Jail

People tend to do things better when they can relate to that something in a personal way. A tennis player can write, and make a good essay about tennis, while an inmate serving 120 years for assault, can easily write an essay about it even if he never finished high school. Hamlet is the story about death, and a mixed series of revengeful actions. This practically defines the lives of a lot of the inmates making it, not easier, but more realistic when the time comes to act.

Having criminals playing as criminals allows us to understand them better as well as the play. For one, by interviewing a man who took someone's life, it is easier to figure out what has happening in the mind of someone like Cornelius. These inmates show what it is like to take another man's life and then having to live with the aftermath of those actions until their life is over. By interviewing them, it's the same as if talking to the real Hamlet who was at one point dying for revenge.

The best thing about having inmates to meet is their variety. This means that every inmate has at least one available idea to every part of Hamlet's speeches. Hamlet questions if he is truly the one that has to kill his uncle and live with the idea of taking the life of another man. There is an inmate for that. If Hamlet is just raging in love for Ophelia, there is an inmate for that. And even when Hamlet has killed and is suffering for the remainder of his life in agony, there is an inmate for that.

There was one inmate that caught my attention that decided to relate himself to Cornelius. He had taken a man's life, and he described it as "the ghost of Hamlet's father was speaking to me through the pages." This meant that he had killed him before his time had come, and he was therefore forced to live in another world, and look at the things happening not being able to do a thing about it. That is what made him a criminal: having stopped someone's life before he was done living, and therefore altering the natural course of the actions that could have made the dead man far more useful in the world.

The last thing that caught my attention was the idea that the inmates have to show their light side if they want to act in the play. The first reason is that this play relates to them so much, that even though they can act it out as a tough person, they will have to lighten up if they want to actually understand it and reflect upon it in order to get themselves thinking about themselves as part of the play. Second, this is a play that they are acting in. They're not stealing, or killing anything, and they will have to lighten up once again (which is not necessarily hard since most of them actually have a family and are used to it).

Having people acting as themselves makes the play more realistic than if any other actor did it. It means that they can grow as they do this, and experience something that will help them come out a little more "sober". That is, if they ever come out.

Straight to the Point

Many people, when reading Hamlet, come across the idea that he is either insane, or just faking his actions to get people fooled. But very few people will think that he is irrational as George Santayana describes it. This means that Hamlet simply overreacted with the idea of revenge. But, it is well known that the first instinct of a person is to to think of avenging the death of a loved one. So instead of calling it irrational, I would call it sudden.

Now, Santayana's essay points out every one of Hamlet's mistakes that eventually sent him to his death. The big one that caught my attention was "he acts without reflection, as he reflects without acting." Now, applying this to the situation in the play where he invites everyone to his self made play, it is pretty obvious that he did not think the whole way through before going in to demonstrate that Cornelius was actually a murderer. The exact opposite applies to when he meets the ghost of his father for the first time. Whether he was actually insane, or faking, it took him a good while to finally deliver the strike to send the king out of power.

Taking a similar character like Laertes, there is a strong opposition seen. Laertes makes no hesitation in going for Hamlet for revenge. The only thing that stops him is the soothing hand of the king that reminds him that the time to strike will come. And Laertes is proof that Hamlet is not exactly sane: The first reflex for most people when they find that a loved one is gone, is simply revenge. Hamlet does feel this, but does not go like crazy to strike at Cornelius. This could either mean that he has gone completely mad, or that he is being clever about what move he wants to make in his game. This explains his constant talk with the excuse that he is just waiting for the right time and Shakespeare can't have him do nothing until that time comes.

Trying to explain a lack of action, or a very sudden action of a character is like explaining to the teacher why you didn't do your blogs in time...... But the best excuse (which is still pretty fake) is to say that he was waiting for the right time.

What we See and Don't See

It is true that Shakespeare has a unique form of seeing things in order to get the audience to wonder. Samuel Coleridge chooses to try to figure out what Shakespeare tries to do as he writes the plays. In his passage, he directs his attention to the difference between the real world, and the world that is being done in the play. He chooses to think that Shakespeare not only tries to put his audience into the world, but to put them in the shoes of one of the characters.

Now, Coleridge argues that Hamlet is an exception to this due to the continual talk. Hamlet has several talks to himself in front of the audience where he will talk about his position, and will allow the audience to make their own judgements on how he should think. The most famous of them all is "To be or not to be" (III.i.) where he question whether he should live or die in this situation. It is particularly strong since most of the audience have experienced this sort of feeling where they have considered the idea to say goodbye to life and just die. Now, since this play is easily misinterpreted, Shakespeare could very well be calling the audience a crowd of crazy people. Since there is a very high chance that Hamlet may be crazy, and having this talk that is so similar to one that most of the audience has experienced, he begins to actually question the meaning of being crazy.

