Albany: The Good Guy?

Through out the beginning of the play, the Duke of Albany, Gonriel's wife, went along with everything she did. He had no complaint when she claimed her father was the only one who made her happy. He didn't even notice when Gonreil threw out her father, until, of course, it was too late.

Then, he suddenly protests about her mistreatment of her father. He refuses to help or even talk to her. When everyone comes together in the end scene, he tells Edgar, 'Let sorrow split my heart, if ever I did hate thee or thy father." Edgar then says, "Worthy Prince, I know 't"

Why was it so easy for Albany to gain back trust as a good guy?

Edgar = Hamlet? Mew?

While reading, I found striking similarities between Hamlet and Edgar. Both acted insane for a good portion of their respective plays, both were high ranking, and both had their demise plotted by a family member. Although there is the difference that Hamlet died and Edgar got control of England.

Also, the endings of the plays were similar in that most of the characters died in the end. Same with Romeo and Juliet. Were these tragedies more popular than uplifting comedies in Shakespeare's time?

And, althoug this isn't a question, I just though it very strange and humorous when, on page 134, "Marry, your manhood, mew!" Really? Mew? I have to say, that that line is now my favorite. :)

~Hannah

I'll call you...maybe...

On page 89, Kent tells the gentelman, "That way, I'll this--he that first lights on him, holla the other." In other words, "You go this way, I'll go that way. Whoever finds him (the king) first, call the other."

Now, as we can tell, Kent finds Lear first. So...when does he call the gentelman? He doesn't. He never bothers to call out for him. Did Sheaksphear just forget to write that part? Or did he purposfuly leave the gentelman out in the storm, for some other purpose?

S.S (Shakespeare's Stereotypes)

On page 118, Regan says to Gloucester, "So white, and such a traitor?" This is Shakespeare's way of questioning the fact that a person may be old (and with a white beard) but be traitorous.

This line is strikingly similar in meaning and structure to King Lear's lament on page 8, "So young, and so untender?" This, we decided, was Shakespeare questioning how a person could be young and cruel.

This is the first time I've noticed that Shakespeare has stereotypes. Does he have any other in other plays which I simply haven't noticed? Or perhaps prejudices like these only appear in King Lear?

~Hannah

He has the magic...umm...clothes?

In the play King Lear, the king appears to be a old man, with very poor priorities. He insists his daughters make glowing statements about how much they love him, demands to have 100 armed knights, and scorns anyone who does not give him exactly what he wants. This does not portray a good king, whom everyone loves.

However, even after he throws his daughter out and refuses to give her a dowry, yet she still loves him. And Kent, after receiving close to the same treatment, comes back to the king to serve him as a servant, instead of a Earl. How does such a awful man command such loyalty?

Um...what happened to Plan A?

In the beginning of the play King Lear says, "Which of you shall we say doth love us most that we our largest bounty extend," which would mean that whoever loves the king the most, he shall give the largest plot of land to. But then, after the King's first daughter speaks, Lear gives away the first plot of land immediately. Wait - shouldn't he listen to all of the sisters before deciding which one spoke most lovingly? After all, the other's didn't even get a chance to speak. Instead he simply gives away a plot of land when the daughter pleases him, which is not what he said originally...when did he switch to plan B?

Also, in the quote above, King Lear says, "Which of you shall we say doth love us the most.." We? Us? Is there more than one King Lear, or perhaps is he speaking about his court and kingdom?

~Hannah

Help, I've been killed!

I have seen Hamlet performed twice, but have not noticed this particular line and how it worked for the actors. Bizarrely, in Act 3 scene 4 page 111, after Hamlet discovers a man, Polonius, is hiding behind the tapestry and listening in to his conversation with his mother, he draws his sword and says, "How now! A rat? Dead, for a ducat, dead!" Stage directions say, "he kills Polonius with a pass through the arras." Then, surprisingly, Polonius exclaims, "O, I am slain!"

Not only am I confused on the possibility of someone exclaiming, "O, I'm dead," I also know that would be a tricky scene to accomplish on stage. After all, it real life when we are fatally struck through with a sword ... those would not be the words that would come to mind. 

Hamlet and the Gravedigger

When Hamlet and Horatio first see the gravedigger, Hamlet talks about how the skulls the gravedigger is throwing up could have been wordy politicians or suck-up nobles, and how now, they are being tossed around with a shovel. The message that he sends is that death makes all equal.

But when the two speak with the gravedigger, who plays with their words, Hamlet quips, "...By the Lord, Horatio, this three years I have took note of it: the age has grown so picked that the toe of the peasant comes so near the heel of the courtier, he galls his kibe."

I was rather confused by what Hamlet meant, so I went to No Fear, which says, "...Lord Horatio, I've been noticing this for a few year now. The peasants have become so clever and witty they are nipping at the heels of the noblemen."

Hamlet is looking down at the gravedigger, and marking the difference in their ranks, and his lines sound like he is amused that the gravedigger should speak so boldly. This air of supremacy is not what I received from Hamlet a few lines ago, when he was pondering about death and how all men are equal in it.

Why the sudden change between philosophical Hamlet who is poking fun at the self-assumed airs of royalty of nobles, to a Hamlet, amused that a peasant should talk back to him? Could he be threatened by the fact that there is less and less difference between the classes?

"Oh my prophetic soul, my uncle killed my daddy!"

