Chapters 10 and 11 - Dracula

Chapter 10
What struck me about chapter 10 is how modern (when I say that I mean Victorian) science and technology plays a key part in Van Helsing's success at defeating Dracula. Although the Victorian mindsets of the characters make it difficult for them to recognize that they are up against a vampire, Van Helsing correctly diagnoses Lucy's condition through science and rationality, not hearsay and folklore. What is interesting is that although he is a rationalist scientist, he also practices the occult. For example, his blood transfusions are an example of 'modern' medicine, but his use of garlic suggest otherwise.
What else is interesting is that Helsing is from Amsterdam, halfway between England and Transylvania, this could symbolise sort of a middle-ground, he is neither good nor evil, or more likely, he is a much more 'knowing character'.

Chapter 11
I thought this chapter shows more obviously the idea of a slipping between madness and sanity - portrayed when Dr Seward begins to doubt his working at the asylum and if it is contributing to his growing confusion between the two.We also see how cunning the Count can be; although he cannot break the window of Lucy's room as a vampire (because of the garlic), he transforms into a wolf to do the deed. I also liked how in this chapter, Dr Seward see his old master, Van Helsing, break down and lose control- (because Mrs Westenra has removed all the flowers etc from Lucy's room and opened the window to 'let in some air'). I also find the narrative irony funny in Lucy's diary entry - although she claims to be feeling much better she ''can hear something funny flapping around outside the window" HA. Silly girl.

Stereotypical Women

The housewife, the virtuous woman, the hysterical woman, the nagging woman. There are many different stereotypes of women- especially in literature.

In 'Dracula', the 'New Woman' is often referred to. The 'New Woman' was a movement documented in the 19th century and is often linked with the suffragette movement of the 10th century. basically, the 'New Woman' was this crazy idea that women were allowed to think for themselves- mad isn't it. In Dracula, it becomes obvious that Mina is definitely not a 'New Woman' and is put about by the idea. "Some of the 'New Woman' writers will some day start an idea that men and women should be allowed to see each other asleep before proposing or accepting." - Mina pg.98 This quote could suggest a stab at the New Woman by Stoker himself, or it could be used to show that Mina is very traditionally virtuous.

Lucy, on the other hand, differs from Mina as she flirts with the men who are interested in her, and she goes outside with an undoubtable "something long and black, bending over her half-reclining white figure." She only goes out in her nightdress- something that at the time was a very intimate piece of clothing. She contrasts from Mina as Mina is worried that "Someone should notice my bare feet". Ludicrous really.

Nowadays, I do think that some women fit into stereotypes, but not all, and there are many types of stereotypes. For example, driving to school every morning, I get angry at the women who drive their children to their private school in their big 4x4 gas guzzler. I stereotype them as 'soccer moms' who don't work because of they have a rich husband, and their only job is to have kids, make sure the cleaner or housemaid does the bath just right and get their nails done. Oh and who double park and block the road. Just an example.

Form and Structure in Dracula

Why is the novel written in journal entries and letters?

The theme of verisimilitude runs continuously throughout Dracula- the appearance of truth. The book begins with Jonathan Harkers personal journal, and begins with very dull, but normal events. He writes about how his train was late, he quotes real times, real places; "Left Munich at 8.35pm on 1st May, arriving at Vienna the next morning[...]". Although it is very dull, there is method in the madness. the real places, the typically real events (trains being late) and the use of real times allow the reader to gain a suspension of disbelief. By beginning the novel like this, the reader will accept, although not completely, the reality of the novel. This allows the reader have a trust between themselves and the characters (here Jonathan Harker), making the strange occurrences later in the chapters more believable. The idea of the suspension of disbelief allows the reader to not completely believe the text as if it is non-fictional, but accept the novel enough to enjoy the text without something to completely reject it.

Another major theme throughout Dracula is the invasion of privacy. We are told that the journals are 'personal' and private, and that no eyes should be reading them. This goes for the letters between the characters as well, 'this is a secret' etc. Again, it allows the reader to have some sort of suspension of disbelief. This privacy however could be linked as a symbol of Dracula himself. He is a creature whom attacks during the night, a time when one is asleep and at their most vunerable. in the 1800's, being in bed at night (especially for a woman) was a very private and intimate thing, yet Dracula chooses this time to attack. It also ties in with him being supernatural, could he have a power to see private thoughts?

The letters and journals allow the reader to have narrative irony, in which the audience knows something that the characters don't. Such as, after reading Jonathan Harkers journals, that audience knows that the great big bat at a window is Dracula, likewise with his red eyes, or 'pin-pricks' in the throat. So when you read onto Mina's journal, the reader knows that they are all linked with Dracula, but the characters are yet to find that out.

Although it can be boring and dull in parts, writing a novel in this structure does prove useful for the verisimilitude argument.

