Wow, I’m getting weepy just thinking about the fact that this is almost done . Anyway, this is the last act of the play. I found this act interesting for many reasons, one of them being its contribution to the structure of the play’s plotline. Normally we find that the last act of a play is going to be somewhat of a calm scene, showing how everything turns out. In Hamlet, we see something different. I find that the climax of the play is actually in this act, somewhat distorting the “plot diagram” in my mind’s eye. Since I hope you can’t see into my mind, I made this scribble to depict the plot diagram that I was thinking of. I apologize for the poor quality of the scribble; it was made with a laptop touch pad:
Simply because of the fencing match between Laertes and Hamlet and the the subsequent death of Claudius…and everyone else too. It’s the architypal ending to a tragedy.
So let’s go to what happens in Act V. We start with the gravedigger scene. If it hadn’t been for the Elizabethan English or the underlying emotion, I would have been convinced that this was a scene from Monty Python; it has the same general format as would a typical Monty Python scene. There’s a comic gravedigger, and a straight gravedigger. If we haven’t seen any Monty Python before…SHAME ON YOU!! This is something we shall need to remedy with a great scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: I give you THE BLACK KNIGHT!!!
Very funny, yes? Notice that King Arthur was the straight guy, and the Black Knight was the funny guy. However, Scene I is only funny for the first part, but when Hamlet enters, the tone reverses to an extreme. Hamlet is casually passing by until he sees the gravediggers. Once he sees them talking about who they buried, Hamlet finds out that the body they’re burrying is that of Ophelia. Hamlet then approaches the grave, when Laertes lashes out on Hamlet, almost killing him.
Sorry that it couldn’t be as massive, but Act IV isn’t quite as meaty as Act III. Act IV is more of the falling action of the play, where we continue to discover Hamlet’s fate. The format is different from that of Act III in that the scenes are much shorter, and there may be something in that. Seeing as Act III is supposedly the climax of the story, the falling action should follow. What I’m thinking here is that Shakespeare is shortening the length of the scenes to make the story go at a quicker pace, or to give an illusion that the story is doing so. From here on in the play, we will see the result of actions occuring in Act III.
Curious enough, now Gertrude is finally worried about the death of Polonius. Curious that she should be worried about Polonius after Hamlet has left and the corpse is being hidden. Worried as she is, she reports the case to King Claudius. Claudius (this is no surprise) fears for his position as King, since people may believe that it was Claudius who killed Polonius. In that case, it becomes the priority of Claudius to get rid of Hamlet as soon as possible.
In the next scene, Hamlet has finally hidden the body, but he hasn’t told anyone where yet. This is also no surprise, since, following in Claudius’s character, anyone could be spying on Hamlet now. He compares Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to “sponges”. While reading this, I thought that Hamlet might be referring to the fact that any information given to them would only be used to benefit themselves.
As we keep this quick pace moving, we see Claudius and advisors in his room. Now we realize that it was smart on Hamlet’s part to secure the location of the corpse, since Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were spying on him. They report to the King that he won’t reveal the location. When Hamlet is brought before the King, he says that Polonius is in hell, which puzzles the King. This could either be an insult, or else it could be a hint on where the body is, since Claudius sends people to search for the body after he says this. Hamlet throws out another insult (at least I think it was intended as one) by calling Claudius his mother. He proves his point too; with logic that I couldn’t quite make sense of.
Now we see something that is worth looking at: Hamlet’s final soliloquy. When I read this one, it was kind of a shock to me, having just read “To be or not to be” in the previous act. This soliloquy is not quite as tragic; there’s less of the “Woas me” factor here. In this soliloquy, Hamlet exhibits somewhat of a Calvinist standpoint on life; there’s no escaping one’s destiny; God has our lives planned out before we were even born. He accepts his destiny now, and that he will try by all means to live it out:
“…I have cause, and will, and strength, and means to do’t. Examples gross as earth exhort me. Witness this army of such mass and charge, led by a delicate and tender prince…” (Hamlet 4,4:45-48)
Next, we see something strange. Ophelia’s behavior has been declared as suspicious by the townspeople, similar to that of Hamlet earlier in the story. Gertrude calls Ophelia in to speak with her and get a deeper understanding of her madness, however, she has gone mad to such a degree that communication is somewhat impossible. She now speaks in song, and giggles as she speaks. One could compare her behavior to that of a drunkard. Methinks she is following in the exact same pattern as did Hamlet. Her father just died, she has no idea how it has happened, and Hamlet has left. There’s her course of problems, similar to that of Hamlet. It’s history repeating itself!
