Comparing Chracters

In Shakespeare's Hamlet, I like to see it as a war of words.  This war of words lies between Claudis and Hamlet.  Although it may seem that Claudis is a loving father and a protector of his new step son, reading in between the lines and not the way that it is expressed, illustrates to the reader, Claudis real true deceptive side.  Instead of grieving and mourning his brothers death, he interweaves his happiness on the inside that he just got married to his brothers wife with the grief that he must show on the exterior.  The language and the paradoxical words that Claudis incorporates make this evident.  "Wisest sorrow... defeated joy...dirge in marriage...mirth in funeral."  Although it might seem that Claudis is mourning is brothers death, the subtleness of his language that is incorporated by Shakespeare makes it seem that there is something not right about the whole situation.  We later find out that Claudis killed his brother, then married his wife then temporarily denied his son of the throne.  Also we can see that Claudis is very strong, commanding and controlling.  We can see this through the fact that Claudis doesn't allow Hamlet to go to college.  This effectively illustrates the fact that Claudis is selfish and that it must be his way or its no way.  He wants Hamlet to stay for no reason except his own.  Claudis just wants the power to illustrate his power since he didn't really deserve to be next in line to the thrown.  Compared to Hamlet, Hamlet is more true to himself and he is not seeking the power.   There is no underlying meaning in what Hamlet says and although it might be rude, Hamlet is always true in his words.  This difference is effectively seen when Claudis is at the court talking to his nephew, the language that is employed there makes it seem that Claudis is a great man and that he will be giving the throne to Hamlet next.  This thus effectively illustrates the similarities between the two as they both can sometimes be rude in their comments, but the difference is the way that Claudis says it is subtle and interwoven while Hamlet just tells an aside and is completely truthful.  Also we see that Claudis is more nervous then he should be.  The down play of his brothers death is effectively illustrates his lack of care and the fact that he had something to do with his brothers murder.  He puts his son down and makes his son feel like dirt in order for everyone else to think that he needs to get over his fathers murder since Claudis needs the issue of Hamlet sr. death to fade.  His ironic and condescending language effectively illustrates his insecurities and his fear.

Chracters

In Pride and Prejudice, there are many ways characters are introduced and presented.  To start off we have the protagonist Elizabeth and Jane.  And we have the antagonist who are the Bingley sisters and Mr. Darcy, in the beginning as well as Mr. Collins and Mrs. Bennet to a certain extent.  Also, Jane Austen incorporates foils to effectively illustrate the characters personalities.  We see this in the beginning as Jane and Elizabeth are presented as effective foils of each other.  Right from the start the distinctions in their character are clearly illustrated and can be clearly followed throughout the novel.  These distinctions really show us the type of characters they develop into as the novel progresses.  Also Mr. Bingley and Mr. Darcy are presented as effective foils of each other and although these foils are accurate for the majority of the book, we can say that Mr. Darcy has a "coming of age" story where he realizes he was wrong about Elizabeth.  Elizabeth goes through the same thing, except Elizabeth has an epiphany when she says "till this moment I never knew myself."  We see this as a growth and a development of character throughout the novel.  Also throughout the novel, there are round and flat and stock characters that effectively bring difference in the novel.  The round characters in Pride and Prejudice are Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy as they have a range of emotions that effectively changes throughout the story.  The flat characters are Jane and Mr. Bingley and Mr. Bennet as for the most part, all three of them stay as stagnant character and don't really change over the course of the novel.  There is also one stock character that fits into a stereotype.  Mrs. Bennet fits the stereotype of wanting all her daughters to become married and all she cares about is the money and the reputation, not the love.  Her reputation as the crazy psychotic mother.   Also in pride and prejudice, there is direct characterization where the narrator flat out tells you about a character and doesn't really show you.  This happens when the narrator tells you about the reputation of Mr. Darcy and also when the narrator tells you about the Bennets.  There is also indirect characterization, this is where the narrator shows us rather than tells us.  When Mr. Darcy denies a dance with Elizabeth, that is showing us the real and true character of Mr. Darcy.  In Hamlet, this is completely different as there is no narrator, the introductions of the characters are completely different. In pride and prejudice where there is direct and indirect characterization to demonstrate the characters in the novel, in hamlet, we are only and can only be introduced to the characters through the language of there prose.  We don't have a narrator explaining it to us so we have to read in between the lines to fully understand the type of character the it is in Hamlet.  This is more difficult where there can be multiple interpretations of a character while in the pride and prejudice, you can easily interpret each character.

