ARIEGR1′S BLOG

Within Act V we see the trueness of a tragedy shine through. The end is of course tragic, but still throughout the Act there are interesting changes that occur. In the beginning of the Act when Hamlet visits the gravediggers digging Ophelia’s grave he speaks to one of the gravediggers. In this conversation Hamlet speaks about how Alexander the Great’s body could “returneth into dust; the dust is earth; and why of that loam (whereto he was converted) might they not stop a beer barrel” (V, i, 221-225). This is similar to Hamlets famous soliloquy “To be or not to be”. Here he speaks of how during life you can be great but after life you are just one with the Earth. I believe this makes Hamlet realize that he is not as afraid of life after death as before. This is the point when Hamlet realizes that he must die in order to fulfill his revenge.At this point he has returned from England and only has on duty left – to kill King Claudius. Hamlet sees that Ophelia is now dead too and after seeing Laertes express such hate towards Hamlet, he knows that he will not live for much longer.

Hamlet’s love for Ophelia is truly shown when he jumps out and speaks about his love for her. This makes me like Hamlet once more, because throughout the play I have liked Hamlet but this makes me think he is sane again and has the capability to love. Even when Hamlet says of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, “They are not near my conscience; their defeat does by their own insinuation grow,” I believe he is still a good man (V, ii, 58-59). Because Rosencrantz and Guildenstern really did get what they deserved. They went behind Hamlet’s back and should have obviously known that the King was trying to kill Hamlet, therefore their punishment was just.

Horatio, being a good, honest, and intelligent man throughout the play, listens to Hamlet when he speaks of the crimes the King has committed. When Osric is telling Hamlet of the King’s bet with Laertes, both Horatio and Hamlet know what the outcome will be; Hamlet’s death. I believe both accept it too, although Horatio warns Hamlet of it.

The fencing fight between Laertes and Hamlet once again makes Hamlet look like a good man. Before it begins Hamlet says good words to Laertes, while Laertes remains angry. Laertes poisons Hamlet, and because of his wrong doing, he is poisoned with the same sword by Hamlet. This sense of karma is seen too when the King tries to poison Hamlet and kills the Queen instead. However, the public is there to see the Kings wrongdoing and so when Hamlet kills the King it is just. Hamlet truly has committed his revenge and so when he dies it is not as tragic because he has done what he “was born to set right.” So, when Fortinbras takes over and has the last word to they play, it is a accomplishment for him too. All have done what they set out to do and so even though Hamlet is a tragedy, in a sense it has a ‘winning’ ending.

Act IV is the first Act of falling action. Within the Act we see the after effects of Polonious being killed. One of the biggest reactions to his death is that of Ophelia. She becomes crazed because of her father’s murder. This madness is taken to heart by all around. Laertes, King Claudius and the Queen are all worried about her. This contrasts to every one’s reaction to Hamlet’s madness. King Claudius sends Hamlet off to be killed because of his madness, while everyone is distraught when Ophelia kills herself from ecstasy and grievance. This one contrast provokes questions within the play. It makes one believe that King Claudius truly does know that Hamlet is trying to pursue revenge.

Another part of Act IV that raises questions is when Laertes is trying to become King. This questions King Claudius’ rule and questions whether or not the government is stable. The government itself has gone “mad”. The King is illegally in power and is doing things that are not right. The themes of sickness/disease and imbalance also come into play here. We see Horatio’s statement from Act I, “this bodes some strange eruption to our state” (I, i, 69) become true. The “state” certainly has “strangely erupted”.

Almost every character, excluding King Claudius, has changed from the beginning of the play. Laeretes, who was once renowned in Denmark, comes back to start a riot and try to gain the throne. Ophelia, who used to be frightened by Hamlet’s madness has herself become mad and killed herself. Hamlet is growing more crazed and Queen Gertrude feels imbalanced on what to believe. The only character that has not changed, as previously stated, is King Claudius. Immediately from Act I we knew that he was “evil” and had murdered his brother to be king. In Act IV he just furthers this image of himself by sending Hamlet away to England to be killed. This family truly has some problems with their relationships. Hamlet even refers to Claudius as his “dear mother” (IV, iii, 50). This calls into question once again, Hamlet’s sanity as well as raises awareness to the dysfunctional family. Act IV portrays each of the themes fully while including the falling action of the play, and leads into more falling action within Act V.

