlet cannot find the will to act, he makes excuses over and over in his head just to refrain from acting. However, it seems that his inability, at least the way Shakespeare presents it, is instead a product of being such an intellectual man. It's clear from the way he devises all these plans to trap Claudius that he thinks quickly and clearly and can easily conceive a complex plan, then act upon it. But when it comes to actual dirty deeds himself, he cannot commit. This strange split, of how he can act when it is not needed (Of course he knows Claudius is guilty, he doesn't need more and more proof), and to not be able to act when it is needed. In some cases his hesitation could be a benefit, maybe if he wasn't sure (he hadn't been visited by a ghost perhaps) then this hesitation could save an innocent life, but being a person of action myself, (Though often preceded by thoughts) I do believe that hesitation only destroys opportunity. When someone makes a choice they close the door on thousands of other options, but they do commit to one path, when someone hesitates they instead close the door on every single possibility and leave themselves stranded.

Death

From the start of the play it is already based off of the tragedy of the death of the King. From here this is what the play’s plot is based off of and Shakespeare incorporates death in the play as the main theme. It is not just death, it is the whole process, for some it is the tragedies that makes Ophelia drown her self, and then it is the drive that makes Hamlet want to get revenge for his father. Through the whole process of getting revenge there is a lot of accidents. Is this Shakespeare just trying to be funny? Or is he showing how revenge is not the answer and that in the end it is not worth it and everyone will suffer in the end. Really Shakespeare is showing that you should not take the law into your own hands because the out come is not worth it. The repetition of death throughout the play is Shakespeare’s way of showing that revenge is not the answer.

acting within acting

Hamlet is a play within itself. All the characters are putting on acts over their true selves. Essentially the play is about acting, which is what a play is. Hamlet and Ophelia both develop insanity, although Hamlets insanity is feigned. Ophelia's insanity develops when she finds out that her father has been killed. Hamlet reenacts the murder of his father in the form of a play that he puts on to the king. Even though Hamlet has clearly stated to the king that he knows that he killed his father, the king acts as if nothing is amiss. The queen realizes that Hamlet is calling her out for being a tramp and she reacts by ignoring it. Polonius understands the circumstances but does not take a stand and call the king out. It is ironic that he is the only one who could of proved the kings crime when Hamlet is the one who killed him. Hamlet is not insane although thats what he wants people to believe, Ophelia is completely insane although she would like people to believe her not to be.

Family Relations

In Hamlet the familial relationships play a role of crazy, twisted, not in line at all, and disheveled just like families are supposed to be, or at least how normal families are.  So this story to me isn't one that is out of the ordinary, except for the section of the book where everyone does at the same time.  Between son and father the connection seemed to be just fine, as well as the son and mother connection.  What came to be confusing just like kids are all over the world, is when one of their single parents gets remarried.  Like Hamlet when his father dies and his mother remarries to Hamlet's uncle.  Such as confused kids are when this happens to them in their normal everyday lives, is the question...does the son or daughter call him "Dad"?, which is a word that some get rushed into saying way too quickly because they feel that they need to.  That they might feel that they won't have a normal family if there isn't both a "Mother" and a "Father" in the household.  The main thing that I enjoyed about Hamlet's character was that he thought things freely, did what he wanted, said what he wanted, said what he was thinking, said it whenever he wanted, and kept it real throughout this novel.

Tragedy? Or not....

Alright, so yes this play claims to be a tragedy, and yes loosing your father and then having your mom marry your uncle and having your uncle trying to kill you is slightly tragic, however there seems to be a lot of jest for this to be 100% sad. Both Ophelia's and Hamlet's madness, while it could be disheartening, is actually quite funny. I could be dead inside, but I'm sorry Ophelia's little scene of singing was quite funny (and no, not because of Meghan's singing, she actually acted the part of "mad woman singing" nicely, Bravo Meg). In comparison, Hamlet's little show of madness (or actual madness, that's yet to be discussed) is also comical; his interactions with Ophelia's father cause slight chuckling. "Ha-ha". In fact, even the "tragic" scenes leave a bit of comical residue, "I've been slain", and yes, I'm sure Shakespeare did not intend to make us laugh with that one-liner, but in modern times, it's one-liners like that that knock us on our back. Also, Laertes's oh so dull response to his sister's death, "Ah so she hath drowned" (I apologize for that last line not being authentic, the book is in my car...and my car is outside, you catch my drift). All of this is funny, not sad! Not even the end, a mass homicide, is that sad. Perhaps back in the day of Billy all of this was tear-jerking. Maybe back then everyone had a little more empathy for the poor little prince whose life has been turned upside down. Maybe us nowadays are just dead inside. This I highly doubt, given we're the only generation of people I know that cry at shows like Friends or Finding Nemo, oh the sadness of them no longer drawing that mama fish. Back then, when front row seats were poor peasants sitting on the ground, I highly doubt they were feeling empathy for Hamlet the prince. (That's me assuming the emotion of bitter resentment has been around for that long). Basically what I'm getting out through this sarcastic rant is that Hamlet was damn funny...really not that sad, and I'm assuming that the people back then also found bits and pieces of the play amusing. However, we still call it a tragedy...maybe we could shift that? Maybe it could be like a half-n-half pizza; half tragedy, half comedy, split the face right down the middle make a little laugh, little cry.

Mad

Hamlet uses his “madness” to his own advantage. He becomes an island of a man by making everyone think he is mad so they will not come near him. He acts flamboyant, loud, and spastic; spewing out complicated ramblings. To others he becomes unpredictable and they are afraid of what he will say next. Because of this they tend to stay away from him. It is not real. He is trying it to separate himself from the court and anyone else who might bother him or get in his way. He desires his alone time. On the other hand, Ophelia’s madness is defiantly real and not planned at all. She has emotionally collapsed and her brain has gone with it. She is delusional and acts unexplainable and sings for no apparent reason at any given time. She speaks of true and false things through vague metaphors, songs, and crazy mumblings. She does not want people to think that she is crazy; she is crazy. She just could not handle her father’s death along with the other problems of her life.