That is where Coleridge's theory of balance between the real world and the world of the play comes in. Shakespeare drags in the audience to the shoes of one of the characters by giving them something they can apply to their own lives and experience a little of that "crazy" Hamlet already has flowing in his veins. Though people will argue that this sort of thing has been done before, the fact remains that never has any sort of writer come in to give real life experiences so vividly as William Shakespeare.

How to Interpret

I had a lawyer once tell me "It's not about the facts but about how they are interpreted and how they are delivered to make them believable." I learned that every great case has many possible twists in which a lawyer can try to make a good argument to defend a case. Hamlet would be among the best cases of them all. Even though it's a nice story and pretty straight forward, it is one of the best demonstrations of how ideas can be manipulated.

Now, Von Schlegel wrote an essay where he generally just states the things that happen that people might interpret in several ways. For instance, the idea of Hamlet longing to be king is often argued as being a crazy thought or just human nature to want more. But he goes far enough to mention that Hamlet kills his uncle and that it can still be argued as not insane.

Some things just can't be argued against. Hamlet is a tragedy and will remain that way. However, people add comedy into it all the time. Schlegel thinks of Hamlet with Ophelia as either a fake love, or just some temporary affair. It's all up to the reader. But there are other things fixed like the idea of the corrupt ones put behind bars and the ghost of his father being there to help.

To conclude, there are some things that just must remain the same and others that can be seen as complete opposites of what they really are.

The Fire Inside You

It's been a long ride. These two have done everything they can to stay alive. But apparently, that just wasn't enough. At this point in living, the man and the son don't really have anything. Aside from a little food, they don't really have anything to loose. But they keep going. Why? They haven't eaten in days and all odds of long term survival al completely gone. So why do they keep going?

Everything in life is done to achieve something. In a world like this, there is little more that they can achieve. And even if they are able to survive through something, there will be something else waiting for them to hold them back. So why keep going? I answer this with one

phrase: It's all about the mentality. In just about any world, there will be obstacles to overcome as well as struggles. Their mentality consists of doing the same thing in this world that they would in any other: keep going because they have nothing to loose.

However, these are especially hard times that they have to go through. They need a new set of ideas to move forward. They need something a little more inspirational to keep going. They need to remind themselves that being human means to prevail and endure even if they know there really is no light at the end of the tunnel. So the really answer to why they keep moving is to demonstrate that they are human and when you have truly nothing to loose, then just keep carrying the "fire inside you (116P.).

What they can't afford

I am obviously not talking about trading like you would in the real world. I'm talking about things that can't happen if they are to survive. I'm talking about thinks like a thief coming to your camp and stealing all you have. Or an injury......

This is around the end of the book when the boy has his leg broken. This is the beginning of the end of the journey. To make things worse, their current camp sight is collapsing and it's raining all the time. This is no time to travel. But they do it anyway. But this is the world of scenarios. They have to face staying put and starving to death, or die on the road in search of food to live a little longer. Either way, they will die.

If I ever was faced with this situation, where I would have nothing to loose, injured, hungry and dying, I would stand up and keep moving forward. The idea is if I stay, I will guarantee my death after very little time. But is i decide to get up, at least I will die trying and "spitting blood" (112P.).

There is a good side to their tale however. If they would have survived, then they would have endured just about every possible situation. And if not, then they would have left a legacy for others to follow. That's the beauty of the human race: You make sure to leave something behind after you die so that others can learn from you and help for the future.

We all make mistakes.........

It's true that we all have the right to make a mistake. But that doesn't mean that it won't come with a big price. In this case, the handgun is the thing that will almost guarantee the survival of the boy and the son. Even though they may only have one bullet left, it is the best use of defense that they have against whatever might want to come at them. And the boy just so happens to make the vital mistake of leaving it back at the shore of the sea while the father was in the water. Even though it brought no serious consequences, this is the sort of mistake that could have meant the end for the two of them.

Another thing that cost them was going out at night. In any situation, this is the worst time to travel. This is the time where you're tired, probably hungry, and in need for rest. This is the time where you have to settle down to regain strength. But they simply keep on pushing. Their mistake was to abandon the shelter at the shore where they would be sure to keep save even if it had been checked very recently.

Truth be told, these two are a one and a half man wolf pack. Though small, one cannot live without the other. And though they have to endure to get through things, I find them to be too soft to survive for long. That is a mistake I found the father to have made. He has let the kid be too soft. Though he loves him and would never do anything to put him in harm's way, it look like he has let the kid remain soft. I understand his mistake since they are both new to this world. But I don't see the kid surviving long without the father even if he does live to obtain a greater age.