This prompt was the writing prompt- how and why the person writes. This person (much like me) isn’t a fan of being forced to write, to say the least. Instead, they journal.

Read the post HERE

This person’s post was the “big deal” post about Hamlet. He/she talked about Hamlet’s craziness and the progression of it throughout the play.

Read the post HERE

In Kaitlyn’s blog post, she wrote about a painting of the scene in Hamlet where he is in his mother’s chamber confronting her. In it the ghost is appearing in the background, and the place that each of the characters is focusing on seems to say a lot about the madness itself.

Read the post HERE

Social Suicide

Suicide is an important motif in Hamlet. We encounter the contemplation of suicide, and even the act itself (maybe). What does this play say about suicide?

Throughout most of Hamlet, suicide is referred to quite a few times. Personally, I thought it was one of the most aggravating parts of the play- especially when it was coming from Hamlet himself. Now, I will admit that I found absolutely zero fun reading this novel. I may even say that I might be biased. However, the constant referring to suicide and even the act -whether it was a definite suicide or even if the facts were fuzzy- seemed to grate on my nerves throughout Hamlet. However, Shakespeare might have actually been trying to make his audience actually consider suicide and the effects; he could have even been trying to say that it was a reasonable way to die.

In the very first act, Hamlet considers suicide as an option but quickly dispells the thought after wishing “the Everlasting had not fixed / His canon ‘gainst self-slaughter” (I.ii.132-133). By stating this in only the second scene, Shakespeare reinforces the idea that suicide is something that is looked down upon and seen as cowardly. Hamlet battles with his lack of will to live after the death of his father and sudden remarriage of his mother to his uncle, and seems to wish that suicide wasn’t such a grave sin. After the ghost of Hamlet’s father appears and seemingly gives Hamlet a reason to live (revenge), Hamlet still considers “whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer / The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, / Or to take arms against a sea of troubles” (III.i.58-60). Once again, the thought of suicide comes into his mind, yet once again the audience (or me, at least) becomes agitated by his inability to completely make a decision. He decides, again, on living. However, what is interesting about this time is that he does not mention sin once- instead, he doesn’t kill himself because “conscience does make cowards of us all…/ With this regard their currents turn awry,/ and lose the name of action” (III.i.84,88-89). For anyone who gets confused by Shakespeare’s lengthy use of English, Hamlet knows that people lose their will to commit suicide because they don’t know what comes after death and are terrified. It now seems that Shakespeare is making a point that it is less of the church’s influence on sin that makes people not commit suicide, but more on the influence of the inability to know what will happen to the person’s soul. Many people in Shakespeare’s era would be disgusted with Hamlet considering ending his life. What seems to happen though, is that instead of disgust the audience feels sympathetic and annoyed at the same time. It’s understandable; Hamlet’s uncle killed his father, married his mother, and to make matters worse his love refuses to talk to him. “He has a pretty bad life, so he might as well end it” comes to mind after the famous “to be or not to be” speech. Doesn’t that make you wonder if Shakespeare was actually against the so-called immoral act of killing yourself? He actually convinces people that it might be a reasonable option.

Shakespeare uses people other than Hamlet to illustrate his complex ideas for the time. One of the strangest characters in the play is Ophelia. Hamlet’s beautiful lover seems to follow the advice of men and seems extremely weak. Her suicide later in the play would usually portray the weakness. However, with the way Shakespeare portrays suicide in the beginning through Hamlet’s own struggles, Ophelia almost seems strong- even in the maddened state. After being proclaimed as insane, she still seems to have some comprehension of her actions. She gives fennel and columbines that “symbolize adulatory” to Hamlet’s mother, Gertrude, and gives rue that “symbolizes repentance” to Hamlet’s uncle/father, Claudius (IV.v.footnotes 1 and 2). While supposedly being insane, she has a complete understanding of the world around her and the sins she is surrounded by. When paired with the heartbreak from the loss of her father, her suicide makes the audience mourn for her death. Though she most likely drowned herself, it’s hard to not pity Ophelia and become upset at the loss of the beautiful woman.

