Thursday, November 20, 2008
Prompt to respond to before Monday, Nov. 24
For this posting, I'm seeking a genuine & personal response to Robert MacNeil's genuine & personal account of his early experience with Shakespeare. It's better you write something in advance and post it rather than use someone else's response as a springboard--though you're always welcome to comment on what you read here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
I agreed with Robert MacNeil's feeling that the words "lifted me to a not quite earthly plane, transported me for long moments into another realm of time and being; a poetic world." Even though I don't connect to it personally (unlike MacNeil), that quote rather sums up how I feel when I read Shakespeare, as though I've gone back in time. There's a certain cadence in Shakespeare's words that I really like. For example, I love the rhythm in the line "the play's the thing, wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king." (A2,S2,L561) I'm sorry this stuff probably sounds horribly vague, but it's hard for me to describe it exactly...
Also, as I was reading the article, I realized there were a lot of good quotes from the play that I'd missed before. I especially related to the quote "native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought..." I thought it meant that when you decide to do something you're all fired up about it, then suddenly you start double guessing and thinking over what you're going to do, and then your resolve kind of dies out. I don't know about you guys, but I could totally relate to that because I feel like that happens to me all the time. Hopefully I'm not the only one??
Well, those were some of my genuine and personal responses to this article. :-)
I'm glad that MacNeil did something for you, Diya :]
Personally, I found him strange. I know times are different than in 1948 so my comment is probably bunk, but what 17 year old becomes addicted to Shakespeare? I appreciate his use of the English language and greatly enjoyed MacNeil's analyzation of Shakespeare's language blending, but I still can't see something holy in his work. I think I'm having trouble breaking past the manner of speaking, so his ideas don't get to me.
I do, however, enjoy the way he uses words and believe it's a much more surprising talent than being a good story-teller. It's not enough to keep me holed up during my holiday vacation pouring over every line though. I like Hamlet's struggling conscience...the diction and syntax stop me from fully enjoying it though.
So I'll start with some of the things that I found interesting.
I thought that MacNeil's first paragraph, beginning with, "Between home and school, life seemed all burdens and no choices...often covered with a pall of duty." This reminded me of our own lives, as many of us struggle to balance school and extracurriculars with a social life. It even goes to the point at which what we do for fun seems to have an underlying purpose, one that is meaningful in some other way. In MacNeil's words, "a pall of duty."
The second thing that I found interesting was on page 130, in the paragraph beginning "Others have intuited..." I thought thsat it was interesting how Macneil made a comparison of Hamlet to other characters in Shakespeare's plays, such as Romeo, Jacques, the Duke, and Posthumus. I haven't read many of these plays, but when I think about it, Some of Hamlet's characteristics are indeed present in Romeo.
Lastly, I also noticed the "addiction" that Natalie commented on. It seemed a little excessive that a 17 year old could be so absorbed in Shakespeare. I mean, it can be interesting, but so much so that it is a "drug"? MacNeil states, "I craved more of the drug, for myself privately, but also to put some of my own noise upon the world..." This seemed odd to me; how can Shakespeare give effects like that? Shakespeare's writing may be classic and loved for many centuries, but I don't find it intoxicating like MacNeil. But just my thoughts :)
I have to agree with Natalie. It's weird for a seventeen year old to become obsessed and addicted to Hamlet. But don't get me wrong, Hamlet is definitely a great play (but I couldn’t get addicted to it). I agree with Robert MacNeil; Shakespeare uses an amazing variety of diction and is definitely a genius! Personally, one of my favorite things about Hamlet is the diction and passion. The words Shakespeare uses are not only powerful, but they also make you think twice about their meanings. For example, on page 132 of the article, the quote "We know what we are, but know not what we may be" not only contains truth but also requires one to ponder about its meaning. This applies directly to many teens and shines light in how many people do not know who they really are. Hamlet also contains great forms of poetry which adds to the beauty of the words in Hamlet.
I also have to agree with Diya. There were many great quotes that MacNeil used that either I haven't read or I missed while I was reading Hamlet. MacNeil also comments on how the poetic and rhythmic elements add in making Hamlet an amazing work of art.
MacNeil states that "just this one play ... gave such an effective voice to many ideas and feelings human beings encounter, four hundred years later, Shakespeare's are the words that come to our minds to express them," (131). I agree with MacNeil that Shakespeare’s Hamlet voices a lot of human passions and is loaded with many deep issues. This play will remain timeless because we will always encounter many of the feelings and issues encountered by the characters in Hamlet.