Laertes has a different reaction to the death of his father. Just as Claudius had feared, Laertes is blaming him for the murder of Polonius. In a sense, he too can be compared to Hamlet, in the manner that Hamlet wanted to kill Claudius.
Sailors now deliver letters from Hamlet to the castle at Denmark. Horatio recieves reassurance that Hamlet is ok. Strangely, Ophelia did not recieve anything. While reading this scene, we don’t know what could be happening to her. Could she be in the same state of hopelessness as Hamlet? Or perhaps she could be in a regretful state towards all those around her. Nevertheless, while I was imagining how Ophelia felt towards Hamlet now, I thought of an “allusion” that I could make to a Thousand Foot Krutch song. I promise it’s far less “angsty” than the Apocalyptica or My Chemical Romance that I put on there earlier, so go ahead and listen to this one without fear of loss of hearing.
Ok, I didn’t quite get the Star Wars references, but I thought that they might help give us an idea of the thoughts that could be going through Ophelia’s mind right now.
As we enter the final scene of the play, the King and Laertes are together again, and we witness an action that could have been expected from the second we know Laertes is angered over the death of his father. Claudius explains to Laertes that Hamlet puposefully murdered Polonius, and sets up Laertes to kill Hamlet. There’s the pattern: we know that Claudius has a knack for using people to do his dirty work against Hamlet; it just has to be so that Claudius would use someone to kill Hamlet. Not to mention, he has to! If Claudius killed Hamlet himself, Gertrude might get the wrong impression, and the life of Claudius may be in danger.
Act III has definately been the most dramatic of the three sections of the play which I have read so far, and on top of that, the plot has advanced tremendously. Also, the characters in the play are changing left and right, therefore giving this section of the play great depth, and therefore, I have a plethora of thoughts.
I think the best place to start would be with that “To be, or not to be” soliloquy (the interogation of Rosencrantz is not that crucial to the story; it only further confirms that Hamlet has gone mad and that the King and Queen aren’t helping by any means). Since it is the most quoted soliloquy of all time, might be fun to look at it in a deeper fasion.
First of which, we need to overlook the exciting feeling experienced due to it’s fame (somewhat like watching a popular movie and enjoying it because it’s popular) and look at it as if it were any other part of the play. It reminded me somewhat of Gollum from Lord of the Rings who would constantly debate with himself. As a refresher, here’s an exerpt from the movie of one of Gollum’s debates. “To steal, or not to steal” (EXTRA CREDIT MAYBE )
Our impression therefore of Gollum is that he is mad, which is exactly the same impression we get from Hamlet (one of them anyway; that’s the most insignificant of them). I also had the impression that Hamlet was using standard logic to make these debates; whether it was right for him to live or not given the circumstances. Seeing as the King and Queen are overwhelmed, Ophelia is confused, and his friends are spying on him, this would be legitimate cause (in his mind) for Hamlet to begin to consider whether he would be doing the world a favor by taking himself out of this world.
And now for another famous line from the play “Get thee to a nunnery!” At this point, Hamlet is unaware that Ophelia is doing the same thing as Rozencrantz; she has been asked by the King to knock some sense into Hamlet. Since Hamlet was unaware of what Ophelia was doing, he was thinking everything was Ophelia’s fault, and therefore declares that she would be hopeless in marriage, hence the “Get thee to a nunnery!”
One of the ways which I approached this was by imagining a similar scenario in my own life. Normally, I would never declare someone as hopeless, much less make them become a nun! If I knew that my girl was spying on me for my parents, I might not trust her as much, nor would I trust my parents any more. But say I didn’t know that my girl was spying on my, yet she exhibited such strange behavior as did Ophelia. Now I’m honestly puzzled, since I have no idea how Hamlet could come to the conclusion.
