I know things were different in the middle ages but i don’t understand why they would entrust clowns with burial services. The clown scene was funny but i think that only because i think I’m supposed to, I couldn’t really understand it but it clearly had the form of humor. I did think it was funny how the first clown was in charge and telling the other what to do, however he ends up sending his lackey to the bar while he has to continue digging a grave. Again we see the usually apathetic Hamlet showing care for human life, and again i infer there was humor in that bit he said about the lawyer. Then, the famous yorick speech! it does not seem worthy of the fame it gathered. We see the origin of another modern cliche, jumping into the grave. What baffles me is that Laertes is supposed to be hell-bent on Hamlet’s death, but from the dialogue he doesn’t seem like he did all he could to kill him.

 with a book that names a minor character after a defining characteristic, for example ‘Lord’, ‘gentleman’ and ‘clown’, why does osric get a name. I don’t understand why they went into such detail about Laertes’ weapons, he cant use six swords or ride six horses at the same time, and it’s a fencing match too, hamlet shouldn’t be worried. The duel, and with it the inevitable blood bath of a tragedy. Claudius is a fool, he puts out this poison wine thinking hamlet will drink between rounds, and he does little to save his beloved gertrude, and i quote:

King Gertrude, do not drink

Queen I will, my lord; I pray you pardon me

No warning, no slow motion leap to snatch it away from her, no “NOOOOOOO!” at her death, he just says ‘oops too late’. So then Hamlet and Laertes poke each other with poison, and all hope is lost, nothing left to do but to deliver a lengthy speech about death. Then the long overdue killing of the king. then Shakespeare gets lazy, some servant guy comes in; “so uhh… Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead” they kinda deserved it. I couldn’t exactly understand the point of fortinbras’ presence here, is he taking over the throne or something? any-who the play as a whole; I give it a ‘meh’ out of a possible ‘pretty good’ (the equivalent of 2.5 stars outta 5). The dialogue is such a chore to rake through, and despite the presence of death, it’s a total chick-flick(book).

The first thing i noticed is the lack of alarm shown by everyone but the queen for polonius’ death, they’re just like; “where’s the body?”. I have come to the conclusion that the queen did not know Claudius killed the king, because she can’t handle death. When Hamlet says he “compound [the body] with dust, whereto ’tis kin” I thought this was a joke as he is saying polonius was dirt and so he put it with the rest of the dirt, although the book says it’s a reference to ‘ashes to ashes dust to dust’. Hamlet’s just too weird to me, with all his metaphor’s, i’d probably hit him if he was that annoying to me. I’ve noticed a lot of those disease references this act, they kind of flew over my head in the past.

As soon as the king said he was sending Hamlet to England i knew he was planning to send him to death. then all of a sudden, Fortinbras makes the scene, i had actually completely forgotten him, ( i still wonder who Yorik is). I don’t understand his raid on Poland, is it some kind of distraction to the Danes? and then Hamlet finally shows an emotion for someone other than himself or his father, but of all people why the polish, has he not noticed death is all around him? I was shocked when i found out Ophelia had drowned, i didn’t understand she was crazy until going back and rereading it, the first time i thought she was hormonal or perhaps stupid, it’s a very popular state of mind in this play. the whole thing wouldn’t have screwed up so bad if she had just loved Hamlet when he loved her instead of waiting till after he turned off his heart. of course then Laertes must kill Hamlet for knockin off his old man.

The first noteworthy thing in this act to me was hamlet’s coaching to the players. i am confused not simply by Shakespeare’s shameless meta-referencing, but Hamlet’s anal haranguing of the players on how to do their job. I enjoyed Hamlet’s wit in mocking Polonius’ short lived acting career as a short lived emporer (there i go!), in the way i enjoy the kids on the announcements try to put on acceptable programming every morning (that’s a wordy analogy; i mean it’s stupid). I did however enjoy the play acted within the play, and i bet i would have enjoyed the murder of gonzago. it’s funny to see Hamlet abandon all subtlty in his dislike for his uncle-fauther and aunt-mother, but the fact that he would interupt the play to deal out critisicms makes me like him less. He was the equivalent of the modern at-movie-phone-talkers(-on?).  I have come to the conclusion that Hamlet is a fool, he’s always going off on something, to confuse someone, funny, but foolish.