Another reason for Hamlet's anger and crazy behavior could be because he just learned his uncle might have killed his father. Besides the obvious, "Oh no, my uncle killed my dad, now I'm angry," he also would be mad at himself. He repeatedly said his uncle was half the man his father was, yet he pulled off a brilliant murder, right under every one's noses. He would feel disappointed in himself as well, for not stopping, or at least recognizing, what happened.

Hamlet's Motives

To power such a strong reaction of anger towards his uncle, Hamlet would have to have strong feelings built up from previous events.

As mentioned in class, Hamlet might have felt helplessness. After all, his father just died and he hadn't been able to do anything. His mother re-married his uncle so quickly, without talking to Hamlet about her decision. Also, Ophelia was distancing herself from him, without any noticeable reason.

He might have felt disappointed in himself. His father died, and Hamlet didn't even know how. His mother re-married the uncle he hated, and he hadn't been able to stop her. And his relationship with Ophelia wasn't going smoothly.

Anther emotion powering Hamlet might have been self pity. Oh no! My dad died. Oh, poor me, my mom married my horrid uncle. Oh no, my girlfriend might be breaking up with me. His life was pathetic.

Any way you look at it, Hamlet was obviously not happy, and so took his pent up emotions and stirred up some political and violent waves in Denmark.

~Hannah

Hamlet

I found Hamlet's Suicide Soliloquy to be powerful.

"Oh, that this too, too sullied flesh would melt,
thaw, and resolve itself into a dew,
Or that the Everlasting had not fixed
His canon 'gainst self-slaughter! O God, God!
How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable
Seem to me all the uses of this world!" ...

Shakespeare's use of words to communicate is always amazing. The way he uses words here, to make us aware of Hamlet's sorrow, is particularly chilling.

The Guards' Duty

In the first scene, Marcellus and Bernardo show Horatio the ghost of the previous king, but this wasn't the second time they had observed it; it was the third. Surely, the guards were supposed to report the happenings of the castle to a superior officer, but instead they simply watch it, come back, watch it again, then finally say, "Oh yeah, Horatio, would you like to see the ghost of the old king that has been haunting the grounds lately?"

After the guards show Hamlet his father's ghost, he makes them swear not to tell anyone. Ok, fine, if the prince tells you to, don't, but why didn't they let someone know before? Wouldn't it be the guards' duty?

I too take my leave...

Chaucer's retraction at the end of the book surprised me. He apologized not only for some of the Canterbury Tales, but also for other books he had written, including, Nineteen Ladies, St. Valentines Day of the Parliament of Fowls, and Fame.  Specifically, Chaucer apologized for the part of these books which tend towards sin and he prayed, "Christ have mercy on me and forgive me my sins."

This second apology is redundant after the apology that appears in the prologue of the Miller's Tale, and therefore, I believe it is unnecessary and odd. I found it to be strange for a writer to retract his work, within the very work he is apologizing for. After all, if he was that sorry, he could have just ripped the whole thing up.

Regardless of the oddity of his ending, I found The Canterbury Tales to be a wonderful collection of stories. I have never seen a story, made of stories, and agree with Hannah that this has the making of a movie.

The Reader of this Book here takes her Leave

Chaucer's Retraction reminds me in a way of the prologue of the Miller's tale, asking for forgiveness from anyone who might be offended, but also saying if anyone enjoyed the book, they should thank "Lord Jesu Christ."

It's rather strange that Chaucer, the character, seems to not want any affiliation with the book. It's almost like he is saying, "Psst, look, here is a great story, but you didn't get it from me." Never before have a read a book where the author disowns his creation. I understand that Chaucer doesn't want to offend anyone, but then why did he even bother writing the book?

I enjoyed the Canterbury Tales. It was different; Chaucer is telling us a story about himself, in which he tells the stories of other people, who are telling their own tales. It's complicated but intriguing, and I bet that some Hollywood studio is going to make a version of it someday :) Either way, I would like read the rest of the tales at a later time.

~Hannah

Now, to get back to my question...

On page 224, in the Nun's Priest's tale, he said fate let fly her shaft and saying this tale was true. He then said, "Let me return full circle to my theme." and continued. How was it necessary to claim his tale was true, just to transition back to his story?

Reliable Sources?

In the Nun's Priest's Tale, Pertelote chides her husband for being afraid of his dreams about being eaten. In his defense, Chanticleer tells her two tales about dreams foretelling the future.

But really? How reliable are two stories? I'm sure that Pertelote could have told him of three times as many incidents where she dreamed something strange or frightening, but nothing happened. I once dreamt that I was floating on an iceberg in the South Pole, with a massive crab the size of football stadium swimming underneath me. I didn't like the dream, but it didn't really happen. Why would the rooster tell two fairy tales in his defense?

Faithfulness

I believe that the degree of faithfulness does increase the higher the ranking. The better educated would have more reverence for marriage. The Knight does not even consider the idea of unfaithfulness, while the Franklin mentions it, the wife of bath dwells on it, and the Miller considers it unstoppable. These persons ideas of faithfulness is closely matched to their ranking. The Miller, the lowest, claims it inevitable, and you can only turn a blind eye. The Wife of Bath, next up but not much better, has a shallow idea; you could be pretty, or faithful, but not both. The Franklin, being the student and the next highest, does mention it, but never submits to it. The Knight, being the highest, does not even mention it.