Another way Shakespeare creates this idea that suicide is something that is reasonable is by blurring the line between accidental death and suicide. In Hamlet, most of the main characters die within the very last act. Laeretes’s own poison dipped weapon is “The foul practice/ [that] hath turned itself on [him]” (IV.ii.319-320). His sinful act seems to come around to him and bite him in the butt; the way he almost asks to be killed by taking part of the scheme seems to bring the suspicion of suicide in the back of our minds. We don’t only see this with Laeretes’s death though- Claudius dies by being fed his own poison, which ironically also killed his wife (who partook in the same “sin” as him by marrying Claudius right after her husband’s death). Though many would cry that these deaths are accidental, it seems to me that there was no accident within them. During this scene -or most of the others- there seems to be no way the deaths could be avoided. In the sense to me, I find that these deaths are very much suicides; there was no other option but to die in order to get away from the sins of the mortal world.

Maybe Shakespeare just felt that suicides would make the play interesting, or maybe he was trying to get his opinions out to the world. To me, I can’t find just simple coincidence to be a good enough answer. The motif of suicide seems to scream out to the world that it was understandable and sometimes necessary- not just a cowardly, sinful, way out.

Painting

First impressions:

It’s very abstract. Lots of squiggles. Okay, all jokes aside its actually kind of refreshing. The dark greens and whites make it seem very natural, but there’s small dots of bright red that draw the eye. Because it was painted in the late 40’s, it could reflect the painters feelings on politics of the era. The fact that it is so huge seems very daunting; there’s so much going on for such a large area. I have absolutely NO idea why it’s so popular -I probably could have painted this-  but it definitely is interesting to look at. 

Second impressions:

The poem seems to be as abstract as the painting itself. Sullivan seems to be pondering the meaning of the painting; she calls it “a game of monopoly without a bank”. What I found that his meant was that without a real name, it is missing something vital to the piece. It’s impossible to try to pick out a meaning from this large painting without some sort of insight into what the painter was thinking. The line which struck me the most, however, was “no similes here. Nothing but paint”. There is nothing that the painter seems to trying to convey like most paintings do with scenes or objects- the only object put on display is the paint itself. 

Connection:

After looking at both the painting and reading the poem, it seems like the painting is supposed to have no real meaning- well, one thrown at your face at least. The fact that it’s so abstract (even the name itself Number 1A) seems to be an open door to imagination. I believe that the painter wanted to make a piece of art that was accessible to all who looked upon it. Like John Gardner has said before, a great piece of art is something that the reader or viewer will find their own meaning in. A great piece of art makes someone think and connect it to their own life; that is exactly what Polluck did. 

Glen Frey

Out of all the artists I listened to, Glen Frey stuck out to me the most. As the daughter of a classic rock music lover, I’ve been listening to the Eagles for a very, very long time. My very first record  was Eagle’s Greatest Hits; we listened to it for hours the Christmas my dad gave it to me. I was so excited to see that Glen Frey was in the Eagles, but I had never known he had a solo career. While listening to some of his music I saw a very different side of an artist I have heard for so many years.

The song that I felt touched by the most was “Here’s to Life”, recorded in 2012 on the album “After Hours”. It was much less classic rock and even more blue-sy,  whimsical and romantic music. I felt like I could hear it while watching Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan fall in love in “You’ve got Mail”. The rhythm is slow and laid back with an emphasis on strings and horns in the background. There’s a wonderful back-and-forth ebb and flow of the strings and trumpet in the foreground and then vocals, which keeps it from becoming too busy or chaotic. The way he sings and arranges the music made me feel like I was listening to a more modern Frank Sinatra. I didn’t find a live version or a music video, but if you wanted to listen to it you could find the song HERE.

The message I got from this song is that life is what you make of it. Whatever you put in you get out.

There’s no yes in yesterday
And who knows what tomorrow brings or takes away
As long as I’m still in the game, I want to play
For laughs, for life, for love

To me it seems that he is saying that even though life is long and hard, he wants to make the best of it. Find the joy and happiness and within whatever you’re doing, and you will be set.

