NRJ #1

Joseph Conrad uses civilization and wilderness throughout this play to illustrate the brutal people and the living conditions he saw in Africa. "But these men could by no stretch of imagination be called enemies. They were called criminals and the outraged law like the bursting shells had come to them, an insoluble mystery form the sea. all their meager breasts panted together, the violently dilated nostrils quivered" (16). The use of the this description s used to give an understanding that the people who inhabit the land are so bizarre that, the only way to describe them is to call them criminals. Giving us the explanation of the wilderness. "More then once she had to wade for a bit, with twenty cannibals splashing around and pushing. We ha enlisted some of these chaps on the way for a crew. Fine fellows- cannibals- in their place." (34). Once again we can see how Conrad uses phrases like "cannibalism" to show the wilderness in its form as he sees it. Everything in respect to the wilderness goes against the common understanding of civilization. The fact that the company tries to establish civilization and act the part of civilization is also used to show the possible and often neglected wilderness side of civilization. Conrad is saying even though we might think that we are civilized and there for correct in our actions that is far from truth.

DJR # 4 Acts IV and V

The acts IV and V both seem like they came out of a recent movie. I guess that drama and revenge have not changed much through time. Hamlet stands out obviously in these two last scenes since the story mainly revolves around him and his actions. He is sort of the star of the show. Sort of like a modern day action movie. I think that Shakespeare did a great job of incorporating drama and action into one. King Claudius stood out to me for several different reasons in both acts. First he is guilty of murder and does everything in his power to control the situation and make sure that no one finds out. He does so far as try to poison Hamlet by offering him a drink with a poison coated pearl dropped into it. It seems the king is so afraid of getting caught that he does not stop Gertrude from taking a drink from the poisoned cup prepared for Hamlet. On the other hand Claudius is revealed as a coward and willing to have those close to him die as long as he himself is saved. This flaw is only partially shown at first as he employs Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to watch over Hamlet. Here Claudius is the antagonist and directly in confrontation with Hamlet even though Hamlet does not fully realize it. I think that the poison was symbolic of a “double edged sword”, the same method used to get Claudius in power ends up being the driving force to kill all those around him and including himself. Along with the women he desired to have. In a way it is also ironic. I wonder if the physical law of “motion” applies to this play. The law states that each action has an opposite and equal reaction. It seems to me that is exactly what happens. Claudius murders the king, and gets murdered himself. Hamlet is out for blood and he gets it, but in return loses his own life. Gertrude wants to keep her son safe and in the process ends up dead. It seems like a correlation to me. What do you think? Is there any logic in this?

DRJ # 3

It is hard for me to connect the story and my personal life. It’s probably because of the language and the difference of current time and the time of the story. One thing that I can relate to is Hamlet’s attempt to get revenge on behalf of his murdered father. At this point in the story Hamlet is out for blood to avenge his father’s brutal murder. He has gone to great lengths to make sure that he is doing the right thing and not being tricked by the ghost of his late father. Hamlet id defiantly the main character in the story and he does have a fatal flaw. He is blinded by the revenge he seeks that he will do anything to see to it that his goal is accomplished even up to giving his own life in the pursuit. The theme in this act was mainly focused on Hamlet’s tone. He was struggling with himself throughout the act to figure out if he was right for seeking revenge for his father’s life. Almost the entire act hamlet was searching for answers. This search is what led him to confront his mother with her dishonorable deed. Hamlet showed he loves his mother but at the same time he is furious with her. Being this furious with her and the king lead him to near insanity. The story seems to imply that the queen is equally guilty of murder, but did she really have any part in it at all? Or was she merely lured into a relationship with Claudius?

DRJ #2 : Hamlet, Act 2

When reading act two Polonius stood out to me as a character that represents a family father figure. Polonius’s role would be the same even if the plat was written in current time. I think most of us can relate to his character as the one who wants to give wise advice and protect the family from what he considers to be bad things. He does remind me of a sly and greedy person out to gain something any way he can. Given he is a counselor to the king but still he keeps trying to things to gain favors to later use for his benefit. Polonius is one of the main characters of the story in this far and he is basically acting as a spy on hamlet for two reasons. First is to take care of his daughter and second is because Hamlet is acting “strange” and being the nosy person Polonius is he is determined to find out what got into Hamlet. This characteristic is precisely his fatal flaw and gets him killed later on in the play. He fits into the play very well but he is not the classical tragic hero. Polonius is defiantly the antagonist in the story and he seeks out every chance to pick a verbal fight with Hamlet. He is also friends with the king so he is trying to find evidence to what is causing Hamlets odd behaviors. The theme of Act II seems to be to try and discover what has gotten into Hamlet and provoking his actions. It is ironic that the very observations of Hamlet by Polonius cause him to be wrong, “mad for thy love?” (2.1.83) “that hath made him mad.” (2.1.109) Polonius thinks that since Ophelia is listening to his advice and not allowing Hamlet to be with her, it is causing him to be “mad”. It does make sense logically but Polonius does not know the real truth and can’t see beyond his own conclusions. What if Ophelia was not Polonius’s daughter would it have changed how Polonius thought and what he observed?