I have to say that this article was very interesting. It was straight and to the point and discussed the many stylistic and ingenious elements in Hamlet. The only downside to Hamlet is that it is really hard to read and it takes extra work to understand its meaning. Once you can understand it, you can enjoy it more.
This excerpt reminded me of a long college essay.... Being 17 at the time of his "addiction", I bet he would have written about Shakespeare if he was applying to colleges!
I can relate to the feelings he experienced, but not towards Hamlet. I like how he said "Never before had there been such an instant connection between something I felt and a set of words to describe it-giving me both distance from my feelings and a better understanding of them. The words made me two people at once, the person observed and the observer." This is why I love non fiction! My favorite books, Under the overpass and Blue like Jazz had this same effect on me. I couldn't put them down because every chapter disussed something I had always thought about, wondered about, or questioned. You do feel very content reading a sentence written by a complete stranger that describes exactly how you feel. Or puts into words something that you thought only existed in your crazy thoughts. I kind of wish I could look at Shakespeare that way, it bothers me that I cannot appreciate his work the way I'm "supposed to". I mean we have been studying his plays for decades, i must be missing out on a lot...
I agree Niloy, I'm sure at this point in the year, we can all relate. At least the author found a sort of refuge for himself. As unpredictable and uncommon as it may be.
Wow, posting on this blog almost seems foreign because I've been sick for so long...
Anyway, lets get to the posting.
After reading this, I felt almost encouraged to dig deeper into the readings that we get. The pure passion that MacNeil had for Shakespeare's works was extremely refreshing. Quotes like "O! that this too too solid flesh would melt, That and resolve itself into a dew;" have such power and emotion that just the excerpt itself could be considered a work of art.
The part that stuck out to me the most was when he was listing all the common phrases that we use in everyday language. It never occurred to me that so many of the trite phrases that everyone uses are pulled from Shakespeare.
Honestly, MacNeil's level of fervor may be a little over the top but in a way it excites me to be more diligent in my reading.
I am baffled that someonecould connect so emotionally with Shakespeare. His ideas have become foreign to us and his eloquent language has become so obscure that we now treat it as something that gets in the way of the ideas. I do however feel that McNeill's ideas haven't been lost upon us. We still worship our favorite singers who are essentially what sheakespeare was in his time. I think that rather than McNeill being weird he is perhaps more old fashioned than most people. Either way I can't agree with him but I wouldn't dismiss him as an imbecile either.
This is my first ever Shakespeare play, but so far I find the writing amazing and after you read it a few times, kind of fun... despite the fact that his underlying meanings can be hard to figure out at times. We're just not used to the way he writes, that's all.
I find MacNeil's incredible passion for the subject very neat and fascinating. Reading each line of his essay/critique of Hamlet, you get a real sense of this honest love he has for not just Shakespeare, but WORDS in general. Of course everyone in the world is not totally enthralled by Shakespeare's brilliant language, but everyone does have a strong passion for something in their life, whatever it may be. Obviously for MacNeil, it was the rhythmical words found within the vast realms of literature--a fascinating world discovered at the yound age of seventeen.
I never realized there were so many everyday sayings pulled from Shakespeare. Actually, it's amazing to think how just one man basically defined the art of language, writing great works that will never go unnoticed. I personally enjoyed reading this essay. This guy actually told us about how a piece of writing--a compilation of words--defined and shaped his life. He gave us a personal account, something we could relate with, aside from a straight, refined, dreary literary analysis. It made me want to keep reading. I don't think he was "strange" or "weird" at all, just extremely passionate about what motivated him in life.
Honestly, the first few pages would make for a great college admissions essay! (you all know... for that influential person/event prompt)
haha Nick...I was thinking the same thing. After reading this article over again, I think I understand what some of you have been saying about MacNeil's love for Shakespeare's work. Many of us have a passion for sports, music, cooking, etc. While we invest our time and ourselves into those things, MacNeil simply invests his time into Shakespeare.
Also, Diya, I agree with you assessment of the many great quotes. I admit that there are many times in this play where I am lost in the action, and therefore unable to appreciate Shakespeare's syntax and diction. An example of this is "the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er..." (as Diya said).However, my favorite quote was, "The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune." I thought that this quote meant that we need to look inside ourselves to put up with all that luck throws our way, both good and bad. It is something that is universally relevant, and will continue to be.
The way I see it, everybody finds joy in different things. For me, Shakespeare does not fall near the top of my list. This isn't because I don't appreciate his work or his eloquence in writing. Rather it's because I invest my time and passion in other things. MacNeil found his joy in Shakespeare and became "addicted." He found complete enjoyment in the analysis of Shakespeare's work and the meanings behind his words. Like Natalie, I think I am unable to appreciate Shakespeare to MacNeil's extent because the language is so abstract and obscure that I have trouble knowing what he is truly saying.
