Hamlet Vs. Beowulf: An Essay

Language is used differently in different types of literature to achieve different objectives. Hamlet and Beowulf are two examples of great literature that use language in completely different ways; one to tell an epic story about a hero and his quest for greatness, and the other to tell a story of a man's quest for revenge that ends in tragedy.


The story of Beowulf was an epic that used the English language to describe action and develop a plot line rather than thoroughly develop the characters. Beowulf didn't spend much time contemplating his actions, and we don't know much about what he feels or thinks. We only know what we can infer from his actions. Beowulf was a story meant to be spoken verbally or to be read from a book, so the language had to be used to create imagery and vividly describe those battles in order to create a picture in the minds of the audience.


In Hamlet, Shakespeare used language mostly to create dialogue between characters and to explore the mind of his main character in order to develop his personality: dialogue and characterization are his main uses of language in his play. In contrast with the character Beowulf, Prince Hamlet would make a decision, and then contemplate that decision and the consequences he would have to face before ever making a move. He was a master strategist. We make more of a personal connection with Hamlet and know more about who he is as a person, while at the same time we have no idea what he looks like or how old he is until we almost reach the end of the play, where Shakespeare remedies that fact with one short line of dialogue. Hamlet was meant to be performed and seen by others. Little time was spent describing actions and physical appearances of characters because it was up to the actors to create that image on stage. Instead, Shakespeare very carefully chose specific words for his characters to speak to convey themes and ideas.


Hamlet and Beowulf are both prime examples of how the English language can be used in completely different ways to successfully tell a great story that both entertains and leaves the reader thinking about what they've read after the story is over.

AP Lit Term: The Antagonist

• a person or force opposing the protagonist in a drama or narrative.

Contrary to popular belief, the protagonist is not the most important character in a story. No, it's the antagonist- the villain! It's not about Nathan Drake, Cole MacGrath, or Bruce Wayne. It's about Eddy Raja, Kessler, and the Joker! Without great villains like The Riddler or the Red Hood, we wouldn't have great heroes like Batman and Nightwing! Let's not forget the rare female antagonist; women like Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, Catwoman, Cruella DeVille, etc. They're what fuel the stories. They give the heroes a reason for being! The antagonist is very versatile. Depending what the conflict of the piece may be, the antagonist doesn't even have to be human. Anyone ever see the movies Armageddon, Dante's Peak, Twister, or heck, Godzilla? The antagonists in those movies were a meteor, a volcano, a tornado, and a dinosaur-ish monster. The antagonist is a misunderstood creature, and is under-appreciated. If anything, they're good for a laugh. They're so entertaining to watch because everyone knows that their efforts are futile. The villain can never win.

• A slideshow depicting some memorable antagonists. 

• Some of my favorite, villainous moments. 

The Big Question. (Revised and Refined)

• To what extent is Noetic Science valid?

The Big Question.

• Is Noetic Science a reality? And, what exactly is it?

Wow, my spell-check didn't even recognize that "noetic" was an actual word. But, this is a real science, and the term "noetic sciences" was actually coined in 1973. Philosophers such as Plato were using the word "noetic" centuries ago. But, maybe I should attempt to explain what Noetic Science is. This is some pretty heavy stuff, so, I'll do my best. 

• Noetic:  meaning inner wisdom, direct knowing, or subjective understanding. 
• Science: Systems of acquiring knowledge that use observation, experimentation, and replication to describe and explain natural phenomena.  

To put this as simply as I can, it's like a combination of science of philosophy that's aimed towards discovering or proving the power of the human mind. It mixes two different ways of gaining knowledge. Science is all about studying what you can see and touch. The other half of Noetics is human intuition and instinct. It sounds really crazy. I first heard of Noetic Science while reading Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol. (Fantastic read. It really blew my mind. Pick it up if you ever get the chance.) To list some of the things Dan Brown described:

• Humans can control and manipulate matter by concentrating together on the same thought. 
• A human soul was captured leaving a human body after death.
• Thoughts actually have mass.
• Thoughts control matter the same way gravity does. 

The Noetics Dan Brown describes isn't completely factual, but it isn't completely fictional either. Noetic Science says, basically, consciousness (thought) matters. What a Noetic scientist studies is how the nonphysical (consciousness) influences the physical world around us, like I listed above. There's also an emphasis on the power of collective thinking, and how that affects the world around us. My goodness, the founder of The Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), Edgar Mitchell, founded the institute because he felt connected to the rest of the universe after traveling through space on the Apollo 14 mission.  Implications have also been made that our thoughts and beliefs actually influence our experiences, rather than the other way around. It makes enough sense if you think about it. If your girlfriend buys tickets to the new Taylor Lautner movie, and you're dreading the very thought of going, and telling yourself you'll be glad when the experience is over, it pretty much goes without saying that you're not going to have a pleasant experience. See? Thought influences physical experience. 