Insane in the Membrane

Hamlet doesn't pretend to be mad. He is mad. I can understand how he would feel if his father was killed and his mother moved on to the murderer right away. However, I'm pretty sure that he was "pretending" to be mad to cover up his real insanity. As one reads Hamlet, it's easy to see that this guy is crazy. When he tries to act crazy, it seems as if he turns out be more mad when he's just being himself. Take, for example, when he kills Polonius. Who in their right mind would stab a man to death through a curtain (a man who did not kill one's father) and at the same time totally pass up the chance to knife the guy who really did kill your father? Clearly, Hamlet is phsyco. Perhaps he just has anger issues, but still. I'm not a fan of this character. Ophelia's madness seems to be this crazy-happy madness. She is just totally gone, while Hamlet was still plotting during his madness. Both of these character's crazyness does occur rather quickly. One minute they're decently normal, the next their killing people, or themselves. Ophelia, however, probably became more insane the second the stuck her in a padded room in a straight jacket. That would definitely make me go a little crazy, let alone the fact that the guy she just hooked up with stabbed her own father to death. These two characters have a ton of personal baggage, if you ask me. But honestly, I think Shakespeare does a pretty poor job of really portraying these characters as crazy. They just seem a little off, not totally wacked out. Perhaps I just don't totally understand Shakespeare. That's probably it. Either way, I didn't find myself much invested in these characters, so as things played out, I wasn't really affected either way.

The tragedy of Hamlet

This play seems to revolve around death and sadness. Each character has their own depressing moment. Hamlet is disturbed by his father's death. Hamlet (senior) is upset with his own murder and has come back as a ghost to take revenge through his son. Revenge and death is what the whole play is based on and how it begins. It doesn't help the cause that there is an accidental death either, come on Hamlet, mistaking Ophelia (your love) for your sick and greedy uncle turned step father and king! Poor Ophelia and Laertes that have to directly deal with the grief with first being lied to/not told and then finding out it was a mistake by the prince and that of course he will be pardoned. That would then have caused the death of Ophelia, but you saw that one coming because what's the theme again? Oh yes, DEATH! The ending summarizes the "tragedy" part of the tragedy of Hamlet by making the final main characters all die as well. Hamlet himself,  and even the man who thought he had outwitted his nephew. But even though there is this omnipresent idea of mortality, there is quite the opposite contrast in the play as well. Love is prevalent when it contradicts the upsetting sad moments that the characters encounter. Ophelia and Hamlet have their romance but when things go amuck, so does their love. Gertrude and her second husband have a marriage less than two months after her first husband and father of her child dies. But then again, they die and wither away in the end too. Maybe this was Shakespeare's way of expressing himself, but he sure had strong feelings by all means then.

hamlet

Hamlet...hmmm i have to say that this isn't one of my favorite books we have read thus far. I find the language challenging to follow and the book in general just doesn't seem to capture my attention, although, this isn't to say that it doesn't posses many good qualities. I have no doubt that this book, if looked deeper into, has many amazing qualities to offer. With that said, death is a huge part of Hamlet not only does one of the main characters die in the end but pretty much all of the main characters die which leaves me wondering what this reveals about Hamlet as a whole or more importantly Shakespeare himself. Shakespeare's use of death in this play in reality makes the play as a whole. The style in which he does this reveals a lot about the characters in the play. Similarly to Romeo and Juliet Hamlets main focus is death and all the deaths seem to in a sense rely on one another. For example Hamlet wants to kill the king because the king killed his father and Hamlet accidentally kills Polonius thinking it was the king. So in reality without death this play would have no main focus and i feel like this is how a lot of Shakespeare's work is. Death whether on purpose or accidental plagues this play, it is pervades all the characters in one way or another. 

Inability to take action...

The action that we expect Hamlet to take is continually postponed while he tries to find other ways of doing what he wants to do, or even a better way. For example, when he is going to kill Claudius as he is in the confessional, Hamlet realizes that although he has Claudius in the palm of his hands right now, there is a yet a better way to kill him. He says that he would rather kill him when he is in the middle of his sins rather than in the middle of repenting them so that he will go down the same path King Hamlet did when his life was unexpectedly taken away. Everything must be right for Hamlet to take action and he takes everything in consideration. However, the fact that he analyzes everything about taking action causes him to never take action the way he planned and be forced to do it in a rash manner. Is it better to think things through or act on impulse? Acting on impulse allows you to get things done that you may not otherwise have the courage to do. However when one acts on impulse, the reprecussions are not always realized, and therefore it may not always be the best way to go about accomplishing things. When you think things out as Hamlet does, you can get the best outcome from your actions. 

Sex, Violence, Madness-- what else do you need?

In this play there is a relationship of characteristics that have a “cause and effect” on the characters. These powerful characteristics that I am referring to are Madness and the presence of love and sex. To begin there is Hamlet, who begins to play a different role when he “becomes crazy” At first and throughout the play it is difficult to understand why in the beginning he pretends to be crazy. There is that possibility that he is not just entering this life of madness on his own will, maybe he actually has a chemical unbalance in his brain. The possibility is there, but I fail to accept it. It seems to me that Hamlet is just pretending to be mad in the establishment of his craziness to escape the enormous pressure that he has been put to. Then over a period of time he can’t find an escape to the escape that he created. In other words, he truly has become a madman. This deeply confuses Ophelia because of her mixed feelings about Hamlet. She has been put through the most suffering throughout the story due to the chain of events that she has to deal with. At first Hamlet is confident that he is not in love with Ophelia and he lets her know that too. I believe that hamlet has always loved her, but he fails to let her know until the end of the play. When Hamlet first tells Ophelia that he is not attached to her she feels uncertain. This is because she also feels the presence of Hamlets love towards her, he does not speak of it, but Ophelia does know. Then When Hamlet “becomes crazy” Ophelia does not know what to think of him. She is deceived by his earlier intentions of letting her know that he is not in love with her, she begins to believe it. Then, when hamlet returns from England he declares that he has in fact always been in love with Ophelia. It just so happens that he returns right when Ophelia’s funeral is in process. I am sure that if she were to know that he returned and claimed that, she would be significantly baffled.