I am certainly not "addicted" to Hamlet or any other Shakespeare plays, but I still believe that they are great pieces of work and require a great deal of talent. I was unaware of the common phrases that we use from Shakespeare and I find it very interesting. I think it just proves that his writing holds great merit and sometimes it's unknown "common knowledge."
Also, Sharon and Nick, I agree that it seems like a college essay!
I question whether me and Robert Macneil are both talking about literature. Literature has never spoken to me in its elegance, it's spoken to me in its epic stories, in tales that amuse, bemuse, diffuse and ruse. Literature to me was never about how an author said something, but what the author said. When I get to the end of a book, I don't think about all the wonderful quotes I can fall back on or the elegant prose that I can't help but share with others. I think about how that story ended, and how all stories must come to an end. Because in the end, literature is all about the stories an author can tell, not the words an author can use.
I can relate to this sort of inexplicable furiousness of which Mr. MacNeil as 'the despair so painful-delicious to seventeen-year-olds'.
The despair I think follows all four contributors in this case: reader(me), writer(McNeil), subject(Hamlet), and creator of the subject(Shakespeare).
It was in MacNeil's hints of Shakespeare's history that I truly began to feel a connection to the man through the Prince. However, I have a limited amount of confidence in explaining this connection.
I will go so far as to proclaim that incompetence, or one's perceived incompetence in life drives that person to great heights in order to see truth in a forest of doubt. This is the image that popped into my mind: a man wandering, maybe running, through a forest of endless trees, shrubbery, and chasing after some elusive purpose. The journey is all the more "weary, stale,and flat" the longer it goes on, but one knows they must continue.
Furthermore it's in the proposal, which MacNeil finds in Frank Harris' 'The Man Shakespeare and His Tragic Life Story,' which states "whenever Shakespeare fell out out of a character he was drawing, he unconsciously dropped into the Hamlet vein", that I stumbled upon a resonating thought.
It has something to do with "the habit of talking to himself, that pensive sadness and world weariness, the melancholy and contemplative spirit, the loving sympathy". I've just had the feeling throughout Hamlet that there was no way every Globe-Theatre goer in the 17th century understood the magnitude, depth, and severity of Shakespeare's desperate journey into men's consciences that is Hamlet, and many other masterpieces.
Through Hamlet's fervor I feel Shakespeare's frustration with his own time. Hamlet became his vent of this frustration, plays became his message to a future world where a possible comprehension of his message could be grasped from the conscienceless nightmare that was Elizabethan(17th century) England.
It 'seems' to me that men and women such as Shakespeare who discover their uniqueness have been despised by their time and in turn despise, in their despair, the 'outrageous fortune' of their isolation from a world which would accept them - a world they would accept. They indeed 'bear the slings and arrows' of their fate while at the same time taking 'arms against [the] sea of troubles' and in 'the mind' 'end them' - to some degree.
Shakespeare and Hamlet are laughed at in their time and in the case of Rosencrantz and Guilderstern, but realize in their unparalleled perseverance that their message, ridiculous as it may seem at present, is confided in the future and by no means sent in vain. Hamlet, desperate at the end, asks Horatio to "tell my story" "aright to the unsatisfied" and in the admission to Fortinbras, Hamlet and Shakespeare "cannot live to hear the news from England" but give the "dying voice" to the future. "The rest", the laughter in a historical context, "is silence" while Hamlet lives on for eternity in man's mind. No-one recalls the temporary mockery, only the infinite sincerity and conviction of those who don't belong and never give in...
Have I gone too far? Probably. Hence, I rest.
I will go ahead and take one for the team by posting after The King...
Many of you have commented on the absurdity of a teenager getting “addicted” to Shakespeare. I do not personally see this as so bizarre. In the 17 or 18 year old world we live in, where “pleasure is often covered with a pall of duty”, and “one obligation slides smoothly into another”, the language and lessons to be taken from Shakespeare can empower the reader and give them a reason to wade through the daily swamp of meaningless muck. By reading about the restless characters that one can strongly identify with, one realizes that they are not alone in the struggle, which is invigorating. Without the refreshing crutch of something sane like Shakespeare in our insane world, one might go entirely mad, so I think it is perfectly reasonable to become quite dependent on the sanity provided by his works.
I agree with MacNeil in the sense that Shakespeare (along with other great works of literature) can provide one with great “ammunition”. With words, we can defend ourselves against the ignorant and oppressive masses!
