The Final Clash

Towards the end of the book, Lady Catherine desperately attempts to convince Elizabeth to reject Darcy’s imminent proposal. She has never accepted the social constraints that continually build next to her and actively fights them. Initially, she destined all her efforts towards Mr. Darcy who exemplified that rigid stratification. In this case, she has a conflict of interests with Lady Catherine. The most important moment of this conversation is: “I am a gentleman’s daughter; so far we are equal.” (267)

We must analyse this moment because it shows both her love for Darcy and her dislike for social conventions. First, she confronts a person that has a higher social status and even disobeys her. This confrontation not only comes from a dislike of the person but also, from a strong disapproval of the system. It also demonstrates she would sacrifice her family’s good name for Darcy. Taking into account, of course, that her family was powerless against Lady Catherine. Deciding this demonstrates her final change of heart towards Mr. Darcy. Clearly, this change of heart originated from Mr.Darcy's own actions that contrasted greatly those at the beginning of the book.

With this, we see Elizabeth who finishes the book being a woman that stands up for her pride and her family’s pride. She also willingly sacrifices vanity for pride. Through her action she also changed Mr. Darcy into the man she eventually married. Could Elizabeth be the ideal heroine to fight against the rigid system of Austens' times?

When Societal Pressure Fails

The pressure society puts on its members to behave a certain way appears constantly in the book. In this case, it tries to force the characters to fit into their respective social classes and behave as exemplary members of each. This control extends through the entire being: from their actions, to their thoughts and aspirations. The mother’s desire to marry her daughters’ to a member of a higher social stratus proves this. Still, although all of these examples of societal pressure appear consistently in the book, the moment Lydia breaks social protocol shows the true extent this pressure. Its cruelty and power appear in a single quote: “All that is required of you is to assure your daughter, by settlement, her equal share of five thousand pounds, secured among your children after the decease of yourself and my sister; and moreover, to enter into an engagement of allowing her during your life one hundred pounds per annum”. (224)

Wickham cunningly manipulated the family’s situation to his favor. Their fear of rejection and isolation caused by such a dishonorable circumstances forced the father to accept his requests. This shows how an entire family would suffer for an individual’s actions. Normally the entire family would stop such actions from happening. Unfortunately for the Bennet’s, when preventive measures no longer have a place the entire family endure the punishment. In this case, the punishment was only monetary but it could have easily been their social status. Austen conveys that fear effectively throughout her book.

A Trust-Based Relationship

Darcy greatly influences the relationship between Wickham and Elizabeth. In the beginning of the novel we see that Elizabeth’s attachment to Wickham happened because of her disgust for Darcy. Mostly, because one hurt her pride while the other praised her. These two characters contrast greatly throughout the novel. This marked difference disappears when Darcy gives Elizabeth that letter after being rejected. The letter explained why Mr. Darcy decided to disown Wickham despite his father’s friendship with him. I was interested above all by her reaction when receiving this letter: “The extravagance and general profligacy which he scrupled not to lay Mr. Wickham’s charge exceedingly shocked her; the more so as she could bring no proof of its injustice” (154)

This interests me because she accepted what the letter said with relative ease. Also, although she defended her sister and her relationship with Mr. Bingley, she accepts this about Wickham. In addition, she mentions the inexistence of proof in favor of the soldier. How can she be sure about such accusations with out talking to anyone? I believe her injured pride took this decision for her. Previously, she mentioned her lack of interest for Wickham when he abandoned her to go after Lydia. Her attraction resulted in nothing mayor. Still, her readiness to adopt a negative opinion on the man could indicate an injury in her pride. The way he left her might have not injured her heart but her pride could continue to resent him. She decided to trust Mr. Darcy more than Mr. Wickham. Probably, all of Darcy’s actions together did not injure her pride as much as loosing the attention of Wickham.

