Darcy’s AP Comp Blog

1. He’s over thinking the whole thing. For one thing, he’s an educated guy. He doesn’t want to go off and kill somebody just because a ghost told him to. He doesn’t want to kill anyone at all, I don’t think. He would rather just torment Claudius and let everyone know what he did and make Claudius’s life miserable than kill him outright. After all, Claudius has had time to repent or whatever and he would probably end up in heaven while Hamlet’s father is hanging out in Hell for all eternity and that doesn’t really seem like avenging his father now does it? He just spends too much time thinking about it and keeps convincing himself not to do it because it would be better to wait, or to do this or that instead, mainly because he just doesn’t want to do it. And when he finally does, it’s only really because he’s dying and it’s the last chance he’ll get to do as his poor father, burning in hell, requested.
2. If he appears insane, he can do things that he otherwise couldn’t. He can wander around, and people just think oh, poor Hamlet, he’s not all there, lets have conversations around him and let him do whatever he wants! Even though he’s faking it though, I think he eventually goes a bit mad wondering whether or not he’s really mad. He was seeing ghosts, after all, and he wants to confirm that he isn’t just imagining things. He also become absolutely obsessed with avenging his father, which boarders on madness in itself. He was so intent on it that everything else in his life became irrelevant, and he spent so much time thinking aobut it and debating over whether it was better to kill him or let him live and it started to eat him up inside. Ophelia, on the other hand, really does go mad. She’s so lonely, because Hamlet treats her like crap, that she just becomes desperate for someone to talk to, someone to love her, and goes around begging the entire court to do so. She’s clearly people-deprived and insane.
3. Agh, no! For one thing, Shakespeare was way before Freud. That was probably just put in there to make things more.. interesting? Um. I think that the real reason Hamlet is so obsessed with his mother’s sexuality might have something to do with the fact that she’s sleeping with the guy that killed his dad, and that his dad’s ghost didn’t want her to do that and that she got married RIGHT away after his dad died in the first place and it’s bad enough to think about your own parents having sex but it’s even worse to know that it’s your mom and some other guy while your poor dad is helpless to do anything about it because he’s dead but he still knows that it’s happening and that that other guy that’s having sex with your mom actually KILLED your dad and… yeah, I’d say it’s a justified disgust and obsession. Gertrude seems pretty innocent in the whole thing, except that she’s perfectly willing to go off with mr new king without a second though. But there could have been all sorts of reasons for that, like the power thing, or because she’s afraid of loneliness or whatever. He probably hasn’t told her either, because then she would totally be more understanding of poor Hamlet, at least, if not really be really guilty feeling or something. And of course since Hamlet’s so mad at his mom, he’s lost all faith in women and doesn’t really want anything to do with his own girlfriend anymore because he’s a bit afraid that after someone kills him or whatever she’ll go off and sleep with his murderer and not see anything wrong with it, just like his mom. Or something like that.
4. While you’re alive, things can be good or bad or whatever. It’s a gamble. There’s some good mixed in, and there’s a reason to live. Especially if you’re on a mission to kill your step dad. But once you’re dead, you’re dead. That’s it, there’s no going back. It’s off to the seventh level of hell for you, along with all the other suicides, to have your hair eaten by harpies or be attacked by dogs or whatever it is that happens to them.
5. In act 1 scene 5, Hamlet’s ghost comes and tells him about how he was killed, and that his killer than proceeded to take away his life, throne, and wife all at once and send him to hell before he had a chance to get rid of some of the sins that were hanging out on his soul. He explains that this is really sad, but that what really concerns him is the revenge of his killer. But he also explains that he while he doesn’t want his wife sleeping with the guy, he also doesn’t want his wife to be alone and unhappy. Death is obviously the hugest theme in the play there is, but there’s also the hell thing and the betrayal and all that. Claudius betrayed Hamlet’s father, and then Gertrude betrayed Hamlet’s father too. So Hammy’s dad really got one heck of a raw end of the deal. And then the death with sins thing was also a big deal. That’s why Hamlet couldn’t just kill Claudius. He had to wait for the opportune moment, when Claudius had just done something terrible and wouldn’t go off to heaven which was something Hamlet didn’t want at all. And then there’s the death, and the talking to ghosts and the obvious insanity. Insanity is also a huge theme. Hamlet pretends to go insane, does go insane, doesn’t go insane, and Ophelia is just nuts.

