Fifth Business Summary and Analysis

Author: Roberston Davies

Setting, Plot, and Characters:

Dunstan Ramsay narrates his life in a letter to the headmaster of the school he worked at for years. He begins by telling the story of Mary Dempster. Dunstan’s friend Percy Boyd Staunton throws a snowball at Dunstan and misses, hitting Mary in the back of the head. The pregnant Mary give birth immediately afterwards and seems to suffer a loss of sanity as a result of the hit. While caring for Paul, Mary’s premature son, Dunstan introduces him to magic and is himself introduced to the stories of various saints and gains interest in them. Soon after, Mary is discovered having sex with a tramp in the quarry. Her family and Dunstan are all publicly shamed, and she loses all sense of sanity. Around a year later, Dunstan’s older brother Willie gets very ill. While watching him one day Dunstan percieves that he has died. He runs to Mary, who comes to the house and “resurrects” Willie. While doctors say that Willie was never actually dead, Dunstan adamantly believes that he was, and begins to think of Mary as magical and/or saintly. Right after, Dunstan enlists in the army and goes off to fight in World War I.

At the war, Dunstan is somehow not killed, though he loses his leg in combat. He is nursed back to health by a woman named Diane. Diane and Dunstan begin a relationship, but it doesn’t work out. After being awarded the Victoria Cross from King George V, Dunstan promptly returns home to a hero’s welcome. At the celebration, Percy announces his engagement to Leola Cruikshank, Dunstan’s childhood love. Later, Dunny is informed that Paul ran away from home and Mary has left town for good.

After heading off to college, getting a Master’s in history, and getting a job as a schoolmaster, Dunstan searches for Mary. He finds her in the care of his aunt, and decides to visit and take care of her. Percy changes his name to Boy and becomes incredibly rich. He saves Dunstan from the Great Depression by advising him to sell all of his stock. Dunstan then travels to Europe, where he encounters a much older Paul acting as a magician. Paul becomes angry at Dunstan when he tries to talk to him about his life, and steals his wallet.

Boy gets ungodly rich as a result of the Depression, and Dunstan begins to notice a change in his character. Dunstan is appointed the temporary headmaster of the school he works at during the war. He also writes numerous books on saints, and grows more and more famous in the hagiology field. As the war continues, tensions between Boy and Leola continue to escalate until Leola finally breaks and attempts suicide at the Boy mansion. She barely survives and wastes away for a little while before finally succumbing to pneumonia.

Dunstan travels to Central America in order to research a particular saint. While there, he goes to another magic show and again encounters Paul. Now going under the pseudonym Magnus Eisengrim, Paul has become quite famous, and has started his own circus. Joining him is Leisl, who runs the circus. She is grossly ugly, but at the same time incredibly intelligent and charming. Dunstan assists with the group for a while, but slowly succumbs to depression. Then Leisl tells him his true purpose: he is Fifth Business, the person in the background who comes in at the right time to do something incredibly important.

Dunstan gathers Paul and Boy and reveals to them his greatest secret: the snowball

that Boy threw actually had a rock in it. He then gives the rock to Boy. A little while later, Boy is found dead from an apparent suicide. The rock is in his mouth. Dunstan rejoins Paul’s crew and continues to live his life.

Analysis:

    The novel is told from the first-person perspective by Dunstan. He is definitely not reliable, and hides some aspects of the truth in order to preserve his image. The novel as a whole is very mystical in tone, constantly stressing the magic in everything around us. Dunstan is not the most vivid describer, so the imagery in the novel is kind of muted, much like the world that the novel is set in. Some symbols in the novel include the rock, which represents past misdeeds coming back to confront you, and magic, which represents the wonder in the world that only a select few can truly appreciate.

Cool Quotes:

"He was killed by the usual cabal: by himself, first of all; by the woman he knew; by the woman he did not know; by the man who granted his inmost wish; and by the inevitable fifth, who was the keeper of his conscience and keeper of the stone." (272) -

This is the Brazen Head’s final comment on Boy’s death, and it wraps up the novel as a whole and shows how everyone is affected by everyone they meet.