Dracula Chapter 1

So in the last lesson we established that Bram Stoker purposefully made the novel appear dull during the first couple of pages. By using 'normal' things such as accurate train details, real dates, how late the trains are etc, he creates versimilitude. Then by sneaking in a couple of strange occurences such as "The women looked pretty, except when you got near them" it allows him to get the reader prepared for a full-blown wolf-howling, flame-burning vamp-fest.
What I noticed about the chapter that interested me was when Harker is describing the nationalities in Transylvania, he mentions the 'Wallachs', which are descendants from Wallachia, who was the Prince of Wallachia at some point? Vlad the Impaler. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it's a nice little mention.
Another thing was the line from Burger's 'Lenore'. Ok well not the line, but the name Lenore. Although I didn't find any significant meaning of the name other than 'light', it is used in A LOT of Edgar Allen Poe's gothic poems, all of which included that name (Lenore/The Raven) or an alternative to the name -Elenore- all had major themes of the death of a beautiful woman. Again, it isn't hugely relevant to Dracula other than perhaps it's gothic link, but I still found it interesting.

Sigmund, Symbolism and Sex

If there's one person who can link trees to penis's it's Sigmund Freud. By coming up with psychoanalysis, he reckoned that when we fall asleep we become unconsciously aware of 'stimuli' whatever that is, and we react to it by dreams.
So, Freud thinks that anything 'which consist of three parts can mean a man's sexual organ and that the phallus 'is symbolically substituted with all things similar to it by their form, namelylong objects that jut out'. So, linking this to what we have began reading in Dracula, in which reality and the dream state become confusingly intertwined, Jonathan Harker writes in his diary; "Soon we were hemmed in with trees [...]". Freud would see these 'trees' and the phallus. (trying not to write 'penis' too much as it freaked me out how much we said penis last lesson.)
Moving on, Freud says that pretty much everything other than trees, mountains, rocks, sticks etc are female genitalia. To carry on with the quote above- "[...] which in places arched right over the roadway til we passed through a tunnel [...]" SO to conclude, Harker is thinking about bits 'n' bobs.
Freud then goes on to say that journeys, whether threatening or not, symbolises sexual intercourse. "The carriage went at a hard pace straight along [...]".
It is true that sex and what not is a key element to the Gothic, and I do know that there will be a lot of symbolism and sexual-like things, but I don't really like Freud's interpretation of dreams. I think that sex is a very animalistic instinct which all of us probably have in our unconscious, but to me, a tree is a tree. Well not anymore, Freud's ruined that for me.

VAMPIRESS

FINALLY moving onto Dracula, my fave. Here's a bit of background about what a Vampire actually is;
Vampires are mythological or folkloric beings which subsist by feeding on the life essence (often blood) of other living beings regardless whether they are undead or a living person.
Thanks Wiki.
10 examples of Vampires in history:

1. Count Dracula - How could I resist the obvious. From Bram Stokers 1897 horror novel, Dracula has a mask or cordality though flies into fits or rage when his plansare interfered with. He drinks blood, defies gravity by climbing walls and has some supernatural talents. He can only be killed by decapitating the head and a stake through the heart - being undead, he is immune to normall ways of human attack. Clever Van Helsing.
   



2. Kurt Barlow - From 'Salem's Lot by Stephen King (cracker of a book) He said he is so old he outdates Christianity itself, can cast hypnotic spells, and takes part in ritual human sacrifices. Not a nice guy really.



3. Spike off Buffy the Vampire Slayer - he is soulless but feels human emotions like love etc, he is driven by the thirst of blood because it has supernatural powers as it is what seperates the living from the dead. He also has a vunerability to the sun.



4. Nosferatu - also a synonym for the noun Vampire. The old black and white movie shows a vampire with all the classic features, lust for blood, is nocturnal etc. Very similar to Dracula.



5. Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia - known by his patronymic Dracula, and nicknamed Vlad the Impaler. It is said that it is Vlad whom Bram Stoker based Dracula upon, because of the Prince's lust for blood/putting victims of battles on sticks. Of course he isn't a real vampire, I'm just trying my absolute hardest not to mention any character from Twilight.



6. Elizabeth Battory - aka 'The Blood Countest' 1560-1614, Hungarian (rings a bell) her cousin Stephen became Prince of Transylvania in 1575. Believe it or not, she had an illigitimate child at the age of 14 (whoa) but married a count at 15. She was a stunner apparently, and her narcism made her look at herself for hours in a mirror. She had another 3 daughters and a son. She became interested in black magic, and her and her husband would torture servants using wartorture methods. The village where their castle was believed in the folklore of Vampires and became worried when Countess Battory became romantically linked to a supposed 'Vampire'. After some pretty horrific tortures after her husband died, she grew older and less beautiful, drawing the blood of young maids apparently was the cure to aging. Get some Olay or something.



7. Louis and Lestat from that film 'Interview with a Vampire' so a guy called Louis has a wife and kid and they get killed. He's absolutly gutted and befriends a vampire called Lestat. Having nothing to live for, he accepts Lestats offer to become a creature of the night, so Lestat drains Louis' blood and replaces it with immortal blood. He then learns the way of the vampires.