Italicized Style

The italicization of certain words characterizes the book's style. It not only remains consistent through out the book but also gives it an aggregate depth. Clearly, this element does not only stay in italics. Doing this to certain words emphasizes them. Hence, the meaning of the sentence changes. Examples of this appear in every page of the book. This change in meaning makes the book harder to understand. This, far from being a disadvantage, gives the process of reading the complexity that the plot develops. In this particular love story, characters’ feelings change and what seems to be vanishes quickly, like Jane’s possibility of marrying Mr. Bingley or Elizabeth’s feelings for Wickham. It also changes the usually punctual English into something different.

In French, a word's pronunciation can mean many things because of its similarity to others. We also see a general ambiguity to the language that comes from the many usages a single word can have. This ambiguity (as much of a generalization as it is) probably gave it the title of the language of diplomacy. The usage of these emphases achieves a similar effect of ambiguity through the work. Although using these should punctually say the meaning of the sentence, as reader, I find them easy to ignore. An example of this can be found at the end of chapter 26 where Elizabeth doubts the existence of her love for Wickham: “But my feelings are not only cordial towards him; they are even impartial towards Miss King”. (113) The italicization adds to the meaning of the sentence. First, what she feels towards him guides her more powerfully than what she thinks of Miss King. Also, it shows that although her feelings do not overflow, they do exist. Still, we could also interpret the sentence, disregarding the emphasis, and absorb only its literal meaning. These sort of subtleties make up an essential part of the book's style that any analysis must take into account.

The Worst Husband

From the start of the story, Mr. Bennet shows some opposition to please his wife. His reluctance to use his wife’s way of ensuring his daughter’s future makes him an interesting character. Unlike Mrs. Bennet who only cares about her daughter’s future economic wellbeing, he has a wider perspective on the situation. At first, he appears as a playful character that wished to see his family suffer a little before telling them he talked to Mr. Bingley. Now, we see his personality developed even farther. Also, we have a different view on what the couple’s relationship. Unlike a traditional image of a cooperating marriage where both parts seek the best for their children in a similar way, we see them here, as opposing forces.

When talking about character development this quotation is key: “‘My dear,’ replied her husband, ‘I have two small favours to request. First, that you will allow me the free use of my understanding on the present occasion; and secondly, of my room. I shall be glad to have the library to myself as soon as may be.’”. (85) This shows Mr. Bennet is a father that will oppose his wife for the sake of his daughters. Although sexism does influence the couple, by doing this, he entered a part of family life that the mother alone used to manage. His strong values guided him to this decision. Above all, he seems like a parent that only wishes for his daughter’s happiness. On the other hand, the mother appears to search for something else. She possibly wants to achieve her frustrated wish of marrying a rich man through her daughters. While it seems true right now, the book can only prove such supposition later on.

The relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Bennet evolves with the storyline. Even now, the story barely touches it but we can derive its most important element here: “Your mother will never see you again if you do not marry Mr. Collins, and I will never see you again if you do”. (p. 85) This action, other than saving Elizabeth from her mother’s intent, shows the character of the couple. Both wish for the wellbeing of Elizabeth but in conflicting ways. The father, being the authority of the family, wins at the moment but the overall conflicting nature of the two remain. Due to the mother’s inability to go against her husband’s wishes I reached a single conclusion: Mrs. Bennet is Mr. Bennet’s foil. Although she takes the initiative on ensuring a future for her daughters, the husband ultimately decides. Even if she appears more prominently than her husband, the difference in opinions and power leads me to believe she serves as a guideline of Mr.Bennet’s values.

And Now: Religion

Society has always regarded religion with a special care. Especially in highly stratified societies religious officers had a rank of power and respect. In the western world, the Catholic Church had the greatest power, at least, during the books time period. The Anglican and Catholic Churches both fulfilled a similar role in their societies. Mr. Collins represents the Anglican Church in this story and its abuse of a power it does not even own. Especially the Anglican Church as the characters put it has a “mixture of servility and self-importance” (48). Although the book focuses around the relationships between the characters, it also satirizes the society shown.

Several factors lead me to believe he satirizes the church or, at least, its clergymen. The Anglican Church depended completely on the King who also lead it. Mr. Collins depends on the Lady Catherine who is a noblewoman. His attitude of “self-importance” could reference the policies of the church at the time. Also, the clergyman’s willingness to accept the Bennett’s house could represent the corruption of the church. After all, the government does manipulate it. Straying away from this social critique, the character’s reactions to the arrival of Mr. Collins and his letter must be discussed.