“If you don't hurry up and let life know what you want, life will damned soon show you what you'll get.”

Percy’s outlook on life, shows how focused he is on personal success.

THEME:

    Davies urges readers to accept the possibility of the unknown despite one’s fears.

The mystical tone of the novel contributes to the idea of the unknown being everywhere around us. The imagery is muted in order to show how the world has rejected the unknown and replaced it with boring stuff.   

   

Response to Course Materials April 19th

The past couple of weeks in AP Lit have been surprisingly laid back, considering the AP is in less than a month and all. We started off by finishing off Frankenstein. Finally. I did not enjoy it at all and I am very happy that it is gone. I couldn’t be done with it soon enough. Honestly I’d much rather we analyzed some movie. Something stupid. Claymation action. Mel Gibson. I really don’t care, as long as it’s not any more Frankenstein.  

    Thankfully, the next thing we read was so much better. In fact, I’d say that Fifth Business is probably my favorite anything we’ve read this entire year. I absolutely loved it. I’m not exactly sure how to explain it though. I really enjoyed the way it was written, for one. Davies has this way of describing things that’s just so great. The characters are another highlight. They’re all massively intricate people, and I really felt like they were so realistic they could be actual people. I’m really enjoying class discussions so far and I’m expecting a solid theme out of first hour.

    Finally, we wrote a couple of in-class essays. While I didn’t exactly enjoy having to write them (because who does?), it was pretty nice to have some feedback on them and see how good my essays actually were. I feel like my essays have dramatically improved since the beginning of the year.

    The AP is too soon.

Frankenstein Summary and Analysis

Author: Mary Shelley

Setting, Plot, and Characters: The story opens with a series of letter from Robert Walton to his sister in England. Eventually, Walton and his crew come across Victor Frankenstein. Once they nurse him back to health, Frankenstein begins to tell his story. He talks about his blissful childhood and singular friend, Henry Clerval. Victor is constantly talking about how perfect his life is and it becomes even more perfect when his parents adopt Elizabeth, then a young girl, to be his future wife. Although Victor enjoys teaching himself, he finally gets to an age where he can go off to college at Ingolstadt. Frankenstein uses his newfound knowledge in order to collect the necessary supplies to create human life. He succeeds in beginning a new life and once he is no longer blinded by his toils, he realizes that he really created a monster and immediately runs away. Clerval comes to join Victor at school and ends up having to care for him after a mental break.

    Soon after, Victor receives word that his younger brother, William was murdered and returns to Geneva. Frankenstein deduces that it was the monster that he created that killed his brother. His neighbor, Justine, is accused of the murder and because Victor fails to come forward she is executed. Frankenstein finds and confronts the monster who explains his entire life since his conception and tells Frankenstein that all he wants is a female companion. Once Victor reluctantly agrees, he goes off on a lengthy trip with Clerval to gather information and generally waste time. After he begins creating the female, though, Frankenstein has second thoughts and destroys his project. The monster, enraged, threatens to “be at his wedding night”.

    Later on, Victor goes on a boat ride and washes up on shore, finding himself accused of Henry’s murder. He spends a few months in prison until his father comes to get him. Upon returning, Victor marries his cousin/sister/family friend Elizabeth with gumption. On their honeymoon, the monster also kills Elizabeth. Victor chases him to the North Pole where he met Walton. Walton finishes the story by sharing that both Frankenstein and the monster die. 

Analysis: Shelley has a very thorough voice. Each character talks in the same way, with a lot of overly long descriptions of any given situation. Her point of view seems very limited. She doesn’t really seem to show any sort of feeling towards the characters, which is very evident of the Victorian era style of writing. The imagery is very detailed, but Shelley’s style of writing is more focused on emotional imagery.

Cool Quotes:

“Much as they were attached to each other, they seemed to draw inexhaustible stores of affection from a very mine of love to bestow them upon me.” (32)

This is a perfect example of both Frankenstein’s extreme narcissism and perceived perfect childhood. He seems to think that he has innumerable qualities that everyone should love him for and basically thinks he can do no wrong. From this quote, it’s easily to see that Victor thinks very highly of himself and the people in his inner circle.