Inside Out

4.5/5 stars. I watched this two nights in a row.INSIDE OUT

In another beautifully animated movie, Pixar answers another one of life’s most wondered questions; what makes us, us? The film colorfully depicts the jobs of five emotions- joy, sadness, anger, disgust, and fear- and the way they lovingly shape the life of an 11 year old girl Riley.

When Riley (voiced by Kaitlyn Dias) and her family move from her much loved home state of Michigan to San Francisco, her usual thread of happy memories are changed into ones filled with anything but. In an effort to change that, Joy (voiced by none other than Amy Poehler) brings out Riley’s core memories- ones that have shaped her and created parts, or “islands” or her personality- to comfort her. However, Sadness (voiced by Phyllis Smith) touches one and makes it sad, causing the first sad core memory to be made. Attempting to throw away the sad memory Joy causes both her, Sadness, and the five core memories to be sucked out of headquarters and shot into the endless maze of long-term memory.

With only Anger, Disgust, and Fear to hold down the fort and attempt to do Joy’s job of keeping Riley happy, the islands of personality start to fall one by one. Joy and Sadness rush to get Riley happy and normal and save her from completely losing who she is.

This heart wrenching movie cleverly hides some of life’s best lessons while causing the audience to laugh with the antics of the emotions. Even with the usual Disney Pixar’s happy ending, tears will be shed as audience members follow the story of battling emotions, forgotten memories, and the unfailing love of family.

Mass ‘o sass

I will not be lying when I say that I expect Gardner to be so sassy; his work Grendel absolutely oozes of it. He feels no shame in sitting down and telling the kids that wrote the papers every way in which they we’re wrong, but he somehow makes it enjoyable. 

What first shocked me the most is how much I missed when reading his work. I certainly enjoyed the novel, but I don’t think that I gained that level of understanding that Gardner hoped for. As I read his letter I realized that Grendel was in indeed a piece of art. When Gardner broke down his philosophies and his reasoning I began to actually think about it; this time however from a different point of view. I knew from the get-go that this book was philosophical, but I dumbly believed that he was pressing his ideas of philosophy and religion on the audience. Reading this letter I can see that he wasn’t and how he cleverly hid it within other philosophies he found. 

I hate to deviate from the topic of the letter, but reading it has made me rethink so many different things. Gardner reminds me almost of my father. Though my dad knows I loath politics, he still makes me watch, follow, and read about different political view points. At first, I believed it was to show me why his was right but later I realized it was only to make me think. This view is reflected within Gardner’s work. He believes his novel is art -a title it rightfully deserves- and therefor wants the readers to find something of themselves within it. He lets the readers decide for themselves what each philosophy means to Grendel and what it means within life itself. I thoroughly enjoyed reading him talk about his work; you can feel the passion about Grendel in his words. Though he is incredibly sassy and blunt it seems as though he’s excited that the younger generation is reading his novel and not just enjoying it but thinking about it. 

When I read this book I caught onto how the Dragon was actually a snake and therefore assumed it was a reference to the devil. Later in the novel when Grendel describes Beowulf with wings and spitting fire as a dragon does, I had no idea what to think of it…especially what to think about him ordering Grendel to “sing the walls”. As I read Gardner’s analysis of this it made me understand much more about Grendel’s death scene and causes me to love silly Unferth as I had wanted to so badly. All around, regardless of the initial harshness we find Gardner to say, I found so much more that I lived about his piece of art and I appreciate it on a whole different level. 

How to: make sore throat soothing tea

It’s that time of the year again; everyone is coughing and wheezing, popping mucinex and ibuprofen, and feeling downright awful. I’m often plagued by a sore throat when winter starts to set in, and tea always seems to help.

You will need:

  • Tea kettle 
  • Stove
  • Juicer
  • Mug
  • Water
  • Tea of your choice (I prefer coconut chai)
  • Honey
  • Lemon

Step one: boil water

Fill kettle with water and put on a burner on high heat until the kettle whistles, indicating that the water is boiling. 

  
(You can just put a microwave safe mug in the microwave, but it can get a bit messy and doesn’t seem to get as hot. I prefer a kettle.)

Step two: prepare your lemon

I can’t stand sipping up seeds and pulp, so I juice my lemons while the water is heating up.  