In Act III I am proud of Hamlet. Although some may say Hamlet is “blasted with ecstasy” in this Act, i believe he is doing what he rightfully should do (III, i, 164). He begins to take revenge on King Claudius by making him watch the play. Claudius’ reaction to the play proves that he must be punished for his act of murder.  I believe in Hamlet seeking this revenge even though people condemn him for this. Perhaps if his friends, Ophelia, and mother truly knew about King Claudius they would feel more sympathy towards him and help him in his revenge. Instead of listening to Hamlet though, they all listen to King Claudius. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern agree to take Hamlet to England. Ophelia agrees to be used as bait for Hamlet and the Queen agrees to talk to Hamlet for Claudius. Hamlet is smart about all of these encounters though. He knows that his friends taking him to England is some evil mission made by Claudius because he says he “will trust [Rosencrantz and Guildenstern] as I will adders fanged” (III, iii, 204). Hamlet also puts on a show for Ophelia saying that he does not love her anymore. In his madness there is a method to it. Hamlet does not get confused with his goal – to pursue his revenge and kill King Claudius.

The other characters besides Hamlet are quite oblivious though. I think the King suspects that Hamlet knows something that he should’nt but I don’t think he is being very smart. After seeing the play, if I were Claudius I would immediately plot to kill Hamlet. Knowing that I had already killed King Hamlet it would not be a hard task. Claudius however does not take the initiative. He simply talks with Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Polonius and the Queen about sending Hamlet to England.

I was confused about the section where the Queen and Hamlet converse. It was difficult to tell, near the end of their conversation when Hamlet is advising the Queen to refuse Claudius’ love, whether the Queen was taking his advice or just pretending to. I half think that the Queen is putting on an act because she observes his madness when it seems Hamlet is talking to no one when he is actually speaking to the ghost. Her act that she put on made me question whether the ghost was real or not also. These questions of mine may be answered in the fourth Act, but already we see the theme of Acting being portrayed here.

Act II is when we see Hamlet’s madness truly emerge. There are numerous accounts and references to this throughout Act II. We first see his madness being shown by Ophelia. As Ophelia recounts her encounter with Hamlet, she describes him as “a look so piteous in purport as if he had been loosed out of hell to speak of horrors–he comes before me” (II, i, 82-84). Ophelia’s encounter with Hamlet validates his madness. Ophelia intimately knows Hamlet, so if she observes his insanity then he truly must be mad. The point in the two-some’s encounter when Hamlet looks into Ophelia’s eyes could be Hamlet crying out for help. Hamlet, knowing fully that he cannot divulge his premonition, acts out of madness instead of telling Ophelia.

The King and Queen have also noticed Hamlet’s change. This provokes them to send for Hamlet’s school friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to observe Hamlet, which creates yet another problem. If I were Hamlet’s friends I would want to come and visit Hamlet regardless of his condition. However, although Rosencrantz and Guildenstern may have good intentions, their purpose in Elsinore does not seem genuine. When the King is speaking to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Guildenstern reassures the King, “we both obey, and here give up ourselves, in the full bent to lay our service freely at your feet, to be commanded” (II, ii, 29-32). If I were Guildenstern I would not have said that. That statement makes it seem like the two friends are going to spy on Hamlet, and it seems like they are more on King Claudius’ side than Hamlet’s. As a friend of Hamlet’s I would not allow this to happen. I would go to see Hamlet before speaking to the King about him behind his back. I would speak to Hamlet directly about his problem and recent changes rather than the King. Hamlet realizes this unfaithfulness later in scene ii when he meets up with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They try and assure him that they are only in Elsinore “to visit you, my lord; no other occasion” (II, ii, 279). Hamlet sees the truth because he asks once more, “Were you not sent for?” (II, ii, 282). This is only intensifies Hamlet’s madness for now he knows people are trying to help him.