Polonius is also a moron, hiding behind an ‘arras’ or curtains is what kids do when they don’t want to eat their vegetables and then theysnicker while the parent feign puzzling while staring at the obvious lump on the windosill. one of my favortie and least favorite moments is when the queen says “help, help, ho!” and in response Polonius doesn’t help her, doesn’t run for help, doesn’t try to accost hamlet, but instead echoes “what, ho! help, help, help!”. HE WAS THE HELP! so hamlet kills him… oops… I didn’t like polonius but this just doesn’t fit, killing her father will definitely send that nag Ophelia packing. I’m surprised how quickly they turn from the freshly murdered Polonius to talking about the queens treachery, and hamlet then nonchalantly drags off the body. I have to say, it’s not that believable. And the queens acts like she has no idea what shes done in the mockery of her deceased husband, it’s ridiculous.

You may recognize my title as an adaption from the chorus line of the Alice In Chains song ‘I stay away’, which i can unfortunately not find proper evidence to use as a literary allusion. Anywhosel, Ididn’t really understand that Ophelia was so broken up about Hamlet’s insanity until i saw the movie. I know i’m not very good at understanding shakespeare but i kind of thought she was happy that he loved her and that her dad was the one having a cow. I really don’t understand that whole laertes thing, I’m unclear on why hes leaving, to where, and why Polonius is spying on him, my guess is not wanting him to gamble, because they said something about that. They make such a big freekin’ deal about Hamlet acting ‘crazy,’ when today it would be called whimsy. Although i cant say i remember the poem hamlet wrote for Ophelia, i do remember i liked it. Polonius has such a stick up his butt, when he said “‘beutified’ that’s a vile word” i wanted to sap him.

When Hamlet pretends (or not) to not know Polonius, the fishmonger comment was pretty funny. First of all fishmonger is just a funny word, but when the meaning is explained, innuendos abound. The ‘hide behind an arras’ plan seemsso far-fetched, but this is probably the first ‘steak out’ written. moving to the ‘player’ part, i always find it peculiar when writers write about writing, or in shakespeare’s case ‘playing,’ I think they must think their job is soooo interesting. I did not understand Shakespeare’s: ‘Enter four or five players’ , like he can’t count them? and then only one speaks. Hamlet continues to baffle with his choice to act stupid, which must somehow be tied in to the plan to avenge his father. then out of nowhere comes a rather far-fetched plan of his own, gauging claudius’ reaction to a play about his father. the worst part is it would not be evidence of treachery if a man acts adversly to a play depicting his own brother’s gruesome death. where is the judicial branch when you need them?

For my opening joke; (yes i have an opening joke!) that guy in the movie sure was a ham…-let! That was the most god-awful pun ever, I’m sorry but i couldn’t resist. Well, now I’ve got to add insult to injury, that pun being the injury, I don’t like Shakespeare. *Gasp!* I never have, the best adjective i have for his style of writing is ‘windbag-ish’. Reading it is such a chore, the only moment of Shakespeare i enjoyed was in ‘Much Ado’ when Dogberry invented the malapropism, which is ironically named after his successor madame Malaprop from some book or other. Enough trivia! I do respect Shakespeare for his influence on the writing world, the numerous precedents set and the influence I’m sure he had on my favorite authors.

To get back to hamlet, Act I, about a page or so in, I like this more than most Shakespeare, because he takes the plunge into the world of the unreal, with the ghost. What can i say, it’s very mysterious but I thank god the art of suspense building has improved over the centuries, LOST makes this look like history book in that aspect. i do wonder about the significance of the cock and it’s ‘crewing’, curse Shakespeare’s primitive sense of conjugation. I saw the Uncle’s treachery a mile away, maybe it’s just because Shakespeare’s been imitated so many times; but the brother killing the kingfor the throne and the girl is about as new to me as another charmingly cliche literary device: the old ‘I am your father!’ (NOOOO). I want to find out what happens, but i’d be happy if it was summed up in a paragraph and then I got a cookie, but at this rate I’m going to be staying up nights to finish this book and there will be no time for cookies.

