Shrek the Third

You may be wondering why my newspaper articles are late. The truth is, I was watching Shrek the Third. Oh, and my computer wouldn't start up. But back to Shrek the Third. I've seen this movie several times, and having just read The Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley (see ISU #2), I couldn't help but make some connections:

#1: When King Harold falls ill, he tells Shrek that there is one other heir who can become the new King of Far Far Away: his nephew, ARTHUR PENDRAGON!!!!
#2: When Shrek, Donkey, and Puss in Boots arrive at Worcestershire Academy to find "Artie", they find that he is used as a punching bag by the school Jousting Team, led by LANCELOT DE LAC!!!
#3: When Shrek announces to the Academy (during a costume contest or such) that Arthur is to be King, Arthur picks up the courage to tell off everyone who has ever been mean to him, and admits his love to GWENHWYFAR who is sitting in the crowd (and just happens to say "Eww" when he does so)
#4: On the way back to Far Far Away, Donkey and Puss in Boots scare Arthur with their ramblings of the responsibilities of being a king, and Arthur inadvertently crashes the ship into an island, where they meet Arthur's retired wizard teacher, MERLIN!!!

I wonder now if there are even more connections, so I'm off to see when Shrek the Third will be playing again, so I can analyze it more thoroughly. :)

Betrayal, The Male's Perspective

On Monday, December 15th, 2008, at approximately 10:09AM, Mr. P. Murray's ENG4UE-01 class listened to the arguments involving Gertrude's betrayal of her husband and son. Judging this debate were Ms. Megan Marshall, Ms. Stephanie Wilson, and Ms. Jayme Bedell. On the affirmative side, Adam Young, Matt Brown, and Stu Gendron argued that Gertrude did indeed betray her husband and son. On the negative side, Jon Hughes-khatib, Tyler Keith, and Alex van der Mout argued that Gertrude did not betray old and young Hamlet.
Opening arguments saw affirmative debater Adam Young defining betrayal as deception. Mr. Young argued that "without trust, love is not possible", and therefor Gertrude did not even love her family, as she did not trust young Hamlet's actions, plotting to spy on Hamlet with Claudius and Polonius. The negative debater Tyler Keith counter-argued that Hamlet only feels betrayed because Gertrude re-married so quickly (she could have simply moved on quickly). Mr. Keith also argued that Gertrude could not have betrayed her family because the Ghost of old Hamlet begged young Hamlet not to harm his mother because she is not at fault. He further argued that Gertrude could have grieved off-stage, and re-married only to solidify Hamlet's position to the throne.
Rebuttals saw members of the affirmative side arguing that there is no grieving present by Gertrude. Hamlet even goes so far to make a fool of her with the use of his play, and she does nothing but shrug it off. The affirmative side also argued that Gertrude did truly betray her family, and continued to by telling Claudius of Hamlet's insanity. The negative side quickly counter-stated that Gertrude is obviously telling Claudius of Hamlet's insanity so that he may go to school, and plays along with Hamlet so that Claudius thinks not of him as a threat. The negative side continued to oppose the arguments of the affirmative side by taking Mr. Young's definition of betrayal and stating that since there is no deception between Hamlet and Gertrude, there is no betrayal.
Second arguments saw affirmative debater Stu Gendron insisting that Gertrude did not care for Hamlet because she did not mourn his death. He continued this plea by arguing that the play about Hamlet's death did not affect her, therefore her betrayal is obvious. Negative debater Alex van der Mout ignored the affirmative side's repetitive pleas by stating that the Ghost knew Gertrude meant no harm, so it is obvious there is not betrayal on her part. Mr. van der Mout also mentioned that at the time of this Shakespearean play, men did not have to tell their wives of what they did, so Gertrude was likely unaware of Claudius' murderous acts.
To counter this argument, the affirmative side argued that a hallucination (Hamlet's ghost) should not be a basis of argument, because they are not real). The negative side ignored this statement and continued to insist that betrayal is not linked to deception, and that the Queen was not saddened by the play because she did not make the connection. Mr. Hughes-khatib ended the second rebuttal by stating, "We have a Jehovah's Witness, a Mormon, and me on this team - we don't lie."
The free-for-all showed the male's perspectives on this debate, as Mr. Keith opened with a dramatic monologue, which was followed by Mr. Keith winning a sword fight against Mr. Young, and Mr. Hughes-khatib winning a sword fight against Mr. Gendron. Where no authentic arguments were made, Shakespearean insults were thrown left and right, in a disinteresting round.
Final arguments saw the affirmative debater Matt Brown insisting that Gertrude is nothing but selfish throughout the play, marrying only for her own wealth. He further concluded that Gertrude has indeed betrayed young Hamlet by calling him crazy. Negative debater Jon Hughes-khatib countered by correcting Mr. Brown, saying "marrying for wealth is selfish, not betrayal." He continued on to say that Gertrude even shows her care about Hamlet's mental health, caring for him as a whole. Gertrude, he argued, sacrificed herself by drinking poison so Hamlet would not drink it.
Final rebuttals saw repetition of all previous statements. The debate concluded at 10:54AM, when the judges announced the negative side as the winners, due to Mr. Keith's monologue, and many sword fighting wins. The affirmative side lost, although they pointed out more fallacies. Overall, the debate on betrayal gave many male perspectives of both sides of the argument.