That's it! I can't think of any more and the web isn't being helpful with it. 7/10 ain't bad.

What do I thinkabout Faustus.

After finally finishing Faustus, my opinion of the character has developed. At the beginning of the play, I thought he was arrogant, proud and has an overwhelming thirst for knowledge and power. At the end of the play, I still think he is all of these things. However after seeing him fall from grace by doing such things as boxing the Pope's ear and being treated as an entertainer for Emperors ans such like, perhaps his personality has become more sympathetic. In his final soliloquy, he still refers to himself in the third person, but in an act of desperation before he is finally ripped to shreds, he offers; ''I'll burn my books!'' as a way to show he'd give up anything to not be dragged away, kicking and screaming to hell. Who wouldn't though?
However, I do think that although Faustus is very intelligent (shown through his speaking of Latin, casting off each career choice in the beginning of the play etc.) he does though have a vast lack of common sense. Perhaps he doesn't realise that after speaking to the Old Man (which I thought he symbolised religion and/or is supposed to be a powerful religious figure?) and saying a few words, he has repented? If you were in his position and were told by your little devil friend Meph that you had to pledge yourself again to Lucifer, you wouldn't jump to it, no, you'd say hang on a minute, if I have to pledge again that means I have just repented, so why should I go back?? It does make me quite angry, doesn't he realise how easy it is to get off the hell bandwagon?
Overall though, good play about good and evil.

How has Faustus fallen further? [4.0]

At the beginning of the play, we saw Faustus as an arrogant yet ambitious character. Since selling his soul, the audience will see a completely different personality shift. If reading the play, you will notice that before meeting and bargaining with Mephistopheles, Faustus was talking in Blank Verse, yet by act 4, it has changed into prose.
Evidence of his fallen status:

• Gets Mephistopheles to do all the dirty work- 'Mephistopheles, begone!' This could show either Faustus has no power and has to have Meph do it for him, or it could show that Faustus is too lazy to do it. Personally I think it's the first argument.


• The horseman keeps getting Faustus' name wrong - 'Doctor Fus..Doctor Faustian' showing not everyone knows or admires him.


• He lives off the rewards given to him by the Aristocracy. This suggests that his initial ambition to become ruler 'pole to pole' has gone down the drain- he now spends his time acting almost like a jester or entertainer for the hierarchy, where before he spent his time learning, reading etc.


• Fetching the Duchess grapes is the act of a servant, shows his social status has decreased dramatically.

Mephistopheles Act 2

I quite enjoyed this scene. I believe Mephistopheles is finally coming out of his shell. First impressions, he seemed honest, reliable and someone the audience could trust (due to him warning Faustus of the horrors of hell). Now, it seems that since he's got Dr F's soul, which he craved immensely, he's being short, denying Faustus of what he was promised.

Ir doesn't look good for Faustus, lets be honest. He wanted knowledge beyond the human reach- and it was given to him in a book. He wanted to know the secrets of the universe, yet Meph holds back, telling him things he knew in the first place. So Faustus asks for a wife, Meph then tells him not to have one, but to have many prostitutes each morning.

It could be argued that Mephistopheles is denying him each of Dr F's wishes to show trickery, Meph is a devil and a servant of Lucifer after all. Another, perhaps weaker argument is that Meph denies Dr F these wishes because of jealousy. Meph has made an attachment, a relationship with Faustus, and is jealous of the Doctor's earthly life. Perhaps Meph craved his soul so he could re-create the life Meph wanted. Or, cast your minds back to last lesson, is there connotations of Mephistopheles having homosexual lusts for Dr F, backed up with the evidence that Meph denied the Doctor a wife.

That 'oh-so-funny' Comedy Scene

Funny? Really? I personally don't see it, I'm more of the 'Mock the Week' type.
I do appreciate the fact there is some comedy in a very serious play, I find bits of Hamlet funny. But, I do feel like it was a bit of a waste of paper. The reason for this unnecessary scene? Well, my strongest opinion is that it acts as a 'breather' from the text. The scene following [1.4] is a pretty dense one, so I think that the scene is to cheer people up before something really bad and (at the time) blasphemous happens.

Other interpretations are that it provides contrast between the darkness of the text. Some believe it was written by another play write, and added in at a later stage to bulk out the text? And some think that it is there to show the world isn't all doom and gloom like the play suggests. The clown represents happiness, light-heartedness and hope- hope that there are people in the world who can have a laugh with =out having to involve the Prince of Darkness.

I prefere the nitty-gritty stuff of the play myself. Bring on the sex, drugs and rock and roll of Dr F.

Mepha...Mephastoph....Mephistopheles!

Just about worked out how to say that name. To be honest, I struggle with saying 'Faustus' properly.

