Big I, Eye, Aye.

Bye, high school English class. I’ll miss you! It was a good one this year. It passed by way too fast.

Now, onto studying for 4 exams. Woo. Hoo.

And I suppose goodbye to this blog as well… I won’t be needing it anymore.

Name : Neftali Ricardo Reyes Basoalto (name legally changed to Pablo Neruda later in life)

Pen name: Pablo Neruda

Birthdate: July 12, 1904

Birthplace: Parral, Chile

First published: At 13, Entusiasmo y Perseverancia.

Pen name of Pablo Neruda in memory of Czech poet Jan Neruda. Pablo took this name at the age of 16.

Always wrote in green, the color of hope.

Imagery of sea, eyes, and nature prominent in his poetry

School: French and pedagogy, University of Chile, Santiago.  

Nobel Prize for Literature – 1971

March 4, 1945 – Senator for Communist Party of Chile. July 1945 – joins Communist Party. 

 Throughout his life, always related/participating in some part of the government.
1927 – 1935 : honorary consulships
Spanish Civil War : joined Republican movement in Spain/France
1939: consul for Spanish emigration, Consul General in Mexico
1945: senator of the Republic  (because of actions, forced to live underground from 1947-1949)

Published a large body of work. (selected bibliography available here: http://www.poets.org/poet.php/prmPID/279)

Marriages: Maria Antonieta Haagenar Vogelzang, Delia del Carril, Matilde Urrutia.

Died September 23, 1973 from heart failure.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1971/neruda-bio.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Neruda
http://www.poets.org/poet.php/prmPID/279

Happy New Years all! And Christmas. Hope it was safe and happy for everybody, and you’re all rested up. :)

I got a book of selected poems by Pablo Neruda for Christmas. I might have fallen in love a bit, maybe.

And looking back at my newspaper articles, I’m pretty sure I did them wrong. That’s unfortunate. I can’t fix them now though, that’s unfair. Sorry Mr. Murray!

The Shakespearean play Hamlet revolves around the play’s namesake. This character has just lost his father, witnesses the incestuous wedding of his mother to his uncle, and finds out that his new stepfather killed his actual father. And this is just the beginning. Now, just looking at this list of very unfortunate events, one would be comfortable in saying that someone could possibly go crazy if these things happened to them. They would be even more comfortable in saying that, if they knew the complete list of unfortunate events – random murders committed by the person in question, secret affairs leading to a lover’s turn to insanity, a continuously disloyal mother.Such is the case for Hamlet. He is crazy. This can be proven from a number of standpoints.

One must first consider Hamlet’s insanity case in it’s own time period. Because it wasn’t written today, we have to go back to Shakespeare’s time and see what his original intent was. The traits that showed insanity back then may have been different than those that qualify it today. So, in Shakespearean literature, an insane character would usually exhibits behaviors that go against the grain of society, and as usual, endangers those around him and himself. Paul, throughout the play, goes against many societal norms. He, most importantly, goes against the king. In fact, he plots against the king. This was really frowned upon in these times. He also sleeps with a woman he’s not wedded with, and this is a noblewoman too. He goes against the Great Chain of Being, something ingrained in everyone at that time.

And it cannot be disputed that he’s a danger to himself and others. He speaks of suicide many times, in his ‘to be or not to be’ monologue, as well as his ‘would if this too solid flesh would melt’ speech. But, he refrains from it because of the Church. He obviously endangers others, killing Polonius, driving Ophelia mad, plotting to kill Claudius for almost the entirety of the play, signing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s death warrants. Hamlet is insane in the Shakespearean tragedy definition of the word.

Another literary example of why he IS crazy is his extended use of soliloquy. Although a popular method used in Shakespeare’s plays, one must approach his use of them here differently. What are Hamlet’s soliloquies about? Death, death, more death… tragedy. And take into account who he’s speaking these to… no one. He’s rambling about these morbid topics to no one but thin air. Does this strike you as entirely sane? No.

Let’s look at this from another perspective. Linguistically! The root of insanity is the Greek word sanus, meaning health. So, technically, an insane person doesn’t need to have a mental disorder, just an unhealthy mind. Look at Hamlet. He is under intense amounts of mental stress. A person under stress for extended periods of time will get sick eventually. Through his exhibits of suicidal talk and mood swings, one could easily say Hamlet is mentally ‘sick’. In the linguistic definition of the word, Hamlet is insane.