He Who Hesitates... One to many (death)

I think Hamlet's abundance of hesitation reveals something other than his timid nature. Ordered by his deceased father to get revenge on Claudius, Hamlet is forced to go against his moral conscience and commit murder. Is Hamlet's hesitation not only a result of his indecisive, skitzo character, but also that beside the fact that he loved his father, he is not willing to jeopardize his holy being. During the scene in which Claudius is praying and Hamlet convinces himself it would not be right to send Claudius to heaven and himself to hell, he decides not to stab him, revealing his connection to God and possibly his intentions to not destroy his relationship with the Holy Spirit. My impression was that despite Hamlet's various attempts to kill Claudius, he fails to follow through because he is some how afraid the same fate will befall him - in other words what goes around comes around.

I believe the presences of death throughout the play in some way connect to the central theme that revenge is merciless. Far more characters are sacrificed than seems necessary, which in a way exaggerates the prominent message: to avenge at any cost. The initial act of murder, Claudius poisoning his brother Hamlet, has an immense effect on the lives and actions of those close to him. Hamlet's wife, Gertrude, rushes into a shotgun wedding, Hamlet Jr. becomes depressed, Claudius is given the throne, and the ghost of Hamlet comes back to tell his son to seek revenge on his murderer. Each resulting death is tied in one way or another to Claudius's initial act of violence on his own brother, revealing the deadly implications of murder. One death ultimately resulted in the slaughter of over half of the characters, which does seem a tad overdone, but nonetheless it makes known Shakespeare's beliefs about murder and accordingly its effects.

Keeping it real- #2

There is much acting in this play to the extent that I do not know who was actually "keeping it real". First there is the king who acts as if he did nothing even when Hamlet confronts him with "the mouse trap" play. which brings me to Hamlet himself, he acts as if he is mad but for good reason, as said by someone his "cunning madness", so out of anybody i think Hamlet is keeping it real the most, even though he didn't act upon his feelings for the most part.... (still haven't finished the play). As for his mother, the Queen, she just plays dumb the whole time as if she did nothing wrong which to me is ridiculous that one person can keep it so fake. Also there is Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, they act as if they are Hamlet's close friends but then turn around and deliver a letter which they think says to kill Hamlet.... they couldn't have been more mislead. Then there is Polonius, he was creeping around in the Queen's curtains... not keeping it real at all, he got stabbed, he had it coming. Don't get me wrong however, there were defiantly some characters in the play who kept it real but they were perfect examples of "when keeping it real goes wrong", Ophelia, went crazy, and her brother gets his shit rocked by Hamlet but at least they were keeping it real. 

Death

Shakespeare finds such value in the use of death and tragedy in his plays. Therefore, he uses this as a theme for most of his plays. When we read about the death involved in the play there are many different types. For example, some are related to rage and aggression whereas some relate to sadness. When Hamlet kills polonius, it is out of anger, but it also happens to be an accident. The way Shakespeare uses death really helps out the play. Hamlet as a character is set out to kill the king and has an opportunity to, but he just flakes out. It seems that the more important the character, the more they find the need to kill. Laertes is upset with Hamlet for killing his father so he feels the need to avenge it. That shows that death is of great importance for the characters. In Romeo and Juliet, juliet pretended to be dead so that they could be together. Since Romeo thinks Juliet is dead he kills himself. What is the importance of this death, to the characters? It makes the characters the way they are. Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy because of death, Hamlet could also be considered a tragedy because it focuses on the importance of death. The deaths in Hamlet are based off each other. Hamlet wants to kill the king because he killed his father. Hamlet accidentally kills Polonius thinking that it was the king. Leartes wants to kill Hamlet because of his father. Ophelia just goes crazy because of all that happens and kills herself. Death in this play seems to be mocked in certain cases, instead of oh no tragedy. For example, when the sword fight at the end happens they mean to kill Hamlet with the poisioned drink, but instead kill the queen. That does not really seem like a sad death for the queen, just for the king. The audience just kind of feels that's what the king deserves for trying to kill Hamlet. Ophelia kills  herself because of insanity. It seems that Shakespeare creates the sadness of death through her character. Ophelia as a character only suffers because she cannot be with her lover Hamlet. Her father is killed by her lover which in turn creates more sadness, which eventually ends in the suicide. The suicide in the play, is where the tragedy comes in. Shakespeare writes suicide in his plays to put out the idea of suffering as an individual. Most of his characters suffer from their overall surroundings and situations put in front of them.