Anyway, doing a little catch-up of the blogs. What do I think of old Meph? Well. On first introduction, I was unsure what to think of him. Yes, he made a good effort in trying to convince Faustus that being damned to hell is, well pretty crap. He tells us of the suffering; 'Think'st thou that I who saw the face of God/And tasted the joys of heaven [...] O Faustus! Leave these frivolous demands!' So he does try to persuade Faustus against the 'sell your soul' idea. BUT. Is this just an attempt at reverse psychology? I refuse to believe that Meph really means what he is saying, as if he really didn't want Faustus's soul, he wouldn't of taken it. And later on he says 'aside' to the audience (who, by the way cannot be lied to or tricked) how he is so very desperate for Dr F's soul. He doesn't sell hell very well, but I do think it is some kind of mischievous trickery.

That's my opinion out of the way with. I was doing a bit of surfin' on the net, and found some interesting ideas about what Mephistopheles is. Wiki reckoned that he is part of the old German folklore, and that he is not actually a devil, just a man who's purpose in life is to serve.

It's interesting that Shakespeare makes a reference to 'Mephisophullis' in his text 'Merry Wives Of Windsor' (Remember the theory that Shakespeare and Marlowe was the same person/wrote bits for each other).

AND another thing i found which was interesting but is probably more relevant in the rest of the play, are ideas that the relationship between Mephisopheles and Faustus is a homosexual one? And that Faustus is unsatisfied with his wife/many women because of his feelings for his little devil? Interesting stuff.

Last Lesson

Nice cake.
Made it through the chorus and about half of the first scene of Dr Faustus. My impressions of Faustus at the moment is swaying on a negative impression. His arrogance throughout the first page, quickly dismissing every career option (including his favourite, Theology) as though he is above the study of philosophy or medicine. He even questions Aristotle.
He also appears to me as a blasphemous person. He wants to become a 'deity', and have power between 'the quiet poles', ring any bells? Hitler perhaps? Maybe that's a little too far, but still. Especially in the context of reception. Marlow's audience would be Catholic. I get the impression that Marlow was writing satirically, as he was accused of being an atheist.
Like every Gothic protagonist, there is a slight feel of the super-natural. In Frankenstein, Frankie plays around with the creation of life. In Dracula, the idea of werewolves and ability to change form and even an unknown presence. With Faustus, the super-natural refers to magic. "These metaphysics of magicians/And necromantic books are heavenly."
So overall, my impression of Faustus's character is that he is arrogant, intelligent, has a strong desire for power yet he is ambitious and blasphemous. All of this fits into the ideals of Gothic protagonist.

The Bloody Chamber

Before beginning the story, I wasn't sure what to expect. Believing it was just a horror story or something like that, I didn't realise it was a Dracula-type story until a few pages in! Throughout the story, it isn't difficult to notice the copious amounts of sexual connotations and it has, in my opinion, similar references to the story of Pandora's Box? Suggesting man's desire for curiosity and proves that once told not to do something, you want to do it more. The character of the blind piano tuner is a lovely character, his blindness perhaps symbolising his 'inner beauty' or his inner knowledge and lack of care for vanity. The female protagonist, though portrayed as a naive young 17 year old girl, to me seems more mature than the way her patronizing husband does. In my opinion, it's the french marquis's fault for leaving her with the set of keys in the first place, if he thinks of her like a child, then what does he expect? Of course she'll do what she isn't supposed to! He's merely tempting fate. Bit harsh as well chopping her block off for going into a room. Good story.

Draculaa

Before reading, I didn't really know what to expect from this novel- the ending or if the way it was written (in letter/diary entry forms), but was very pleasantly surprised. Throughout the beginning of the novel (the first few chapters of Jonathan Harkers journal), you can tell that other vampire-type stories were all inspired by Stoker. He writes about how the count doesn't eat, there are no mirrors in his castle and how aversed he is to crucifix's. I do like the references to Whitby, having been there myself I know they're obsessed with Dracula.
Dracula is described as well to be animalistic, like a 'lizard' scaling the castle, how his cape is like 'wings' and how he has a control over the howling wolves. I think Jonathan is an interesting character, writing truthfully of his fears and how he feels trapped like a prisoner.
With characters Lucy and Mina however, I find things all a bit too romantic. They live for getting married and having children and especially Lucy seems very naive and immature. Mina on the other hand I think changes considerably throughout the novel and her character really matures and grows by the end of the novel. This was probably my favourite read of the summer though!

Vlad The Bad

(1431-1476)

What a guy, what a moustache. Vlad the third, Prince of Wallachia (or Vlad the Impaler as he is more commonly known as), known for his resistance against the Ottoman Empire and of course, the impaling of his enemies. However, more importantly he is said to be the inspiration behind Gothic character, Dracula. Oddly enough, Vlad's surname 'Draculea' derived from his father 'Vlad II Dracul' is the inspiration behind the name of Stoker's classic.
So after being chucked off the throne twice and two wives, in Stoker's eyes, Vlad would stand out among others as one of the era's most notoriously evil rulers of the selected region. He was weird and obscure enough that few people to recognise his name, yet known to those for his acts of brutal cruelty.

