Chinua Achebe

I'm looking forward to reading Things Fall Apart, not only because it's an easy read, but also it seems like it's a good follow up to Grapes. Just from knowing the title and reading the back, I can tell that it will be about change that disrupts groups and the deterioration of classes. This book, I noticed, is also set up in a different way like Grapes was. It has two parts, describing two different people and how their situations are alike. I'm looking forward to finding out more about these tribes and groups.

Like always, I like to have some information about the author before I start reading. I did some research and this is what I found:

• Born in Nigeria in 1930.
• He was raised in the large village of Ogidi, one of the first centers of Anglican missionary work in Eastern Nigeria.
• A graduate of University College, Ibadan.
• He had a career in radio but he ended it to lecture abroad for the University of Nigeria, Nsukka during the Biafran War.
• From 1972-1976, he became a professor of English at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and also for one year at the University of Connecticut.
• The London Sunday Times called him one of the "1,000 Makers of the Twentieth Century" for defining "a modern African literature that was truly African".
• Aside from novels, he has also written short stories, essays, and children's books.

Don't read this if you haven't finished Grapes

WHAT THE HECK?!?!?
The ending of The Grapes of Wrath was terrible! You don't find anything out!! I have so many questions!

What happened to Tom?
What happened to the family? Did they die like everyone else?
Why would Rose of Sharon breast feed an old man?
Does Al marry Aggie?
What are the rest of Uncle John's sins?
What exactly does the title mean?
What does Rose of Sharon's name mean?
What does Tom represent?

The story just literally leaves you hanging and that kills me! I really wanted to know if the Joads made it through or not. Besides the ending, I absolutely loved the Grapes of Wrath. The biggest reason why I liked it was because of the inter-chapters and its social criticism. Steinbeck's voice was is so strong in those chapters and his opinions are as well very strong. I liked that he found something he strongly disagreed with and he criticized it in a creative way. I can see why this book was so controversial, but that is what makes it so good. This book is honestly my favorite book we have read this year:)

the lenses of literature

I liked the lesson we did today in lit about all the different viewpoints of literature. Not only did it help me, but it was also actually really interesting. I always wondered how a literary critic started talking or analyzing a novel. I wouldn't know where to start! It makes much more sense that people take a standpoint or look into a certain 'lens' of literature.

The theories I liked most, or agreed with the most, was the psychological theory and the formalism theory. I think these are the ones I am most used to, but they are the ones that make the most logical sense to me. I think to truly understand a novel, you should analyze the tone, setting, plot, and symbols, which, to me, are the most important parts of a novel. I also think it is important to focus on characterization and to sort of 'psycho-analyze' the characters of a novel, in order to discover the motivations, mental states, and desires of that character. The best stories to me, are the ones that focus on characters and really make them realistic. Take, for example, The Office. Each and every character can be related to and at least one time during the show, you can relate to a character. That is what makes the show so much fun. The idea of a show about an office isn't that exciting, but the fact that the characters are so real makes it interesting and fun to watch.

Hamlet and Prufrock?

Yes, "The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock" is Mrs. Clinch's all-time favorite poem, but what does it mean? And why does it mention Hamlet?

"No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two,
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
Almost, at times, the Fool."

After reading it a second time and not being as lost as last year in Mrs. Clinch's class, I think I have an idea of what Eliot might be saying. It is obvious that Prufrock is a bit of a dork, with his balding head and his thin arms and legs. Eliot contrasts Prufrock with Hamlet to show his weakness and his insecurities. Hamlet is this great prince who defends himself and is popular. Prufrock is the complete opposite of that. He is self-conscious about the way he looks and he feels, "almost, at times, the Fool". He says he never could have been like Hamlet. He could have been a servant, to advise the prince, but he does not have the looks or charm or wit that Hamlet does.

Is Hamlet in Love?

Does Hamlet really love Ophelia? Did they have sex? Does Hamlet know that Ophelia betrayed her along with his parents? All these questions ran through all of our heads while we acted out our scenes and watched the different versions. Here's what I think:

I think that Hamlet is a smart ass and knew the whole time. I think he loves to be sarcastic and play with people's minds, almost to the point where it's hard to follow. There are so many word plays, especially in the scenes when he is talking to Polonius, Guildenstern, and Rosencrantz. It seems almost obvious that he knows when he says, "I am but mad north-north-west. When the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw" (Shakespeare 79). He's basically saying 'I am mad because I know what is going on'. I think Hamlet is extremely smart but not alot of the other characters know that or catch on to his intelligence.

