That's my question. We spend all this time worrying about the nut jobs in Hamlet and what their particular brand of insanity might mean, but no one seems to care about the one character who's got it all down. Horatio knows who he is. He's Hamlet's best friend, and the only good, stable person in this play. While everyone else runs around like chicken's with their heads cut off, Horatio is the voice of reason and sanity. And yet, he never once tries to stop Hamlet from what he has to do. He is Hamlet's "Damon dear". (Damon and his freind Pythias were the classical model of perfect friendship. Perhaps Horatio serves as a foil, of who Hamlet would have been if his father were still alive. Horatio's character is strong and unwavering, and Hamlet longs for the peace of mind that being so must bring:

Dost thou hear?
Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice,
And could of men distinguish her election,
Hath seal'd thee for herself, for thou hast been
As one, in suffering all, that suffers nothing,
A man that fortune's buffets and rewards
Hast ta'en with equal thanks: and blest are those
Whose blood and judgement are so well commedled
That they are not a pipe for fortune's finger
To sound what stop she please. Give me that man
That is not passion's slave, and I will wear him
In my heart's core, ay, in my heart of heart,
As i do thee. (III.ii.65-70)


Horatio bears stress and burden much better than Hamlet, and he is not a slave to his passions. So why does he stick around while Hamlet goes cucko for coco puffs? Because he's just that good of a friend. Maybe one day when I have a royal friend go insane and seek revenge I can be as supporting and loyal as Horatio. Just maybe do a bit better at steering him away from murder and revenge...


And, in honor of our To Be or Not To Be film montage in class yesterday, here's one of my favorite scenes in Hamlet. Notice how Horatio acts through this scene. Supportive, and yet a voice of reason.

And the best line: "This is I, HAMLET THE DANE!"
Goodbye Hamlet. I hope your dreams turned out to be good ones after all.

May I say that our class trip to the Shakespeare Festival in Cedar was great? Well, I'm going to say it anyways. It was great. I had a fun time getting to know the people in my car who I probably never would have interacted with any other way. And the play was really well done. Seeing Shakespeare live is such a big difference from reading the text or watching a movie. Although I will admit that every time the lights went down to the "winter" setting of black and purple I had a hard time keeping my eyes open...

One of the things that really interested me while watching the play was how they used costumes to promote a theme or develop a character. There's really no way to organize my thoughts on it without getting long and drawn out, so here they are in all their unorganized glory:

Hermione wearing white in the beginning and when she comes back to life, and Perdita wearing white. It emphasized their innocence, Hermione as faithful and Perdita as Leontes true daughter.

Purple and black clothes set the stage for winter. Winter colors. Shiny, black shoes and tuxes and formal clothing for winter.

The men changed to brown suits in the spring and the tones of the girls dresses were a lot more earthy and reminded me of spring and life. It was more natural.

The clown in striped pants. The clown in striped suit after he is made a "gentleman." Character continuity. Rank didn't change him. Helped make the actor recognizable after a wardrobe change.

Autolycus' coat. Can I just say it was awesome? Really, I want that coat. On the outside it was tan and plain, like the facade he is trying to portray. On the inside it was woven and messy and all kinds of crazy colors. Like his true personality could help bursting out every time he turned around. His clothes were so complex and interesting. The wig and the hat, his boots went all the way up to his knee. It was just a really unique combination and somehow it all worked, like the different sides and faces of his character.

Florizel's cape was kinda lame. Frilly and off one shoulder. Held on by a string that kept slipping off. Maybe it shows how insubstantial and pretty-boy esque his character was. He does take the cape off though, so maybe running away with Perdita is his growing up.

Paulina. Why did she make me think of a cranky British nanny? Well.. that's how they dressed her. I just couldn't get over how old and out of place she looked. But maybe that's a consequence of being the voice of reason, you feel out of place and get a bad name for it. And isn't she, in some ways, Leontes' nanny? She smacks him on the hand every time he does a "bad thing" and tries to be cheerful.

So there's my jumble of observations from a Winter's Tale. There's not really any opportunity to interpret a director's costuming decisions when we're just studying the text in class. So this was fun.
Until next time, Hakuna Mutata.

Oh, and P.S. don't forget the bear's costume. I'm so glad it didn't look like this:

Perdita-"lost one"

You have to admit, their stories are eerily similar. In the beginning, at least. Perdita, of Shakespeare's Winter's Tale, and Oedipus, of Greek mythology, are both cast off by cruel, paranoid fathers after the reading of an oracle. Perdita's father, Leontes, believes she is an illegitimate child of an adulterous queen. Born in prison, the babe is left in the desert to die, found, and raised by a humble shepherd. Oedipus' father, Laius, has been read an oracle that any son born to him will marry its mother and kill its father. Upon birth, Oedipus is given to a servant with the command to leave him somewhere to die. Instead, the servant gives the baby to a shepherd. Oedipus is passed between shepherds, until he is eventually adopted by the King of Corinth. Similarly, Perdita becomes involved with a royal family. She falls in love and runs away with Florizel, prince of Bohemia. Both Perdita and Oedipus eventually return to their places of birth.