Now, as we go on to the next scene, we find Hamlet is giving copious advice to all the players in the drama which is to be performed at the castle that night. At first, I thought this was Hamlet going on and on about concepts which aren’t necessarily important to the story, but this one seems to follow a pattern. Throughout any of Shakespeare’s plays, there is some reference to the art of acting and the theater. Even in this play, in Act II, Hamlet makes references to acting while talking to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. This is all leading me to believe that Shakespeare is trying to get his views of the theater to his audience using a bit of subliminal messaging. How crafty!
As we go on, we see yet another one of Shakespeare’s motifs: the play within the play. If I remember correctly, Shakespeare used this in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”. Anyway, Hamlet, once again, has something up his sleeve here. He is trying to get a reaction out of King Claudius. Since the play makes a reference to what Claudius has done, Hamlet hopes to witness a reaction from him, then make it known to the audience, so that Claudius would get what he deserved. After a quick intermission, the play resumes, and Lucianus (in the play) begins describing a poisonous mixture which he pours into a victim’s ear. Knowing that this is a direct protest towards him, the King stands in disbelief, and Horatio and Ophelia take note, and notify the crowd at the castle.
Hamlet thinks this is too awesome! He is overjoyed that he could confirm his beliefs, and no longer be shrouded in lies. When Hamlet calls the musicians in to celebrate, he steals one of their recorders and makes an interesting reference that, as a musician, I would have to comment on. Hamlet asks Horatio to play the recorder for him, but Horatio cannot. Hamlet is in deep question; he says that playing the recorder is “as simple as lying,” in other words, Hamlet is comparing a simple musical instrument to the act of manipulation. As Hamlet goes on, he references a far more complex instrument: the pipe organ. The pipe organ is the pinnacle of manipulation; it has four keyboards, one pedalboard, and hundreds of different “stops” as Hamlet says. When one pulls a stop, air can go to a certain set of pipes, and with hundreds of different stops, there are millions of possible combinations. This reference means that Horatio and Guildenstren are among the most skilled manipulators. I’ve posted a demonstration of a pipe orgran here. It has two parts, so I’d reccomend just skimming through them to see how much manipulation can be done here.
If you’re not confused yet, consider becoming a pipe organist and teaching me how to use a kick swell pedal; I still haven’t figured it out yet. Anyway, back to the story.
If that wasn’t interesting enough for you, no worries; the story is continues on its exiting streak. Now we have Claudius scared for his life, so he decides to get Hamlet far away from him. However, on the way to his mother’s room, Hamlet finds Claudius muttering to himself about what he had done to King Hamlet. While Hamlet is beside Claudius, Hamlet gets his one chance to kill the King, but surprisingly, he does not. This is indeed an interesting course of action for Hamlet, since, if he followed with his previous pattern of actions, he would have killed the King, yet he lets the King live since the King is praying for mercy from God.
Now, another key event happens (wow, this act has EVERYTHING in it!). When Hamlet finally makes it to his mother’s room, they begin a rough conversation about what had happened earlier that night. Hamlet suddenly sees something moving in the curtains, and, assuming it’s the King, kills him. Unfortunately, Hamlet forgot to look before he stabbed, and it turns out he killed Polonius. Even more notable is the reaction from Hamlet and Gertrude during this. They stare for a few seconds in disbelief, then they continue their conversation as if nothing had happened! The next time that Polonius’s death is brought up is when they consider where to put the corpse.
Gertrude begins to truly discover Hamlet’s madness now, since Hamlet is seeing the ghost of his father still, but Gertrude cannot see it. This made me question for a bit about the nature of ghosts. It’s curious that Bernardo, Francisco, and Horatio could see the ghost, but Gertrude cannot. Either the ghost is hiding itself from certain people, or perhaps Gertrude cannot see the ghost since she is affiliated with it’s killer. I shall have to refer to that one copy of the Zombie Survival Guide that I don’t have.