The topic of Noetics is controversial to say the least, and I'm sure plenty of religious leaders worldwide have turned a blind eye to it. And, that's alright. Just because someone doesn't believe something, it doesn't make it false. Just as if someone says something is true, that's not always the case. That statement that "humans can create reality" just really got me thinking. I'm going to try and treat lightly here. If there is some omnipotent being that created human life, did he or she give us the power to create as they did? Are we our own Gods? Words and phrases keep swimming around in my head, and they all seem to blend together to me, with one meaning. "At-one-ment", "As above, so below", "your body is your temple", the list goes on. 

• As above, so below: meaning, God created human beings in his image of perfection. Does that not make us Godly in some way? Humans have got to be his greatest creation, right? I mean, wow, HIS image. Does he sit above us, watching his creations below, wondering when we'll catch on? Humans have shown that they're capable of great things when using the reasoning skills that were given to us. But, could we have been created to do even more? 
• At-one-ment: more commonly seen simply as atonement. When spelled as "atonement", it just means the Christian science (who says religion and science can't play nice together?) of being at one with God. In light of Noetic theory, could this simply mean being at one with yourself, body and mind? Could it mean being at one with our fellow human beings, connected by some deep, cognitive truth that we don't even fully comprehend? 
• Your body is your temple: a temple being a place of worship. The mind represents heaven, meaning that heaven resides within us, again raising the question, "Are we all Demi-Gods?"   

These are the questions that Noetic Science raises just in me. Who knows what other questions their discoveries are raising, and who knows which of those questions will be answered? Who knows if the world will ever be ready for a definitive "yes" or "no"? 

http://www.noetic.org/about/what-are-noetic-sciences/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noetic_science

http://www.strategies-for-managing-change.com/noetic-sciences.html

Major Concept

      Last week, we talked about memes, phrases, styles, or behaviors that spread through a culture. I was reminded of this while I was having a conversation with a friend last night via text message. She had texted "SMH", and I had no idea what she was talking about. I thought about trying to act like I knew what she had said, but finally I just had to ask her. I guess it's in human nature to want to fit in. I know Dr. Preston said that memes separate people, but it didn't really hit me until I wasn't part of the in-crowd. It really just made me think about people and how we interact with each other, and how we all seem to be on some sort of quest to be noticed. Then, I thought about how weird it is that we join groups, and that's how we end up identifying ourselves as individuals. That doesn't make much sense, but we do it. We've been doing it forever. Is it still called "labeling"? (Clearly I'm not part of the in-crowd). Memes can either bring individual people together, or they can separate groups of people, but I think we also do that ourselves. You can always ask what someone means when they say something, but something stops us sometimes. It could be embarrassment, or it could be that we're intimidated. I don't know, but I think I've meditated on this too much already. Anyways, my conversation with my friend reminded me of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?". Very funny, and I think it gets the point across.

Tools That Change the Way We Think

"Back in 2004, I asked [Google founders] Page and Brin what they saw as the future of Google search. 'It will be included in people's brains,' said Page. 'When you think about something and don't really know much about it, you will automatically get information.'

'That's true,' said Brin. 'Ultimately I view Google as a way to augment your brain with the knowledge of the world. Right now you go into your computer and type a phrase, but you can imagine that it could be easier in the future, that you can have just devices you talk into, or you can have computers that pay attention to what's going on around them and suggest useful information.'

'Somebody introduces themselves to you, and your watch goes to your web page,' said Page. 'Or if you met this person two years ago, this is what they said to you... Eventually you'll have the implant, where if you think about a fact, it will just tell you the answer."

-From In the Plex by Steven Levy (p.67)





      Some like to say the the excessive use of internet/technology/media is a negative; it makes us lazy and unappreciative. It distracts us and throws our priorities out of whack. But, the technology can't be blamed for someone that has a will made of Silly Puddy instead of iron. The internet doesn't go around abusing itself. It's people that do that. I think technology is amazing, and it gets better and better all the time. Why work hard when we can work smart and be more efficient? Now, I'm not perfect, and yes, I get very easily distracted when I'm on my laptop, but that's my problem, and that's something that I personally need to work on. But, c'mon, you have to admit some of the stuff technology can do today is pretty cool, though a little unnerving after the "Filter Bubbles". I have the world at my fingertips right now, and it feels pretty sweet. I have tons of information and tons of sources at my disposal. Some things, you just can't learn from a book. There's no "Parkour for Dummies" as far as I know. But, with the help of the internet, I can easily look up videos of professional athletes and study their techniques, or I can find word-for-word interviews with Levi Meeuwenberg or Brian Orosco on the subject. To me, that's just amazing. I can skip the hours of researching at the library, and I can use that time to do something more useful, or at least more interesting. But, that's just me, I suppose. 