Another aspect of Hamlet’s madness in Act II is his inner turmoil. This is most plainly seen with his soliloquy at the end of scene ii after he sees the first player recite a scene from a play. Within his soliloquy he describes himself as a “rogue and peasant slave” (II, ii, 564). Hamlet uses the word slave to perhaps mean he is a slave to his father’s ghost he has seen. Shakespeare uses this soliloquy to have Hamlet describe the anguish that is caused by his knowledge of his father’s murder. If I were Hamlet I do not believe i could hold in that anguish. Because Hamlet does not speak of it, his reaction is madness. Hamlet cannot describe or put in words his passion. He thinks himself a coward because of this. I would not go so far as to call him a coward though. This madness has to be expected from the experiences with the ghost that Hamlet has endured. However, through all of this, Hamlet still views everything as “a pestilent congregation of vapors” rather than things “fretted with golden fire” (II, ii, 122-114).

Act I was frightening at times, surprising at others and enjoyable throughout. So far, I seem to connect with Hamlet the most. He seems sensible and his reactions to events seem like how I would react. His mourning of his father seems natural. Claudius, his power thirsty uncle, finds it odd and questions him about it, “How is it that the clouds still hang on you?” (I, ii, 66). This, along with the talk with Hamlet that Claudius follows this question with, demonstrates Claudius’ personality. He is greedy and as Hamlet says, “A little more than kin, and less than kind” (I, ii, 65). Hamlet is right in thinking that Claudius is not a faithful member of his family, for he later learns from his father’s ghost that Claudius murdered his father, King Hamlet.

The encounter Hamlet has with his father’s ghost is frightening, but revealing. The ghost informs Hamlet of his “foul, strange and unnatural [murder]” (I, v, 28). Hamlet, in response to his talk with the ghost, becomes enraged and somewhat confused. When Marcellus and Horatio find Hamlet, he is muttering words that do not make sense. I believe this is foreshadowing Hamlet’s later craze, for the ghost told him “art thou to revenge, when thou shalt hear” (I, v, 8). I too believe that this will not be his only encounter with the ghost. In Hamlet’s plan of revenge I suspect he will do harm to Claudius with use of information from his father’s ghost.This Act served as a set up for the rest of the play. We now know much about each character’s personalities and we can predict the future of the play.

Dead End

By Ari Macartney

|

You are one of many.

Many who all face a dead end.

You go to work thinking

maybe today’s the day

that you’ll be gone.

Each person standing next to you

wondering the same thing.

You think of your future

and what it will hold.

You see yourself

becoming an astronaut

or a firefighter,

the hopes you once had.

Your adolescent dreams pass you by

Just as each laid off worker departs

from the building where you work

and you wonder

Am I going to be laid off?

When does my work here end?

And you remember,

You only face a dead end,

One of the millions,

Working in Detroit.

|

|

This poem embodies Philip Levine’s subject matter and also his style. A numerous amount of Levine’s poems such as, “What is Work” and “They Feed They Lions,” deal with work in Detriot, Michigan during the Great Depression. Seeing as we are in another economic downturn today, I chose to use that subject and write about all the workers being laid off today. Philip Levine strove to write and give a voice to all the workers who could not voice their difficulties. Therefore, in “Dead End” I chose to use “you” to demonstrate the feelings that the workers today might be feeling. Levine utilizes “you” in a lot of his poems to also make the reader feel those same emotions. I also wrote this poem in the same format as much of Philip Levine’s poems; in a long story line with short lines and one stanza. I hope that this poem mimics Levine’s poems in an honorary way because he truly is an influential contemporary poet, and I enjoyed researching his work.

I personally really enjoyed blogging. I believe that it utilized the educational portion of the web and “blogosphere.” Using a blog over writing a paper taught me how many more sources on the web I could use. The comments were also fascinating. I made one comment on a poet’s blog and he commented back on his blog to me right away. It was intriguing that the various types of communication one could use for this project. I believe that blogging was also more flexible than writing a paper. Blogging was a lot less stressful than writing an entire research paper. I enjoyed this more too becuase I was blogging about something of interest to me. However, it was sometimes hard to find a blog that pertained to my poet, or what I was researching at the moment. With that said, I suggest that before starting the project, a way to find blogs or search blog sites is shown or demonstrated in class. Overall I enjoyed the blogging experience and recommend it for following years.