I can fully appreciate MacNeil's sentiments about Shakespeare without fully sharing them. I've always found Shakespeare to be more interesting than most of my classmates. This is most likely related to my passion for theatre. When I read Shakespeare I imagine the ways in which I would stage the scenes as a director, or how I would develop the characters as an actor. I guess this gives me a bit of a leg up. Still, I wouldn't say I find Shakespeare life-changing.
Everyone feels passionate about something. I don't think it's fair to criticize another person's passions. Personally I find the idea of running for the sake of running and no other sport to be miserable. But I get that running is what makes Erik's world go around, and I respect that, in the same way I get that not everyone finds a choral piece of music by Z. Randall Stroope (my personal favorite contemporary composer) to be exhilarating.
As a final note, I think Shakespeare is much more gripping when it's performed than when it's only written. While the movies are good, nothing beats a live performance of Shakespeare by professional actors. So I don't think it's fair for anyone to dismiss Shakespeare as outdated and useless. And if you're ever in Ashland, I suggest you check out the Shakespeare festival.
I find it interesting that a 17 year old would become addicted to Shakespeare. He has so much passion for Shakespeare's works. I don't understand how so much passion sprouted from the words,
" How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable Seem to me all the uses of this world". At first glance these lines did not have much meaning ,and only after reading these lines several times, did I derive any meaning from them. This made me realize how obscure Shakespeare's language has become.
This article has not changed my views on Shakespeare, but it has made it clear to me literature and Shakespeare is another form of art. Different people take away different emotions, meanings and ect. To me, Shakespeare's works are like that of Picasso's (an assortment of shapes and colors), I have come to respect their works because of what has been said about them, but I have no passion for their works. However to someone like Macneil, Shakespeare's work is " a piece of God's work so extraordinary". His belief in the greatness of Shakespeare's works is (i think) where he gets his passion. I think Marlow's words "belief in the idea" has some sort of application here. (i hope i made some sense)
In my first and incredibly short (typed it on my phone) post I mentioned how I felt that neither I nor some other 17 year olds felt a real connection to Shakespeare. Upon further review I still feel as if I don't see all of the beauty of Shakespeare's words, but I thought of something I haven't yet seen on this blog. I feel as if there is a huge difference between the written word and the spoken word, I find that the people I admire for their use of language are orators and songwriters (usually rap), while I look to literature, as Connor mentioned, for its stories. In fact some of the best speeches I have ever heard are painful (for me) to read through, and I can hardly make it. I loved listening to MLK's "I have a dream" but reading the transcript was not fun. In the same line of thinking Shakespeare was intended to be performed, not necessarily read, and I have felt the beauty of his language much more in the couple of plays I have seen. I think that McNeill must be capable of replaying the scene in his mind, perhaps performing the play for himself inside his head. It is the beauty of imagination, and really the only significant thing that has changed since 1940. Back when McNeill was living TV and movies were not so prominent. Perhaps that is why I enjoy books the most before I see the movie, because I can still imagine the scene without the interference of someone else's images in my head. He had to imagine Shakespeare or go see the play, with our generation our imagination has been channeled far differently. I feel that for many of us our imagination is geared towards solutions to problems, a mechanical and analytical imagination. Therefore the part that creates images of books has weakened because we are fed all of the images through the TV. I still imagine the scenes in novels and easier reading but when the language gets hard to sift through rather than trying to imagine it like McNeill must've I shift into analytical mode: how can I get to the story as easily as possible and solve the problem of the words getting in the way? That I believe is the fundamental difference, McNeill used the words to create his image with no interference. Because the words are now so obscure them my brain subconsciously shifts to finding the story in them and I lose the beauty of the written word. I have the feeling that if I see Hamlet performed I too will have a far greater admiration for the language, but that might just be me who knows?
whoever reads this sorry for not using paragraphs but I don't even know where to put them in this post.
OK first my two bits on the addiction deal. Anyone can get addicted to anything with a viable paring between pleasure and a stimulus. Therefore someone could easily become addicted to Shakespeare's characteristic writing, with its deep words and plot, as long as they find it pleasureful (we all do, right?)
I feel like i can connect to Rob's feelings about shakespeare and hamlet, though I don't find myself connecting emotionally to the text. I become addicted to more modern, instantly gratifying forms of literature, like sci-fi novellas and short stories. It takes too much time to slow down and understand Shakespeare's archaic writing to truly enjoy it for what it was. I will never be able to see Hamlet like people did back when it was written, though Rob seems to be able to.