Mysterious Marlowe

Christopher Marlowe 1564-1593

Christopher Marlowe, father of the blank verse, brother of English tragedy, son of a shoemaker, and overall, a pretty strange fella. Baptised on the 26th February 1564 he was two months the elder of peer William Shakespeare. Awarded his Bachelor of Arts degree on behalf of the Privy Council due to his 'good service' and 'faithful dealings' to the Queen.

When it came to religion, Marlowe was a but of a left-winged kind of guy. Although he apparently dismissed allegations that he was an atheist, he admitted he did not believe in God. After Marlowe's friend Thomas Kyd gave up a few depositions (under torture none the less), the Privy Council began to 'keep an eye' on Marlowe, and investigated some serious charges made against Marlowe before his career in stage-writing abruptly came to an end. In fact, after Marlowe's death, Puritan Thomas Beard (The Theatre of God's Judgements) used Marlow's death as 'one of his warning examples of the vengeance of God'.

Despite being considered an extravagant gentleman, tobacco smoker and a homosexual, Marlowe was much more popular in his time than fellow play write, Shakespeare. His considered 'four great plays' include Dr Faustus, Tamburlaine the Great, The Famous Tragedy of the Rich Jew of Malta, an the historic epic, Edward the Second.

In Dr Faustus, his religious views came across strongly. Christian values persist the idea of forgiveness, yet at the final climax of the play, though the protagonist repents, his forgiveness is dismiss and he is ripped apart by the devil himself. It is said though, that the splendor within the story reflected that of the hierarchy of the 16th century, though the horror- perhaps not.

Marlowe's death in any case is an intriguing and strange subject. After being stabbed to death on the 30th May 1593. his death went undocumented, giving no real explanation for his death. Some say it was an assassination by the Privy Council, some say it was a drunken brawl between punters at a pub. However recent reports suggest that his actions before death may have attributed to his untimely death. Evidence shows he spent time with other suspected spy's. During late afternoon, he found himself in a squabble with Frizer who attacked Marlowe in 'self-defence' and stabbed Marlowe around his eye. Frizer was later pardoned, and Marlowe lies in an unmarked grave.

So what can we say about Marlowe? An outrageous and outlandish fellow who paved the way for the blank verse, yet was a private and secretive chap who found himself at a grim, bloody and unfortunate end to his mercilessly undocumented life. What can be said for him however, is that he lead the way for another important man in the history of literature. Marlowe set him in the right direction and influenced his work to a degree of genius, William Shakespeare.

Nosferatu

Bangin' film, loved it.
Quick background info: Nosferatu was made in 1921 and released in 1922. It is an adaptation of Bram Stokers 'Dracula', but when it was made, there were a variety of legal problems which caused the film to be slightly different to THE 'Dracula'. (Such as the word Nosferatu replacing the word vampire, and character Jonathan Harker being named Thomas Hutter in Nosferatu instead.)
The landscape and setting is underground, almost subterranean, which has not only a spooky affect as it is concealed and hidden, also could have an alternate meaning, think underground-where the dead are buried? But it also offers 'obstacles' in Hutter's pathway, creating a sense of unknown and the unexpected.
Talking of the unknown, there is a sense of supernatural in the silent thriller, Nina and her husband are aware of each other and when Renfield is in town, the old vamp 'knows'. 'The Unknown' could also refer to the idea that the audience knows that it is the vampire that is killing the people, yet Hutter doesn't know, creating dramatic irony.

Can I just say, I LOVE THIS GOTHIC STUFF. IT'S BELTING.

Setting in the Gothic

Ok, so from what I've seen of everyone else's blogs, looks like you all have blogged on 'The Castle Of Otranto', I think I must have missed something there (?) therefore, I will just blog about the setting found in a typical Gothic story or film.
The architecture in a Gothic fiction will be presented as large, grand buildings with unique characteristics such as pointed arches and tall spires. They would have been the monument of the city prior the 20th century, and would have been the skyscrapers of their time. Objects in the places such as candle arbores, creaking wooden doors and stone walls all add to the feel of a creepy Gothic building.
Weather is crucial to the setting of a Gothic fiction. Lightening, thunder and heavy rain is a regular occurrence, creating pathetic fallacy adding to the atmosphere of the point in the fiction. For example in Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, when Victor Frankenstein's mother dies in childbirth, the weather outside is chaotic, and in the film adaptation, lightening strikes a tree causing it to be destroyed. Another aspect of this, is that Gothic fiction is very dark, and events often take place at night to add to the horror and suspense.

American Gothic by Steph

American Gothic - Grant Wood

I know this is really sad, but I feel the need to clear up something from last lesson. When Mr F put on the board a handful of pictures that we had to explain why they were Gothic, he put up the painting called American Gothic by Grant Wood (above). Just to clear it up, this isn't actually a typical Gothic painting. It was painted in 1942, Wood was captivated by the simple Gothic-style house (in the background of the painting) in a town he visited called Iowa. He actually used his sister and his dentist as the subjects. He made this painting as a homage to-down to-earth Puritan dignity, found in small town America. Wood was actually part of the artistic movement of Regionalism (a form of realism common in North America). He derived similar techniques (such as his crisp, firmly delineated and precisely modelled style)from the Gothic and early Renaissance masters he studied during the 1920's. Therefore, this painting is not considered 'Gothic'. If you look at Gothic painters, e.g Gentile da Fabriano or Gaddi their style focus's on vibrant colour, attention to detail and often very religious subjects.