Comments:

http://www.blogcatalog.com/search.frame.php?term=phillip+levine&id=09748e87d074d7f505391b42e888ef4d

http://laurenegr1.edublogs.org/2009/03/09/langston-hughes/#comments

http://www.robertpeake.com/index.php?url=archives/306-Philip-Levine-and-the-Honest-Need.html&serendipity[cview]=linear#comments

http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/index.php?url=archives/10879-Saturday-Verse-John-Berryman-1914-1972.html&serendipity[csuccess]=true#feedback

Levine truly began his serious writing when he was in Iowa in the the writing program. Levine, here, was taught by John Berryman and one of his classmates was Henri Coulette. These connections and close interactions made these two people great influences on his work. Berryman “taught” Levine, as well as Coulette, how to write poetry. Therefore it should come as no surprise that Coulette’s poetry is similar to Levine’s and that Berryman had an immense influence on Levine’s work.

Levine, when writing a Book Review for The New York Times Book Review in 1954, he writes of Berryman and his writing workshop,

“Berryman was delighted with our curious efforts in the direction of free verse, on which he had some complex notions concerning structure and prosody. He even had the boldness to suggest that contemporary voices could achieve themselves in so unfashionable and dated a form as the Petrarchan sonnet.” (Levine 1954)

This influenced Levine to not be afraid of being contemporary or new with his ideas. Levine, when writing for Berryman’s workshop, followed Berryman’s tips and comments. Levine was one of Berryman’s favourite poets in the class, therefore he got a lot of the feedback from Berryman on how to be better, or how to change his style. Levine stated in an interview, ” [Berryman] liked what I was doing more than he liked what they were doing… [Berryman] liked the kind of variety of humor and seriousness, and also the anger of a working class person.  I was sort of connected to his politics more than the other men [in the class/workshop].” (Levine This made Levine mold into a poet of whom Berryman praised and approved of. Berryman also discussed with Levine who his influences should be. The following is a conversation between Berryman and Levine during the workshop which was published in the same book review as before in The New York Times Book Review :

“Berryman: ‘Do you have another favorite among your contemporaries?’ Levine: ‘Dylan Thomas.’ Berryman: ‘It doesn’t show, Levine, it doesn’t show; you’ve done a superb job of masking that particular debt. How have you managed that?’ Levine: ‘I didn’t. I wrote through my Dylan Thomas phase and quit. It was impossible for me to write under his influence and not sound exactly like him except terrible.’ Berryman: ‘Levine, you’ve hit upon a truth. Certain poets are so much themselves they should not be imitated: they leave you no room to be yourself, and Thomas was surely one of them, as was Hart Crane, who probably ruined the careers of more young poets than anything except booze. Levine, you might go to the source of Dylan’s own lyrical mysticism [Blake].’” (Levine 1954)

However, one must keep in mind that Henri Coulette was also in this class with Levine. Meaning that he got very much of the same influence of Berryman and his “molding” of the poets in the class. Therefore, when comparing Levine and Coulette poems, similarities are prevalent. Such as in “What Work Is” by Levine and in “Remembrance of Things Future” by Coulette, the pronoun “you” is utilized in almost the same way – to try and put the reader ‘inside the poem’ and to feel what the poem/poet is wanting you to feel. The two poets also write in similar formats, short lines and long stanzas, with no apparent rhyme but a certain rythm.

Because of these similarities, background, and mutual understanding, Henri Coulette and Philip Levine became friends. Levine even states in an interview, “I made some friendships [in the workshop].  Mainly with Henri Coulette, who for some years became my best critic.” – Philip Levine. Therefore this causes even more influence between the two poets. This is because when Coulette critiques Levine’s poems Levine listens to Coulette’s critique and follows through with it.

Even though Berryman wished to choose the poets and writers that would influence Philip Levine, he ended up being influenced by Berryman himself, as well as his friend/critic/classmate, Henri Coulette. Ironic? I think yes.