Wow, that’s a ton of stuff; my fingers can’t type another word! These are pretty much all the scenes that I had questions about, or thoughts that needed to make it onto this blog.
That is all which I have written for the time being; I beseech thee to remain awesome!
Act II was an entirely different idea than was Act I, primarily in the idea that there was a bit less drama. However, we do begin to see the tension begin to build with a bit of foreshadowing from Ophelia, and a bit of subterfuge on Hamlet. It’s a short Act in general; not too much happens to advance the plot, but we are brought to the edge of our seats as we prepare to encounter whatever will happen in the next three acts.
Wouldn’t it be fun to look a bit at what’s going on in the minds of the characters and why, and how it pertains to the story (with a few alusions thrown in there)? I thought so! How about we start with Ophelia since we can see her pain first.
Ophelia, as we remember from Act I, has been told by Polonius that she is no longer allowed to see Prince Hamlet. However, while Ophelia was innocently sitting in her chamber, Hamlet invades her privacy and grabs her wrist. Strangely during this encounter, Hamlet does not speak; he simply peruses her body, and sends her a message doing so. Ophelia is frightened horribly by this act; she has no idea what could be going through Hamlet’s mind other than pure madness. By now, this madness is a characteristic which Hamlet’s peers associate him with, as we’ll see in the next scene. Ophelia is confused at Hamlet’s strange course of action, and she tries to find love in the midst of all this. She can’t even decide her own course of action if she cannot identify that of Hamlet, nor can she decide if it is right to defy her father in the course of love. Plenty of confusion for Ophelia; I sense that this may drive her mad later in the play, but I could be wrong.
At this point, perhaps we’re wondering what could possibly be going through Hamlet’s mind? Is he in love? Is he mad? Is he madly in love? Is this all human? At this point, it’s hard to tell. The last question, Is this all Human?, has been bothering me for some time. Hamlet, right from when we first see him, appears to be intensely troubled by the death of his father, somewhat more than necessary. We also know that, having seen the ghost, that Hamlet’s ties to his father have strengthened posthumously, and his hatred for Claudius is building as the play continues. In my opinion, Hamlet’s behavior can be justified by more than madness. As Polonius did say (it was Polonius, right?), there was a meathod behind the madness perhaps. Hamlet is not only experiencing the death of a loved one, but the reign of one who is not fit to rule, and he experiences the waning relationship between him and Ophelia. Such troubles would justify Hamlet’s behavior in my opinion. And on top of that, I found another “allusion”, or somewhat of a connection to a great song. I know I already used a My Chemical Romance song, but I had an urge to post this other one, since it may explain why Hamlet’s action is legitimate. Be sure to watch the lyrics and try to ignore the sketchy pictures (if for some strange reason you should find them sketchy). This also has a reference to the confusion between Ophelia and Hamlet.
But wait! What about the rest of the world? Have they realized yet that Hamlet has “gone mad”? As it would appear, they have. King Claudius, in response to Hamlet’s recent behavior, had sent two of Hamlet’s old friends (I believe they were from Wittenberg) to extract some information from Hamlet, or else, to get a closer account of what may be causing the madness. Why the King is so interested in these matters, we don’t know. Of course, he needs to make sure his prince is well, but I have this notion that there’s something else going on with the King which drives him to send Hamlet’s friends. Nevertheless, when Hamlet finds out that he is being spyed upon, his “madness” continues to build, along with his hatred for the King.
This is all which I hath written for the time being, I beseech thee to remain awesome!
First and foremost, I do find this exceedingly strange that my posts hath not yet been commented upon. I beg thee, Mrs. Hazle, to place comments upon my older posts.
Ne’er shalt thou mindst that. Might’st I declare that this first act of Hamlet was, in mine eyes, outstanding compared to any of Shakesphere’s other works. Perhaps, I hath not yet been exposed to much of his other works which have been acclaimed.
The first thing which I hath noticed was that Shakespere hath begunst his play with somewhat of a scene containing action. From what mine eyes have seen, Shakespere normally begins his plays (or shall I say his tragedies) on more of a mellow tone. Albeit his comdies do commence with the more “upbeat” nature, they normally do commence with a more relaxed occasion.