Claudis vs Hamlet

In Shakespeares Hamlet, language and the incorporation of language is very important to the plot and the understanding of the interactions between the characters.  Claudis's language after the death of his brother is one of very surprise to me.  Instead of grieving and mourning his brothers death, he interweaves his happiness on the inside that he just got married to his brothers wife with the grief that he must show on the exterior.  The language and the paradoxical words that Claudis incorporates make this evident.  "Wisest sorrow... defeated joy...dirge in marriage...mirth in funeral."  Although it might seem that Claudis is mourning is brothers death, the subtleness of his language that is incorporated by shakespeare makes it seem that there is something not right about the whole situation.  We later find out that Claudis killed his brother, then married his wife then temporarily denied his son of the throne.  This event is more evident through the subtleness of his language.  Also when Claudis is at the court talking to his nephew, the language that is employed there makes it seem that Claudis is a great man and that he will be giving the throne to Hamlet next.  However, this language is misleading as we have seen in the previous seen his true feelings.  Thus the language that is incorporated by shakespeare is meant to at times to mislead the other characters in the book causing dramatic irony.  Hamlet's language is quite different as when he has an aside, this type of language is to express the truth, even though it might be rude.  This thus effectively illustrates the similarities between the two as they both can sometimes be rude in their comments, but the difference is the way that Claudis says it is subtle and interwoven while Hamlet just tells an aside and is completely truthful.  Through Hamlet's language we see his dejected countenance and his mourning for his father and his subservience to his step father.  However in Claudis's language we see his power and his valor yet we also see his "kind and generous" demeanor.  Also another difference is that Hamlet's language is not interwoven or it does not have a secondary meaning behind it like his step father.

Compare and Contrast

The two basketball poems can be effectively split up into a variety of ways that will each lead to clear effective writtting but also structural issues.  The first way to split the poems up is to have separate paragraphs on each poem.  Have one paragraph on the slam dunk and have one paragrph on the fast break.  Within that you can first write about the first poem and really get a full sense of the poem and the mysticity behind the poem and then write a second paragraph on the fast break and really foucus on the overal meaning and implication of the poem.  Then in the second paragraph you can compare the two poems based on not only the plot but also the diction, the time of the poems and the smoothness of the poem.  You can compare that the time of the first poem is on a longer more general story of playing basketball while in the fast break poem the description of one play of the game.  Also the choppiness of the poem the slam dunk poem makes it seem that basketball is not smooth and it is not flowing.  This is a big distinction and maybe the reason why you have the mysticism of the poem and the choppiness of the poem because the story is a story of the boy who has to overcome adversity and uses basketball as a realease.  It demonstrates the fact that he had a choppy life and it wasnt smooth.  Compared to the fast break poem where for the most part the team had a smooth and easy lane to the basket.  This way can be effective but i belive that you lose the over arching theme of the question.  When you write essay's it has to be specific and it has to answer the question.  It has to be on topic and specific, go more in depth on one topic rather than broad on mulitple topics.  Sure you want to use those examples that you find but it is not necessary appropriate for the prompt.  Thats why i belive that if you split it up and focus on the tone of the poems, and the time of the poems because you can focus on two specific ideas and develop it fully.  Although it might be harder to acomplish, due to the indepth and the complexity of the format, it is much more succint and too the point.  It doesnt go off on tandems that dont relate to the topic.