JZ's response to # 5

Hamlet, the character, has received much flak for his supposed inability to act.  While this criticism may hold some merit, critics must remember that this is a play.  If Hamlet were to murder Claudius immediately after the ghost informed him of Claudius' deed, well that would effectively remove a bulk of the play.  What would happen to the drama?  The plot?  Suspense?  Shakespeare was endeavoring to engender a play that would entertain the audience.  Sometimes this entails some unrealistic actions.  I am alright with this phenomenon as long as it keeps me in suspense.  In addition, critics also must remember that Hamlet is delaying his actions because he is trying to perform such a deed in a purposeful, effective, reasonable, and satisfying manner.  To act or not to act is heavily pending rational considerations, such as absolute certainty, or whether or not to effectively send Claudius to heaven, by murdering him during prayer.  Considering the former rational consideration, murdering Claudius without just cause would result in, as Walker mentioned, incredible turmoil throughout the kingdom.  In addition, murdering without justification would send Hamlet to hell and devastate Gertrude.  COntinuing on the note of certainty, which seems to be a rather prominent theme throughout the play, Hamlet needs conviction, because it was a ghost that told him of the murder.  Ghosts are mythical and fictitious beings.  Although Hamlet is feigning madness, we are given evidence that he might indeed be going a tad insane, (I definitely feel so) and therevfore, imagining a ghost is entirely plausible.   Perhaps the ghost was a figment of Hamlet's conscience, and was simply misleading him.  Therefore, Hamlet would truly need evidence.  (however, some of the guards also saw the ghost, and we later gain evidence confirming Claudius' deed, both of which undermines everything I just said)  However, also like I previously mentioned, this is indeed a play, and is intended to amuse, so such events are plausible.  Ultimately though, Hamlet does indeed kill Claudius, but at a steep price: his life.  Could it be that Shakespeare is suggesting that had Hamlet acted earlier he could have circumnavigated the ramifications?  Or could it be that Shakespeare feels that absolute certainty should always be a priority.  Perhaps the longing for a sense of certainty is the proverbial spark that keeps humans searching and living.  Like we discussed earlier in the year, humans read novels because books are rife with connections and meaning.   The meaning creates certainty, which seems to be something humans are longing for.  I feel that humans are inherently conservative creatures, and tend to act out of certainty, as opposed to hesitation.  (i.e. Hamlet)  This lack of conviction ultimately results in hesitation, for better or worse.  Many argue that it isn't very intellectually rigorous to say that the answer truly depends on the scenario.  I wholeheartedly disagree.  IN many cases answers are truly pending.  However, in this very situation hesitation did result in death for our protagonist.  Whether or not Shakespeare was insinuating at this theme, well, I cannot say.  I for one say that he who hesitates might be lost in some cases, but not others.  I feel that being impulsive is better in some cases, and being hesitant is better in others.  

Hamlet Responce

Considering it is one of the Classics of literature, Hamlet left me with several serious question. For one, why did Learities forgive Hamlet! He had no need to. Polonious had not killed Hamlets father. Polonious had not acted against Hamlet in a spiteful way. Yet Laerities finds it in his heart to make amends with Hamlet? What literary bullshit. If that was me I would have been so pissed. The guy remorselessly kills my father, torments my sister to suicide, and destroys the peace at home. I would never find it in my heart to forgive him because of, well, being a "distraught soul" or something like that.
Second, why o why would Hamlet endorse Fortinbras to be King of Denmark? Is this really necessary? After an entire play of Hamlet striving to avenge his father and follow his wishes, he lets the old King's greatest enemy take the throne that was rightfully his? Hamlet, what are you doing? Cmon man show some consistency.
Third, the Roman names in Denmark. Really? Shakespeare? Really?
Fourth, Why did Claudius balk at the long oratory of the play rather than the much more graphic dumb play? I mean...the murder was enacted on stage an Claudius couldn't pick up on it, but he grasps the notion in dialog? Actors, is this your fault?
Fifth, the killing of Rosencratz and Gildenstern are ridiculous. The letter part was cool, but would the English just kill two men at the advice of a rival King's letter? Furthermore, why did they send people all the way to Denmark to collect pay? The deal should have sounded fishy from the start.
Sixth, and this only applies to the movie. Black and Asian Generals? Really? I'm not racist or anything but dude, the only place whiter than Denmark is Austin Radford.

Hesitation is Indeed a Vice, Maybe Not

One may criticize Hamlet for his hesitation and constant procrastination in regard to carrying out his revenge for his father. However, one must also remember what this revenge is. Hamlet's revenge constitutes killing the newly-elected King, who also happens to be his Uncle. Killing a King is an arduous and daunting task because it has the possibility of bringing pain and suffering to the perpetrator. On top of the fact that Hamlet is to kill a King, he must keep in mind that the King is also a family member and is dearly loved by his mother. If he does kill the King, he will bring sorrow to his mother and will bring hell upon himself. One can see that Hamlet has a lot of information to think about before executing such an act. This accounts for and explains his hesitation. Anyone would be hesitant in killing a person in the first place, but to kill a King is a much more frightening task. Of course Hamlet is going to dawdle due to fear and confusion over what to do. He has been approached by a ghost of his father for god's sake. What is he supposed to glean from that interaction? I think that Hamlet's hesitation and inability to act is most certainly well-founded when one observes the circumstances.
However, there are many problems with hesitating with decisions. One must decide what to do and follow through with it, or else consequences could follow or your opportunity will cease to exist. Shakespeare makes a statement of this by killing off everyone. Most of these deaths, if not all, can be attributed to Hamlet's inability to act. If he had killed Claudius immediately after talking to the ghost of his father, none of these other terrible acts would have occured. Ophelia would be alive and in love with Hamlet, as would her brother, father, and Hamlet's mother. Hamlet, understandably so, wastes time, however, and sets this series of unfortunate events in motion. Hamlet does eventually succeed in his task however. He does pay a price, his own life, to achieve this goal. Could it have been avoided had he acted earlier? Most likely yes. There would have been the possiblity of repercusions for killing the King, but Hamlet most likely would have found a way around that.
Perhaps Shakespeare is making a statement about inaction, saying that it leads to worse things than decisions made quickly, and possibly in haste. However, at the same time, I feel that Hamlet's inaction was completely justified considering what he was dealing with. I think either way, consequences would have taken place. Shakespeare may also be making a statement in saying that too much thinking can lead to problems. He may be trying to get the message across to simply make a decision, and once that decision is made, act upon it. I still feel that bad events would have occured had Hamlet killed Claudius immediately. Shakespeare may be trying to show that it's best to make a decision, and when that decision is made, to act carefully upon it. Your actions need to be the well-thought out parts of the whole affair. Your thoughts should go either one way or the other. It is all quite confusing and I'm not sure I see a clear relationship or point Shakespeare is trying to show.