“He had come forth from the hands of God a perfect creature, happy and prosperous, guarded by the especial care of his Creator; he was allowed to converse with, and acquire knowledge from beings of a superior nature: but I was wretched, helpless, and alone” (170)

In this quote, the monster is comparing himself to Adam and Frankenstein to God. Although Victor was capable of creating life, he did not realize the consequences. This contributes to a big motif of the book: science. Shelley seems to be questioning whether science has surpassed morality and uses the monster as an example. 

THEME: The inaccurate judgment of character based on society’s prejudices contributes toward alienation and unnatural instability.

Many aspects of the work come together to support the theme. The voice and POV are so drab because Shelley sees herself as being above the society that judges a character. Symbols such as windows, which act as physical barriers between metaphysical things such as ideals and moral systems. Shelley focuses so much on emotion because all of the aspects of her theme are emotion-based - from judgement to prejudice to alienation.

Open Prompt pt. 2 April 12th

2005. In Kate Chopin’s The Awakening (1899), protagonist Edna Pontellier is said to possess
“That outward existence which conforms, the inward life that questions.” In a novel or play that
you have studied, identify a character who outwardly conforms while questioning inwardly.
Then write an essay in which you analyze how this tension between outward conformity and
inward questioning contributes to the meaning of the work. Avoid mere plot summary.


     In Hamlet by William Shakespeare, the character Ophelia conforms to society while questioning it inwardly. The difference between what society expects of Ophelia as a young woman and what she actually wants to be eventually leads to her death and contributes to the meaning of the work, moral confusion along with isolation can lead to paranoia and corruption and the upset of the natural order.
     Since Ophelia is a young women in the late middle ages, she has many expectations that she must conform to. For example, she must always listen to what the men in the castle tell her to do. When Polonius warns Ophelia against Hamlet, she immediately cuts all contact with him. Laertes also chides her for being close to Hamlet. Furthermore, when Claudius implores her to spy on Hamlet for him, she complies without argument. Whenever a man tells Ophelia what to do, she must obey him because the nature of the society makes it so she could not survive in the world without one. 
     While Ophelia is constantly following orders, she is divided internally. It is clear that Ophelia has feelings for Hamlet, as shown by the fact that she let him in her closet, but she still follows orders from Polonius and Laertes to stay away from him. The scene where Ophelia is berated by Hamlet shows that Ophelia feels trapped and cannot respond to Hamlet the way she wants to. Eventually, the divide between the expectations and her own reality drives Ophelia mad. In her speech to the court, she discusses taboo topics such as abortion, sex out of wedlock, and adultery. Although Ophelia conforms on the outside, it is obvious that she does not agree with everything she must do. 
     Ophelia's struggle proves the theme of the work. Ophelia experiences moral confusion because she has to choose between the expectations of society and what she feels is right. Since she is not able to leave the castle without a male supervisor, she is totally cut off from the outside world. Both of these factors lead to her insanity and when she kills herself she upsets the natural order. 
     Shakespeare uses Ophelia to demonstrate how the nobility is flawed. This and the struggle between conformity and personal belief help reinforce his theme, that the natural order is agitated when common morality is confused.
 

Open Prompt pt. 1 April 5th

2005. In Kate Chopin’s The Awakening (1899), protagonist Edna Pontellier is said to possess
“That outward existence which conforms, the inward life that questions.” In a novel or play that
you have studied, identify a character who outwardly conforms while questioning inwardly.
Then write an essay in which you analyze how this tension between outward conformity and
inward questioning contributes to the meaning of the work. Avoid mere plot summary.

Response 1:
First of all, this response is nearly impossible to read because the author's handwriting is so bad. The first sentence is awkwardly worded and I find it hard to understand what the author is actually trying to say. However, the author did choose a very good work for this prompt and seems to answer each part of the prompt in their intro, including the meaning of the work which is unusual. The essay is separated into three distinct paragraphs that each have their own argument. Although the author includes a lot of plot summary, they also do a good job of including warrants and analysis. Overall, this is a pretty good essay, albeit slightly wordy.