One thing I noticed when I read Hamlet, and this article, and other plays, is that Shakespeare writes on different "levels" to appeal to a variety of audiences.
He has alot of dirty jokes in plays like the merry wifes of windsor, or Romeo and Juliet. He also has the deep poetry that appeals so much to Rob. Rob might not even get the dirty jokes, while many of us don't understand the poetry. Yet, both crowds are entertained. I just found that interesting.
First of all, MacNeil made me feel a little excited for Hamlet. It’s really interesting to read about other people’s inspirations and how it sparked something in them to become who they are today. I think there are some books that really catches your attention and really, I know it sounds stupid, gives you a better understanding of life. One of my favorite books is The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho. In a way, I was intrigued and moved by the book, like MacNeil through Hamlet. I loved the book so much that I’ve read it almost six times. And at times, to get a little inspiration, I would read one of my favorite passages from that book. Haha, yeah, I know it kind of sound a little weird, but I guess great books have that effect on you (don’t judge me).
For me, reading Shakespeare is a struggle. I like the play on words and how the reading flows like poetry, but sometimes I don’t always understand it. I think I could never read something of Shakespeare without discussing, because discussing it in class helps me understand it better. So for me, reading something Shakespeare takes a lot of time and effort to really understand it which in the end, I guess is worth it.
Robert MacNeil's literary fascination is better than the average 17 year olds mindless obsessions...anyways I think he made a interesting point when he wrote that, "sometimes, when young, you have a dream of something you have not experienced and on waking feel set ahead, as though the player controlling your life had moved you several spaces on the board." Learning about Hamlet's character made me realize that if we let our emotions consume our minds, like Hamlet, it would end in a tragedy. Shakespeare uses his characters and over exaggerated conflicts/ passion to show the outcome of their sufferings. However, Hamlet's struggling conscience creates a jewel mind of language with his passionate phrases, diction, and a poetic world that "puts a precious mist over reality."
There is one phrase in Wordstruck that caught my attention is “He was intriguingly mysterious and yet perfectly understandable.” Robert MacNeil’s idea that Shakespeare’s words are that of common English would seem surprising and awkward for me if I didn’t read Hamlet. Before I started reading Hamlet I was afraid that I wouldn’t understand anything in the book because the sentences and words are different than other books I have read. But once I started reading the book it made perfect sense; the story seems to go smoothly as I read regardless of the awkward structures.
I think that MacNeil is a bit over reacted with his fascinations of Shakespeare. His usage of phrases such as “I had word-hunger” and “I craved more of the drug” to display his emotions is so strong that I question myself of how I feel when I read Shakespeare.
"Because in the end, literature is all about the stories an author can tell, not the words an author can use."
No Connor Yoshio Smith! :( They go hand in hand. That's like saying all teachers are the same because you get the same material from them in the end. Or, I don't care if you took an hour wrapping my present because all that matters is the present itself.
A writer's choice of words can completely change the meaning and the mood of the ideas/story being presented. Anyone can tell a story. And anyone can relate to or agree with the things a writer says, but it takes more to make your audience feel specific emotions.
And I actually sometimes do "think about all the wonderful quotes I can fall back on or the elegant prose that I can't help but share with others". And I know music is kind of different, but I always look up the lyrics when I hear a really good song. So I bet you probably hate me.
Unlike many who have already posted, I don't find Robert's passion for Shakespeare strange and I agree with Nick, Sharon, and the others who say that we all have something we're passionate about. Harish mentioned that “there is a huge difference between the written word and the spoken word”. I think that this can be very true. Hamlet isn’t something that can be just read once and be appreciated right away. There needs to be emotion and connections that need to be made with the characters. Performances and actually hearing the play spoken out loud can help people understand the words of Shakespeare in a way that connects to the audience personally. I’m not really sure if what I said makes sense, but I can explain how I can relate to how Robert feels about Shakespeare in terms of music.
Recently, I started working on Tchaikovsky’s Violin Concerto in D major and there are many people who say that this piece is just scales and arpeggios, and I guess you can say that is true if you just look at the sheet music, but it’s not like that. If this piece is just played straight through by someone who thinks of it as scales and arpeggios, then it really would sound like 60 minutes of scales and arpeggios. Just as Hamlet would be dull, boring and harder to understand if read with no emotion. In order to play Tchaikovsky’s concerto correctly, you need to look between the notes and see really what emotion the composer is trying to convey. I feel like this piece is really going to change how I play other music pieces, just as Shakespeare did with Robert, but maybe not as much as “transporting me for long moments into another realm of time and being”.