Hamlet begins in a terribly depressed mood. We know that his father is indeed deceased, but we are not yet certain to why Hamlet remains in the state of depression. I don’t know if this would qualify as a literary allusion, but scroll down to the music video of Already Over by Red. Maybe this would better relate to a later part in the book; perhaps I shall repost it at a more relavant time. I did, whilest I was writing this post, have a song stuck in my head by Apocalyptica, and it really reminded me of Hamlet’s character, most notably how he sees the rest of the world. I beseech thee to overlook the “sketchyness” of the video, but to listen to the words and to try and make a connection between this and Hamlet.
Luckily, due to copyright issues (it’s a facist plot! All I want is a video to reference!) I couldn’t get the video. It would have been distracting anyway. But, if we look at Act I, we can see that this song describes the character of Hamlet quite well. In fact, it describes it so well, that I think I’ll have to follow this trend with other characters! I think that’s ok…is it?
Let’s now have a look at when Hamlet has his little visit with the ghost. The ghost’s primary function here is to give Hamlet a “reality-check” about his step-father. The ghost tells Hamlet that this “snake” that they speak of is actually Claudius! Claudius apparently dropped some poison in Old Hamlet’s ear which killed him. Following Hamlet’s shocked reaction, Old Hamlet’s shade goes into a soliloquy about what has happened, primarily about how evil Claudius is. Hamlet now hates Claudius even more, since he was probably aware that Claudius had something to do with his father’s death.
Also, we need to look at Láertes’ and Ophelia, and their relationship with Polonius. First off, Polonius is very helpful and affectionate towards Láertes, but not so much toward Ophelia. Why is this? Perhaps Polonius is concerned about the relationship between Ophelia and Hamlet, or else there is simply a natural double-standard in play. Whatever the reason, Polonius gives Ophelia a hard time about the relationship with Hamlet, and he demands that Ophelia not see Hamlet again. Somehow I don’t think that’s going to happen, seeing as this is a tragedy, and this may cause a bit of tension. Major foreshadowing! (I think…)
Later, Höratio and Marcellus arrive on the scene and are told a bit about what Hamlet had experienced. The two are required to swear that they had not seen this event. If this information would fall into the wrong hands, Hamlet’s position, or life for that matter, could be in jeopardy. Foreshadowing maybe? I don’t know! How would I know?!?! I’m not psychic!
Well, seeing as I introduced some Apocalyptica, I feel like I should add a song that sums up the feelings of both Hamlet and Ophelia at this point, both who have been experiencing some family troubles placing massive stress on their life. This song, “Famous Last Words” by My Chemical Romance covers how Hamlet and Ophelia feel at this point in the play after their respective encounters.
This is all which I have written for the time being, I beseech thee to remain awesome!
Thou shalt not worry about the minor alterations to my web-log. I do apologize for the abruptness of these changes, and I do assure thee that none but the language has been altered. I do pray that thou art wise in the ways of Elizabethan English, for I am not certain that mine prowess over this area is complete. Therefore, if thou dost encounter an error within this text, I beseech thee to advise me in the correct path.
Despite this minor alteration in my language, me thinks you shalt indeed continue to be fed with the purest awesomeness that mankind hath found. Awesomeness so pure, it hath existed before the time which Karl Shapiro (bless him!) hath been born. This is the greatest work of English literature which doth exist. I present to thee: “Hamlet”, written by the infamous William Shakesphere.
This information hath not cometh. I do ensure thee that it shall arrive by four-twenty (which I belive shalt not carry negative connotations, nor shalt it promote unwise choices; it is simply a day, in fact, it is my fair lady’s day of birth. No connotation shalt prevent me from celebrating April 20th in a beneficial way!)
This is all which I hath written for the time, I beseech thee to remain in a state of awesomeness!
I wanted to waste use another one of these posts to write more about me!!! Not so much about what I’ve been up to (you can check my Facebook if you can’t resist knowing), but how I’ve felt about the whole blogging thing.
Meaningless part no. 1 (I thought of this song when I realized that I was talking about myself)
That’s what blogging is! Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I needed to make at least one reference to Parry Gripp during this whole project.