Plot

In every novel or story that we read there is always a plot.  Yet there are different means of incorporating the plot.  In Pride and Prejudice, the story starts from the beginning as in its not in the middle of action.  In the exposition, it explains the background to the story and lets the reader know who everyone is.  Giving a brief introduction.  However, what is interesting about Austen's novel is that there are 2 main plots going on at the same time with both totally different means yet the same outcome for both.  The raising action is when Mr. Bingley and Ms. Bennet start falling in love with each other and that leads to them dancing at the  ball and then continuing their romance when Ms. Bennet visits the Bingley and the way Bingley expresses his love for her.  Yet we reach the climax when Elizabeth reads the letters from Bingley's sisters.  That climax really is the hight of the tension of the novel.  The failing action is the consequence of the break up and how when Ms. Bennet leaves for London hoping to see Bingley but she doesn't.  However there is another raising action as Bingley comes back to the Bennets house looking for Jane.  The first few nights while he is at there house, the raising action occurs leading up to the marriage proposal.  Once Bingley proposes, we reach the climax and as Jane accepts, we start to see the failing action of her family finding out.  We reach the conclusion as they all live happily ever after.  Also at the same time Liz and Darcy first meet and we see the raising action as Darcy humiliates Liz.  He also very arrogant, yet his arrogance is tamed as he starts to fall in love with Liz.  This is a continuation of the raising action as he continues to chase for her heart, but after she found out that Darcy ruined her sisters marriage, Liz denies Darcy once again.  This is still the raising action until we lead up to the climax.  "Till this moment i never knew myself" this is Liz's self realization that she has mistakenly discerned Darcy.  The failing action is when he proposes a second time and she accepts.  The failing action is also when she has to go tell the family about her marriage.  The denouement is that they live happily every after.

Animal Poems

Both of these poems explain the cruel death of animals in nature.  The first poem is more harsh than the second one where in the first one the narrator actually kills the woodchucks and in the second one the deer is already dead and the man approaches how to handle the deer's death.  The tone in the first one is very destructive.  The verbs used in the first one are harsh like knockout bomb, beheading, killing and hunt.  These verbs effectively communicate the destructive nature of the first poem and effectively ilustrates the narrators relationship with nature.  This relationship is a very unappreciative relationship where the narrator kills the woodchucks as if they were not animals.  Dehumanizing the animals to mere unimportant objects.  "Underground the quiet Nazi way" this effectively ends the poem as we see everything come into perspective and really see the narrators relationship with nature.  The tone is effectively contrasted but the outcome is just the same.  The tone of the second one is that the man is more observant and really cares about nature.  He runs all the consequences in his head before he makes a decision to throw the deer over the edge.  He understands that if he leaves the deer, it will be worse for the road as more deer will come and more will die either from cars hitting them or from guns.  The man does the logical thing and throws the deer off the edge.  The man has more appreciation for nature than the narrator in the first poem yet both of the poems end up with the death of an animal.

DW Harding

Summary of one point/disagree: The one important point that DW makes is that the book was actually written by Austen and intended to be read by the people that Austen actually detests.  DW makes this point because in the novel, DW concludes that Austen must have been the opposite of someone like Mrs. Bennet or Mr. Collins and thus Austen must have detested those figures in society.  As DW continues, he states that he believes that the people reading the book would have been blind to the caricatures and the exaggerations of the characters.  Suggesting that the audience would die of laughter but not fully understand the message that Austen was trying to give.  This is contradictory and I effectively disagree with because if Austen intended the readers to be the people who she detested, but DW states that these people would have been blind and not realized the message.  I believe that Austen effectively utilizes caricatures and these caricatures and exaggerations are clear and illustrate the flaws of society in the 1800's.  I believe that the audience would have seen and recognized the "lesson" internally maybe not externally.

Agree: I agree that this book is a book of relief and escape as stated by DW.  During the 1930's and 1940's,  people were not only going through the worst depression ever in the history of the United States but also a war was about to start and people were anxious and weary and uncertain.  This was a very negative time period without a lot of laughter and excitement.  I believe that this book effectively was an escape from reality and into a the reality of a dysfunctional family that brought laughter and excitement into the boring and stressful lives of the people in the 30's and 40's.  Ultimately as DW states a sense of relief and thankfulness as this book rises the sprits of the reader.