Well, I feel like I really didn’t learn all that much more from this than I already knew from class. We already learned that the sources should talk to each other rather than separating them out and talking about each individually. It was really nice to have a review of that, though. It was all written in one place, and very organized about what exactly you should do. And what you shouldn’t do. But it just barely glanced over the part about developing a position that is not an extreme for or against argument and it didn’t mention voice at all, which seems to be a big part of what’s important for this class.

So this piece almost seems like a satire on argument. It feels like it’s using all sorts of persuasive techniques to prove a point that is completely ridiculous. “Fourthly, The constant breeders, besides the gain of eight shillings sterling per annum by the sale of their children, will be rid of the charge of maintaining them after the first year.” Each point is introduced, with evidence to back it up, most of it being common sense and logical argument gained from stating one point after another and showing the logical path of reasoning to get from one idea to the next. “But in order to justify my friend, he confessed, that this expedient was put into his head by the famous Salmanaazor, a native of the island Formosa, who came from thence to London, above twenty years ago, and in conversation told my friend, that in his country, when any young person happened to be put to death, the executioner sold the carcass to persons of quality, as a prime dainty; and that, in his time, the body of a plump girl of fifteen, who was crucified for an attempt to poison the Emperor, was sold to his imperial majesty’s prime minister of state, and other great mandarins of the court in joints from the gibbet, at four hundred crowns.” There are quotes and anecdotes from other people, where they either agree with him and he uses their support for, well, support, or they disagree with him and he points out the flaws in their logic and why his idea is better. And lastly, he uses disinterest to promote the increased validity of his point. “I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the

least personal interest in endeavouring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the publick good of my country, by advancing our trade, providing for infants, relieving the poor, and giving some pleasure to the rich. I have no children, by which I can propose to get a single penny; the youngest being nine years old, and my wife past child-bearing.” It appears that this is innocent disinterest, but really it’s exactly the opposite. Really, it’s showing that he would not be effected in any way by his proposal, and that its negative sides wouldn’t be any more of a problem to him than its positive sides would be a help.

“If there is one thing worse than the modern weakening of major morals, it is the modern strengthening of minor morals.” This is parallel structure and alliteration like whoa. It brings a ton of emphasis to the point, which is kind of the thesis of the entire essay, and it makes it memorable. Even long after people have finished reading this essay, perhaps this one line will stick in their heads and make it hard to forget. The thesis will be remembered, because it was stated in a catchy and easy to understand way. Another big rhetorical strategy used is personal anecdote, as well as the reference to Michelangelo and his similar experience. “I am sure that it was only because Michael Angelo was engaged in the ancient and honourable occupation of lying in bed that he ever realized how the roof of the Sistine Chapel might be made into an awful imitation of a divine drama that could only be acted in the heavens.” This, and also all the references he makes to his own lying in bed all give support to his point that lying in bed is a good thing. His readers are expected to have an appreciation for art, and pointing out that the Sistine chapel might have never been painted if it weren’t for lying in bed says both that it was a more valued experience back when Michael Angelo was around and that it was a really good thing that it was more values or a great piece of art would have never been created. The personal anecdotes don’t do quite as much for his argument, but they do lend him credibility and also give him a persona of someone who things that he’s doing a good thing and that others should be more like him. You kind of get an idea of who he is as well as what he thinks and why he thinks it.