In Search Of

1)I had no idea that if two people typed in the exact same words into the same search engine, they would get different results based on where they are in the world, or what type of computer they use.
2)I feel so weird now. It's almost creepy. No...it is creepy that the internet is sort of...learning things about me, and when I type something into Google or Bing, it will only give me what it thinks I want. This is especially creepy to me because one of my biggest phobias is that computers will develop minds of their own and take over the world. -.-'
3)When I type something into Google, what sort of things does the Google take into consideration when it's putting together my results? Is it just based on where I am and other things I've searched in the past? And, who are these mathematicians crunching these numbers and coming up with these algorithms? They're obviously super smart, so what if there's this league of super geniuses that have taken over the internet and rigged it to give us only the information that they want us to see? Holy crap, what if the government's in on it? What if, as I'm typing this on my laptop, the internet is reading what I'm typing and notifying the FBI RIGHT NOW, and next thing I know, I'll have government officials at my door to take me away and brainwash me. Whoa, this is some scary stuff. -.-'
4)I guess I could start by searching for documents with only specific combinations of key words in them. I could also go to multiple different websites for information to cross check the information I get online. And, now that I know a little more about how the internet works, I could perform searches from both my laptop and my ipod just to see how different my results are.

       After watching the Filter Bubbles video, I took a different approach to this research thing. I used my laptop and my ipod to do a search on Google for the key words "Shakespeare", "life", "personal", and "timeline". I got the exact same results on each. Then, I switched to Bing, and got different links when I typed in the same key words. Then, I switched from using Google Chrome to using Internet Explorer, and typed the same key words into both Google and Bing. I came up with the same links as before. So, right now it looks like it's the search engine that causes differences in the same web searches, but who knows? Someone else in another city could do the same search and get different results. I feel like I was thorough enough for my purposes, though. -.-'

Who was Shakespeare?

        Okay...my search to discover who Shakespeare really was began by going to Google and typing in the question, "Who was William Shakespeare?" I didn't actually have to type all of that, but you know what I mean. I got tons of hits, and of course, the first hit was from Wikipedia. I figured most people would choose Wiki, so I clicked on the next one on the list, http://absoluteshakespeare.com/trivia/biography/shakespeare_biography.htm. The site says that all the information they have came from documents such as wills, church and court records, and marriage certificates. It turns out that not a whole lot is really known about him, and there are even twenty years of his life where he was in London, away from his family, and it can only be assumed that he was pursuing his career as a poet and playwright. William Shakespeare was the third born out of a total of seven siblings, but only five of them lived to adulthood. At age 18, he married a 26-year-old, and pregnant woman named Anne Hathaway. He had a daughter named Susanna, and twins Judith and Hamnet. He died on April 23, 1616, and is buried at the Holy Trinity Church in Stratford. His line of direct descendants ended with the death of Susanna's daughter Elizabeth in 1670. His tombstone reads:
             

Good friend, for Jesus´ sake forbeare
To digg the dust enclosed here!
Blest be ye man that spares thes stones
And curst be he that moues my bones.

         The name "Shakespeare" tends to strike fear into the hearts of high school students everywhere. -.-' We just get so intimidated, and I think we automatically doubt our ability to read and understand his work before we even get the the first page of one of his plays. It's the language. First, I don't even know what some words mean to begin with. Second, the language is so flowery that it's hard to understand what's really being said sometimes. Then, he throws in some slang words from his time that go right over my head. For instance, did you know that the word "nothing" was slang for "vagina" when Shakespeare was alive? I didn't until I decided to look it up online. All I can really say about my understanding now is that my vocabulary and understanding of figurative language have definitely increased in the last two years, and that definitely helps. Some things that went over my head two years ago seem a little obvious now. I'm better at analyzing what I read after Mrs. Johnson's English 3 last year. Still, what I struggle with is A)the language and B)not really caring to study Shakespeare in the first place. I can't make myself get excited about reading Shakespeare. To me, it's more like getting a tooth pulled. -.-'  