Response 2:
This essay has a decent introductory paragraph, but the author failed to include the overall meaning of the play. The author does a very good job of answering each part of the prompt in a separate paragraph. They also include solid pieces of evidence to explain their points, but their analysis is lacking slightly. The conclusion wraps up the essay nicely and adds new information, however it would be helpful if the author included the theme of the work in one succinct sentence rather than over a few sentences. There are a few small grammatical errors in the essay, like the way the author denotes the play by quotation marks rather than an underline. Although this essay is a little short, it does a nice job of answering each part of the prompt and utilizing good pieces of evidence.

Response 3:
In the intro, the author repeats the exact sentence used in the prompt. They go on to explain how the character conforms to society, but not how she questions internally. The author also does not do a very good job of using the literary present and often switches between tenses. All of the body paragraphs stick to mere plot summary with no actual analysis whatsoever. Finally, the conclusion just restates exactly what was said in the first paragraph. The author pretty much summarizes every single thing that happens in the book without relating it to the prompt or analyzing the meaning. Overall, this essay is rushed and underdeveloped. It seems as if there was no planning involved because the author just separates the plot into arbitrary paragraphs.

Response to Course Materials March 22nd

Over the past month, we finished up Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. I didn’t like it very much. It had a few glaring issue that I couldn’t get over. Needless to say, I was pretty excited to move on to our next work.

Following the conclusion of our work on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, we began reading Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. While we read and discussed the book, we also read quite a few articles pertaining to the novel. Although I didn't really enjoy the book itself, I did like all the different perspectives that the articles provided. The biggest thing that annoys me about the book is that people, especially women, are seen as objects (although this could be done on purpose). For example, Victor talks about how his mother gifted Elizabeth upon him. Pretty much the way that women are talked about through the whole book is pretty gross.

Also during this time, we worked a but on analyzing poetry. Although I've read some poems here and there in other classes, I've never had to analyze them as deeply as we have to for AP Lit. I really enjoyed Percy Shelley's poems and I think it's pretty cool that both Mary and he were authors. Next, we used our new poetry skills to write our first closed prompt. I have to say that it ended up being a lot more difficult than I expected. I had a hard time deciding how to separate the prompt into distinct sections and just answering the question overall.

Open Prompt pt. 2 March 15th

Many works of literature ask a central question. For example, Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead explores identity and existence in order to ask a very imposing question: “What’s the point?” Unlike titles that are solely theatre of the absurd, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern attempts to answer this question to a point. Both Stoppard’s treatment of this question and his attempt to answer it support his theme: that there may be incomprehensible forces shaping our lives, making it impossible to control or understand them.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead asks the audience what the point of it all is. The two main characters do not know what their purpose is. When they are passing time at the beginning by playing coins, the two do not even realize that they have been summoned for something. Every time the pair are left to themselves they immediately question who they are and what they're doing. Another instance is when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern criticize the play for not having enough action, asking what the point of any of the dialogue is. Most of the play is asking what the point of the characters. action, and even the overall play is.

Although the play doesn't fully answer the question, it offers up a couple suggestions. One possibility is to question the world and one's fate. It is very clear throughout the play that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have a path set forth for them. Even the title gives a clue to this (they ARE dead). Although R+G are never able to break their molds, Stoppard is trying to tell the audience that they should attempt what his characters could not. While the two may have a path to follow, we don't. Stoppard wants the audience to be better than his characters.

This question pretty much encapsulates the entire purpose of the play. Stoppard centers his work around the question, although he does not treat it very seriously all the time. For example, he questions simple concepts that are accepted by the general public in order to make his point. When a characters yells "fire" in a crowded audience or taunts them with child rape, Stoppard is in a way questioning the purpose of certain social constructs. These aspects of the play are things we don't think about but control how the play works.

Open Prompt pt. 1 March 8th

2004. ​Critic Roland Barthes has said, “Literature is the question minus the answer.” Choose a
novel, or play, and, considering Barthes’ observation, write an essay in which you analyze a
central question the work raises and the extent to which it offers answers. Explain how the
author’s treatment of this question affects your understanding of the work as a whole. Avoid
mere plot summary.