One last literary way to prove that he is insane is by looking at Hamlet and Ophelia as foil characters. A foil character is defined as:

A minor character whose situation or actions parallel those of a major character, and thus by contrast sets off or illuminates the major character; most often the contrast is complimentary to the major character. (http://www.humanitiesweb.org/human.php?s=l&p=t&a=d&ID=29).

Ophelia’s personal plot mirrors Hamlets in a number of ways. Both their fathers are murdered by someone they previously trusted, and their mothers are unable to help. In the end Ophelia turns into a rambling lunatic and has a questionable death (which some saw as suicide). Perhaps what this secondary character is trying to highlight in Hamlet’s character is his turn in insanity.

Hamlet is unquestionabely insane, as my arguments looking from the point of view of Shakespearean lit, linguistics, and literary tools.

Luke, En Garde!

December 17, 2008

By Ilayda Williamson

              Betrayal. A common theme through the ages, and the topic of the debate in Mr. Murray’s Grade Twelve English class on Monday December 15, 2008. Two teams met, the Affirmative (Adam Young, Matt Brown, Stuart Gendron) and the Negative (Jon Hughes-Khatib, Tyler Keith and Alex Van der Mout) to argue whether or not Gertrude betrayed both Old and New Hamlet. The judges presiding over this debate were Megan Marshall, Stephanie Wilson, and Jayme Bedell.
              The debate began, as usual, with a recitation of the rules. The rule which made the audience giggle and the debaters whip our the light sabers provided to them was the one that during the free for all, the debaters must end every major argument with a sword fight. All anticipated this with bated breath. The Affirmative began the debate at 10:09 a.m. with a quote from Osho (as well as an appeal to authority) and the things which may qualify betrayal (lying and decieving). They also then outlined how Gertrude fell into these qualifications – her involvement in certain death plots, as well as eavesdropping in order to further Claudius’ plans.
               The Negative then began to lay out their points. They first highlighted the difference between modern marriages, which are for love, and marriages in the time of the play, which were for status and safety. This invalidates a speedy remarriage as proof of betrayal as it was probably more of a political move – to strengthen Gertrude’s and Hamlet’s position on the throne, as well as have them remain in court more securely. They also pointed out the possibility of her pragmatism – that she simply saw the need to move on far more quickly than Hamlet. Finally, they took the Ghost’s words as proof. Old Hamlet’s ghost told his son not to harm Gertrude. The Affirmative took this to mean that Old Hamlet did not see Gertrude as guilty of betrayal. During this argument, anaphora was used nicely to help the audience accept the points.
            The rebuttals and following arguments centered around young Hamlet. The fact that young Hamlet makes jabs at his mother for almost the entirety of the play was brought up, as well as the inconsistency of the point of Gertrude safegaurding Hamlet’s future safety by remarrying – as the man she remarries and aids is the one planning to kill her son. An interesting suggestion made by the Negative team was the one of Gertrude’s play-acting, just as her son was. They proposed that Gertrude was playing along simply to save her and her son’s necks. To not go along with Claudius’ plans was to show a crack in her guise, which would ruin her.  The first rebuttals were finished with a Shakespearean insult, which made the audience laugh a little.
         The most interesting part of the debate was the free for all. This period of time was rife with sword-fights. Sadly, one of the judge’s beloved light sabers was broken during the final sword fight, but it was a single casaulty in a war of point-winning tricks. Tyler Keith begun the free for all with an impressive soliloquy written by himself and performed very dramatically. Not surprisingly, given the preceding debates and debaters, it was cut short by an ad hominem delivered by the opposition. This led to a sword fight, and Tyler quickly redeemed himself with a win. Stuart, the flinger of the first ad hominem and apparent antagonist of the free for all, begun another fight with Jon, managing to win this sword fight. Following this, a burden of proof fallacy was utilized, as a “You prove it! You prove it doesn’t!” quarrel erupted. Following this fallacy, one of the teams said that a Queen could show no emotion, because she is the Queen and is watched far too closely. This was a strong point made, which could be verified by looking back at history. Amusingly, throughout the free-for-all Jon used an appeal to fear. This garnered giggles from the audience. The last fight had had epic music in the background provided by Jon’s laptop, and Tyler once again was the victor. This intense free for all was ended by a point made by Jen (who was speaking for this reporter, who was too shy at the moment) about the political nature of marriage in those ages. One simply did not marry for love then.
             Betrayal, even when defined by a dictionary, does not make finding the guilty easier. This was shown by the debate. One side had the strong point that she did have a heavy hand in helping Hamlet be driven out. The other side, however, made the earnest argument that she was the Hamlets’ mother and wife – that all loyalty and devotion should go strictly to them, and that all passions should be felt for them. In the end, the negative team won by an additional point. A fair fight fought, with light sabers and clean arguments on both sides.