So guys, I'm really sorry for being pedantic and whatnot, but I just had to have a say. So if you have a look at the real Gothic paintings from the middle-ages and compare it to today's idea of Gothic, it's very different.

Proposals for the three re-creative pieces

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
Act3, Scene 1, Lines 30 [onwards]
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have just left after reporting back to the King on Hamlet's behaviour. Here, I propose to include a new scene where Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have a quite conversation between the two of them, where they discuss what they have been told to do, (to spy on Hamlet). Rosencrantz is arguing that what they are doing is ok, that Hamlet was never a close friend in the first place, and the fact that they get some sort of reward in the end if he follows the Kings orders. However Guildenstern feels the opposite. He is a weaker character and therefore does what Rosencrantz tells him to, but he argues that they should re-consider spying on Hamlet before something bad happens, (foreshadowing).
Commentary
By inserting this piece, it will give to fairly insignificant characters a chance to express what they actually feel, giving them an opinion and motives etc. It should give an insight to the audience about their personalities, and it should distinguish between the two, which is good and which is evil. It should also evoke the question of what is moral, and a dilemma between the two characters, which also will help to define what types of roles they will take in the play.

Polonius
Act 3, Scene 4, lines 1-13
Polonius is hiding behind the arras in Queen Getrude's closet, listening in on their conversation. I propose to insert a soliloquy by Polonius. The audience should here his speech after Hamlet has said "No, by the rood, not so", at this point, Polonius will interject with his soliloquy, saying how he could have been wrong about his theory that Hamlet was insane, and perhaps that he was just grief stricken. Then Polonius 'fantasises' that what if the King was behind the death of the late King? What if Claudius had a plan all along to become the King? This is when Polonius 'figures out' what's been going on. While Hamlet and Gertrude continue talking, audience will see Polonius talking to himself, not paying any attention to the conversation between Gertrude and Hamlet. That is when he hears "Help, ho!" and is brought out of his thoughts, and killed.
Commentary
Polonius is portrayed as a doddery old man, who speaks nonsense. However in this scene, I would like the audience to see his 'true colours', a moment of intelligence, showing that perhaps in his youth, he was once a very intellectual man. This could be backed up by the fact that when Polonius talks, he is often very philosophical, perhaps showing he was a very clever man. This also makes his death more of a tragic loss. In this re-creative piece, I also wanted the idea of fate to become more of a theme in this tragedy, the idea that everything happens for a reason and is pre-determined, because when Polonius finally understands what is going on, he is slain before being able to do anything about it, suggesting that the death and fall of the monarchy must happen.

Ophelia
Act 2, Scene 1, lines 105-onwards.
Ophelia has just been told to stay away from Hamlet by her father, Polonius, and she obeys. When Polonius leaves, she hangs back for a soliloquy in which she tells the audience how she feels repressed as a woman and as an individual, how she hates having to obey higher-powered people, how she feels about Hamlet and her worries and fears of never marrying and becoming a single lady (spinster). She toys with the idea of disobeying Polonius, and telling Hamlet how she feels about him, then she contradicts herself, saying how un-lady-like that would be. The theme of her soliloquy would be her disobeying of some kind, then talking herself out of it.
Commentary
In this soliloquy, there would be tones on feminism and gender oppression and inequality. It would give Ophelia a proper speech, and it would show a character insight about how she feels. However, the main thing is that I wanted Ophelia to sound like Hamlet, as in the soliloquy she constantly talks herself in and out of things, which mirrors Hamlet's personality for instance, when he talks himself into taking revenge on Claudius, then puts on a play just to make sure he did kill his father. Or when he talks about killing himself, then talking himself out of it because he'd go to hell.

The Recreative Piece

To be a bit different, I thought that I'd expand on one of the idea's we discussed last lesson- Did Gertrude kill Ophelia? I have done a better soliloquy for Gertrude after Hamlet leaves her after the bedroom scene, but I thought this was more entertaining to read. Well, in a way. Here goes.

4.7.158
(OPHELIA is sitting on the bank of a river which flows behind the castle of Denmark, dipping her bare feet into the water. Rue is clutched in her hands, she is singing quietly)

OPHELIA: Oh to be a Queen, a loving King for a husband, a blue-blooded child, but now left fatherless, worthless..What shall become of me now?
[ENTER QUEEN]

QUEEN: Sweet Ophelia, are you feeling any better my dear?

OPHELIA: The water is quite cold Madam, quite cold.