Nobody mentioned when the family received the letter that the future of the daughters and Mrs. Bennet depended on this clergyman. Evidently, Mr. Collins’s tone seemed conciliatory in the letter and his attitude was not threatening. Still, the family in general remains calm considering the situation. We could assume they will not act impulsively because of social conventions instilled in them. Even when he praised the whole house as a prospecting buyer would, only the mother shows worry here: “… would have touched Mrs. Bennet’s heart, but for the mortifying supposition of his viewing it all as his own future property.” (49) The daughters will probably find a husband and the father will enjoy his property to the last day. Indeed, this situation would only leave the mother vulnerable. I interpret this as a demonstration of the selfishness of that society. Even families will only continue to help each other when mutual benefits exist. We could also see that as a lack of foresight from the daughter’s part. In this case, the father simply restrains his emotions like he did with the arrival or Mr. Bingley. One final interpretation could view the family as subdued to that social stratification. Since the Clergyman comes from a higher status, the family agrees he has the right to do as he wishes. Only the mother, who suffers the loss directly, worries.

Either way, Austen uses the Clergyman to satirize some aspect of society. The Anglican Church’s role in society, the selfishness of the people at the time or the lack of foresight of future generations all combine in to the arrival of Mr. Collins.

Money’s Chains

Usually, we expect to find freedom in money. Weather it be the possibility to buy or to live in a specific way, we expect it to improve our life in some way. For Mr. Darcy, though, wealth ties him to certain social standards that limit his actions. The money dependent social stratification of the novel forces wealthy people to increase their affluence by marrying other with the same social status.

Specifically, this last social convention combined with his feelings for Elizabeth creates an inner conflict within Mr. Darcy. He easily decides. Still, it shows those social convention brought by wealth can restrain a person’s choices. The moment where he talks about this decision is here: “To Mr. Darcy it was welcome intelligence –Elizabeth had been at Nether field long enough. She attracted him more than he liked-” (44). Mr. Darcy would only avoid Elizabeth because of her social status. Her family’s lack of wealth stops him from fulfilling his desires. Society, through his family, instilled these beliefs so deeply that he takes this decision unconsciously. We can see what they tought him in two ways.

First, following his vanity, Darcy chose to protect his status and the way other view him by restraining himself. He thought that when marrying Elizabeth others would see him as a failure. We could even say it would hurt his pride to marry her. He has such positive image of himself that a marriage with someone of a lower status would depress him. Money trapped him with its accompanying pride and vanity.

We could also see this as protection of his current wealth. Marrying a woman with less status than him means he would not only have to carry her but also her entire family. Such disgraceful use of his resources would diminish them greatly. On the other hand, marrying an equal would have the opposite effect.

With this, could Austen want to show us a different view of wealth at the time? Does she intend critique a materialism that imposes itself over love? Or does the book critique the society that forbids the freedom of the heart?

A Peaceful War

As I continued my reading, I realized the apparently friendly environment in which the plot develops hides a hostile underlying situation that resembles a war. Here, people call gathering intelligence “overhearings” (p.13). Although people do not die in this conflicts, loosing can injure your pride or as they refer to it euphemistically: “offended”. But why would pride matter so much if it only mirrors what we think of ourselves?

As Mary said: “Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves and vanity to what we would have other think of us.” (14). Still, these two relate directly even if they oppose each other. I theorize that this novel will explore the relationship between the two closely. People should maintain a level of vanity that equals that of their pride. If a person hides their self hatred in order to show in vanity what they lack in pride, circumstances would eventualy expose this lie. If someone’s vanity does not equal their pride, other people (like family or friends) will help them rise it to an acceptable level.

This relationship makes these social events into a battlefield where others masure levels of pride and vanity in people they consider important. Mr. Darcy gave his vanity a higher value than his pride and his punishment was to stand “near them in silent indignation at such a mode of passing the evening, to the exclusion of all conversation…” (18) On the other hand, the crowd that ignored Mr. Darcy praised Mr. Bingley because of his personality and attitude.