 
Step three: put tea bag in and prepare to steep

I put my tea bags in my mug before adding water. I feel like it makes it steep quicker.  

 
Step four: add hot water and steep

I steep my tea for about four minutes, but I prefer weaker tea and steep time veries between types of tea. Check your box first and then decide how strong you want it.  Make sure to take out your tea bag once it’s as strong as you’d like, otherwise your tea will continue to steep.

 
Step five: add lemon and honey to taste 

Lemon helps sooth throats while giving you a small boost of needed vitamins. Honey sweetens your tea while also coating your throat- a hidden bonus is that local honey will help with allergies!

You can add milk if you like, but dairy often causes more mucus. So if you’re stopped up, avoid dairy! 

 

Step six: allow to cool and enjoy

A burnt tongue won’t make your throat feel any better, so give your tea a minute or two before drinking. 
   

 

What’s Pop[e]in’?

I can’t help but be intrigued when I see a figure that related to Catholicism. Learning about people that were influential to my religion is something I really enjoy because it gives me a deeper connection and idea of what being Catholic is really about and how it has changed throughout the years. Due to that, when I saw Pope Leo the Great of the list I was automatically intrigued. Pope Leo was alive during the reign of the terrifying Attila the Hun, who was known to pillage villages and kill or enslave those who lived there. Upon hearing that Attila the Hun was on his was to Rome, Pope Leo went to  him and begged him to not come to Rome; he impressed the fearsome leader and made him turn around and leave his people alone. His courageous actions earned him his title as the great which is “a distinction bestowed on but one other pope” (ewtn.com).

Pope Leo the Great was canonized after his death in 400’s. His body is held in the Basilica.

Some things that I also read was that he was named the Doctor of the church. The Catholic church chose to give him this honor because he always trusted in God and used his faith to heal many who’s minds were troubled. He saved lives when called upon and used his position as Supreme Pontiff to inspire others to walk in the footsteps of Jesus.

Etwn.com

tomperna.org

Comments 

My computer at home crashed, so I have to do my posts on my phone…unfortunately, my draft I saved with all my links isnt available on my phone. I can’t find the blog I commented on before, but it was last week’s post about one of Ariana Grande’s songs. The author of the post wrote about how it wasn’t a mainstream love song. So, if anyone reads this and knows which one I’m talking about please help out and put a link to that certain blog. I have no idea where I found it. 

Olivia’s blogWord up blog

The Words That Have Carried [throughout the years]

When I first started reading The Things They Carried, I was convinced this was solely about Tim O’Brien’s experience in the war. However -about halfway through- I realized everything was a work of O’Brien’s imagination. What I loved is at the very beginning of the interview O’Brien and the interviewer talked about how the novel was just a story book. At about 1:30 O’Brien starts talking about how he wrote the book to grab readers and pull them into what the war felt like, not just the facts that are told in magazines. I really liked that he stated this from the very beginning of an interview meant for the general public; I’m sure many would read this and mistake the book to only be about his exact war experiences. In my opinion, that ruins the entire point of the book.

Maybe in a way, the book is a memoir. The only reason he has such knowledge of the feelings war produces and the experiences that follow is due to the fact that he was sent to war. In How To Read Literature Like A Professor, Thomas Foster briefly talked about how authors use the politics from the world around them and their personal experiences to create their stories. Though technically the stories are all made up, there will always be the grains of truth hidden in the central parts of the stories that did actually happen to him. Personally, I would characterize the novel as fictional memoir (if that exists?). Maybe if I read the memoir that O’Brien wrote I could give a good answer, but until then I’ll stick with what I’ve got.

O’Brien is a tricky man. I loved how he used sly things like dedicating the book to the characters and making the main character himself in order to make readers believe it was real. He acknowledges his deception in the interview, saying that it was in order to capture the reader. He definitely had me fooled; I think I might have cried four times while reading, believing that this was his own experience. When a book or movie is said to be true, it hits your heart closer than if you know it was made up from the start. Though I’m certain The Things They Carried is not actually about the war experience, it definitely had me hanging onto every word as though I was in the field beside Kiowa and Rat Kiley.