As for the Ophelia-Hamlet love thing, I think that they did have sex and I feel like he found out half way through act 3 scene1 that Laertes and Polonius were watching. The version we watched today (I forgot the name of it) portrayed it the best to me. (the one with the mirrors). I thought it was realistic because I feel like, if they really did have sex and they did love each other, then they would have had that much passion and feelings for each other. Even though the actor playing Hamlet was a little much, I thought he did a good job at portraying Hamlet's feelings and emotions.

GOW

I'm half way through The Grapes of Wrath and I am absolutely loving it. Not only is the story line interesting but the inter-chapters are so metaphorical and powerful! It's like Steinbeck is actually talking to you through these chapters. I think it's really cool that someone who was really opinionated about the Dust Bowl wrote a book so that we can get a first hand account of what actually happened. Everything feels so real and true.

My favorite inter-chapter was chapter 14 because I related to it so much. It really blew my mind when I read it because I agreed so much with it. My favorite line is, "fear the time when Manself will not suffer and die for a concept, for this one quality is the foundation of Manself, and this one quality is man, distinctive in the universe" (Steinbeck 151). I think what Steinbeck is saying here is that you should not fear revolt, change, or revolution, but you should fear the time when people do not change and people do not stand up for themselves and fight for a cause. I related that to today because I feel like it is important that our country defends themselves and that is exactly what we are doing. We have people fighting and dying for a cause and I truly think that is what makes mankind.

To like or not to like?

That is the question! I really enjoyed watching the different versions of Hamlet. Personally, I liked the Mel Gibson version better, but I think they both had their strengths and weaknesses.

The BBC version, to me, was just a little bit too much. I know it's Shakespeare and it's supposed to be dramatic, but I found it hard to imagine Hamlet punching himself in the face and acting dilusional. I thought Mel Gibson's version did a better job at portraying Hamlet's change at the end of scene 5. Other things I noticed was that there was no background, there is the use of fog, and it is the most true to the script. I also thought the appearance of the ghost was really good because it was true with its armor. However, I think that the ghost rushed some of his lines and he didn't seem very fatherly, he seemed more scary.

The most important reason why I liked the Mel Gibson version better was because there was simply more movement. It wasn't just in one spot like the BBC version. There was background, different shots and views, and there was music involved, which I think makes a movie 10 times better. Even though this version wasn't as true to the script, I thought it was more realistic and it was choppier. It showed the scene with the party, when the other version did not. I liked the character of Hamlet because he seemed the most real and his reactions weren't too over the top. The ghost was also really good except for his clothing, I thought he should have been in more armor. I liked the ghost's emotion and he just looked older and grayer, more like what a ghost would look like.

Overall I really liked these different portrayals of Hamlet and they added to my understanding of the novel.

What I think of Hamlet

So far Hamlet has proved a challenge for me. It's really difficult to get used to the language when reading The Grapes of Wrath at the same time. It's like going from one vernacular to the next and my brain is spinning! Even though TGOW is longer, I feel like it is easier to read. With Hamlet or any shakespeare play, I have to take my time and concentrate on every word. Sometimes this is frustrating because the acts are so small but it's taking up so much of my time! However, I do really respect the fact that Shakespeare's connotation of words have several meanings and they can totally change the way you read it. I think that adds to the play and the meaning over all.

Other than the language, I'm really enjoying the story line. Mrs. Clinch was right, it really is like a medieval soap opera! I had a feeling that Claudius had something to do with King Hamlet's death. And I also have a feeling that something was going on between Claudius and Gertrude before Hamlet's death. I feel really bad for Hamlet right now. I would be just as sad and mad if my parents and uncle were doing that! I really respect Hamlet's character too (so far). He loves his father, he respects his mother even though he knows what she is doing is wrong, and he is not okay with what his uncle is doing.

I thought scene 4 was really intense, especially the part when Hamlet gets to talk to his father's ghost. I have so many questions about it. Like is the ghost telling the truth or is it lying? Did the ghost tell Hamlet to kill Claudius? What about his mother? Does he want revenge on her as well? I hope these questions will be answered soon and I can't wait to discuss more of the play!