Madness

In Shakespeare's play, Hamlet pretends to be crazy, but in actuality, his prattling and raving really has rhyme AND reason to it. I think in his madness, he's trying to insult everyone who supports Claudius by insulting their intelligence. Polonious tends to be the butt of most of his insults, which Polonious can follow, while he cannot understand.  

Not only this, but he can string his words together in such a way that they make a subtle kind of sense. He talks a lot about the mask that men wear to appear innocent when they have something to hide. He speaks of "words" that hide what someone is, such as Claudius's words are thick with deceit. 

Ophelia, on the other hand, has no rhyme nor reason to her crazy rants. There is no pattern of any kind; she simply talks....okay actually, maybe there is some: she does talk about the betrayal of Hamlet, the one she loved...but it's in such a random way that it seems inconsistent. No one but the audience or the reader would really understand her. We know she is sad about her father, and hurt by Hamlet, but it's almost impossible to tell due to her jumbled words and crazy actions. 

--Hamlet--

To come to find that a close friend had been spying on you would be demeaning. A friend is supposed to be someone that you trusted, and to find that they have been invading your personal boundaries and spying on you would be belittling. As for what I would do to the friend, I would most likely confront them about it, and then carry on with my life in a more sheltered way. For example, being more in tune with my surroundings and cautious of my actions. Moreover, if a friend of mine had been spying on me, it would greatly limit our friendship. You are supposed to be able to instill your trust in your friends, and imposing on your personal life, such as spying would be breaking that trust. On the other hand, I would have to question why and to what extent they had been spying on me. If it was for the benefit of others or themselves I would be freaked out, and probably not carry on with the friendship. On the other hand however, if they were doing it somehow to my benefit, such as ensuring my safety (which would also be weird) then I would not be so enraged. All in all, friends should have no reason to spy, yet if they did it would defiantly put a limiting factor on our friendship.

It would not be so hard to go crazy. To just let go; to quit living by conventions. In some ways, it is harder sane. It would be so much more free to strip yourself of all of your inhibitions, to say what you wished to say whether it is true or not, to act how your sentiments moved you, to go places for no other reason than to get lost. Being insane would not be so sad if it were voluntary. You would have no obligations. The world would run according to your clock. It may require a little fabrication. You may have to exercise your mind to stretch to unprecedented levels of fiction, but that would be your only job. You would not be prisoner to Society or convention. You could sing in the park, you could wear clothes or not, you could refuse to make phone calls, you could dream without going to sleep.
I have a feeling, however, that this pretend psychosis may have the same result as real insanity. When friends start to abandon you, or only visit on occasion; when you are stuck in this world of invention and you wish only to ground yourself in something real; when the game of playing the crazy person looses its lust. This may not be so free any more. You have forgotten how to behave, and how not to behave. You may grow sick of finding yourself amongst vegetables and the real insane. Insanity would not be so easy to escape as it would be to enter. At least when you really are crazy, you don’t know that you are. In a world of fake madness your thoughts are always tempted by the knowledge that this is all a front that you could shake it off if you wanted to- you could go back to normal. But you could not. You would be questioned why you would do such a thing, why you would attempt the impersonation, if you were not, infact, mentally imbalanced. Pretending insanity would be the greatest irony.It would be the emptiest fulfillment. It would be the most depressed hapiness. It would be the most free prison.

father

If I came back from a summer and found out that my father was dead I would be terrified, and of course I would have about a thousand questions running through my mind. If my mom was already married though I would be so angry. I would be pissed that I didnt know about him because I would feel like my opinion did not matter to her. I would also wonder how she had moved on so quickly; especially if the man that she married was a jerk. I guess I might think that he was a threat to the family. Like maybe the only reason that she married her was because he threatened to do something to her if she didnt? I bet, though, that if all of that had happened so fast, and someone told me that me new stepfather was the one that killed my real dad, I would have no reason to not believe it. I would want people to know, I mean heck, if I hate the guy for ruining my family, I would do everything in my power to find out how and when he did it, and prove it so that the guy would go to jail. But I bet that if i could not prove it, but i did find out that it was true, and I was so mad, I would probably kill him. If a guy killed my dad, he wouldn't deserve to live. I know that I would get concequences, but I could live.
I am really excited to read this and watch this. I think that it is going to be really intreguing and sonething that will be really fun and make me think. yay Hamlet.

Pre-reading Hamlet

What would it fell like to return home after being away for the summer to discover that your father is dead?

There is no one more important to me than my Dad. I couldn't even begin to imagine what it would feel like to come back and have him not be here. Everyone goes through phases with death, and everyone handles it different. First there is shock, you don't believe it when your told. Second there is denial, you continue to refuse that it has actually happened, you start making excuses. Third is sadness, an entire time of depression. Fourth is anger and blame, you hate when people tell you sorry or even bring it up and truly think it is someone elses fault. Fifth is acceptance, you never get over it, you just accept it. I am curious to see how the character in Hamlet copes with his loss.

What would it fell like if your mother had already remarried?

How do you think it would feel like... I would truly be disgusted by my mother. I am also excited to see how this will play out. It sounds like an interesting plot after reading the prompt questions and I am actually looking forward to reading it, a huge improvement for me!

if my stepfather killed my father

If I came home one summer to find that my father was dead and that my mom remarried that would be one thing, but if I came home to find that my mom married my Dad's murderer I would be furious. I would confront both my mother and my stepfather about the situation. How could you live in the same house as your fathers killer. How could you willingly let your stepfather live at your house and sleep in the same bed as your mother. How could your mother be so oblivious as to agree to marry the murderer of her husband. Where did she meet this man, and why is she so willing to marry him? What a terrible situation.