Anyway, let’s get to the real stuff (as if Parry Gripp doesn’t deserve the title of ‘Real’). So in general, I have found this project comfortable, however, I have found the copious amounts of research and typing to be exhausting, but I don’t believe that there is a way around that.
I think that by studying Karl Shapiro, I was able to develop my own style further, which is why I included a few meaningless posts here and there (which unfortunately brings me to the level of the Parry Gripp reference). However, if you liked “Cries of the Ressurected”, you have just seen how Karl Shapiro has affected my own style.
This is my first dive into blogging (minus the Xanga I had in MS; I thought it was cool and didn’t know any better that I would be ridiculed in days to come), and I have found it rather useful. In fact, I think I’ll start a blog about my compostitions so that I can inform people who are interested about my latest compositions and the stories behind them. Awesomeness!
Another reason that I have enjoyed this project more than I would a paper is that I have had a chance to express my own voice. When I’m writing papers, although my tone is relaxed, I still find myself writing at an elevated tone (I would not speak the way I do in a paper). Since I’ve been able to adapt the blogging tone (closer to how I speak on a day-to-day basis), my thoughts have flown more freely, therefore giving you a more accurate picture of what I think about Karl Shapiro and his poetry.
Oh, and for the record, here is an AWESOME list of all the blogs I have commented on. Sadly no one responded, and now I feel emotastic (yes, I made that word up).
I thought I might leave you with another song, however, my computer isn’t exactly agreeing with me tonight. In that case, I had to YouTube it. I present to thee “Already Over” by Red. By the way, they have a new album out. I haven’t heard it yet, but it’s supposed to be awesome. It made the itunes top albums for a little while.
Wow, I forgot how great the music video for this song was. It’s been a while. Great band, great song. I was debating whether to use Apocalyptica, but I decided not to; the video is really sketchy.
Ok, this is simply pure awesomeness. I had begun to work on a new song for my band a few weeks ago. The whole story behind its creation is a long one; you can ask me in person if you want the whole story. To keep it simple, I had created an interesting pattern on my black guitar (which DOES NOT depict any absense of emotion of any kind, before we begin making accusations) while I was at my cottage. I was resonably pleased with what I had composed, however, lyrics were in need. In that case, I find this as a great opportunity to write the lyrics, since I think Karl Shapiro’s style is pure awesomeness!
I present to thee “Cries of the Resurrected” by Left Foot 4ward
Our time on Earth has passed
Our souls pressed on for ages past
While those oppressors filed our lives away
Our aspirations led themselves astray
These are the cries of the resurrected
For now we live aside from our past foes
Eternally we cast behind our woes
The time has come to free our lives of sin
And by His grace our wrongs are forgiven
These are the cries of the ressurrected
Years of toil have come
But our dignity remains
Our conscousness is numbed
With liberation from our pains
A debt of gratitute I owe
With my comrades at my side
For it is you and only you
In which I will confide
These are the cries (these are the cries)
Of the ressurected
We are the ones who keep our souls
In our mind until end's bell tolls
We are redeemed from hell's own claw
And risen above man's own law
These are the cries of the ressurected
Years of toil have come
But our dignity remains
Our conscousness is numbed
With liberation from our pains
A debt of gratitute I owe
With my comrades at my side
For it is you and only you
In which I will confide
These are the cries (these are the cries)
Of the ressurected
We have been saved
We are redeemed
All the toils of this world are relieved
The road is paved
For us to be
One with our soul; one with the world
Like this? We’ll record it soon, I promise. Or else you could come to the Mixtape Cafe and watch it live!
I thought that this song follows Shapiro’s style, especially those poems from “Poems of a Jew”. Listen to the simple subject matter and how it relates to the title. Blue and Yellow (The Used)
Although I work to a great extent to ensure the accuracy of the content posted on this blog, Mackenzie pointed out that I had made a minor error in my last post. I deeply apologize to all of those who had read that last post and were in shock at the error.