Shakespeare does paint a picture of this Fortinbras guy, or maybe it’s my imagination, he seems a delightfully devious villain. I do want to see if the Uncle’s usurping will tie in to the Norwegians military scheming, perhaps Claudius is promised a seat at the head of the resulting empire forged from Norway’s conquest in exchange for his brothers murder. While the Uncle’s love for the queen is wierd, it’s not technically incest, and that’s what Hamlet seems to come back to every time.

Just for proof i read it, let’s wrap up with summary: chuckleheads Bernardo and Horatio see Dad’s ghost, Hamlet sees ghost, finds truth about uncle claudius and mom, Ophelia loves Hamlet, Hamlet hates life, fortinbras is evil.

Edublogs underwent mantenence when iposted this last nigt so it didn’t come up, I’m pissed, I’m now rewriting it based on memory, so this is an imitation of an imitation.

UnNature

A modern Damocles, a symbol of western usury,

perfected in less than a Messiah’s time,

a simple exchange weighed down by precious standards.

venemous in it’s efficiency,

a white hot blade that cleaves through stone,

like a shark’s fin through the midnight wake.

the trickle of gold flows over the path of it’s earthy predecessor,

running jagged through the corridors of the cortex,

drawing inky blood with every snag,

and a fresh coat of black covers the heart,

an invisible molten ‘value’ slowly floods the greatest of cities.

Lords bow to the very parchment they cast into the golem’s skull,

Where is your promise now?

the greatest tool of dominance,

This is freedom.

Again, pissed, so lets wrap this up, I copied his dark and serous tone, his pattern of making everything a metaphor, his religious imagery, and references to sharks, hearts & a smith. the truth is Pinsky is too good to properly emulate, especially when you’re doing this in math class 3 hours before it’s due because edublogs sucks.

To begin, i like this project, it’s simple, no 10 page papers, no trips to the library, no rough drafts. I like that it is electronic, it allows you to easily correct something without printing off another copy, and then there’s the fact that you don’t need to correct much anyway, because as a blog project, you write conversationally. The assignments were straightforward, and i definitely learned a lot about these poets. my only quibble is that much of the analysis required looking to the Internet for other’s opinions, which, for Pinsky at least, are hard to find. It’s a good project, but could include more student work and less looking for other’s work.

My comments:

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2007/10/spreading-word I left the name ‘Red’

http://jonathanegr5.edublogs.org/2009/03/09/billy-collins-a-look-at-the-face/#comments

http://johncegr5.edublogs.org/2009/03/25/sing-in-me-muse-an-epic-tale-of-intertextuality-in-unrhymed-iambic-pentameter/#comment-12

http://unyps.com/2009/02/09/tom-sleigh-army-cats/#comment-99 ’Red’ again, that’s not exactly the hardest pseudonym to decipher

http://thebroadkillreview.blogspot.com/2009/03/this-is-my-language-conversation-with.html#comment-form This one is waiting on approval

I spent quite some time searching for a human who might have had contact with Robert Pinsky, I began to think that this man had no friends. eventually though, i stumbled upon an obscure interview with Pinsky conducted by something called FEED magazine (it apparently has nothing to do with food), where Pinsky literally lists some friends who helped him write. Obviously after my grueling search for intertextuality, something so spot-on was nothing less than a proverbial slap to the face.

From the list i selected Tom Sleigh because i saw similarities between poems of his and Pinsky’s. First though, here is an interview Sleigh had with Pinskyin which Pinsky gives him poetry reviews and advice, that’s influence by definition. Pinsky even goes in depth to explain the responsibilites of a poet to Sleigh, through the sublte medium of his poem “Responsibilities of the Poet”.