Do You Think I'm Insane?

Being insane and pretending to be insane, draws a fine line on how far you can extend your current reality. The true questions is not actually how to be a believable insane, but it revolves more around how insane you can make people believe your insane before actually becoming insane. To act as a justifiable "crazy" person, without becoming engulfed by a real insanity, one must remove all insecurities and forget about the norms of society.
When pretending to be insane all raw emotions must be laid out on the table. You must show people how you really feel without caring about how they feel. You must react violently with your emotions and make rash decisions. Insane people are ignorant about how to act in the "real world," they are who they are without any hidden personalities.
Insanity means refusing to act the way society expects. You could perform acts considered innapropriate and a violation of normal conduct. For instance, screaming and kicking could be one approach while mumbling and walking around in your robe represents a different kind of insane. To be a believable insane you must first decided what kind of insane you are going to be. Are you going to be a loud, unreasonable insane? Or are you going to mumble and walk around like a misguided fool? Or are you going to invent some imaginary scenario and claim for it to be true? To be a justifiable insane without loosing control you must think outside the box and step away from your real personality while watching from afar the person you have become. You cannot get too involved with the insane person you are trying to create or you may actually become insane.
To pretend to be insane, is a game that one must play with the mind without succumbing to the true nature of insanity. To be a pysdoinsano one must choose the "kind" of insane they wish to be and then initiate that type of acting, while separating their "saneness" from their personal emulation of insanity.
This entire passage sounds like it is boarding the limits of insanity...
*Please don't count this as late because I was absent on Friday.

Mission Impossible

If I returned home from travelling over the summer, only to discover that my father died, I would be mortified, heartbroken, and above all else I would feel betrayed by my mom. My trust would have been further betrayed if I discovered that my mom had deliberately gone behind my back by withholding the information of my dad’s death as well as marrying a complete nutcase without my approval. If this said stepfather furthered the hurt by becoming prime suspect #1 involving the death of my father and taking over my family’s money, I would probably snap. The snapping process would include a public display of embarrassment, resulting in all my friends and family believing I have gone completely bonkers from grief and stress. Since the public assumes my insanity, my first step would be to work with the persona and see how far it gets me. My next step to making my stepfather confess to his treachery would be to gather a group of rabble rousers, including people with strange talents and a few friends that think my insanity is amusing. I would then attempt to pull a renaissance mission impossible with gossip and subtle manipulating through social/business networking. After my stepdad feels the pressure from the forces at work crumbling the structures from beneath him, then I would make my move.

Summer Away... Unknown Death

After a summer of being away, to return home and find out my father was dead would be devastating. Not only would I be emotionally torn and absolutely out of words to describe the pain of losing a father, but the fact that no one had told me! They would claim they didn’t want to ruin my summer plans so they would wait… well waiting didn’t always seem to solve all these problems. I would walk off the plane, the bus, the train from the summer that had given me knowledge and wisdom. Maybe I was returning from a camp back east or from my cousins on the west coast. None the less, growing on my own and the challenges of the summer were offering me a new sense of pride and independence. I wanted to go home and show them all what I was made of… until I stepped down to the ground and they were there with their long faces and black clothing. Not many people, just a few close relatives, but the instant shock of knowing something was wrong would radiate from their eyes and sting me like the tail of a sting-ray. My curiosity, my worry, my anticipation of the worst would stop me in my tracks until I put the pieces together; who was missing? He was. Why was he missing? General assumption: he’s dead… this time not so much of just an assumption. When they could tell I knew one of them ran to me and put my head on their shoulder. My heart dropped down through the floor, hitting the cold, earthy ground below the station. The world stopped. Every other person scrambling home after summer holidays had something joyous to look forward to, memories to caress and share, and time to spend with loved ones. I had this; a shit of a situation with the loss of my father. Granted, things could have been worse but the black clothes seeped forever into my imagination and the heavy weight of my feet and the strange dryness in my eyes worried me and made me angry. “why didn’t you tell me!” I would scream… “why did I not deserve to know!” I couldn’t cry, I couldn’t laugh, I couldn’t focus on anything beside the last moment I saw him, at the same station, just months before. Then life had been full, complete… now, it was void, lost, pointless. Now… I would distill in me a feeling or sorrow and remorse for never knowing really what happened and how I felt. All I would know is that I want him back.

JZ's thoughts concerning various prompts

To begin, I will say I would obviously be irate if I was put in the same scenario that Hamlet encountered.  If discovering that your father has died isn't brutal enough (take it from me, it is harrowing), having a corrupt step father is simply the proverbial icing on the cake.  I would conduct myself in a manner similar to what Prince Hamlet did, for what else can one do?  I, howver, would do one thing differently from Hamlet: I wouldn't wait for my father's ghost to tell me that my step father murdered him.  If I even had the slightest inkling of my step father's deed, I would murder him.  In such a situation, I would probably be so full of rage that I would be highly inclined to murder the stepfather.  If I did need sufficient evidence that my stepfather killed my own father to assume the thrown, I would (thanks to the advent of modern technology), use a lie detector test.  Actually, it might be rather difficult to get the stepfather to subject himself to such a test, so I think that I would proceed with the aforementioned murdering.  The ideal situation for me, however, would be if I could somehow expose my stepfather's foul deed to the public.  Therefore, the public could join me in contempt for the awful man.  If the entire public were irate, there is no possible way that my stepfather could conceivably keep his thrown or life.  As for the last prompt, I must say that my anger towards my spying friend definitely depends on the scenario.  In all cases, I would lost a ton of respect towards my friend.  I don't think I would be too pissed at my friend if he were spying on me regarding something trivial like high school drama, but I would view him in a new light.  I would think he were leading a somewhat frivolous life that lacks substance.  Truly, I feel it speaks volumes about a person when they would go as far as to spy on someone to obtain information about something as, like I said, high school gossip.  If, however, my friend were spying on me to obtain more serious info, such as, dunno, my SS# or important passwords, etc.I would be more angry.  In which case, I would determine the punishment by the severity of their actions.  IN brief, I would choose my course of action depending on the reasons for my friends espionage.  