Adulations and Ad Hominem

December 17, 2008

By Ilayda Williamson

                 On December 11, 2008 at Rockland District High School in Mr. Murray’s Grade Twelve English classroom, an awesome display of fallacies and some debating took place. The first few minutes were taken by the judges, who included Seth Epps, Colton Bissonette, and Logan Lubuk. They introduced the topic of the debate – Miller’s definition of modern tragedy is appropriate for modern ages – and laid out the rules. An interesting rule thought up by the judges was to say “Argument, Engage” with a Transformer-like extension of the arm before beginning each argument. The audience of reporters and the participants were then allowed a few minutes to chat amongst themselves as the judges prepared for the ensuing debate. They took them happily, and the low familiar chatter of a classroom rose in the air.

                  The debate began at 1:37 p.m. with the first argument of the Affirmative team, which consisted of Justin Sweeney Cadieux, Ben Cousins, and Dawson Lybbert. Justin first took the podium, so to speak, to deliver his points. He began by utilizing an appeal to flattery by complimenting the judges prodigiously. Having buttered up the judges, he then went on to point out that tragedy is simply tragedy. And that modern tragedy, which sets the average man as the tragic hero, allows modern people to relate to them. Shakespearean tragedy doesn’t, Justin said, because the tragic heros were noble. The Affirmative team then dissolved under the intense heat of the room and perhaps the opposition’s intense gaze. With one minute left, Justin uttered: “Argument disengage” and took his seat.

                The Negative team then took to their first argument. This team, made up of Stephanie Boucher, Stephanie MacDonald and Rebecca Ritchie, had come prepared. They shucked off their sweaters, and revealed shirts adorned with the phrases Golden Oldies, Original Trendsetter, and Versatile Vintage on the front, and each with a name of a judge in the center of a heart on the back. A clever and useful appeal to flattery executed by the Negative Team. Stephanie Boucher stood, and with a very self-confident and empowered voice, began her argument. A fine show of quick, concise words followed. One of the more interesting points outlined was the one that nobles were tested in Shakespearean tragedies, and through this testing showed the public the important questions of life and human potential. Other interesting points included the artistically enhanced language of Shakespearean plays and the fact that a noble does not need to be a Prince or King, simply someone who acted nobly.

                The debate continued much in this manner, with the Affirmative team starting strong, but sometimes faltering, and with a good number of points built up by the Negative Team, who was most strongly led by Stephanie Boucher. The Negative team continued with points such as the famousness of Shakespeare’s works, the love the modern ages have of blood and gore, and the greatness of Shakespeare, claiming that modern plays were watered down attempts at Shakespeare. The Affirmative team continued with points such as a formulaic plot found in Shakespearean tragedies, a more civilized modern audience, and the antiquity of Shakespeare. They also, surprisingly, pointed out the length and depth of vocabulary. Does this perhaps implies the laziness of the modern ages? An interesting point to use by the Affirmative side.

                  The free-for-all was truly a lunge at the jugular by both teams. Any attempt at meaningful argument quickly devolved into a screaming match usually headed by Stephanie Boucher. Destructive images of the Affirmative team were brought up by the Negative team in the debate as well, to poison the well and invalidate their opponents. Several biting (and possibly foolish) cracks made towards blondes and women were made by the Affirmative team, which the female portion of the audience did not respond well to. The Affirmative team apologised post-debate, a wise move. Although several things which may have be regarded as hurtful were seen by all, the debate ended with a friendly group hug by both teams.

                This debate was truly a lesson in tact and preparation, or lack thereof. Although a tremendous amount of fallacies and rhetorical devices were utilized in this debate, few strong arguments were solidly given. The Negative team appeared to be the more prepared team, and the judges awarded them the win ultimately.  This day, at least, Shakespeare still rules. But he was fought for very bloodily.

Out with Hamlet, out with ISUs!

In with poetry. Oh yeah. :D Favourite part of the english course.