But Sharon, I don't care how you wrap my Christmas present! I don't even care if you wrap my present! Just getting one is good enough!
I see what you mean when you say they go hand in hand. Yes, diction does affect a story. But in the end, if I can only remember either the story or the words and style, I'll remember the story.
You know Sharon, I think we're two different people. You say you love the lyrics in music, but to me it's just another instrument. I don't listen to the deeper meaning the lyrics have, I just listen to how catchy the chorus is. If lyrics were meant to be scrutinized rather than heard, why is it not a poem?
Something I noted about this article is the possibility of Shakespeare using Hamlet as a tool to expose his inner emotions. I for one do not know much of what Shakespeare's personality was like other than what it stated in this article. It is more than possible this is what allowed for Hamlet to be so poetic and thoughtful.
There are so many elements to the writing that I was unaware of before looking at MacNeil's personal insights. I paid no attention to the organization of "How [the words] weary, flat, and unprofitable" together affected the rhythm and the tone.
I find significance in the impact it it had on MacNeil at the age of 17 almost 400 years after it was written. Much like the Savage in BNW the poetry seems to be much more significant to the reader than the story line itself. Those that can understand the complexity of Shakespeare's writing are the ones that find the most joy in reading his work. Im not one of those people that understands the complexity and thoughtfulness of Shakespeare's writing and after reading this article I was able to get a glimpse of what goes into his writing.
Well what if I want to wrap it anyway?
That is the art of music. Writing the words to a story and then composing the music around it to make the words come to life. If lyrics didn't matter they wouldn't be there! Catchy choruses? They're just trying to distract from the blandness and shallowness of the rest of the song. Not that there is anything wrong with bland or shallow.
But this is an intense discussion for another day, probably belongs on another blog anyway.
Connor, you would remember the story because of the diction. Think if Hamlet were written with less emotion provoking choice of words. Reading through the play would be dull and usually boring, dull stories don’t say very long in people’s minds. Also, the lyrics of a song don’t need to be scrutinized, because the melody helps people understand what the artist is trying to say. With a poem, it’s harder, so that’s why they are so scrutinized, to find out what the writer is trying to show and tell.
If you're giving me a Christmas present, I won't be picky. Relating this to literature, if you're giving me a story, I don't really care how it's written. Just so long as it's readable. To draw a real life parallel, I wouldn't want a present smeared in poop either.
You know, I view music the other way 'round. The lyrics are created and sung in order to make the song come to life. The lyrics are just another instrument, in my view.
To refute your argument about catchy choruses distracting from bland songs, how about every song by the Police ever? Every single one has an awesome catchy chorus, yet no song is bland and shallow.
And thank you so very much for saying that I shouldn't argue back at the end of your post. Now what do I do with my post?
Cindy, it's not the diction that helps me to remember the story. It's the awesome events that happen within the story.
For example, in the first scene, Hamlet talks to a GHOST. Is that not exciting? Next, Polonius sends his attendent to slander and spy on his son. That was pretty eventful. Then Hamlet SPOILER ALERT! kills Polonius completely by accident. And I haven't even read the whole play yet! What else could there be!?
Reading a book is also an exercise of the imagination. Some might argue that it's the author's job to paint a picture in your mind. But I argue it's the reader's responsibility. When you imagine the story, you can imagine it however you want. Assuming you have an imagination, you can easily compensate for dull writing.
But who wants to spend their time trying to imagine something exciting for a dull piece of writing when there are authors who do that for you? I wouldn't want to have to imagine and make up all the details for everything that happens in a story. And if you didn't have such an imagination? Are you telling those people they are not fit to enjoy something they could've with a little push from the author? Shakespeare's Hamlet would not have been so famous if it were written blandly. People would've focused more on other plays by other writers, it that were the case.
Robert MacNeil is in love. It's the most complicated love too, to be in love not with a person, but with the words of a fictional character. And love, like a lot of things in this universe, is an addiction that people mentally feed. I think at seventeen, everyone makes some kind of addiction to something, good or bad. MacNeil just seemed to get himself addicted to the words of Shakespeare. He connects with it, cherishes it, and has a standard level of quality that has to be reached for it. Which is good for him in some psychological sense, because at seventeen people tend to think that there is no one that understands them and they need something they will only take at certain standards. He even takes it as far as calling it 'God's work'.
I share his feeling about words a little bit, nowhere near his extreme of love. There are some great parts of Shakespeare, and most of them consist of double meaning phrases like "A little more than kin, and less than kind",(A1,S2,L67) "I am too much i' the sun" (A1,S2, L69), and things of that nature.