The error I had made was in regard to the poem which I had selected to show the connection between Karl Shapiro and Richard Wilbur. Unfortunately, the poem which I had selected was not written by Richard Wilbur, but by Marianne Moore. Apparently, Mackenzie had been using Marianne Moore as a poet who had a connection to Wilbur. Indeed, there is a connection, for after I had read about the style of Richard Wilbur, I thought that the poem by Moore was written by Wilbur; the style is extremely similar.
After pondering for a while, I had come to the conclusion that it would be best for me to show you a different poem, one that was actually written by Wilbur; I see no need to “re-invent the wheel” and redo the intertextuality post for Moore. In that case, why don’t we have a look at another poem that was posted in Kenz’s blog: The Ride. Enjoy!
The horse beneath me seemed
To know what course to steer
Through the horror of snow I dreamed,
And so I had no fear,
Nor was I chilled to death
By the wind’s white shudders, thanks
To the veils of his patient breath
And the mist of sweat from his flanks.
It seemed that all night through,
Within my hand no rein
And nothing in my view
But the pillar of his mane,
I rode with magic ease
At a quick, unstumbling trot
Through shattering vacancies (darkness) On into what was not,
Till the weave of the storm grew thin,
With a threading of cedar-smoke,
And the ice-blind pane of an inn
Shimmered, and I awoke.
How shall I now get back
To the inn-yard where he stands,
Burdened with every lack,
And waken the stable-hands
To give him, before I think
That there was no horse at all,
Some hay, some water to drink,
A blanket and a stall?
This does not compare to the alphabet, so it would be nice if I could find a poem that would be better suited to this example of intertextuality. Since the primary topic is fear, and the tone is relatively simple, yet poetic, I find that Karl Shapiro’s “The First Time” would best suit this situation. Once again, I have labored intensely to type this poem, so please do me a favor and read it; it will be a thriller indeed!
Behind shut doors in shadowy quarantine
There shines the lamp of iodine and rose
That stains all love with its medicinal bloom.
This boy, who is no more than seventeen,
Not knowing what to do, takes off his clothes
As one might in a doctor's anteroom.
Then in a cross-draft of fear and shame
Feels love hysterically burn away,
A candle swimming down to nothingness
Put out by its own wetted gusts of flame,
And he stands smooth as uncarved ivory
Heavily curved for some expert caress.
And finally sees the always open door
That is invisable till the time has come,
And half falls through as through a rotten wall
To where chairs twist with dragons from the floor
And the great bed drugged with its own perfume
Spreads its carnivorous flower-mouthed for all.
The girl is sitting with her back to him;
She wears a black thing and she rakes her hair,
Hauling her round face upward like moonrise;
She is younger than he, her angled arms are slim
And like a country girl her feet are bare.
She watches him behind her with old eyes,
Transfixing him in space like some qrotesque,
Far, far from her where he is still alone
And being here is more and more untrue.
Then she turns around, as one turns at a desk,
And looks at him, too naked and too soon,
And almost gently asks: Are you a Jew?
Shivers anyone? I hope so; this is pure awesomeness! Anyway, the similarities between this poem and Wilbur’s are endless! Let’s look at a few of them now.
First, we see a ton of similarities in rhyme patterns, such as rhyming every two lines, or slant rhyme. We can also see a bit of interior rhyme within the lines (I just did it without knowing, yay me!). When Karl Shapiro uses rhyme (he seldom does), he varies his rhyme style frequently, sometime line to line! In fact, it varies so frequently that some scholars say that he has no concept of rhyme (there’s an example availiable if you go to JSTOR and type in ‘Karl Shapiro’. If you cannot access JSTOR, just talk to either Margo or me; we’ll be able to get in). Honestly, I am slightly ashamed of the scholar who wrote the journal which I had mentioned in parenthesis. I see no wrong in experimentation; the best of composers (and poets alike) experiment and bring new methods to their craft. If we all stick to tradition to this extent, all we’ll have in the world of art is more of the same. So sad.