Friends who Spy

If I found out that one of my friends was spying on me I would be pretty pissed to say the least. At first I would be very skeptical as to why they were spying on me, and probably would not talk to them for a while. However once I moved on from the initial pissed off stage, I would confront my friend as to why he/she felt it necessary to spy on me. If it were for a legitimate reason, like checking on me to make sure I wasn't in danger, or such things like that; it would be a lot easier for me to forgive her for being a concerned friend and would actually be sort of flattered that someone cares enough to spy on me (creepy as that may sound). However if she was spying on me for a petty selfish reason, like trying to find things to blackmail me with, then I would not be able to forgive her, and would probably question if she were a true friend or not. Either way it would easily become a very sticky situation no matter how it's handled, either I would have a very close dear friend who is generally concerned about me and was only trying to help, or this so called friend has other motives then just to be my friend.

Spying Friends

So... if I found out that one of my close friends was spying on me, at first I'm pretty sure I'd feel betrayed. But who wouldn't? Then, after the initial shock and bewilderment passed, I'd ask myself why? Why would one of my friends want to spy on me? Is it because they're looking out for me? Just trying to help me out? Or is it to find out who I hang out with? What I do on my free time? Plotting to kill me? Ha - If I found they were doing it in my interests, say to prevent me from getting hurt or something along those lines, I think I could forgive them. I mean, it still isn't right but, I would respect and appreciate what they were trying to do. The thing is, if I didn't know why, I shouldn't assume that it's to hurt me. I mean, like most anybody, I probably would assume the worst just in case but the optimism in me would want to believe a close friend would have a very defensible, good reason for doing it. On the other hand, if I found out it was happening because they wanted to get to me, say injure a family member or do something bad to another friend, I'd be pissed. Most likely, I'd spy on the back - find out why they'd want to do such a thing. Also, when talking to them, I'd drop subtle hints implying that I know and see how the react and try and find out more about their motives. At the end of the day, I'd probably just feel baffled and sad, with a lot of anger mixed in.

Ponderings about Hamlet

So...what would happen if I was gone the entire summer and my dad had died? Hm...well, I think I could in later times understand why my mom hadn't told me: maybe she would have thought that it would hurt less if I found out so long after it had happened. Maybe she herself needed to grasp it; I mean, in that situation, it isn't just me who lost someone - I lost a father, but my mother lost a friend, a lover, a soulmate, a companion...Of course I'd be angry. I think I'd hurt more too, knowing that my dad had died three or four months before I knew....oh yeah, I would definetly hurt more.
No, no what would really piss me off is if my mom decided to remarry without telling me. I mean, I'd hope it was just a rebound thing, you know? Like, she married some guy so that she wouldn't have to be alone...but why wouldn't she tell me? Wouldn't she want me to know? Maybe she thinks that by not telling me, she's protecting me...and also, without my voice in her head, then she wouldn't have to question her actions.
Hard questions...glad I don't actually have to face them (knock on wood)

And please: acting crazy really isn't that hard. Acting crazy would require having no previous experience of being crazy, yes? But if you're already crazy, well...you get my point.

Why my father?

The chain of events I am responding to: returning home after summer away to find my father dead, my mother remarried, her new husband taking over my father's business, and then having reason to believe my stepfather murdered my father. First of all, I would be incredibly pissed off if no one had filled me in during the summer. To not be told, especially if they thought "it was for the best" and thought they were protecting me. Then coming home to some stranger living in my house and married to my mother who is supposed to be grieving after losing her husband would further my anger. This would also spark confusion on why had my mother so readily let go of her new life and began one without even mentioning a single aspect of it to me until she had no choice (when I returned home after summer). Maybe this man isn't so bad after all, I would try and give him a chance. Get to know him, especially because I would be living with him until I graduated, an entire year. But as soon as he thought he had a right to assume my father's job and business affairs, he would have crossed the line. He is not entitled to the success my father created from scratch just because he married my mother. If he was a "crazed lowlife" I would be afraid of him ruining my father's company and running it into the ground because of his lack of experience. As soon as I had reason to believe he took my father's life, he would be in for it. I would gather evidence but in private and secretly. If any adult found out, they would most likely contact my mother and make me attend counseling. They would say I was just grieving in my own way and was paranoid about my stepfather. It would all make sense to me. The murder to get my father out of the way, marrying his love (my mother), taking over his hardest work (his company), and finally he would silence me. He would soon realize that I knew everything. This would drive him to pay one of my close friends to spy on me. The final step before getting me out of the way. The only part I would not understand until there were more specifics would be why? Why my father and my family? Is he being paid by someone else? The past? Did something happen before I can remember? What is propelling him?

Only if i HAD too

If i HAD to make everyone think i was insane... Well I asked my dad what he would do. And he said that if he HAD to make everyone think he was insane he would eat his Fecal matter. Now just the fact that he thought of something so disguising makes me question his sanity. Which i guess is the point. However i have a different stand point on it. I if i HAD to make people think i was insane I would go Sweeney Todd status on everyone. Randomly breaking out into songs while hiding a huge secrete that no sane person would understand. Imagine for a second if you were sitting in class and all of a sudden someone in your grade breaks out into song. Then takes the teacher away and you never see the teacher again, but had some great meat pies for lunch. Ya i would say that person was truly insane. However at this point I think my own father might truly be insane.