In the end, this process becomes a battlefield where all fight for the center of attention. For people like Mr. Bingley, such a task can be done unconsciously for he has wealth and a good personality. Such an achievement requires a greater effort for those of a lower social class. Also, a conflict can only occur amongst fellow member of a social class. They aim at obtaining enough attention from a higher class to enjoy some of its benefits. Marriage is the most evident of these methods. Competition can be fierce with so few possibilities to compete for. This matters for the understanding of the novel because it shows how hiding key pieces of information in unexpected places forms part of the writer's style.

Yet Another Beginning

Two key points that we must analyze when reading a book are: the beginning and the end. Evidently, the first line of the book peaks the reader's interest: “It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.”(p.1) Other than interesting those that glance over the first page, it gives us an overview of the social context and values the book includes. The narrator makes this statement which indicates it will remain true during the entire work. In fact, the second sentence reassures this. So, what does this first sentence reveal about the work?

First, it reveals the story happens in a highly stratified society similar to what Jane Austen experienced in England at the time. It also shows the strict social codes that were the basis of this society. Now, straying away from basic Wikipedia knowledge, I can deduce other things.

This statement shows the way people saw their world at the time. Things were “universally acknowledged” unlike today where we doubt everything and each person forms their own opinion. Assuming this rule extends to Jane Austen, we should expect to see absolutes which contrasts greatly with Shakespeare, where not one character is completely good or evil. If this is true then it will be interesting to analyze this work since so few of the ones I have read include any type of absolutes. In fact, many take the grays to the extreme.

I do not believe a good versus evil situation is possible because the rest of the chapters set the tone for a love story. We could expect to see a character that will never change its characteristics. A greedy or devious person will remain unchanged despite the experiences he or she accumulates during the story. I expect to see some kind of absolutes while reading this even though I just started the book .

A Selfish Last Wish

In his final moments, Hamlet’s makes one final request to Horatio. In the desperate nature of this, a primal desire unseen in Hamlet appeared. A desire to leave a legacy. Even if it could not be a son to carry his name, he wished, atleast, for books to remember he existed as something else than a mad prince. After all, with the King’s efforts to destroy his credibility, the only thing Hamlet would leave with out Horatio’s help would be “a wounded name”. He was so desperate that he asked Horatio (who wanted to commit suicide because of his suffering) to: “in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain/ to tell my story”(5.2.380-84). This seemingly selfish act could have selfless reasons or not depending on the interpretation.

If we assume Hamlet wishes only for his name to be remembered, then this is a selfish act. With his last breath he asked his friend in pain to suffer even more only to ensure his memory would be cleansed from his uncle’s efforts. Also, the lack of interest in his legacy during the rest of the play proves such a thought came only in his dying moment. Only when he saw his impending death he felt the urge to save his legacy. This means that his emotions were the driving force behind this last plea and not a carefully planned strategy.

We could also view this as a selfless act. In order to take revenge on his father’s death, Hamlet was forced to do several dishonorable things (like taking taking the life of Rozencrats and Polonius) . This, in combination with the King’s efforts to make Hamlet’s “madness” evident, had ruined the name of Hamlet and therefore, his father’s. Seeing that his actions actually tainted his father's memory, he had to ask Horatio for help in finishing this task. In this interpretation, he used his dying breath to fulfill his mission of allowing his father to rest in peace. Carrying the revenge was important but so was ensuring the status of his father’s name.

I find this last interpretation to be less probable because Hamlet makes no reference to carrying his father’s legacy or name in any other part of the book. Up to that point, he focused on revenge and it only changed when the fear of death consumed him. In this last instant his selfish desires overcame him, and left behind a realized selfish last wish.

Words By Definition

Baffle: totally bewilder or perplex

Intractable: hard to control or deal with

Ex: Cuba is an intractable nation for the United States.

Stratum: a level or class to which people are assigned according to their social status, education, or income.

Ex: Hamlet is in a higher stratum than Polonius.

Scrupules: a feeling of doubt or hesitation with regard to the morality or propriety of a course of action

Ex: President Bush seemed to have few scrupules to begin a war in Iraq.