Works Cited:

- The Cortland Review Interview with Philip Levine by J.M. Spalding

- Book Review By Philip Levine in The New York Times Book Review

Levine, Philip. ”Why I’m the Poet I’ve Become: Berryman and the Lucky 13.(Book Review Desk).” The New      York Times Book Review (Dec 26, 1993): NA. Academic OneFile. Gale. Library of Michigan. 28 Mar. 2009
<http://0-find.galegroup.com.elibrary.mel.org/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE>.

“There comes a time when you [a young poet] have to invent your own poetry. You can learn a lot from other people, but I just want you to be conscious of the fact that Bly also wrote a poem about what you’re writing, and a better one. And your going into the field and walking up to the horse already took place in a Jim Wright poem, and it’s been imitated a thousand times” (Levine in 1981). Levine told this to his class while teaching at Fresno University. However, Philip Levine, like all great poets, has various influences throughout his life. One of the greatest influence, however, is Czeslaw Milosz. While other influences on Levine, such as Whitman influencing only his style, Czeslaw Milosz’ influence is prevalent on Levine’s subject, style, and history of the poems.

Now, not many people know who Czelslaw Milosz is really so here is some background information. Also, this should help one see the influence he had on Levine. Milosz was born in 1911, so about 20 years before Levine, and originally came from Lithuania, just like Levine’s mother. He moved to the United States in 1960 where he became a professor in California at Berkley (Levine, is also a profesor in California at Fresno University).

With that background information on Milosz the connections and similarites between him and Levine are already prevalent (refer to the post Philip Levine Biography to learn about Levine’s past). This immigration similarities as well as descent similarites make it obvious why Levine was influenced by Milosz. However, to really look at this influence one can reflect on the poems of both the poets. One poem in particular of Levine’s was immensely influnced by Milosz. The poem, “Magpiety” whose title was actually borrowed from Milosz’ poem “Magpiety” that was published three decades earlier. The two “Magpiety” poems have much more in common than just the title. Arthur Bethea, an independent scholar, cites the similarity and influence of Milosz on Levine in his critical essay “Philip Levine’s ‘Magpiety’ and his literary debt to Czeslaw Milosz.” Bethea states the similirities between the two poets beliefs and ideals, “Levine and Milosz share a Polish ancestry; authorial modesty; a deep reading of other poets; a belief that poetry is to some extent a gift bestowed upon poets; a love of and close observation of the Earth; much reference to aquatic, arboreal, nephological, ornithological, and thermal imagery; a frequent admitting of confusion or lack of understanding; a fear that language is inadequate, yet, paradoxically, a strong desire to write useful poetry Indeed, both writers thought poetry extraordinarily important” (Bethea). Bethea also demonstrates how Levine owes a “literary debt” to Milosz for his influence.

Bethea argues that each poem deals with “nonhuman time” (Bethea). Levine, himself states “There were times when I really felt as though I were living in all three time ‘zones’ [past, present, future]. I wanted to capture that quality…” -Levine. Levine does this with beginning his poem in the present, which he uses throughout the first section of the poem. The second section of the poem uses subjunctive past, and the third section uses past. This changing of times was influenced by Milosz’ refrence to time in his “Magpiety” poem,

Who would have guessed that, centuries later,
I would invent the question of universals? (Milosz lines 11-12)

Bethea explains the use of time in Levine’s poem, “ Like the time evoked by the conclusion of Milosz’ poem, this temporal frame [in Levine's 'Magpiety'] is unearthly, as the story is allegorical, mimetic of no actual time or place, and endlessly repeatable.”