Oedipus-"swollen foot"

Where their stories end, however, could not be more different. Perdita's return to Sicilia leads to the discovery that she is the Kings daughter, and rejoicing ensues. She rises to her true identity gracefully, and marries Prince Florizel. They presumably live happily ever after. Oedipus' tale does not end quite so happily. He fulfills the prophecy, unknowingly killing his father and marrying his mother. Upon discovering the truth Oedipus blinds himself and lives out the rest of his life in exile.

So what happened? These two characters, who started out so similarly, seem to have been slaves to fate. Their destinies were foretold before or shortly after their births. Perdita's predicted return to Sicilia would not have been necessary if Leontes had never gone into his jealous rage and thrown his daughter out to die. Even Oedipus' self-fulfilling prophecy would have been useless if Laius had not acted on it. Both Perdita and Oedipus' futures were decided by the actions of their fathers. Are we, too, cursed by the actions of those who have come before us?

In a Winter's Tale, we read of the King of Bohemia, a sea-side, peaceful and relaxed country. Here there are sheep-shearing parties,babies abandoned in deserts, and bears that eat people. The king sails home when fleeing Sicilia. Ladies and gentlemen may I present to you, Bohemia, a land-locked country whose border's are defined by no less than four mountain ranges. Bohemia is now the western two-thirds of the Czech Republic, and there is no way anyone could have ever sailed to it. Also, no deserts. And while I can swallow the idea that there were bears here, a coast and a desert beside each other in a land-locked country just doesn't float my boat.

Another example of Shakespeare not being true to location is in Hamlet. I actually visited Denmark this last summer, and spent some time with a Danish family. So reading through Hamlet recently was a little bit of a different experience. The one thing I noticed the most on my trip, and my Danish friend made sure to point out to me, was the importance of family. Denmark is an extremely peaceful country, and their view on family relationships is pretty cool. Children are respected and looked to for opinions, elders are honored and obeyed. And I'm not just talking ideal, it's actually illegal for parents in Denmark to hit their children. But we can debate the effectiveness of spankings some other day. What startles me most about Hamlet is how such a violent and manipulative royal family is set in such a peaceful and friendly country. The Danes have a word, "hygge", which doesn't exist in any other language, and can't really be defined. Don't try to pronounce it either, you can't. But think of everything that reminds you of home, and warmth, and contentedness. I was on a Danish ranch over the summer, my hair was wet from a recent drizzle, we had just finished a "Danish barbeque", people were singing about the start of summer in a language I didn't need to understand, the sun was setting at 11pm, and I was happier than I had been in a long time. It just felt so right, this community I didn't know was so complete. I told my friend I could just stand staring at the fire and be happy for the rest of my life. She told me, "That's hyyge."

Now think about Hamlet. Chaos, lies, trickery. A man goes insane because his family is corrupted. No, Hamlet is definitely not Danish. He's just an English character Shakespeare implanted into a land that sounded distant and mysterious. I'm not saying nothing could ever be rotten in the state of Denmark (there's way too many fish for that..), but Hamlet is in no way a representation of Danish culture.

So why did Shakespeare do it? Why does he not seem to care that his settings don't match up with reality? Was it just that, that he simply didn't care? Do we, as a collective Shakespeare readership, enforce disregard for truth by letting him get away with it?

Just for fun, Hamlet's castle in LEGO.

Today's blog posting is going to be a little less about Shakespeare, and a little more about me... I know, gasp. How selfish of me.

So as we are getting more into this blogging business, a point that seems to keep coming up is finding an online identity. Blogs are interesting when you know who you are, know what you like, and are witty about sharing it. Right? But we aren't all born knowing the answers to these questions. Some people never figure out just who they are. I usually count myself as one of those. So the question is, how do I create an online identity, when my identity in reality is still up in the air? I don't have a major (it got the X about a week into this semester) and I don't have a single clue about what I am vaguely interested in. Inside my head there's this battle where on one shoulder is a little kid saying Hakuna Mutata, it means no worries. I can grow up to be anything in the world, as long as I believe. And on my other shoulder is a grumpy old lady telling me she's tired of working, just give up now, I'll never find anything I want to major in. Actually, she looks kinda like this:

But the point is, blogging Shakespeare related to something that interests me is actually kinda scary. Because what interests me is everything and nothing. And yet, as I was reflecting on my hopeless situation today I had a thought. A brilliant thought, if I do say so myself. If Shakespeare knew so much about the nature of humanity, he must have known about people like me, too. The world is full of indecisive people who are struggling to find themselves. And although they may not be the great protagonists of Shakespeare's plays, I am sure he included them somewhere. So that's what I'm here to do, look for me in Shakespeare. As we read through some of his great works this semester, I'll be on the lookout for the lost and confused, the people who are in the midst of self discovery. And who knows, maybe I'll discover a little bit of myself along the way. Hopefully it won't be the old, wrinkly part:)