I’m in a group with Stephanie W, Kim, and Mickey. We’ve got South American poetry. I’m super excited… I chose Pablo Neruda to research and I love some of his stuff already. He’s pretty depressed sometimes though. But, still. Awesome. :D

I’m glad to have my ISU handed in… It was pretty hellish to do all of it on Saturday (ahaha, I’m funny). But I’m actually pretty happy with it. The two people who read it said it was solid, and didn’t have much to fix. So let’s hope that’s true. :P It was a huge task to get it all crystalized in my head though. A bit of an uphill battle. I find it funny that Mary and I both wrote about Hell though, and the Hells we wrote about were pretty contrasted.

Now, because my face is achey, I will sign out and count down the moments until Denethor throws himself off the top layer of Gondor. In flames.

YAAAY.

              The family unit is vital to society. But allow me to clarify. The functional, loving family unit is vital to society first and foremost. A loving and functional family unit will teach their children to be good citizens – to treat others well, behave properly in groups, contribute meaningfully to society, and be respectful. The ’smaller-scale’ version of society that is the family unit serves as a training ground for children to learn adult behaviour. Whether this family unit be ‘nuclear’ or not is irrelevant. As shown in Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, a traditional ‘nuclear’ family is not necessarily fully functional and healthy to society. Hamlet’s own family, which always involves a father figure and mother figure of some sort, is proven to be the most dysfunctional of all in the book. Even the lesser nuclear, but still close, family of Polonius, Laertes and Ophelia is somewhat dysfunctional and leads to tragedy. This underlines the importance of the loving aspect of the family unit, not the conformation to the stereotypical nuclear family ’shape’.

              Not only is the family unit important as a means of learning to live in society later in life, it also satisfies humanity’s gregarious needs. Being creatures that like groups, the family unit allows a secure base group of people with whom a person may associate and feel appreciated. Fulfilling this need allows a person to grow and develop healthily. Happy citizens make a happy society that is more likely to run smoothly and without confrontations. Oppositely, those without a stable base upon which they can rely carry this instability through all aspects of their life, including their dealing and participation with society. They become a hiccup in the workings of the societal machine. However, if one can find a ways in which to overcome the disfunction of their family, they do not become a hiccup.

(( Apparently this a structural functionalist theory? ))

Hamlet
Constructed reality: Old Hamlet has died, and this is because of his Uncle poisoning him. His mother has whored herself out to his uncle, not long after his father’s body has been put in the ground. He must seek revenge. Revenge!

Outcome: A put upon act of insanity, alienating Ophelia, terrifying his mother, killing a number of people, being exiled by the King, and dying at the hands of Laertes.

Ophelia
Constructed reality: Hamlet loves her truly, but has gone mad. Hamlet has also murdered her beloved father. The two most important men in her life have both been wronged.

Outcome: Complete loss of sanity, possibly because cannot choose who (Hamlet or Polonius) is wrong/right. Death with mysterious circumstances.

Laertes
Constructed reality: Loves his father very much. Does not trust Hamlet with his sister, does not believe that he truly loves her. When Hamlet kills his father, is enraged with him.

Outcome: Attempts to overthrow King and kill Hamlet. Plots with the use of a poisoned foil in a ‘mock’ fight with Hamlet. Kills Hamlet and also dies by Hamlet.

Fortinbras
Constructed reality: Although his father lost his claim to Denmark in a duel many years ago to Old Hamlet, this is not fair. He should be able to lay a claim to the throne after Old Hamlet dies as well.

Outcome: Attempts multiple times to invade Denmark. Eventually gets to, and ends up King as the rest of the court has just died.

Gertrude
Constructed reality: Husband has died, and must remarry. Motives for this are never revealed in the play… whether she does so because she never loved Old Hamlet, because she was in on the plan to murder Old Hamlet, or simply because she needed to remain on the throne for her son. However, she believes something is wrong with Hamlet, and goes along with Claudius’ plans throughout the play. She appears to still love her son, however.

Outcome: Dies because of King and Laertes plan to poison Hamlet. Son loses any respect for her.

Claudius
Constructed reality: He must get the throne, and poisons his own brother for it. Hamlet is dangerous and must be removed (attemps to kill him multiple ways – exile with death warrant, poisoned wine, poison-tipped blade).

Outcome: Dies at the hand of Hamlet. Ends up killing his own wife, Gertrude, who he seems to care for, in the course of trying to kill Hamlet. His blinding need for the throne starts the conflict of the entire play, and leads to the death of many many characters.