A Shaky Performance

On Thursday, December 11th, 2008, students in Mr. P. Murray's ENG4UE-01 class witnessed a shaky performance in debating. At around 1:25PM in Room 204 at Rockland District High School, Judges Seth Epps, Colton Bissonnette, and Logan Lubuk evaluated the affirmative and negative sides of the debate that distinguished modern and Shakespearean tragedy. On the affirmative side, Dawson Lybbert, Justin Sweeney-Cadieux, and Ben Cousins argued that modern tragedy is better than Shakespearean, whereas on the negative side, Stephanie MacDonald, Stephanie Boucher, and Rebecca Ritchie argued that Shakespearean tragedy trumps modern.
Opening arguments saw little factual information from the affirmative side, as they quickly dissolved under the heat in the classroom (and heat due to the knowledge that loss would be imminent). The negative side quickly demonstrated an appeal to flattery, revealing t-shirts under their sweaters, each having a judge's name within a heart drawn onto it. Debater Stephanie Boucher argued that Shakespearean tragedy involves protagonists that are larger than life, and take extreme action. Readers easily reach catharsis in Shakespearean tragedy, whereas in modern tragedy, readers have difficulties doing so.
Rebuttals saw the affirmative side reproaching Ms. Boucher for speaking too fast, as well as stating dully that modern tragedy is better than Shakespearean because it is more civilized. The affirmative quickly counter-stated that modern tragedy is not always civilized, but is always simplified. In simplifying the tragedy, the affirmative side argued that context could easily be lost, concluding that Shakespearean tragedy fits all tragedies, whereas modern tragedies do not.
The second round of arguments saw the affirmative side cracking sexist jokes, as well as many blond jokes targeting the negative team's debaters. Second arguments saw disorganization among the affirmative side, giving many repetitive examples of "new" tragedy being better than "old" tragedy. The negative side lost much of their oompf, slowing down their fast-paced arguments to sink to the level of repetition best-portrayed by affirmative debater Dawson Lybbert.
The rebuttals following the second round were weak and disorganized, leading up to a free-for-all with much screaming and little information.
The debate finally concluded at around 2:40 PM, with no closing arguments that supported both side's positions.
The negative side won with a score of 24 points, stamping out the 4 points awarded to the affirmative side.

Activity 1.6

It is obvious that the motivation for Hamlet's transformation is the death of his father, King Hamlet, and the events that surround his mysterious death (including the actual commitment of murder on Claudius' part, as well as the all-too-hasty marriage of his mother Gertrude to young Hamlet's uncle.
The transformation of Hamlet is shown in many different ways:
Actions: The dramatic changes in Hamlet's actions greatly back up Hamlet's transformation. He goes from being gentle and loving at one moment (touching Ophelia's face and pronouncing his love) and then becoming a murderous wreck (killing Polonius and using the excuse that he thought it was Claudius).
Appearance: The comparison of his actions at the beginning of the play and his actions at the end of the play is possibly the best way to map out Hamlet's transformation. He evidently goes from being normal and grieving, to murderous and unyielding.
Feelings: Emotion is a strong driving-force for Hamlet's transformation. All the hate and anger that Hamlet feels towards almost everyone brings out the worst in him, changing him into something rude and villainous.
Speech: Hamlet possesses a naturally convincing way of speaking, that is both powerful and captivating. This is perhaps exemplified best when he speaks extravagantly of what the actors on stage are attempting to put across.
Thoughts: A very self-explanatory example of Hamlet's transformation, his suicidal and homicidal thoughts are something to be left undesired.
These transformations, however biased, are observed differently by people close and distant to him:
Claudius: Having only fully realized Hamlet's transformation at the time of the play, Claudius used Hamlet's insanity as a cover-up for his obvious murderous act. In short, Claudius viewed all of Hamlet's transformations as madness.
Gertrude: Until she confronts him, Gertrude believes Hamlet to be completely sane. It is only after their meeting that she comes to believe that his transformations have lead him to insanity, as he is seeing things (the Ghost in his mother's room).
Horatio: Throughout the play, Horatio was aware of Hamlet's act and realized that he was NOT in fact insane, and that the transformations of Hamlet weren't as drastic as others believed. Horatio accepted his best friend's changes, even though Hamlet's thoughts were murderous and mischievous at times.
Ophelia: Having killed her father, Ophelia is forced to believe that Hamlet's transformations are indeed malicious and he is in fact insane. However, Ophelia lives in denial for the majority of the play, as she loves Hamlet so, and does not wish to believe that he has changed in the way others think him to have changed.