Response 1:

Right off the bat, the first sentence is a little awkward and unnecessary. Other than that, the introductory paragraph does a pretty good job of answering the prompt. The first body paragraph does a good job of drawing on textual evidence and then connecting it back to the prompt. However, the second body paragraph kind of strays away from the point that the author is trying to make. It's also slightly distracting that the author spelled "lesson" as "lessen" more than once. The conclusion does a nice job of wrapping up the essay and even brings in some new information. Overall, this seems to be a pretty well informed essay and the author does not depend on plot summary too much. This essay deserves the 8 it received. It’s not the best essay ever written, but it’s nowhere near the worst. Good in almost every sense, but not quite great.

Response 2:
After a glance at this essay, it seems as if the writer struggled a little or did not plan sufficiently because there is a lot of crossing out (although the readers are just supposed to ignore that). The intro is pretty lacking and even repeats two forms of the same word in a single sentence (explores and exploring). However, the author did a pretty good job of identifying the central question of the work. The first body paragraph seems pretty unnecessary and merely points to a few plot points. The syntax throughout the essay is a little confusing and often draws away from the point the author is trying to make. There are also a few distracting grammatical errors as well. The author does not even attempt to discuss the question the prompt is asking until the final paragraph in which the author begins to redeem him or herself, but then ruins this by using first person language. Although the author seems to have some understanding of the work, this essay is severely lacking in its analysis.

Response 3:
It seems like this student was running out of time once he or she got to this prompt because the essay is only two longish paragraphs. However, it seems like the author has a relatively good understanding of the prompt and how to answer it. The introduction seems to provide a basis for a quality essay, but the author was not able to follow through. The second paragraph is awkwardly worded and difficult to follow. Since the essay is so short, the author was not able to analyze the extent to which the work offers answers. Overall, this is pretty poor. The author clearly needed more time to write it. This essay is completely deserving of a 3. It has a considerable lack of analysis and just content in general, as it is really short. With more time, it could probably be great, but as it is now, it is not.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Summary and Analysis

Author: Tom Stoppard

Setting, Plot, and Characters: The play opens with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (two noble families from Denmark with a vague Jewish sound) playing coins in the forest. Somehow, there has been an unprecedented run of heads. As the two men start to become more nervous, Guildenstern starts to make sense of what's happening. This begins a motif that continues throughout the play in which Guildenstern tries to prove certain laws of physics. After a little, R+G come across a troupe of Tragedians who specialize in a special kind of performance. The Tragedians play a round of coins with R+G. Ros and Guil, believing they have won, allow the Players to pay them back in the form of a performance. Guildenstern taunts the audience when he suggests that the young Alfred and him could set a "dramatic precedent". As the Players leave, it is revealed that R+G did not actually win the coin toss. Having been summoned the Elsinore, Ros and Guil finally arrive in the castle. They are given the task of finding the source of young Hamlet's madness. The two men practice by playing a game of questions, adding to their previous confusion. However, they are not able to detect the reason for Hamlet's behavior. Various scenes of Hamlet interrupt Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's conversations, and they have to switch to a more elevated speech. After Hamlet kills Polonius, R+G are sent to accompany him to England. While on the boat, the two discuss the meaning of life and death, but can never come to a conclusion. When they look at the letter they were sent with, they find that King Claudius is sending Hamlet to his death. As the two sleep, Hamlet switches out the letter to order the execution of R+G instead. In the morning, the Tragedians pop out of some barrels and talk about death some more. R+G, realizing they’re doomed, think about staying on the ship before giving up and dying. The play closes on the final scene of Hamlet as the ambassador tells Horatio that R+G are dead.

Analysis: Stoppard’s voice is generally dry and cynical. While holding true to the absurdist idea that life is meaningless, he also brings in other elements. In addition to saying that life is meaningless, Stoppard tries to figure out what we can use to find meaning in a life without it. He brings up various examples including relationships with others and religion. There is little to no imagery in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, as everything is pretty nondescript. Stoppard seems to be separate from the plot of the play, judging R+G’s actions, and as a result our own. One of the most prevalent symbols in the play was the coin, which represents binary opposition; each side cannot exist without the other. This idea comes up a lot throughout the work: life and death, light and dark, presence and absence. Stoppard adds another level of complexity by setting the play within another play. In the text alone it is unclear whether R+G are participating in an actual production of Hamlet or are actual men living in Denmark.

Cool Quotes:

“Guil: You and I Alfred - we could create a dramatic precedent here” (32)

This is a perfect example of Stoppard taunting the audience. Once Guildenstern says this, the audience begins to feel guilty about laughing about child rape for the last five minutes. Stoppard is constantly testing the limits of traditional theater and in this case, attempting to make the audience feel uncomfortable. 

“Ros: ...ask yourself, if I asked you straight off - I’m going to stuff you in this box now, would you rather be alive or dead? Naturally you’d prefer to be alive.” (71)

Throughout the play, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, the Players, and even Hamlet are questioning life and death. In this case, Stoppard is asserting the Ros and Guil’s lives are essentially like living in a box. Neither of them have a choice about their fates and it is questionable whether or not they have any choice at all. In a box, they would not be able to move very much from their original spot, much like their lives. 

THEME: Stoppard suggests that there may be incomprehensible forces shaping our lives, making it impossible to control or understand them.

Since there is no imagery in the play, Stoppard is trying to say that our mere senses are not enough to understand our lives. R+G are constantly trying to make sense of the world around them, but they are never able to. Stoppard (and the Players), on the other hand, are on the outside of this, judging R+G’s progress. R+G are so confused all of the time because the forces shaping their lives are incomprehensible.  

 

Response to Course Materials February 22nd

     In the past few weeks, we finished up Hamlet. After two-ish months on the play, we started reading Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, which made this girl feel like a catfish out of water. However, before we could delve too deep into the next play, we had to work on our final exam project. My group made a video synthesizing the first three works: The American Dream, Death of a Salesman, and Hamlet. I had a great time making the video and we actually learned some interesting information on the characters in the three plays during our research. I also found some of the other projects pretty cool. Andi's project on "Shakesqueer" was super well-researched and I learned a bunch of stuff I didn't know about queer theory.
     After spending three days presenting and discussing the final exam projects, we were able to finish R+G. However, I missed a good deal of the discussion and most of the movie because I was at 7th grade camp, so I don't feel like I have as good of a grasp on this play as the others. One of the big points we discussed was whether or not it can actually be qualified as falling under the Theatre of the Absurd. Because the play goes past the simple "life is meaningless" mantra of typical Theatre of the Absurd works, I don't think it is. Although the play had some funny and meaningful parts, I didn't enjoy it as much as the others. Absurdist writers in general bother me because it seems like they think they know some sort of deep truth about the world that no one else knows. Tom Stoppard especially comes off as very pretentious.
     Right now, I'm just excited to finish up discussing R+G and then start Frankenstein.

Open Prompt pt. 2 February 15th

     In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the title character fulfills the qualifications of a tragic hero because he begins as a prosperous prince, but loses the things that are most precious to him. Hamlet not only causes the deaths of multiple characters, whether directly or indirectly, but also loses his own life. Through the choices Hamlet makes, he epitomizes the theme of the play: moral confusion along with isolation can lead to paranoia and corruption and the upset of the natural order.

     Young Hamlet is clearly a tragic hero. Before the play begins, Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark at school in Wittenberg, awaiting the crown. King Hamlet’s own brother, Claudius, poisons him and becomes king. The first act of Hamlet finds the prince distraught about his father’s recent death and mother’s abrupt marriage to young Hamlet’s uncle. As a thirtysomething prince, Hamlet had everything going for him, but lost it all because of his uncle’s actions. In order to avoid suspicion, Hamlet pretends to be insane as he tries to decide whether or not to avenge his father’s death. As the play progresses, the distinction between Hamlet’s pretend and real madness grows foggy, leaving the audience to pity his indecision. This pity that the audience feels is essential to what makes a tragic character tragic.

     Hamlet’s indecision, however, does not only affect himself. As his madness progresses, constantly crossing the line between real and imaginary, he begins to make rash decisions. For example, when the Prince is in his mother’s closet, he thinks he hears a spy behind a curtain and before even considering it, stabs a hidden Polonius to death. In this way, Hamlet’s own personal tragedy directly causes the suffering of another character. He also causes the tragic death of other characters indirectly. Hamlet basically brings on Ophelia’s suicide. First, he breaks her heart by being incredibly crass and cold toward her and then kills her father. Although Hamlet did not do any of the killing, his tragic quest brought on Ophelia’s death. Hamlet negatively affects almost every character in the play.
     By bringing tragedy upon himself and others, Hamlet contributes to the meaning of the work as a whole. Throughout the play, Hamlet is trying to decide whether or not to kill his uncle. His main concern is whether or not Claudius’ murder would be against God’s will. Since there is no way of knowing exactly what God wants, Hamlet cannot make his decision. Furthermore, because Hamlet is pretty much isolated from the outside world, both geographically and emotionally. In the end, many of the characters meet tragic ends, showing how Hamlet’s own confusion and isolation led to a disruption of the natural order.

Open Prompt pt. 1 February 8th

2003. According to critic Northrop Frye, “Tragic heroes are so much the highest points in their

human landscape that they seem the inevitable conductors of the power about them, great

trees more likely to be struck by lightning than a clump of grass. Conductors may of course be

instruments as well as victims of the divisive lightning.” Select a novel or play in which a tragic

figure functions as an instrument of the suffering of others. Then write an essay in which you

explain how the suffering brought upon others by that figure contributes to the tragic vision of

the work as a whole.

Response 1:

The first author does a good job of addressing all parts of the prompt in the introduction in a clear and concise fashion. He or she seems to have a solid grasp of language and can employ it well. The essay is divided into three different sections, each with their own separate argument. The author does summarize the plot, but also points to a particular event and explains how it affects the meaning of the work. The second body paragraph is a little weak and unnecessary; the author does not make a very strong point and it barely moves past plot summary. In the third body paragraph, though, the author explains how Gatsby as a tragic character unwittingly causes the suffering of others. The conclusion nicely wraps up the essay while adding more information. The overall structure of the essay is solid and easy to follow, but it still has some flaws and I do not think it deserves the 9 it received.

Response 2:

The second author begins by unnecessarily restating the quote from the prompt, which is not a very strong start. The introduction touches on the main parts of the prompt, but does not explain how the tragic character contributes to the meaning of the work as a whole. The first body paragraph is basically just a summary of the plot and brings up Hamlet without any sort of introduction. The paragraph does not even attempt to answer the prompt until the last few sentences, in which the author only touches on it. The next paragraph seems to have the beginnings of a decent analysis, but fails to completely explain the point it’s trying to make. The concluding paragraph just summarizes what was said in the essay without adding a fresh perspective. The essay ends abruptly, leaving the reader with only a vague idea of what the author is trying to prove. Overall, there is far too much plot summary and very little actual analysis.

Response 3:

The introduction of the third essay leaves much to be desired. Although it does, in a way, answer the prompt, the author does not explain nearly enough and does not connect the character to the meaning of the work. The second paragraph, which is only four sentences, is seemingly pointless and basically adds nothing to the essay as a whole. In the third paragraph, the author adds “downfall and destruction” in parentheses, supposedly to explain how McMurphy is a tragic character. The author goes on to end the paragraph with the vague statement, “others suffer along the way.” He or she does not seem to have a firm grasp of either the meaning of the prompt or the work and throws in a few advanced words here and there for no apparent reason. This essay is just a pretty length summary of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and does not answer the prompt whatsoever.