To put things lightly, MacNeil is swimming in the depths of the oceans of Shakespeare, is in love with everything he sees, and wants more. I’m smiling at my shot glass of Shakespeare and am happy with that.
At first, I found his passion for Shakespeare a bit weird. At such a young age, he has all this passion and love for his work, it was a tad bit excessive. But as he the described how his life was, "Between home and school, life seemed all burdens and no choices...I couldn't escape into my own mind until bedtime." It reminds me of a lot of other and myself. Sounds almost identical to what he went through. So instead of seeing his new found passion strange, I admire him for it. This article also shows quotes from Hamlet that has substance that I have not noticed before and gives an interesting perspective on them. he also relates Hamlet to his own views of a young man. "Hamlet was a great teller-off, an angry young man for all seasons." Thena quote from Hamlet itself "Why, what an ass I am! This is most brave That I, the son of a dear father murder'd, prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell." I hope to have an experience in literature as he did.
"But who wants to spend their time trying to imagine something exciting for a dull piece of writing when there are authors who do that for you?"
Me? Hey, it's no weirder than falling in love with Shakespearian prose at the tender age of 17.
"I wouldn't want to have to imagine and make up all the details for everything that happens in a story."
What kind of author would give all the details? What's Hamlet wearing during Act 1? Just because Shakespeare didn't tell us
doesn't mean you have to imagine Hamlet as just a floating head. You're free to imagine whatever you like. In fact, you have to.
"And if you didn't have such an imagination?"
Well, sad as it is, not everyone loves literature. Whenever I hear someone say they dislike literature, I like to imagine it's because they're incapable of imagining a story as it progresses.
"Are you telling those people they are not fit to enjoy something they could've with a little push from the author?"
Cindy, I think it takes more than just a little push to turn a dull book into an awesome one. That's part of the premise of AP Lit; that writing well is hard and it needs to be taught well.
"Shakespeare's Hamlet would not have been so famous if it were written blandly."
I'm just saying that a blandly written Hamlet would be about as memorable to me. It would still be a story about a boy facing authoritarian pressure, pretense, passivity, and an intense internal struggle.
If my tone sounds harsh, it's not meant to be. That's just the internet, trying to fool you.
ooh.. this is getting pretty heated between Connor and Sharon.
But I have to agree with what most people are saying. I personally don't feel anything special by reading Hamlet or other plays by Shakespeare. But at the same time, I have a lot of respect for Shakespeare because of the connection other people feel from the text. If people like MacNeil (or Mrs. Minor) can get obsessed with a piece of work, there is obviously something in it that is to be admired.
Like Niloy said, I think the reason that most of us are not able to appreciate Shakespeare's diction and syntax is because we are too wrapped up in the action. But I do not think this is a bad thing. It is just a difference in interest. A good piece of literature for students today is one with a good plot. Good writing is like the cherry on top, it's not necessary but it is nice.
The reason most of us do not feel the same way as MacNeil does towards Shakespeare is because we do not enjoy looking beneath the surface. I think our generation likes everything just to be straight and easily understandable. We are lazy to find the true meaning and explore the great writing that Shakespeare has created. Like Jonathan after I read this piece by MacNeil it makes you really want to find the amazing literature. MacNeil found Shakespeare addicted because once he understand what Shakespeare wrote, it is great literature. All of us find joy through various ways. Some find it through playing sports, writing, enjoying nature, or reading Shakespeare in Macneil's case. Although it is strange to most of us today, I find it normal. MacNeil just found the joys by reading Shakespeare.
Harish--I like what you brought up about the "differences between the written and spoken words." That makes a lot of sense. Though we see Shakespeare's words on paper, he wrote them as a play...words meant to be read a loud to an audience. When we just read it, trying somehow to imagine the actors, set, emotion/mood in our head, I think we lose some of that intended purpose. I think you can pick up different things from both forms of study. Via listening we pick up on the particular sounds each string of words create. By reading the play, we SEE the words in a visual form.
It's like music. One can read it, or they can play it. Either way, one discovers something new about the piece.
Hope everyone had a good weekend. Only three days this week, yay!
This is a really good discussion this time!!
I understand what you mean Cindy. But my teacher doesn't let me play that piece haha. Connor, I have to say that I agree with what Cindy says about diction making the difference in Shakespeare. I know that if Shakespeare were not written so "differently," I would not remember it as something distinctive. In reality, the storyline of Shakespeare plays doesn't seem all that special to me. Yes the whole scene with a ghost is cool, but it's not super special. The diction and syntax, on the other hand, are totally different from any literature today. And that is where the true power and appeal of Shakespeare come from (For me at least).
