Getting Into Character

As I listened to this radio show from This American Life, I realized how well it could connect to an analysis I read by Northrop Frye. The former spoke about the contrast between judging from actions and judging from character, having in mind Hamlet and Claudius. The radio show gave a glimpse of a prison production of Hamlet. What made the prison production so credible and real was the relationship the actors felt with their character. James Ward was asked if the reason he could play laertes so well was because so much of Laertes was inside of him, to which he replied, " I am Laertes, I am. I am." 
There was a direct relationship between the personal guilt of the actors and the guilt their characters were conveying.The prisoner who played King Hamlet even confessed that as he read the lines,  he was "the body up there" but the words were mostly coming from the man he killed, William Pride.  Here I found a similarity between the essay's thesis and the prisoners. Each prisoner, as well as Claudius, "is someone of great potential fatally blocked by something he has done and can never undo." Northrop speaks of the common assumption that what you've done is what you'll ever be. But this generalization is not shared by most prisoners. They see themselves as people who reached the lowest point of their life, and now only wish to come out of it and see how high they can get. They want to reach their full potential but feel their bad deeds are keeping them from reaching their maximum. They want defy the common generalization, seeking to be judged for their character, not for their actions. 

Little Hamlet

In the critical essay by Earnest Jones, it is stated that the psychological understanding of Hamlet's personality and behavior is a case of insanity. It wasn't in Shakespeare's intent to regard Hamlet as insane, but that is how us readers often interpret him. As seen in Sigmund Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams, Hamlet suffers from psychoneurosis. According to Jones, "psychoneurosis means a state of mind where the person is unduly, and often painfully, driven or thwarted by the 'unconscious' part of his mind." One can relate this statement to Hamlet. His father's brutal murder gave action to his insanity. His thirst for revenge pushed Hamlet to manifest his emotions through desperate and impulsed actions. Hamlet's repressed childhood can explain the real reason behind him murdering his uncle. If as a child, "sane" Hamlet resented his father for taking some of his mother's affection, and secretly wished him out of the way, as years went by, these thoughts would be repressed and all traces of them "obliterated." But if "insane" Hamlet thought of such things as a child, then as the years went by, these thoughts would remain with him and therefore, explain his actions. If what Hamlet wanted was his mother's affection, then his father's death was only an excuse (even though it was first the cause) for his uncle's murder, leaving the audience with a feeling of pity and sympathy at the end of the play.  

Hamlet as a Dionysian man

According to Friedrich Nietzsche, Hamelet resembles the Dionysian man. Both gain knowledge, but refuse to take action, "for their action could not change anything in the eternal nature of things." (Nietzsche, 39) On the contrary, the Apolonian man would "take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing them end them." (Hamlet, 3:1:67-68) I do not agree with Nietsche that Hamlet represents the Dionysian man. When Hamlet is told the truth about his father's death, that it was his uncle who killed him and now is marrying his mother, he turns against his uncle. This shows how he, as the Apolonian man, strives to "set right a world that is out of joint." (Nietsche, 39) Here, in a desperate seek for revenge, Hamlet finds a motive for his actions. Even though Hamlet realizes that "action could not change anything in the eternal nature of things", meaning his father's death was something irreversible, he believes it is his destiny, the reason he was born. Therefore, I disagree with Nietsche's position that Hamlet is a Dionysian man.

Dehumanization- The Road

When I began to read Cormac McCarthy's novel The Road, I asked myself if it could be considered deumanization. As I continued reading, I reached to the conclusion that it defenitely was. 

de·hu·man·ize  (d-hym-nz)

tr.v. de·hu·man·ized, de·hu·man·iz·ing, de·hu·man·iz·es

1. To deprive of human qualities such as individuality, compassion, or civility.

The lack of individuality is showen in the book in a very obvious example. McCarthy refuses to name his characters, leaving them as the man, the son, the boy and so on, for his readers. This clearly contributes to the lack of individuality. No names, No identity. It's like they even lost the right to be called by a name. Compassion, as well as civility, are lost in the novel. The bad guys mainly, are the ones who demonstrate it better, doing everything they can to survive, not minding about others well being. A combination of these make The Road a novel that deals with dehumanization, as result of the desperation the characters must face in their post-apocalipic world.

Carrying The Fire- The Road

Towards the end of the book, as the man is dying and his son accompanies him, they have a conversation that caught my attention. 