QUEEN: (Aside) The poor girl, she is definitely gone. (To OPHELIA) My lady, why don't you come back into the hall? You can warm up, the air is biting. I will ask for a meal-

OPHELIA: Then what Madam? What more could you possibly want from me? Leave me, I beg you.

QUEEN: Now, Ophelia..

OPHELIA: I know what has been happening! You, the wretched King, even my father. You've all been scheming! Turning Hamlet against me, I could've helped him! How could I have disobeyed you? I could've helped him. You turned him against me! All of you nasty, scheming royalties!

QUEEN: How dare you! Did you get taught nothing? You are not to speak to me like that! I am your Queen!

OPHELIA: Of course, Madam.

QUEEN: Damn your insolence! We took you under our roof!

OPHELIA: No, you took my father under your high. chandeleared ceilings! And for what? To make a mockery of him! To destroy his kindness, to use his daughter in a wicked game, to murder him! What am I now, my lady? Nothing. You robbed me of my father! You stole away my lover!

QUEEN: Your lover! Silence yourself child!

OPHELIA: Yes, my lover! We were to be married, to allow our child to grow up with protection and love! We wanted to restore this family from the sham it is now!

QUEEN: Your child? Ophelia..

OPHELIA: The water is cold, Madam. Very cold.

QUEEN: You're with child? Ophelia no! How could you? Tell me this is not the truth but some ramblings from your recent loss of sanity!

OPHELIA: Leave me.

QUEEN: Damn you! You're tainted! You're a devil's advocate! You're-!

OPHELIA: I said, leave me now please dear woman. I've had enough of you for the day.

QUEEN: (Lunging for OPHELIA, pulling back her hair and dragging her to the ground as OPHELIA screams) You're a sinner! You must be punished!

OPHELIA: (Laughing) Kill me like you killed my father!

QUEEN: To hell with you! Sinful little girl, to hell! (QUEEN with noticeable effort pushes OPHELIA into the river which is full of pond weed, debris and other water plants)

OPHELIA: Madam, I cannot swim! (Laughing, as she sinks under)

QUEEN: (Watches OPHELIA drown) Such a shame... Dear girl, I would have so loved a daughter, especially such a beautiful daughter like you, Ophelia.. (Picks up the Rue, as her breath becomes normal again. She throws the plant onto Ophelia's dead, floating body.) Goodbye, Ophelia. You will have a Christian funeral. (QUEEN looks around, before running back towards the hall) [EXIT QUEEN]


Well, that's that then. Apologies for it's shockingness. This has definitely made me realise that I will not be doing a re-creative piece for coursework. Standard essays for the win.

Gertrude

My immediate impression of Gertrude was that she was the innocent victim, the mother who was only trying to do what she thought was right. Now? I think she's a randy old goat. Although it is argued that she didn't know anything about Claudius's plot to gain the throne, she decided to marry Claudius to keep society in balance and to protect her son Hamlet's future secure. However, after much deliberation, I think that not only did she think all of this, but she always though of herself. Although there is no evidence in the text to support Hamlet's accusations that she is very involved and active with Claudius, the subtle suggest of possible incest (which [to my EXTREME horror] we saw on the DVDs,) show that she may very well be very active with her new husband. So, why did she marry Claudius? Perhaps she was doing it for the right reasons, or perhaps she was lonely, and needed a man, the closest thing to her late husband was his brother- therefore they married.

However, she does seem like she is very loyal to her son. "What should I do?" She says, asking Hamlet to tell her how to make him feel better. To me, Gertrude seems like a weak woman, she is easily submissive and goes after her desires. However, as she is the queen, I thought that perhaps she does try to be a more powerful female figure, such as when she gives her short speech to him, but does fail, as Hamlet retorts back to her, putting her back in the place an Elizabethan woman belongs. (Not in the kitchen, in a metaphorical place.)

The Presentation Of The Ghost in Act 1

The Ghost is that of the late King of Denmark, who appears before Hamlet at midnight, while the current King Claudius is getting drunk; "And as he drains his draughts of Rhenish down".
There are two ways in which the Ghost should be portrayed as. For example, in the early 60's version of Hamlet, Olivier directed the Ghost to be quiet and barely visible. The audience could therefore see the Ghost as upset or weak, evoking sympathy towards him. In my opinion, this is not how the late King should be perceived.

it could be argued that the Ghost could be the tragic villain in Hamlet. Tragic villains have such characteristics such as the ability to manipulate, which the Ghost demonstrates by saying; "If thou didst ever love me...". Villains also have the power of words and wit. Although the Ghost describes Claudius to have "Wicked wit that has power", he himself uses his words and wit to manipulate Hamlet into seeking revenge; "So thou art to revenge".

In typical tragedies, the villain usually has no motive to cause mayhem, yet it could be argued that the ghost of the late King does have a motive, to deem him free from the hell/purgatory of which he is now resigned to; "When I to sulphurous and tormenting flames".The King died a sinner- he did not have a death bed in which to repent from, therefore is deemed to suffer for his sins. Another point for the idea of the Ghost's motive, is that he wants to restore society. His son Hamlet was next in line for the throne once the late King died, however his uncle, Claudius became King instead. This could be Karen Numan's idea that something must be 'contrary to nature' to be a tragedy. Another idea which supports this idea is that the Ghost tells Hamlet "'Tis natural to revenge", however to commit murder is not natural.