Downe uses very specific numbers and quantities to emphasize his points. He says things like “I can have a barrel of cider holding 32 gallons for 4s., and they will lend me the barrel til I have emptied it. And I can have 100 lbs. of Beef for 10s. English money.” Using these exact prices for each specific number of food products makes the prices easy to compare with what his audience (his wife) is already familiar with. She can see that the food is a much better deal in America than it is in
England where she is currently living, and can draw this conclusion by herself from the facts he gives her. No strong persuasion is even necessary, on his part!

For:

Minorities have been stepped all over for years, and it’s about time they got a chance at the high paying jobs white people have held a monopoly on for centuries. With affirmative action, we can be sure that no one is discriminated against because of their minority status ever again. No black person will be turned down from a job because of the stereotypes and prejudices surrounding their race. No one will be fired because they are Mexican and someone else wants the job or something. I know someone whose father only managed to get any job at all because of affirmative action. Otherwise, the position would have gone to some white guy with no particularly good credentials. And what has that white guy done in the history of
America? I bet his ancestors kept slaves. But my friend’s father’s ancestors have been victimized for decades, even after slavery was abolished. It’s about time these minorities finally had their chance to be on top.

Against:

Affirmative action. Also known as discrimination against the majority. In seventh grade, a friend told me that she would have an easier time getting into college than I would because she was asian. Maybe she was wrong about that. These colleges claim that they don’t consider race as a basis for admittance. But as far as the real world is concerned, she was right. If I was equally qualified for a job as some minority girl, she would totally get it. They want their minority percentages as high as possible. They say “oh, we want to help minorities so they aren’t discriminated against, and they’re so disadvantaged already that they need a boost.” But isn’t that discrimination too? Being hired for a job should be based on merit and eligibility alone, with no consideration for race. If there’s supposed to be no difference between races, then people should act like there’s no difference and ignore it. No one gets turned down from a job because they have brown hair, even though brown hair is the most common color. Why should skin color make a difference, in either direction?

Note: I may have made up an anecdote for the version that wasn’t my real opinion. Sorry.

Public opinion is really ridiculously important. 

- Everyone is a geographical area has similar political viewpoints
    . Seattle = soo much liberal
    . But eastern WA is pretty conservative
    . Cities vs rural in general

- Everyone in a geographical area has similar culture and language and stuff
    . India = mountains = lots of languages
    . West coast has lots of Asians
    . South has lots of blacks

- Cultures form around groups of people, and most groups think similar things and act in similar ways
    . Gangstas
    . Nerds
    . Drama people (yay, we all be crazy!)
    . Cliques

No one enjoys being cold. We prefer to be at a neutral temperature, where we are most comfortable. But when the cold does strike, we have two options. Option one, sit around looking at your breath and being generally miserable and filled with woe; or option two, do something about it. These two photos illustrate different options for coping with this common problem.

Option One – Robert F Bukaty The Associated Press

This bird is cold. The photo, “Maine Cold,” was taken in late April of 2003 when temperatures in the state dipped below ten degrees. The most obvious indication of this cold is of course the breath of the subject, wispy white clouds that almost look like they could be clouds in the background lined up just right. But there’s more about this picture that gives the appearance of chilling depression. The background is blue, a cool color. The black of the bird is also harsh and cold. The sunlight shining on the very edges of the bird and the branch contrasts largely with the dark bird, bringing even more emphasis to his cold dark appearance, as does that one little speck of warm red on his wing. All in all, it’s a very chilling picture.

Option Two – Joel Sartore Freelance/National Geographic Magazine

The second picture features a young bird staying warm and dry under a heating lamp in a Texas breeding facility. “Artificial Mom” is a much warmer, happier picture. Aside from the complete adorableness of the helpless little chick hanging out under a heat lamp, the asthetics of the picture also add to its happiness and warmth. Like the first picture, there is a contrast between the warm yellow under the lamp and the cold green surrounding it and the contrast brings attention to one of the moods. But while the tiny amount of warmth on the edges of the blackbird made that picture cold and unhappy, the contrast in “Artificial Mom” brings warmth to the bird. The contrast is less sharp, which brings happiness instead of the harshness of the first picture. Even besides the fact that we know what heat lamps do, the tone of the colors show the cold being fought away for the bird. The warm colors under the lamp with cold green all around shows the cold being blocked out and the heat of the lamp warming.