"You have to carry the fire.

I don't know how to.

Yes you do.

Is it real? The fire?

Yes it is.

Where is it? I dont know where it is.

Yes you do. It's inside you. It was always there. I can see it."

234

The fire the man talks about, so passionately, is a symbol of hope, purity and enlightenment. He strongly believes the boy has the fire inside of him, meaning that he is the hope of humanity. The boy who carries the fire represents what is left of good nature, innocence, humbleness and purity. Throughout the novel we see cases where the boy feels the need to help others and is constantly asking for assurance of whether they're still the good guys. The enlightenment theory is derived from greek mythology that represent fire as enlightenment or knowledge. What his father is trying to tell him by "you have to carry the fire... It's inside you", is that he must never give up on his morality, because it's people like him who can save the world, save humanity (McCarthy, 234).

McCarthy meets Darwin- The Road

Social darwinism is understood as the theory of social selection that attempts to justify the success of some social groups over others. This laissez faire based theory is also called 'survival of the fittest', meaning that only the best adapted survive in times of conflict. In McCarthy's The Road, there is a constant reminder of this theory. A clear example of this is the division between good guys and bad guys.

He (The Boy) sat there cowled in the blanket. After a while he looked up. Are we still the good guys? he said.

[The Man:] Yes. We're still the good guys.

[The Boy:] And we always will be.

[The Man:] Yes. We always will be.


[The Boy:] Okay. (McCarthy, 120)

This conversation between the boy and his father occurs after the conflict experienced with a man (road-rat), in which the father ends up killing him. The conversation above demonstrates the different kinds of groups living in the same environment. The bad guys portray a negative, yet dominating image of people, while the father and his son represent humbleness. In a devastated world such as the one they live in, it is only logical that this 'survival of the fittest' will emerge. In this case, the fittest is the one that can obtain more food supply. In order to do this, you have to become selfish. Only care about your survival, what you are going to eat. Take the cannibals for example, their life revolves around the saying “the end justifies the means”. This is exactly what separates the social groups in The Road. There are the ones who don't mind killing and eating humans as long as they get fed, and there are the ones who won't let go of their beliefs and will not even consider hurting an innocent one. The problem is, when it comes down to the end of the world, which one is more useful?

21st Century- The Road

So, I was searching for new music on youtube and I stumbled upon this music video. The Goddess Willow Smith does an incredible job portraying dangers in such an artistic and original manner. In order to honor this multitalented girl, I decided to make a comparative analysis with , The Road having in mind the scenario and the lyrics. So lets begin! 


The video commences with a lady, rather old and mysterious, straying through a desert like path. She finds a bone resting in the lifeless sand and, surprised by her finding, quickly begins a ritual resulting in the reviving of Willow Smith. The desert, as well as the road in The Road, represent a remaining path that humans created by engendering destruction. Until this point, we only see a lifeless and abandoned world. Further on in the video, Smith begins to rise skyscrapers and roads that were underground, covered by the desert sand. As she does this, she sings "21st Century Girl, I do what i like" and "21st Century Girl, yeah, I'm gonna live it up, just live it up". Clearly, this is the most important message the viewer has to absorb. She is telling us we are in the 21st century, we only do what we like and live it up. Now, I'm sure this sounds exciting and completely harmless but, when you incorporate the video scenes where she's trying to build up the world again, you understand this is actually a wake up call. McCarthy also uses his novel as a wake up call to humans, encouraging us to preserve what we have and not "live it up". 


She continues the song as follows. "I set the boundaries The rules don't own me I'm living life on the edge, I choose my path". What she is trying to tell us with these powerful words is that us humans tend to believe the rules don't apply to us and that we are invincible. Specially adolescents believe this, and as her song title states, we are living in the 21st century. The future of the world are presently teenagers. If we continue with the mentality of acknowledging we are "on the edge" but do nothing about it, we are doomed. But she doesn't let this mentality take over her, for she ends the song with a heroic phrase: "It's that new girl thinking and this song is just the start!". Again, she is telling us that this generation, the new kids, have to take action and responsibility for the future of our earth. She is taking action by communicating the message through her song. That is the first step. The rest is up to us if we don't want to end up striving for our survival in the road.

*Please note my love for Willow Smith and her video is purely sarcastic.