In the 2009 version of Hamlet, the late King's ghost is shown to shout his words, powerfully, with gestural grabs and embraces with his son. In the text, there is little said about how the late King was in his life, apart from being well admired by both Gertrude and Hamlet, however Hamlet's encounter with the spirit suggests that they were close. I think that this performance of the Ghost is a more realistic and accurate portrayal of the Ghost.

What is noticeable in this scene, is how similar the words spoken by Hamlet and the Ghost are. Both say that the marriage between Gertrude and Claudius is incestuous, and how 'seeming' the Queen is; ("Seems madame, seems."). This could suggest that the Ghost is not real, but just a figment of Hamlet's madness. In the previous scene, Hamlet was thinking about suicide which indicates a point of breakdown in him. When Hamlet hears the accusations made by the Ghost that Claudius murdered him, Hamlet states "O my prophetic soul!" which suggest that he already knew or suspected Claudius of murdering the late King. Perhaps the Ghost is just a projection of Hamlets subsiding sanity, which he projects for closure of his grief, and as an excuse for seeking revenge on Claudius. However, one could argue that the Ghost is real. Evidence for this is that both Marcellus and Horatio the guards saw the Ghost twice on the hour of midnight. When the guards first told Hamlet of the sighting of the Ghost, he was skeptical about it. This subject is much debated.

In conclusion, my first impressions of the Ghost in Act 1 are that he is an angry spirit projected by a moment of insanity on Hamlets part, who manipulates him into seeking revenge. However, I disagree with the idea that he is a tragic villain, as he is not real.

Guys, I am watching the opera version of Hamlet on SkyArts2. It sucks.

Claudius!

Last lesson we focused on Claudius in Hamlet. We looked at his speech near the beginning of the play, and watch a couple of clips in various versions of Hamlet.
Personally, I do believe that Claudius is the villain in the story. I think his speech when he is addressing the court is supposed to be 'put on', rehearsed and fake. He could be portrayed as very evil, or just a baddie, but I do think he is evil. Look at the facts; he kills his own brother to become King of Denmark, and then marries his sister-in-law. He insults Hamlet for grieving over his dead father, then he orders two of Hamlets friends to spy on him and sends him away.
Although we agreed that villains in tragedies don't have a motive, I believe this case is different and that Claudius did have a motive for becoming King. I think that he must have been jealous of his brother, which is why he killed him and married his wife, I also think that he is jealous of Hamlet. Hamlet is clever, young and witty, and I don't think that Claudius likes that. Therefore, Claudius's motive to kill the King (his brother) was to gain the throne and have a control over Hamlet.

Tragic Flaws

In today's lesson, we did a free writing exercise to see how much we knew about Tragic flaws. Everyone got similar ideas, that it is something bad happening in a play.
We then started to look at Aristotle, and his ideas of a classic tragedy:

• The idea of a plot
• Character
• Speech
• Reasoning (Not just blind aggression)
• Spectacle (Something exciting happening onstage)
• Lyrical poetry (Beautiful words to hear

Then we looked at the idea of Catharsis and what it could mean. Aristotle said that is was a ''purging of emotions'' and you take the lessons learned from the play to benefit your own life. Whereas Brecht said that you use a tragedy to change the world for the better. We then decided that a good definition of Catharsis was ''to feel an emotion with the performance/narrative''.

Aristotle also had '3 Unities' that made up a play.

• Action (one main plot)
• Time (Time span of the play should relate to 'real' time)
• Place (The play stays in one place)

Shakespeare was know for breaking these rules. He made his plays span across days such as Romeo and Juliet, and he changed the places of the play such as in Othello when he begins in Verona but ends up in Cyprus. However, a new take on tragedy has come from Karen Numan, who said that a tragedy is something which goes against nature, eg Othello sees a black man marry a white woman, and Macbeth sees a man going against the king. I think this is an interesting view on tragedy, and also believe that it is very relevant. If you relate her idea of tragedy to the real world, she is right. Things that go against nature (eg War [men killing men]) end up as being terrible tragedies (Death, suffering of countries, people). Therefore her idea of tragedy I believe is probably the most accurate.

Tragedy!

Last lesson we looked at Tragedy, and what makes a tragedy.
We decided that a tragedy has 3 main elements:

• Death
• Suffering
• Chaos

It also has 3 main characters:

• Victim (Innocent, beautiful, weak)
• Villain (Evil, fatal flaw, manipulative)
• Hero (Perfect, hubris, harmartia)

We also looked at the tragic structure:

1. Introduction
2. A Complication
3. The Climax
4. A New Understanding
5. The Resolution

Really looking forward to Hamlet and assessing its tragic structure.