Similarly, both pictures have some sort of object in them aside from the main subject of the bird. In “Maine Cold,” the bird stands on a branch. The edges of the branch are sharp and jagged, which also add discomfort and abrasiveness to the picture. The color is dramatically different from the background, and the line is crisp. The lamp over the bird in “Artificial Mom” though is smooth and rounded with pleasing curves. It blends in with the background a bit, the colors similar, and it gives a sense of familiarity and happiness. The birds may be the main subjects in the pictures, but they are by no means the only aspects of the pictures with mood and significance.

Like these birds, people cope with problems differently. Some go for the cold, harsh acceptance of fate. Others solve their problems, either by looking helpless to evoke enough sympathy that people will help them out to solve their problems or by getting up and going under the heat lamp themselves. People who chose the first option are fine with just that sliver of warmth, reminding them of what they are not, while people who chose the second option prefer to surround themselves with a bubble of warmth, protecting them from the cold without.

Works Cited:

“First Place”. Picture of the Year. April 9 2008. http://www.poyi.org/60/01/0101.php.
“Robert F. Bukaty”. Zoom Info. 2008. April 21, 2008. http://www.zoominfo.com/peop le/Bukaty_Robert_300323309.aspx.
Sartore, Joel. Joel Sartore Photography. April 21, 2008. http://www.joelsartore.com.
“Third Place”. Picture of the Year. April 18, 2003. April 9, 2008. http://www.poyi.org/61/01/03.php.

This book is basically about the author: an Irish guy who becomes an alcoholic and then dies. It was written by someone who doubted his own writing abilities. However, it actually got a lot of publicity and stuff and lots of people actually liked it along with several of his other books. There are several fun passages in the book apparently, although the review itself doesn’t really do a good job of transferring any humor and good-book-ness whatsoever because the review is almost too boring to read, but I’m sure what it says about the book being good is true. It gives a lot of background information on the author, and provides the context that he died shortly after publishing this book. There are several summaries about each of the other books that he’s written, and they all have to do with unhappy irish people because he himself was an unhappy irish man. There are many parallels between his characters and himself, such as one character’s inability to distinguish between men and woman that mirrors his inability to distinguish between failure and success. Or so says this reviewer. Personally, I think that’s stretching similarities and parallels just a little bit. But that’s just me. http://www.powells.com/review/2008_04_15

PARIS—State day nursery at Père-Lachaise, 1984.
© Martine Franck / Magnum Photos

This image shows a little kid hiding her face behind a napkin or something. She’s clearly adorable, but she’s also shy. Since you can’t see her face, you really can’t tell what she’s thinking. The picture is a portrait, and you can kind of see desks in the background which makes me think that she’s probably at school or something. But they’re not clear and she could just as easily be somewhere else. She dressed fairly nicely, not in fancy church clothes or anything, but not sloppy. She’s clean. Her curly hair is somewhat messy, but not really any messier than any other kid that age, especially one that’s been rubbing a napkin all over her head. In short, just your average child hiding her face from the camera. You can see part of her eye, though. Perhaps she’s playing hide and seek, but she’s about to peek at the camera. Perhaps she’s teasing. She’ll grow up into one of those people who pretend to be shy but really are just being that way to get attention or something. She’s gonna get a lot of people mad with that attitude. That oh yeah, I’m here, and I actually really like you but I’m going to pretend not to look at you because I don’t want you to know that I actually like you because it makes me more interesting or something.. Yeah, I don’t even know. But clearly there is some deep meaning behind this portrait. And I think the key to that deep meaning is the hint of an eye peeking out from behind the napkin.