Within Levine’s poem “Magpiety” he utilizes the word “you” numerous times. “You” can refer to the reader’s of the text, however, it also refers to Milosz. Bethea notifies this relation with stating, “ ‘you’ can be associated with Milosz. The first section [of Levine's 'Magpiety'] indicates that the experience of ‘you’ occurs in central California (1990), while the second section [of Levine's 'Magpiety'] locates this experience in July of 1960. Is it just a coincidence that Milosz started teaching in north central California at UC-Berkeley in 1960?” (Bethea). This is not a coincidence. Levine knew Milosz’s biographical backround when writing “Magpiety.” Levine more blatantly uses “you” as Milosz in the beginning of the final section of his “Magpiety,”

"Can you believe the bird [magpie]

    stood beside you

  just long enough, though far

    smaller than you

  but fearless in a way

    a man or woman

  never could be? ..." (Levine lines 122-128)

In addition to remembering his own experience, in this passage, Levine could be imagining the moment of poetic inspiration when “Milosz encountered the magpie, Levine’s passage noting a sense of exclusion from the animal world and thus paralleling Milosz’ (‘I shall never achieve / A magpie heart …’ Milosz lines 5-6).” This further explains Levine’s usage of Milosz’ influnece within his “Magpiety.”

Although Levine took numerous amounts of influence from Milosz’ poem and background information, he does not wish tocredit him in an obvious way. That is why, even though the Levine’s “Magpiety” is largely based on Milosz, Levine does not mention him at all during the poem. Bethea also argues this with stating, “Levine subtly credits Milosz with this experience [of confusion and search for peace and truth], he implicitly concedes that Milosz is not only a superior poet but also an important poetic ancestor, whose travails in life and art came first and influenced him. Indeed, one sees poetic justice in imagining an immortal speaker walking through the oak forests in Milosz’ text to walk near the California oaks of Levine’s” (Bethea). Levine avoids direct acknowldegment of Milosz in “Magpiety.” In short, Levine is simultaneously concealing truth while hinting at deception. This effect is paralleled by “Magpiety” as a whole if read as both acknowledging a literary debt and concealing the magnitude of that debt.

Now, back to Walt Whitman’s subtle influence on Philip Levine. One sees, from the opening quote of this post, that Levine does not like to admit to influence on him. That is perhaps why he is so against acknowledging Milosz’ infleunce and Whitman’s influence. Levine could have chosen a not well known poet such as Milosz to influence him more, rather than a major master such as Whitman. Levine mentions Whitman’s greatness in various interviews (see below). However, a scholar has yet to analyze this influence, as I found it nearly impossible to find informaiton on Whitman’s influence over Levine. In an interview in The Atlantic Levine states,

“In the long run, look at the immense influence of a poet like Whitman. He really has influenced the way an enormous number of people feel about themselves and feel about America. It took a long time, but his influence just keeps rolling into us. Anybody who lives with ‘Song of Myself,’ I think, will feel about himself or herself rather differently because of the experience. That, to me, is the most profound thing. I remember reading Whitman when I was maybe in my early twenties, and coming across this line: ‘There is that lot of me and all so luscious.’ And I thought, That’s not vanity! That is a kind of recognition of the beauty of the self, or the other self. As he keeps saying in the poem, “What I am, you are.” And I said, ‘Why don’t I just try to live that? Why am I being this muling, broke, dumb factory worker, and feeling sorry for myself, when I could get up in the morning and say, ‘Philip, there is that lot of you and all so luscious!” And I tell you, it’s a line that just keeps resonating in my life and in my work.” -Philip Levine

This demonstrates that Whitman has an influence over Levine, however a not so obvious one, seeing as only “a line…resonate[s]” in Levine’s work.This might also be due to the fact that Levine does not wish to admit to outside influences on his work. However, if one strives to find the influences, it is possible; as one saw the various examples of influence of Milosz on Levine’s work. In short, Levine was greatly influenced by Milosz, and alluded to the influence of Whitman on his work.

Works Cited:

- Bethea, Arthur F. ”Philip Levine’s ‘Magpiety’ and his literary debt to Czeslaw Milosz.” College Literature 33.3 (Summer 2006): 100(17). Academic OneFile. Gale. Library of Michigan. 26 Mar. 2009
<http://0-find.galegroup.com.elibrary.mel.org/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE>.

Gale Document Number:A151846468

- “Magpiety” by Philip Levine

- “Magpiety” by Czeslaw Milosz

- Philip Levine’s Interview in The Atlantic

What Work Is

by Philip Levine