Before I close this post with my traditional ending (I hope you’ve noticed by now), I’d like to have a brief look at the similarities of ideas presented within the two poems. If you look at the first stanzaas of both poems, there is an idea of anticipation (the person gets ready for the ride, and the boy undresses within the ‘dungeon’). As we progress through the poems, (2nd, 3rd, and 4th stanzaas) we see a general description of the events (the person takes the ride, and the boy is locked into whatever restraining device). At the end of the poems, we see a letdown situation (the horse is given a stall and hay, the boy is asked if he is a Jew in a sympathetic tone). So awesome!
Hope that this clears everything up! Sorry for the minor errors in previous posts.
Interesting how Shapiro compares to William Carlos Williams, yes? If you do not agree, read the post below this one! If you do not agree after doing so, leave my blog immediately. I am deeply ashamed of you.
Ok, so now we can look a bit at how Shapiro’s work compares to that of his fellow contemporaries. After searching for a while, I came across a poet known to most as Richard Wilbur. After looking at a bit of his poetry, I had come to a conclusion that his style was similar to mine. Once again, we can see the pattern of taking a simple object and giving a poetic quality to it, but moreseo, we can see the incorporation of actual human values into the poetry, giving it a sense of personification, so to speak. In fact, the style of Wilbur actually comes a bit closer than that of Williams. I HAVE NOT labored to great extents to type the poem this time (I just stole it off of Kenzie’s blog…yem!)
The Fish
wade through black jade. Of the crow-blue mussel-shells, one keeps adjusting the ash-heaps; opening and shutting itself like an injured fan. The barnacles which encrust the side of the wave, cannot hide there for the submerged shafts of the sun, split like spun glass, move themselves with spotlight swiftness into the crevices— in and out, illuminating the turquoise sea of bodies. The water drives a wedge of iron throught the iron edge of the cliff; whereupon the stars, pink rice-grains, ink- bespattered jelly fish, crabs like green lilies, and submarine toadstools, slide each on the other. All external marks of abuse are present on this defiant edifice— all the physical features of ac- cident—lack of cornice, dynamite grooves, burns, and hatchet strokes, these things stand out on it; the chasm-side is dead. Repeated evidence ahs proved that it can live on what can not revive its youth. The sea grows old in it.
So here, you can see the somewhat bourgeois tone to the poem (for lack of a better term), or maybe a more substancial language set. This tone is far closer to that of Shapiro’s. The best poem of Shapiro’s to compare this to would be “The Alphabet”, which I have already labored to type in the previous post, so I see no need to type it again. Just scroll down if you’d like to read it again, it’s really deep!
Let’s have a look at what the scholars say, shall we?
This new type of poet is young, sincere, concerned with highly personal moral values, frankly experimental in verse technique and…rather well grounded in comparative literature…In this category are Karl Shapiro, Richard Wibur…
Cool! They were the first two mentioned in the article! How about that for a coincidence! Anyway, so Richard K. Barksdale (who wrote the journal) says that both of these poets are known for their similar style and their use of moral values incorporated into the actions of the non-human characters. If you’d like to read the article, simply follow these steps.
Place your mouse over the underlined text. Make sure the mouse arrow is actually over the text.
Then, carefully press the left button on your mouse. That would most likely be the one that your index finger is resting on, not the one that your middle finger is resting on. That’s the right button, which if you press, you shall receive a menu of completely useless options. What a shame.
If you do not receive the article, you may need to access JSTOR through Brad Hendershot’s account. He should be able to help. When you arrive at JSTOR, search Karl Shapiro and Richard Wilbur. The one you’re looking for is “The Phylon Quarterly”
I think that it’s on page 411.
For the record, I left a comment on Kenzie Roberts’ blog, which I find no need to link to since it is on my blogroll. How conveinient!
Comments(1) 
. Anyway, this is the last act of the play. I found this act interesting for many reasons, one of them being its contribution to the structure of the play’s plotline. Normally we find that the last act of a play is going to be somewhat of a calm scene, showing how everything turns out. In Hamlet, we see something different. I find that the climax of the play is actually in this act, somewhat distorting the “plot diagram” in my mind’s eye. Since I hope you can’t see into my mind, I made this scribble to depict the plot diagram that I was thinking of. I apologize for the poor quality of the scribble; it was made with a laptop touch pad:
