A Tale of Two Cities pp.1-10

In the first chapter, the characters are being introduced but not named. They are being overlooked because this is a section where most of the setting and actions are explained to give a better understanding of what genre this novel took place in. England and France seem to be the two central settings and they are both analyzed to show the similarities and differences between the two. England is filled with poor thieves that are committing dangerous acts of violence in order to gain what they need. Nothing is safe there because there is no order or conduct being enforced. In France the Christian pastors are important to the society therefor, if they are "disrespected" at any point they are cruelly punished. This setting is of prosperous and wealthy standings.

Since the thieves in England have a habit of stealing other people's mail, there is a passenger that is on his way to deliver some sort of mail to someone.  Protection for their own sakes is what they most want, and they would never want to displease anyone with the power to get them killed, so they avoid making any stops at all even when the horses are tired.

Literature Analysis: Like Water For Chocolate by Laura Esquivel

Like Water for Chocolate- Literature Analysis -

A Tale of Two Cities: Title Meaning

In the novel A Tale of Two Cities, the author Charles Dickens uses two specific cities (Paris and London) as a comparative. He tries to demonstrate the daily life living in England, while comparing it to the times that were occurring in France during the French Revolution. He didn't state it outwardly because it could've caused a riot about a possible revolution in England. He is a blunt man who titles his novels about the central character or point of his stories, so it was natural for him to point out "two cities" since he was unable to bluntly state the central point of his story without getting in trouble.

Me I Am

Jack Prelutsky

Me I Am !

I am the only Me I Am
Who qualifies as me,
no Me I AM has been before,
and none will ever be
No other Me I Am can feel
the feelings I’ ve within,
no other Me I Am can fit
precisely in my skin
There is no other Me I Am
who thinks the thoughts I do,
the world contains one Me I Am
this earth shall ever see,
that Me I Am I always am
is no one else but Me!


I think that this poem is easy to like because it shows that each person is their own self. It makes everyone seem special and like the most important person.  There will never ever be another ME in this world because no one will ever be ME.

The Open Question

The most influential characters are mainly displayed through the protagonists and/or antagonists of the novels, such as Esperanza was in the novel The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros. Esperanza's character was designed to impact the reader either in a very positive manner or an extremely negative way. Personally, her character inspired me and forced me to be compassionate and concerned for her actions throughout the book. I was sensitive towards that character, mostly because of the way she was presented by the author to the audience. Sandra Cisneros used the techniques such as setting and tone to her advantage in convincing the readers of the character's admirable traits.

Esperanza's character was a confused, lost, innocent girl that was only trying to find her place in such a big world. Her actions spoke of desire and determination to become something greater than what the rest expected of her. She put in the most effort to not blend in with the normality in her neighborhood and instead stand out in the crowd. Esperanza was a likeable character because of the perseverance she had, even when she lived horrible situations that could mentally and emotionally destroy any average person. One of the hideous crimes that her character lived through was sexual assault, which only boosted my level of sympathy towards her. She managed to put that behind and continue on with her goal of leaving Mango Street showing her courage as a person.

Cisneros immediately received sympathy for Esperanza after describing the setting that she so much disliked.  All the sulking, depression, bad memories, pessimism was centered around Mango Street. The meaning of her lack of existence and the pain endured by Esperanza had been shaped and revolved around the street which she refused to call her home. I felt a need to protect this character from her own home because she despised it so much. I was drawn to this character by her background that came along with a story of sadness. I was impelled to know more about her because she had been through such a scarring beginning and even that didn't affect her kindness and tenacity.

Just as the setting was able to gain my attention in a positive manner, the tone did as well. The tones varied throughout the book as Esperanza described many of her past experiences. She was disappointed, hostile, fearful, etc. as her life got worse. Her mood changes described a true person, one that's not just a character in a book. I was able to connect with her character on a personal level and it interested me to see how even characters in a book have such conflicts troubling their minds.

The House on Mango Street contained such a realistic, eye-opening character that endured abuse and humiliation, yet she had the strength to carry on with her life. Her character was my favorite throughout the novel because she never thought of giving up only of pushing forward. She wanted to be successful and never achieved that goal. However, her story continued past the end of the novel because she ended still believing in herself.

Big Question Abstract

Topic: What will happen to the world after all humanity is gone?

Life on Earth after humanity is gone has been questioned for many years, starting from the beginning of time. Some researchers state that after human extinction proof of our existence will be preserved within our buildings/structures. Within time our technological advances will be diminished, however some specific geographical feature will still be intact, such as Mt. Rushmore. Monuments and sculptures are believed to be the longest lasting artifacts left of the human race. I think that it’s important to be able to recognize the possibility of humanity’s extinction and try to cope with some ways of helping our memories last longer. Many people look into their future, without ever making extinction as one of their future’s options. With this study humanity may be able to invest more time and effort in producing something that may last more than a lifetime, and which can withstand any type of mass destruction to carry on with the past. While researching this topic I will look into the myths that people have produced throughout the years based on their religion and beliefs and then I will compare it to scientific studies from the professionals that have put time and research in figuring things out. Comparing those two views and understanding the background well, I think will allow me to grasp the concept better.

AP Term- Antithesis

Antithesis-opposition; contrast


Ex:
"One small step for a man, one giant leap for all mankind."
“Too black for heaven, and yet too white for hell.”
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful."

Thinking Outside the Box

In Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" and Sartre's "No Exit" play you are able to see the limitations of our thinking. Plato shows how people are narrow-minded because they aren't able to expand their knowledge/opinions as an effect of the society's criticism. In the play "No Exit" Sartre mixes three people's brain processes into each others minds and sets them up in a way that their thoughts would have a great impact on each other.

The men in the cave were oblivious to the chains they had been put in and didn't bother opposing anything that they already "knew". They had to keep their minds conservative and didn't allow themselves to develop a character.  Everything that seemed to be the reality to them was all an allusion which served its purpose of keeping them from thinking for themselves. Each man that was in a cave had their thinking set with restrictions, so they had to filter out anything that was personal (if there were any of those thoughts in their minds) and stick with what they were always told. They were blind to their surroundings and even though they could speak they ultimately couldn't have real thoughts and feelings.

The three people in hell are condemned to have to listen to other's thoughts and aren't able to rely on only themselves. Every move one makes affects the other. They are all just as vulnerable and reliable of each other. When one person had a mental breakdown they all did because in their world they  all had one mind, one body, one brain. Other people cause and influence many of the decisions that others take and limit them to only a certain amount of options. Rarely are they asked for their opinions on situations instead people set ultimatums for each other to make sure that everything goes according to their plans.

The solution I would suggest is to keep a more open mind to what others have to say but avoid thinking that everything they say is correct. Find many sources which you can compare these "facts" with. Instead of only believing that what you say is and will always be right give an opportunity for those who think otherwise to prove their points to you. It will always be evident to you when something you hear doesn't concur with your views, but makes sense.

Plato and Sartre were two different men that wrote about people's limitations on thinking, using different styles. They both suggest that people are being cheated of their own thoughts and rights. In order to better the chances of reducing such problems, people must try to understand others but keep in mind that not everything they hear is reality.

Literature Analysis: Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck

1.) Briefly summarize the plot of the novel you read.


The story is about two best friends and companions, that are travelling and looking for work in order to raise enough money for their dream farm. George and Lennie are complete opposite; George is short and strong-minded and Lennie is big and tall with a mental disability. They both make plenty of friends along their adventure and hopes of getting enough money, including Slim and Candy. Since Lennie is so huge, he often ends up destroying the most precious things to him and getting himself and George into much trouble. After arriving at a farm where they've been working, Lennie is left alone with a flirtatious woman (which is the boss' son's wife) and accidentally chokes her to death. Lennie flees to their "meet up place" and waits for George there. When George arrives he tells Lennie their dream farm story and then shoots him in the back of the head. 


2.) Succinctly describe the theme of the novel. Avoid cliches.


The theme of the story is that no matter how high expectations you have for a person, they ultimately make their own decisions and sometimes choose to go against you. Just as Lennie had so much trust, faith, and devotion to George and he repaid him by killing him. 


3.)Describe the author's tone.  Include three excerpts that illustrate your point(s).


The author's tone throughout the story was a mix of pity and sadness. He attempts to show the sentimental aspects of life and occurrences that cause such feelings by demonstrating them through Lennie and George.

• "His anger left him suddenly. He looked across the fire at Lennie's anguished face, and then looked ashamedly at the flames." In this excerpt George had been mean and rude to Lennie for causing trouble. However, after seeing how defenseless and dependent he was of him, George feels bad and the pity is seen for Lennie.
• Candy was always very attached to his dog and his world fell apart the day Carlson shot him, giving off a sad vibe. " A shot sounded in the distance. The men looked quickly at the old man. Every head turned toward him. For a moment he continued to stare at the ceiling. Then he rolled slowly over and faced the wall and lay silent."
• After having killed Lennie, George was in shock and realized what he had done leaking the sadness through his character. "'Yeah. Tha's how.' George's voice was almost a whisper. He looked steadily at his right hand that had held then gun." 

4.) Describe five literary elements/techniques you observed that strengthened your understanding of the theme and/or your sense of the tone.  Include three excerpts that will help your reader understand each one.

• Syntax: Lennie's character was based on a person with a disability which caused him to speak differently from the rest of the characters. His inability to be like the rest of the men in the story caused a sense of pity and deep love towards his character. "I'd pet 'em, and pretty soon they bit my fingers and I pinched their heads a little and then they was dead-- because they was so little."
• Diction: Steinbeck characterized George with a strong, foul-mouthed personality, which caused me pity for Lennie who was stuck with him. Lennie was so dependent of George that he had to stand that sort of mental abuse from his companion and friend. "You crazy son-of-a-bitch. You keep me in hot water all the time. Jus' wanted to feel that girl's dress--jus' wanted to pet it like it was a mouse---Well, how the hell did she know you jus' wanted to feel her dress?"
• Direct Characterization: I was able to distinguish both characters by such great differences they obtained that the author described. George and Lennie were two completely different characters and it was demonstrated in detail at the beginning of the story. " The first man was small and quick, dark of face, with restless eyes and sharp, strong features. Every part of him was defined: small, strong hands, slender arms, a thin and bony nose. Behind him walked his opposite, a huge man, shapeless of face, with large, pale eyes, with wide, sloping shoulders; and he walked heavily, dragging his feet a little, the way a bear drags his paws."
• Indirect Characterization: George an Lennie showed who they really were through their words and actions. That is how I was able to detect that Lennie wasn't like George or any of the other characters in the story. That he was defenseless to the outside world, the one that wasn't made up in his imagination. " Lennie dabbled his big paw in the water and wiggled his fingers so the water arose in little splashes; rings widened across the pool to the other side and came back again. Lennie watched them go. 'Look, George. Look what I done.'"
• Symbolism: The mouse that George had carried in his pocket, dead, which he had crushed symbolized him. He crushed the mouse accidentally, just because he wanted to be able to pet it and comfort it. His luck ended like the mouse when George shot him for his own good  and trying to comfort him. "I'd pet 'em, and pretty soon they bit my fingers and I pinched their heads a little and then they was dead-- because they was so little." "And George raised the gun and steadied it, and he brought the muzzle of it close to the back of Lennie's head...He pulled the trigger."

My Big Question

What will happen to the world after all humanity/lives are gone?

Hamlet Essay: Performative Utterance

Topic: Using what you've learned about Hamlet the character and Hamlet the play, evaluate the impact of performative utterance on Hamlet and your own sense of self. How does the way Hamlet speaks constitute action in itself? How does it impact the characters and the plot? How does this compare with your own "self-overhearing"? How does the way you reflect on your experience create a sense of memory, expectation, and real-world results? Use the text, your reading/lecture notes, the experience of memorizing the "To be, or not to be" soliloquy, de Boer's paper (and Bloom's/Austin's theoretical frameworks), and the many online and offline discussions we've had.

Hamlet Essay Re-Do

Hamlet, the character is a complex being with even more complex ideas. He is a troubled man trying to deal with life/death but has many worries which ultimately affect the characters and plot of Hamlet. Shakespeare's technique of performative utterance is used as the base of the plot and influences characters to act on others' words. Hamlet's soliloquy "To be, or not to be" and de Boer's, "The Performative Utterance in Hamlet", paper both demonstrate self-utterance and the influence it had on the play.  Self-overhearing was an easy way to detect the direction in which the plot would turn and Hamlet practiced this a lot.

"To be, or not to be" were infamous lines uttered by Hamlet himself. With this soliloquy he reflected on what he believed was the correct way to end the "play". Stating those words aloud described his contemplation of death and murder, while knowing what he would do in the end. He uses performative utterance by describing and stating his desires, making a command to himself to apply his thoughts and turn them into action. Making a decision to follow through with his plans of murder emphasized how he had managed to convince himself to go forth with everything. To finalize this method he ended up implementing his desires and transforming them to realities. 

While achieving what he had set as a goal for himself, Hamlet brought down many of the characters as well. Every spoken word from him had gotten each character closer to their end. Death had traveled from one character to killing off most of them. Had he not convinced himself of performing his revenge, all the characters including himself may have still been alive.

De Boer broke down Hamlet's use of performative utterance in his paper and told us of the reasoning behind the use of this technique. He said, "Those who use performative utterance create new facts in the world in speaking." Just as he said Hamlet allowed his words to become reality. By affecting other characters thoughts as well as his own, Hamlet changed the course of the play. He evolved from an indecisive man to a confident, powerful man by simply stating it out loud. When he said those words to himself he was convinced and ready for anything.

Hamlet expresses his thoughts using self-overhearing, seeming confident and powerful. His self-overhearing impacts what actually occurs in the play, becoming either reality or a failed attempt of it. My idea of self-overhearing however, isn't much of action as it is of pure self-knowledge. Personally, I think self-overhearing isn't about influencing things to occur, but rather learning about yourself. When I express my thoughts aloud, I learn more and more about my attitudes, likes, dislikes, opinions, etc. It's an experience of realizing what I want, but not necessarily anything I will truly end up doing. However, when using it as a technique such as memorizing "to be, or not to be" it would've been the perfect tool. I, on the other hand, find myself feelinguncomfortable with this technique and I failed to use it. I didn't believe at the time that using this method would make any difference. The rare occasions in which I speak to myself, I only analyzed without attempting to make any of my thoughts to reality. 

Both Hamlet and my perspective of self-overhearing have reasoning to support it. It's a matter of how the person decides to view the situation. You may want to create it yourself such as Hamlet tried or just to realize yourself like I tend to do. If you just put your self-overhearing to practice though, you may end up with many consequences that come from the perlocutionary force/effects. The domino theory can be attached to the performative language. With the use of the locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary forces a series of events can be created to develop the plot.

Hamlet Essay

Hamlet's character altogether is thought to be a diverse, strange character which doesn't abide by the rules and ethics of the epic heroes. He is even doubted at times of being an epic hero at all. Contrary to the other heroes seen in epics such as Beowulf he uses a different language when referring to anyone or anything. His intentions backing up his words were more of an honest, hurt man not proud like Beowulf.

Any normal epic hero speaks with great confidence of oneself and seeks props from others. They never think of doubting themselves and are usually proud, somewhat self-centered, men. Hamlet however is the opposite when dealing with his problems and feelings. He uses self-utterance and freely doubts his future actions, making them seem like an even more conflicting problem. In his soliloquy "To Be or Not to Be" Hamlet outwardly expresses his remedies for his problems: murder or suicide. Hamlet states, "by a sleep to say we end the heartache, and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to," by this he contemplates death. He quickly contradicts himself because of his character's indecisiveness,"to take arms against the sea of troubles and by opposing end them." Hamlet is not the type that is sure of his decisions, instead he double thinks on what he will say or act on next.

Beowulf's character was a cocky person with too many words to influence his actions. He'd constantly make himself seem greater and more powerful than he truly was. He mentioned plenty of times, of his battles in which he had defeated  others. He was not shy, he was only a typical, proud epic hero. He never wanted to show his weakness unlike Hamlet who allowed all the pressure to interfere with his thought process. Such was the time when he went off on Ophelia because of her love. His  language of love, especially towards Ophelia is of pure forbidden love. He knew that he couldn't be with her because everything in his world was a sin. Instead he would push her away to stop the suffering, but would pull her back in when he realized how much he needed her.

According to Hamlet revenge was what he wanted most because he allowed the anger to build up in himself. Every epic hero has a tragic flaw but it's rarely involved with the concept of revenge. He had decided to follow others' actions and started to think seriously of avenging his father's death when he saw Fortinbras attempting to settle disputes in regards to his own father's death. He is more of a follower than a leader, which opposes an epic hero in every possible way. Unlike him Beowulf led all his explorations taking his men along and only allowing them to enter first if they offered. Instead, Hamlet would probably use one of his men as a shield to protect his own skin.

Hamlet was all but an average epic hero and demonstrated it with his language of self-doubt and untrustworthy love as well as a difference in tragic flaw with epic heroes usually contain. He is differed and contrasted to Beowulf because of his more cowardice character and his lack of confidence. He isn't proud like many others are expected to be.

Piecing Together Technology

Over the course of the semester I have often been overwhelmed at the rate in which we have been fed information. Each and every day we've been set loose to experiment with the broad world of technology. It can take you to the most unexpected places and things may occur by accident but to your benefit. The concept of technology itself is hard to grasp and comprehend. Being set into that strange environment, that I rarely dealt with, was a good learning experience. I was able to expand my mind into the future because technology will ultimately be our future. While being given the initiative I began to be more comfortable with all the new world. I am more aware o0f how life in general works. I freaked out a bit when I thought of relying so much on technology in the future, but when Roy Christopher explained that we would have enough time to master it ("program or be programmed") I felt that a weight had been lifted off my shoulders. Now I know that in order to advance myself and not be trapped by the system I must exceed it and become aware of it.

Roy Christopher's: Digital Natives and Their Digits

Roy Christopher talked to us today about his astonishment and predictions on technology. He stressed many important opinions of his own. 

What I believed was a strong statement he made was that he believed that adults should have more trust in the youth. After all the youth is the future and they deserve to have the trust of the older generations. That way instead of having to take the older generation's advances, we are able to create our own. We would end up developing technology, but it is only for our well-being.

Plus, technology is developing, however, it will not be achieved at an incredibly ridiculous speed. We will be able to keep up with the pace and technology won't be able to take over all of us. We will have to live by the motto, "Program or be Programmed". In that case, if we weaken our knowledge of technology, we will get to a point of confusion like that of the older people nowadays. They are often confused or misled by the advanced technologies because they allowed it to overpower them. If we don't learn now while we can, we may be the subject/experiment to the technology. Therefor, we'd be controlled by a cold, metal machine instead of controlling it.

Roy Christopher's points made an impact on me because he calmed down my worries of being left behind by the technologies that are being quickly developed. Although, I still believe that a world without such a great technological success would be a world of more intelligent people. The people would have to do everything for themselves and learn more about life as a human being, unlike when you go online and allow the computer to learn more about you.

Literature Analysis: The Cherry Orchard

Title: The Cherry Orchard
Author:Chekhov

1. In the play the protagonist Ranevvskaya is in distress after having both her husband and son die, and now she's about to lose her home. After the two first tragedies occurred she moved from her home to Paris and has since then decided to return, five years later. She ended up broke and can't pay her mortgage now because her kind heart always forced her to help the less fortunate. Loaphin, the man her step daughter Varya is in love with, wants her to turn her cherry orchards into summer cottages so that she can gain some money, but she refuses. In the end Loaphin is the one who ends up tearing down her cherry orchards and buying her estate which she and and Gayeff, her brother, grew up in.

2.The theme of the novel is if you were once at the bottom you will emerge to the top if you seek it. Just as Loaphin used to be the son of the men that were "owned" by the estate, now he owned the estate and the ones which lived there became peasants.

3.The tone differs throughout the play from sarcastic, to craziness, and silly.

• In the first act Ranevskaya hallucinates her mother walking around the orchard, after not having lived there for five years. "Look, our dear mother is walking through the orchard-- In a white dress! (Laughing happily) It's she." She became a little crazy after dealing with her return.
• When Loaphin tried to make fun of Trofimoff he had an "agreement" with what Ranevskaya was saying. " How clever you are, Petya. -- (ironically) Terribly."
• Charlotta and her future lover, Pishtchik were funny outgoing characters. "That's all. (Throwing the robe at Pishtchik curtseying and running into the ballroom.)--(Hurrying after her): You littole rascal- What a girl! What a girl!" They enjoyed each others company and had a great time being silly. 

4.

• I observed the diction and found that I enjoyed reading the play specifically because of the diction. In the passage Loaphin said, "But why are you so peevish, you queer duck?" I think that humorous concepts like a "queer duck" helped make me want to continue reading.
• Another technique that grabbed my attention was allusion. In a scene Loaphin is talking to Varya as if she as Ophelia from the play Hamlet. He says,"Achmelia, get thee to a nunnery... Achmelia, Oh nymph, in thine orisons be all my sins remember'd." Since we just memorized Hamlet's famous soliloquy it was nice to be able to make a connection.
• Also throughout the play there are an endless number of metaphors from each character said to another. For example, Trofimoff said, "(Tenderly): My little sun! My spring!" They compared themselves to the prettiest happiest objects.
• The setting was an important corporation to the understanding of the play because it described the foreign place to me in Russia and let me adapt to their lifestyles. It allowed me to view the changes of environment that a person can go through from crossing over from one culture to another.
• The varying tone helped illustrate the moods that everyone was in in each scene. I could picture the illusive Gayeff muttering about random things that nobody understood. He was always so happy and cheerful. Unlike Varya who wouldn't stats moping around about how Loaphin hadn't proposed to her yet. There was a different aura given off from each character.

Tools That Change The Way We Think

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

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

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

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





My Opinion: Technology's advancements over the years have evolved rapidly and only made "positive" changes to our society, or so it's often thought. Personally, I believe that having developed such a large amount of power to devices that we aren't experts with, is a scary concept to grasp. When I sit to try and start my homework I go off into the world of wonders that the internet provides for me and lose all my train of thought. It's somewhat mind-boggling how anyone can achieve any work while using technology. Although, it certainly does provide an easier strategy for us to make any progress, considering we can subtract any type of serious thought process that we would regularly need. It has gotten to such an extreme point that at times i'll sit in front of the screen hoping that my homework would do itself and that way I could be all the more lazy. It's not healthy for students, or anyone at that, to be leaving all the "hard" work for the computer, cellphone, etc. to do for them. Our brains are being cooped up because some people decide to use theirs a little too much and invent new stuff.
I think that our society isn't ready or responsible enough to handle all that's heading our way. If it were to continue on the path that we've been on, technology may form itself into the most powerful form of life. It's frightening to think that once we give them the power to do the thinking for us we're going to end up in a black pit of shame and failure.

Notes on Hamlet

Hamlet seemed, to me as a nice man that wanted to do the right thing and that felt as if he had no other choice but to get revenge for his dad's death. His character seemed genuine as he became involved with Ophelia's character and he fell in love. To me he seemed like the ideal man in distress but as the play continued, I started noticing that I had misjudged his character. He wasn't friendly or loving as he was in the beginning. Now he is just thinking of Claudius' death and making sure he goes to hell. He doesn't want to spare his soul, just as he didn't spare his father's soul. Even so, I think that he has taken everything to an extreme that is unhealthy for him. Instead of actually committing a terrible act, he should just unveil him to the people so they can see what kind of monster they are dealing with. I highly doubt he'll do that though, he has taken a turn for the worst and is determined to kill and sink Claudius to the ground. I think that Hamlet is going to make a dumb decision that will lead to an even dumber action and end up hurting him in the end.

"Who Was Shakespeare"

William Shakespeare was born in 1564, and baptized April 26th 1564. It is believed that he was born the 23rd three days before his baptism.He was the third child of John and Mary Shakespeare out of seven. From all seven, five survived to adulthood. William's father was said to be a town official of Stratford and a local businessman who dabbled in tanning, leatherwork and whittawering which is working with white leather to make items like purses and gloves. John also dealt in grain and sometimes was described as a glover by trade.The evidence proves William existed but not that he was a playwright nor an actor nor a poet. In fact recently some academics who call themselves the Oxfords argue that Stratford's celebrated playwright did not write any of the plays attributed to him. They suggest that he was merely a businessman and propose several contenders for authorship, namely an Edward de Vere.


We don't really know much that is concrete proof of who William Shakespeare was because of the lack of records that had anything worth knowing. We believe that we know, he was and author, playwright, and poet, but we can't say we know for sure. I personally believe that he was all of those because of the context within his plays. He seems like he was at some point betrayed, love struck, and thinking of life or lack of it after death. Those are all mutual feelings between the works that have been written by him, assuming that what we have been taught is correct.

I think that as soon as students hear the name "Shakespeare" they either whine, get upset, or are frightened by the thought. His works have been written in such a foreign diction to us that we dread having to interpret it ourselves and getting it wrong. The worst part of this situation is that we will never really know what the true meaning behind his words was. When reading it as a class and stopping to discuss and interpret the scenes, the play Hamlet isn't difficult to comprehend. But once we are set loose to figure out the meaning on our own, the diction presents itself as a problem. I did learn to understand his famous soliloquy and I wouldn't have been able to do that before.

http://absoluteshakespeare.com/trivia/biography/shakespeare_biography.htm

" To Facebook or Not to Facebook"

I usually log onto my Facebook account worry-free. I mean it has always had privacy settings available for the user that's supposed to give us control over our profile, right? Isn't that supposed to comfort us? Apparently that's all it really does. Facebook has given us the impression that  we have control over our settings and users that can view our profile. However, they happen to exclude the fact that they are like our own personal virus/hacker that explores all of our account and exploits the users.It's no longer the friendly network of connections with the friends once it starts being manipulated by a machine.
They are detecting what we 'like" and expect to make a comfortable environment for us to agree and deceive us of the reality. In the real world, we won't all see eye-to-eye. Instead we will debate, argue, and have plenty disagreements on our points of view. This molded world that's constructed to fit our personal character is giving us the wrong impressions that will only ultimately backfire on all the users who are vulnerable to the Facebook corporation. Being gullible can be the weakness least fit to survive in the world of Facebook.
My opinion changed dramatically after having read the article, "Why Facebook is After Your Kids". They gave us numbers and ages which gives the full effect of what really is going on and to what extremes it has gotten to. Now I see that we are seen as an object in the eyes of  Facebook. We're being sold as if we were any possession that has a price to it.

"(Don't) Be Hamlet"

Sometimes hardships and dilemmas send people to the border of insanity. This can eventually affect their abilities to make wise decisions and allow them to contemplate committing suicide. Hamlet was a living (figuratively speaking) example of such a scenario. In his soliloquy he describes his pain and frustrations on not being able to end his life fearing that he would go against God's will and at the same time if he were to continue with his life he might end up murdering his uncle/step-dad, which would end as a sin as well. From my point of view, I believe that in committing suicide he would only end up letting Claudius get his way. It's be a smarter, much wiser decision to actually keep his life and not be so cowardice.

Hamlet is not able to fully function because of the complexity of his situation. His dad just died, his uncle/step-dad is an evil man whom is to blame for his father's death and he's trying to satisfy God and not become a sinner. In his mind no choice would necessarily be the "easy way out". For him, if he decides to end with his life God will look down on him and not let him enter heaven, instead he'd be in a world of emptiness and nothingness. He expresses this by saying, "For in that sleep of death what dreams may come/ When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,/ Must give us pause." He isn't sure about what awaits him after he's dead and gone. On the other hand he's debating on keeping his life, knowing that if he does he'll end up murdering Claudius.

From my perspective, Hamlet would be a fool to commit suicide. He would not only let himself down, he would let his father down as well. He must remember why he is contemplating suicide instead of acting on that thought. His father's death won't be avenged or brought out to the public, if he does decide to kill himself. I think that in order to let his dad's soul rest in peace, he must stop thinking such ridiculous thoughts and actually do something that would help his cause. Hamlet doesn't have to kill the man, just let the public know what a wicked man he is and by that alone he could gain more than he ever imagined. He'd be the "bigger" man that the plebeians look up to.

Hamlet's considerations are dramatic and pointless. Instead of wasting his time on thinking about death he must help resolve the death of his father, that he so much admired. I think that all the actions that took place after his dad's murder, have driven him off the charts and turned him into a slightly psychotic man. That is why he is not capable of making wise decisions and is just trying to find an easy escape.