FYI: The title is a Merchant of Venice quote

Just from the first act of Winter's Tale, it seems that loyalty is going to be a big issue. First there's King Leontes' wavering loyalty and belief in his wife, Hermione. There's the loyalty that should exist between friends such as Leontes and Polixenes, which apparently Leontes is now disregarding. And there's also the questionable loyalty of the servant Camillo. Camillo is interesting though, because we're not quite sure what he's supposed to be loyal to. He is a servant of King Leontes, and therefore should be loyal to him, but Camillo seems even more interested in truth and saving the life of King Polixenes. Are Camillio's loyalties somewhere a bit more valuable than in his master's word? It seems to me that his loyalties lie with doing the right thing, with life and truth. But these bold values make him traitor to the crown. Already, the theme of Winter's Tale is more one of loyalties lost than kept, and the consequences of breaking trust.

As Act 4, Scene 1 opens, Hamlet has just killed Polonius and gone to hide the body. Gertrude, distressed by what she has just witnessed, goes to Claudius. Claudius inquires about Hamlet, and this is what she replies:


"[He is] Mad as the sea and wind when both contend
Which is the mightier. In his lawless fit,
Behind the arras hearing something stir, 
Whips out his rapier, cries, "a rat, a rat!" 
And in this brainish apprehension kills
The unseen good old man."

In order to better understand Gertrude's character, we need to look closer at her choice of words. Firstly, although she has just been told by her son that he is only acting mad, Gertrude claims Hamlet is insane. She says he is like "the sea and wind when both contend which is the mightier." She sees his reason and his madness battling against each other, and is not sure which has won. Gertrude calls his action a "lawless fit" in "brainish apprehension". Both of these phrases seem to say that Hamlet's actions were beyond his control. But did Gertrude really think her son was mad? She had just come from talking with him, where he warns her to "lay not that flattering unction to [her]soul That not [her] trespass but [his] madness speaks." He tells her very explicitly that he is not truly mad, and that if she blames her guilt on this she is lying to herself. So did Getrude listen to her son? Did she believe she was at fault and had done a terrible thing in marrying Claudius? I think so.

It is very possible that in this excerpt Gertrude is portraying Hamlet to be more crazy than necessary to protect him from Claudius. Claudius must have realized from the play that Hamlet was on to him. If Hamlet was himself (ie. not crazy), he could be in immediate danger from Claudius. It is possible that Gertrude thinks the only way to keep her son safe from Claudius is to help give him the excuse of being insane. If so, she is mistaken, because Claudius does not intend on Hamlet leaving England alive. But Gertrude does try  to save her son whenever she can, here, and in the final scene when she drinks the poison meant for Hamlet. Did she know the cup was poisoned? Was drinking that cup one last attempt at keeping her son alive? Did Gertrude believe her son had gone mad? Or did she turn against her husband and proactively work to keep Hamlet safe? We'll never know for sure..

As you can see, I'm a bit of a Lion King enthusiast. It's number one on my "Awesome Disney Movies" list(followed closely by Pocohontas and Mulan). And since we all know Disney movies are the best, that kind of makes The Lion King the best movie ever. So there's something you know about me. I'm not quite sure how it's going to tie into the rest of Shakespeare, but while our class is studying Hamlet it seemed appropriate.

As far as Shakespeare, my life was relatively devoid of the man until last year. Sure, I read parts of Romeo and Juliet and Julius Ceasar, but when you're a high school freshman they tend to cover your ears and hum loudly to hide the true meanings of things from you. So Shakespeare started to mean something more to me my final year of high school, in my AP English Literature class. In the flurry of trying cram enough literature into our heads to be ready for the AP Test, we managed to cover quite a few of Shakespeare's works. In one year I studied Twelfth Night, Much Ado About Nothing,  Hamlet, Macbeth, and Othello in depth. While the comedies were fun and witty, it was Shakespeare's tragedies that interested me most. Often in the middle of a terrible, tragic death, my teacher would point out a line were Shakespeare was cracking a joke! It astounded me how witty a writer could be while killing of one of his characters. Once or twice I've come across a pun, or a disguised insult in my Shakespeare reading that has literally made me laugh out loud. I also actually appreciate the language in Shakespeare's writing. Many people call it a foreign language, and it may well be, but I love how complex and intriguing just a couple of sentences can turn out to be. I also have fun looking at footnotes while I'm reading, trying to figure out what words or phrases would have meant to people in those days and learning all the different uses and hidden meanings that can be seen simultaneously in a single word. The lines and characters of Shakespeare are so complex and interesting, I can only dream of one day understanding them. So, my Shakespeare knowledge may not be extensive, but I enjoy his works and am ready to learn more. Hopefully this blog will help me to do so.

-Martina