To get up close and look at the influence Pinsky had on Sleigh, we’ll look at ‘The Ghost Hammer’ and ‘Blueprint’ respectively. Both are free-verse and a bit on the long side.

from The Ghost Hammer:

Foundry of the dead, the dead invisible hammer / Forgotten that dropped forge / the ring behnid the doorknob: brass roses / the trade tounge calls them, and forges the words– / tongue, strike plate, shaft, escutcheon, exhaling tarnish

from Blueprint:

it was a history of the martyrs / of love, the fools / of tyrants, the tyrants / themselves weeping / at the fate of their own soldiers

We can see that both use a very serious tone, a bit wordy, and very dramatic.

from Ghost Hammer:

Shaft and claw, clangor and fission: / The brazen tongue of Babylon. / The faint implacable hammer behind the hammer / Homing the die and bevel and framing the house. / Hammerdust air, a contagious powder of blows / Mattock that breaks the earth. / sacrifice felling the housel.

from Blueprint:

in a language / utterly other, in words / that mimicked / how one of Homer’s warriors / plunges through breastplate / a spear past / breastbone, the spearpoint searching / through the chest / like a ray of light searching / a darkened room / for the soul

Here we see the same tone, a reference to ancient western civilization (Babylon and Homer), the violent and dark imagery of a striking hammer/spear, followed by a metaphor.

The two share a voice that is heavy with symbolism, touches on questions of spirituality and purpose, and deliver more imagery than a Photojournal distributer. Also they both love Jazz.

I am doing my first intertextuality post on William Carlos Williams influence on Robert Pinsky. To begin, as you may know, I am a fan of Pinsky, I say this because I am nota fan of William Carlos Williams. I don’t much like minimalism in art or writing, i don’t like excessive detail either, but Williams more notable works are about a sentence long. Despite the brevity of his writing, he still manages to be a windbag. the only upside to his ramblings is the occasional image, my favorite example is:

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

specifically the word ‘glazed’, maybe because it is so rarely used well.

Why then, you might ask, am I using William Carlos Williams? because Pinsky seems to love the guy. When asked how did Williams change American poetry, Pinsky once said that:

[William Carlos Williams] describes–and superbly attains–that interaction between imagination and the ordinary. So the writing is not simply “straightforward” but curly and back-crooked as well.

I believe he means that williams’ tone abandoned the mysticism, eloquence, and romance of most poetry before him, this was so strange and unconventional, that it is looked at as mystical in its own way. Although Pinsky says he could not choose a favorite Williams poem, some of his favorites are “Fine Work with Pitch and Copper”, “Spring and All”, and “Last Words of My English Grandmother”. Pinsky admires both Williams’ rhythmic technique in writing, and the seemingly random subject matter.

Pinsky often seems to emulate Williams’ technique of fusing colorful imagery with abstract conversational voice. We can see this in wiliams’ poem “Queen Anne’s Lace”, in which Williams begins:

Her body is not so white as

anemone petals nor so smooth–not

so remote a thing.

Pinsky uses the same technique in his poem “The street of furthest memory” when he says:

In a film of rain, the street

shines. Luncheonette,

lot, shoemaker,

Both of these triplets rely on the images of “white / as anemone petals” and “In a film of rain, the street / shines” to catch the readers attention in an otherwise dull sentence; for Williams: “her body is not white or smooth” or in Pinsky’s case a strange collection of words: “it’s rainy, luncheonette, lot, shoemaker” (actually that verse is a bit strange with the image).

If Pinsky’s fascination with William Carlos Williams has not yet been made clear; Pinsky edited a collection of williams’ poetry for distribution. Pinsky also received ‘The William Carlos Williams Award’ from the poetry society of America, which despite it’s name is not “for outstanding achievement in the baffling of English students” but for anything published non-profit, ironically the prize is cash.

As you may remember from my anthology annotations, i don’t much like Pinsky’s later work, and i’m realizing, the style he utilizes more in it is that Williams style. The earlier stuff had more of an ambiguity, and was not so straight forward. I still like Pinsky, but Williams is such a tool. I have to give Williams some credit because without him, Pinsky might not be Pinsky, it’s kind of like how one of Blind Melon’s biggest influence was Lynyrd Skynyrd, which i regard as hick crap

My source:

Lombardi, Esther. “Q & A: Robert Pinsky.” About. 24 Mar. 2009 <http://classiclit.about.com/od/williamswilliamcarlos/a/aa_rpinsky.htm>.

Here is a link to the comment i mad eon Mother Jones Pinsky blog