Notes on Hamlet

       At the beginning of Hamlet, I sort of just thought Hamlet had some disorder that makes him paranoid and makes him see things. I thought Queen Gertrude was just a naive woman that had no idea her husband was murdered, and that she's also a gold-digger and married Claudius because he was next in line for the throne at that time. After rereading some scenes, and after a few discussions in class, I'm not so sure.
       In one of the earlier scenes, when Hamlet is talking to himself about his father's death and how quickly his mother remarried, and to his uncle no less, he says something about her tears being false and that she married with wicked haste. The false tears could imply that she wasn't actually sad that her husband had died. It sort of reminds me of "A Story of an Hour". The word "wicked" seems a little harsh. But, then I thought that maybe the strongly, emotionally charged word was chosen for a reason, and it could mean that Gertrude was actually in on Claudius's plan to kill the king. We see this all the time; woman having their husbands killed because they can't just come out and say they don't want to be married to their husbands anymore.
       I'm also not so sure that Hamlet is as indecisive as he seems anymore. I guess it can be looked at in two ways. He's indecisive and paranoid, or he likes to have all the answers before making big decisions. Like Leon Ockendon once said, "I like to make rational decisions whenever possible." Hamlet could be a master strategist and be thinking every different scenario through in his mind before deciding to do anything serious like MURDER. I don't know, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here.

To Facebook or Not to Facebook?

          I'm a Facebook user. I post or chat almost every night. It's really an amazing social networking machine, and it helps me to stay connected with my friends here, and my friends from my home town in Ohio. It's a way for people to share their thoughts and information, and to communicate with one another. There's really nothing wrong with Facebook as long as people make smart decisions when they post. I think most of us are capable of that. The problem is that younger users aren't totally aware of the dangers that come with social networking, and they don't grasp the fact that what they post will stay online FOREVER, and that anyone can access that information. As far as Facebook using our status updates and our "likes" as statistics, and probably releasing this information to producers, I really don't care. That's just the real world. To major business owners, we're all just numbers. That's the way it is. I mean, these guys aren't monsters. They're all for anti-bullying, and they're partners in the Amber Alert system. I do wish they would just be a bit more sensitive to the children, and not share their information. But, young kids are the most impressionable, so, we know that's not going to happen.
           I was actually leaning towards thinking that Facebook was a completely negative thing, but a couple people said some things that made me think a little bit more, and now my attitude is sort of like, "Eh, whatever. 'Not a big deal." Someone said that more parents are on Facebook because they've become more comfortable with technology, and I agree, and it's fantastic. We may not be able to get away with as much with our parents adding us as friends, but that's actually a good thing. I did STUPID things on myspace, and I wish my parents had gotten involved sooner. As far as reading the article, I'm more aware now of what Facebook is all about, and how they see their users, and I'll remember that from now on anytime I post or "like" something.

(Don't) be Hamlet.

            "To be, or not to be- that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them." Hamlet is struggling with the knowledge that his father was murdered by his uncle, and a quest for revenge that he'd rather not deal with has been thrust upon him. Not only this, but he's also left to suffer alone. He can't go to anyone for any kind of consolation, and this silence is driving him to the point where he's contemplating suicide. Does he live long enough to kill his uncle and hope the pain will go away, or does he throw in the towel and end his own suffering by killing himself?
            "To die, to sleep- no more.......'tis a consummation devoutly to be wished." He's admitting that he would rather be dead, and that this would be easier, and more preferable, than to live and suffer. "But that the death of something after death......and makes us rather bear those ills we have, than fly to others that we know not of......thus conscience does make cowards of us all." The fear of the unknown is what keeps us alive, according to Hamlet. He has no idea if what comes after death will be better than what he's going through in the present. Especially if he commits suicide, he may end up spending all of eternity enduring a HELL much worse than what he's going through, (maybe pushing a boulder up a hill every single day, only to have it roll back down to the bottom, or maybe having his pancreas eaten by a bird, only to have it grow back and be eaten the next day). It's a real Catch-22. He's damned if he kills his uncle, (murder is a big NO-NO) he's damned if he commits suicide, (another NO-NO) and he's damned to suffer in silence if he decides to do nothing.
         What Hamlet needs to do is talk to someone. Horatio seems to be on his side, so, why not? I mean, Ophelia's already caught him talking to himself once. If more people catch him talking to himself, they'll think he's insane, and they'll have him committed. Still, we know that's not how it goes down. He's already thought about murder and suicide, and he believes that he's already sinned in doing so. So, he has nothing to lose by doing either, in that sense anyway. What makes this so illogical to me, though, is that he has more to lose than he does to gain by killing his uncle. I'm sure he'd feel satisfied with himself, if he lived long enough for that after the death of his uncle, but even so, how long would that last? And, the murder of his uncle won't bring his deceased father back. On the flip side, we see him lose his mother, Ophelia, and his own life. It's just common sense that if the cons outweigh the pros of an action, it just shouldn't be done. What Hamlet really needed all along was a friend, and if they'd existed during his time, a psychiatrist. Not a psychologist. No, he would have needed some drugs for that depression and schizophrenia.