Activity 1.4: The Argumentative Essay

Thesis: Do Hamlet's actions and words prove his own lack of sanity?
Reason: Yes, literally.
Example: In Shakespearean literature, an insane character exhibits behavior that goes against societal norms, sometimes endangering those around them or even themselves.
Example: His soliloquies, which are based off of death and tragedy... not something so openly talked about by a sane person at that time. (3.1.64-98)
Reason: Yes, clinically/psychologically/medically...
Example: Hamlet exhibits traits characteristic to mania and schizophrenia, as well as bipolar disorder and several other psychotic disorders.
Example: Hamlet's grief sets in so deeply that his thoughts of sorrow and suicide get the better of him, fueling his hate and drive for revenge. (within 3.1.64-98)
Reason: Yes, legally.
Example: Hamlet cannot be held responsible for his actions because he is legally insane, showing know appreciation of the nature and quality of his wrong-doing.

Activity 1.4

Activity 1.3

The constructed reality of the play is as follows:

• Hamlet, King of Denmark, has just passed away.
• Queen Gertrude, widow of the late King Hamlet, marries Claudius (King Hamlet's brother)
• Hamlet has visions of the ghost of his dead father, and is asked to seek revenge for his murder.
• Hamlet is thought to be mad.
• Repressed feelings burst forth when the relationship between Ophelia and Hamlet is unaccepted.

Each character translates this reality into his/her own, influencing their final outcome.

Hamlet: While grieving the loss of his father, Prince Hamlet meets the ghost of his deceased father, who begs of him to seek revenge. Hamlet agrees to this most willingly. After toying with Ophelia's emotions, murdering several people, and frightening his mother with his crazed actions, Hamlet dies at the hands of Laertes and his poisoned foil.
Laertes: Laertes has a strong love for his family, and when both Ophelia and Polonius are taken away from him, he feels the need to exact revenge on Prince Hamlet. After long consideration, Laertes and Claudius agree to having Laertes challenge Hamlet to a mock fight, using a poisoned foil. He thus kills Hamlet, but is in turn killed himself.
Claudius: The cause of his brother's death, Claudius attempts several times to eliminate the threat of Prince Hamlet (exiling him, plotting to kill with a poisoned foil, attempting to kill with poisoned wine). Being the one to produce the conflict within the play, it is only right that he becomes the one that later puts end to the lives of many of the characters within the play, including himself. Claudius, by attempting to murder young Hamlet, causes the death of his dear Gertrude, as well as himself.
Gertrude: After the mysterious death of her husband, King Hamlet, Gertrude remarries Claudius (for reasons unknown to us). Noting the strangeness of her son's behavior, she seems to follow along with Claudius' plans, but still appears to somewhat care for her son. In the end, agreeing to follow Claudius' directions leads her to drink from the cup of poisoned wine, dying.
Ophelia: Ophelia's reality is a bitter one; she loses two men she loves so dearly: her love Hamlet, and her father Polonius. The loss of these two important figures in her personal life might well be what triggered her mysterious death, as she became confused as to who to trust and accept.
Polonius: Throughout the play, Polonius shows nothing but hatred towards Hamlet, due to the fact that he is so madly in love with his daughter Ophelia. Being a councilor to King Claudius, he is more than willing to attend to his plans and pushes the plot against Prince Hamlet forward. Had he not been so willing to please Claudius (by agreeing to hide behind curtains in Gertrude's room to eavesdrop on her conversation with young Hamlet), he would not have been murdered so brutally by Hamlet, who mistook him for Claudius.

Importance of the family unit to society:
I believe that it is important to have a strong family unit in society. Many of the social skills that we need are learned from family members. However, for a family unit to be successful and of any value, it is necessary for there to be love, caring, understanding, and a positive environment for learning. To learn the necessary social skills to be considered "normal" among others, a secure family unit is necessary, to teach these social skills and other skills of importance. A family must be secure, comfortable, and consistent, so that it is easier to learn, and one can become or attentive in a positive environment.