Hamlet Summary and Analysis

Author: William Shakespeare

Setting, Plot, and Characters: Prince Hamlet of Denmark returns home from college after his father’s death to see his uncle Claudius’ coronation. Once he arrives, he learns that the ghost of his father has been appearing for the past few days. That night he confronts the ghost with his friend Horatio. The ghost takes Hamlet aside and reveals to him that his death was actually a poisoning at the hands of Claudius, who killed King Hamlet to take the throne and marry his wife, Hamlet’s mother, Gertrude. The ghost tells Hamlet to avenge him and disappears. Hamlet decides to begin to feign madness while he thinks on the subject of Claudius’ murder. Meanwhile, Polonius, the king’s right-hand man, bids his son Laertes goodbye and learns of Hamlet’s love for his daughter Ophelia. The king and Polonius use Ophelia to try to discover the cause of Hamlet’s madness and monitor one of their meetings. Hamlet decides to stage a play for the royal court to see if Claudius is truly guilty. He hires a group of players and they perform for Claudius, who leaves in the middle of the play, agitated. Hamlet, convinced of his uncle’s guilt, moves to murder him, but has to go see his mother first. Once there, he berates Gertrude until his father’s ghost tells him to stop. Polonius, who hid behind a screen before Hamlet entered Gertrude’s closet, is discovered and stabbed to death by Hamlet. Claudius sends Hamlet to England with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and a letter to England’s king asking for Hamlet to be executed. Hamlet discovers the letter and changes it to have R+G killed. He is the promptly attacked by friendly pirates who return him to Denmark. During this Ophelia goes mad and commits suicide. Claudius convinces a devastated Laertes to poison Hamlet in a duel. At the duel, Laertes stabs Hamlet, Hamlet stabs Laertes, Gertrude drinks poison, Hamlet stabs Claudius, and everybody dies.

Analysis: Shakespeare has a very objective voice and he lets his characters speak for themselves. It is a play, so we can’t really say too much about his point of view, but it seems as if he supports the will of God. However, Shakespeare is also pretty critical of the monarchy as a whole, although he attempts to disguise this fact by setting the story outside of England. The tone of the play is quite somber and melodramatic. There isn’t much good in Hamlet. Much of the imagery in the play is a result of Hamlet’s long monologues and soliloquies, which describe death and the fear of death pretty often and at length. One of the symbols is poison, which represents lies and deceit. In the scene where Ophelia is giving out flowers following her father’s death, many directors assume that she gives the rue to Gertrude because of its dual symbolism. One definition of rue is bitter regret. Also, back then the flower was often used to perform abortions. Since it is very likely that both Ophelia and Gertrude were pregnant at the time, it makes sense that Ophelia would have some sort of camaraderie with the woman. Lastly, Yorick’s skull is a symbol of the inevitable death and decay of every person.   

Cool Quotes:

“Hamlet: But come, for England. Farewell, dear mother.

King: Thy loving father, Hamlet.” (IV.iii.58-59)

Throughout the play the audience must constantly question the extent of Hamlet’s madness. At certain parts of the work, it seems like Hamlet himself cannot even tell the difference between his fake madness and real madness. This quote shows this confusion in an almost comedic way.

“Upon my secure hour thy uncle stole,

With juice of cursed hebona in a vial,

And in the porches of my ears did pour

The leperous distilment;” (I.v.68-71)
One of the major motifs of Hamlet is poison. The entire atmosphere at Elsinore contributes to the poisonous relationships between the characters. For example, Gertrude, with or without old Hamlet's knowledge, was cheating on him for quite some time. Also, the relationship between Prince Hamlet in his mother has some disturbingly Oedipal undertones. The gossip that surrounds the castle could be described as poison in the ear, as directly symbolized in this quote.  

THEME: Moral confusion along with isolation can lead to paranoia and corruption and the upset of the natural order.
Shakespeare highlights the isolation of Elsinore with various recurring motifs, such as having only one major commoner character in Horatio, who is the most normal of all the characters. Also, the actual geographical location of Elsinore is isolated. Hamlet, Laertes, and Fortinbras all act as foils to each other. All three of these men have murdered fathers and must decide whether or not to avenge their deaths, causing moral confusion. However, each of them is able to leave the isolation of royal life and are then somewhat able to choose their own paths. Hamlet’s paranoia about suicide and death is one of the driving forces of the play. Most of his actions are driven by this paranoia. Claudius is also constantly paranoid that Hamlet will ruin his new life, so he commissions other people to spy on Hamlet and even attempts to send him to his death.