I thought this piece was very interesting just because MacNeil talks about his account as a seventeen year old. Although I can relate to him as just by age, Shakespeare "cast a spell" on him in 1948- long before the television, computer and these online lit blogs. But the idea that he could find some passion as something he could endear and relate to is enduring. MacNeil found something so novel and so amazing, that he just fell in love with it; and alongside that he saw words in a new light shown by Shakespeare. Even since 1948 these forces of motivation are eternal. Further, just as MacNeil says: "the more i looked, the more i found, and forty years later, the more I look, the more I still find..." Just like that, these forces transcend age groups as well.
Also, MacNeil had read hamlet before being enchanted by Shakespeare. It took the enlightening rendition of Laurence Olivier as a catalyst to incite MacNeil's love for the playwright. Just like that I'm sure that we are capable of falling in love with many passions, not just Shakespeare, but it just takes the right instigation.
To add my two cents to the discussion between Sharon, Connor, and Cindy - I agree with Cindy. Connor, if the storyline were all that mattered, then wouldn't 5 simple sentences explaining the events of Hamlet be enough to make it a masterpiece? But it's not. Shakespeare's language makes it more interesting and special.
I think the idea that the written word is different from the spoken word is a really good point, Harish.
Erik, I think that's a really interesting idea you brought up about Shakespeare expressing his own frustrations of his time period through Hamlet. Maybe that's what makes it so moving and universal.
Also, Nicole - I've totally used/read some passages in books that can be really inspiring! Perhaps we're just weird :)
I don't feel like I fully connect to Shakespeare like "I should" either, as Sharon said. I thought of another idea why we can't connect to Shakespeare that hasn't been mentioned yet. I think it's because we're more mature and aware of the world around us at 17 than MacNeil was in the 1950s or the people were in the 1600s. Shakespeare's plays don't open our eyes to the world as much as they once did because we're already so involved in a fast-paced, accessible, and global world.
I understand what you're looking at Connor. You're examining the story, not just the language Shakespeare is using. I think both you and Cindy are "right." I think you can have a well written piece with a not-so-good story, or an excellent story written poorly.
Obviously, Shakespeare's Hamlet has a great story and wonderfully written words.
I've have noticed much anticipation from my fans towards another fine posting of mine on this blog, so I shall appease them and post again. This articles talks about a young boys love for words, ushered in through his reading of shakespear's works. This brings to mind the common criticism of the youth, like me, in our society. Critics oftem claim we don't appreciate words and writing as much as we should, or used to. Often, they elaborate and make claims of how our society is losing all value and is becoming something much worse than what previous generations have been. While I acknowledge appreciation of written literature has declined, I sincerely believe this is without real loss, and most claims regaurding this are uninformed and close minded. For the most part, books and written literature have always been read for fun, and merely for the readers own enjoyment. Just because youth these days have found enjoyment in different forms of media or expressions, who is to say that these are inherently and neccesarily worse? They may certainly be, and I'm definately not claiming them to be equal or better for us than books. But, those who make alligations against this shift in views must thoroughly take into account the reasons why people read, and the reasons why they do what they do now. We're all humans with similar responses to what we see and do. Chances are the critic may be enjoying the exact same things as the youth does now, if they were in the same potision.
MacNiel is an interesting 17 year old. 1948 was a different time and place with different expectations and disciplines. "Authority always commanded [his] attention or prescence". Now, sometimes when I am VERY pesimistic I feel the same way. However, I feel that quite often I have too much time to myself. It leads to too much thinking and is just flat out boring.
I think that MacNiel comparing Shakespeare to God is rather bold. I am not going to call him out for blashphemy or anything, but I think it is a bit rediculous. However, with his strong feeling of being rules by "the man" he sees the same sort of truth in Shakespeare as many of us see in God. While I think his comparsion is extreme for myself, in his own mindset it is very fitting.
I think he dreams of being bold enough to be like Hamlet in many ways. When he quotes the set of lines beginning, "Why, what an ass am I! This is most brave," he is showing us that he wishes he had the ability to stand up for himself. It is rather sad that the society he lived in gave him no opportunity to have a backbone.
One thing I do agree with is his love of Shakespeare and the way he forms his sentences. The "inky cloak" example is incredible. Two short words with the same sound three times. Wow. I know that if I ever do this it is totally an accidental mistake -- or success.
I am glad this boy with no friends or self-respect found respite somewhere. He did turn out to be a pretty good writer in the end of it all. It just saddens me to not have optimism in an opening paragraph.
Post a Comment