"Crazy"

Were I to pretend going mad, I would undoubtedly have fun. Seeing as this world preaches conformity with such conviction, the opportunity to be crazy would be refreshing and healthy. Yet doing so would be an art, for convincing insanity is not easy to pull off.

First, I would stop wearing clothes normally. Nothing drastic, just enough to isolate me from the rest of my fashion concious peers. Thing like Turtle necks that are too small, and blazers that are too big would kick off the change nicely. Overalls would also be a nice addition, seeing as no one wears them unless they are drunk or inbred in West Virginia. (no offence)

Second, I would stat bringing strange lunches to school. Uncooked bacon that I would seem suprised I was unalowed to grill at school, or slices of cellery that I would pull apart and eat strand by strand. Maybe I could even bring normal food, and simply eat is oddly. Bring Chicken Noodle Soup and put the ingrediantes: noodles, carrots, chicked, etc, into seperate containers before eating them.

Third, stares. Not normal school "space out" stares at the board, teacher, or that new girl who is pretty sharp, nah, leave those to the sane people. I will take the wild stares, the stares directed towards, perhaps, the cover of my American History textbook with a simultaneous humming of "O Canada", or maybe staring at the Apple logo on a Mac book, and tapping it constantly as if it were a broken button.

Fourth, this is the real piece du resistance. Schedule. Practicing Hockey at the outdoor ing from 4 Am to 8Am, Playing hopschooch with the elementary schoolers while they are at reces (atleast untill I get a restraining order", then a full english tea. This would be followed by making a trip to the flower store, buying a host of roses, then handing them out to people cross country skiing for 45 minuts. Each day I would also have to meet a series of quotas. Propose to one girl, and one dog. Give either Juniper or one of his friends a clearly handmade "citizen of the year" award every day. It is this final step that secures my insanity.

I hope this never happens to me!!

If I had returned from a summer trip to find that my father had passed away my first feeling would be extreme sadness.  I would be mad at myself after the initial shock wore off.  I would be mad if I left my father and he had passed away, even if it was unexpected.  I feel that my life would be greatly affected by me not being able to say goodbye.  I hope that never happens. After the death of my father, if my mother remarried to a low life who took over my fathers affairs and claimed his success I would be furious! First of I would be enraged with anger at my mother for remarrying so soon to such a loser.  I would first have to talk to my mother and try to convince her to leave this awful man.  With respect to my father, I would try to do everything I could to maintain his reputation and get his business back into the "real" family. I would make a plot to try to make this man look bad in front of the community and show everyone what he really was, a horrible. man!  In order to make this happen I would have to gain his trust, even though it would not be real and then expose to my mother first what he is really doing.  

If I wanted to make people believe I was insane, there are some things I can think of, even though I am kind of already a little crazy.  In order for people to truly believe that I was insane, I would have to have the people closest to me in life believe that I was insane.  First I would say things out of no where that don't have any relevancy or make any sense.  I would have to talk to myself and not perform the same hobbies I usually do.  Instead I would pick up some weird hobby like making a ton of bird-houses or something else that  I would never do.  The last step to making people believe I am crazy is to truly act insane.  I could do this by eating grass or running around all over the place.  This would draw a lot of attention and if I saw someone acting this way I would definitely think that they were insane.  Being very seclusive would also be a very important step in making people believe that I was insane.  

If I found out that one of my friends had been spying on me I would be confused and disturbed.  I would want to know how long they had been spying on me for and why they were doing it. The trust in that relationship would be completely destroyed and I would question everything that that person and I had experienced for real or fake.  The hardest part about that experience would be loosing a friend and also having that constant feeling of someone is watching me all of the time.  I would probably disconnect all communication with that person and be very conscious of people watching me.  I'm sure I would experience a sense of paranoia after that experience.  I would feel extremely violated and kind of creeped out after the whole spying situation.  

A New Lowlife in the Family?

If my mom chose to remarry after loosing her husband, I would most likely support her decision and attempt to accept the new guy. The only exception would be if the man began to act as if he were an identical stand-in for my father. If I saw my father’s job and such being taken over by the new man, I would probably be pretty pissed and start to investigate more. I’d probably feel hateful towards him for trying to replicate my father, and I’d also be suspicious about whether he was only with my mother to increase his own worth through taking over my father’s affairs. Initially I would say something to my mother and find her opinion on the whole matter. Eventually, and regardless of whether my mother approved, I would bring the issue up with the new guy. I would ask him why he felt it necessary to take over all of my father's affairs, most specifically, his money and his job. I would offer my assistance and express my intentions to handle my father's affairs, successes, and everything else. If the discussion proved unremitting and did not sway the asshole, I would immediately move to more drastic measures. Next would come legal threats, such as sueing the new man. If this proved futile, I would take the matter into my own hands, literally. I'd invent an ingenious way to murder the man, making sure I was not looked at as a suspect. The reason I would move to such intense consclusions would be out of complete and utter respect for my father. I would feel a need to honor his name and take revenge for him if his life was being mocked and tampered with by an insane lowlife. Even if I was caught and sent to prison, I'd feel that I had done my duty and carried out actions that honored my father. The only issue with this plan of attack would be the harm I would cause to my mother. If she truly loved the man, which I highly doubt she would, I wouldn't kill him. However, I would not sit back and watch him assume all of my father's positions. I would persuade him in other manners to resign from his post and allow me to take over. At the same time I would discuss the issue with my mom, and attempt to persuade her that her new husband was a complete floozy who only wished to take over my father's posessions. Either way I would follow a route that respected both of my parents and caused the most harm to the stand-in. I would honor my mother's wishes and my father's memory and take what action I saw fit.