Aversion: Strong Dislike

Each From Its Own Perspective

In all the three links a pattern appeared which caught my interest. All of them dealt with how to interpret Hamlet. First, Freud gives his views according to h

is studies and experiences. Similarly, we have the documentary talking about the importance of each actor’s interpretation of Hamlet and the effect this has on the outcome of the play. Finally, T.S Elliot presents us with a critical metainterpretaion of Hamlet. These three texts/videos have a unique way of understanding the work and the character which makes them an essential complementary reading/viewing to my understanding of the text. Freud, on his piece, uses Hamlet as an example to proove various of its aspects. He uses the character to demonstrate what a person suffering from Oedipus complex could be like. Although I had not seen Hamlet in a relationship with his mother that had that unconscious sexual connotation, it is certainly plausible. Especially, after seeing this adaptation of the play, I understood where such an interpretation came from.

Still, Freud did not stop at simply analyzing the character but also, the writer. Although this is a risky thing to do (since such ideas can only be inferred from historical records), he attempted to analyze what the play shows about Shakespeare himself. This interesting approach to the play I found to be an invalid interpretation. Our inability to understand Shakespeare's emotions after his father’s death inhibits us from achieving this. The facts that presented to support these ideas are cold and impersonal. Although they might show the events surrounding the writer during that time period, they do not show his emotions towards them. The actors give the next interpretation. The video documentary has the acting portion of the play greatly highlighted. We are told in it that every generation of actors has its own interpretation of the play and its characters. Each one of them takes a unique approach to it based m

ainly on their experiences. Taking this into consideration then, the fact each generations Hamlet reflects its ideals and experiences should be expected. What matters then is not which interpretation the actor chooses, but that it is fulfilled to its whole potential.

T.S Elliot’s commentary is the most interesting one in

my opinion. In it he states that interpreting such an old play has its limits and eventually one has to begin criticizing it. By doing so, one creates one’s own version of the play and its characters. I strongly agree with this but I also think it misses the fact that in interpretation one also creates a new version of the play. When reading actively, one inevitably transforms those words and creates from them a mental picture of the scene. In this process an unconscious interpretation

of the play dominates the reader’s view on it. This interpretation draws from previous knowledge which makes the possible number of Hamlets be equal to the number of readers. What really matters though, (and I think T.S Elliot transmits successfully through his essay) is the fact the reader must also remember to acknowledge the interpretation is just that. The works he cites there are examples of this. The authors focused with such intensity on their own views of the play that they completely forgot they were just a single perspective on a play that gives a very broad array of possibilities. Although their perspective might be supported by the play it seems to stretch the meaning rather than flow with it.

For me, this means that in our class’s performance of Hamlet I need to try and make my interpretation of the character flow with the play. Although having a Freudian Hamlet might be acceptable under this new ideal for interpretations, an adolescent Hamlet would not. Nor, would a Polonius ashamed of its acting be appropriate. Especially in acting, a perspective that fits perfectly with the entire picture is better than one that barely fits the role.

In My Heart Of Heart

In his desperation Hamlet, knowingly or not, discovers many different pieces of wisdom that are transfered through his many lines. Even when hurriedly giving orders to his servants, he transmits pieces of this wisdom. The best example of this happens right before the start of the play. He tells Horatio to aid him in detecting any sings of guilt that could prove Claudius truly killed his father. Although this serves to reiterate who Hamlet’s true ally is at the moment, it also gives important information on the character. These are the exact lines: “That no revenue hast but thy good spirits/ To feed and clothe thee? Why should the poor be/ flattered?/ No, let the candied tongue lick absurd pomp/, And crook the pregnant hinges of the knee /Where thrift may follow fawning. Dost thou hear?/Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice/And could of men distinguish, her election/ Hath sealed thee for herself, for thou hast been—/ As one in suffering all that suffers nothing—/A man that Fortune’s buffets and rewards/ Hast ta'en with equal thanks. And blessed are those/ Whose blood and judgment are so well/ commeddled/ That they are not a pipe for Fortune’s finger/ To sound what stop she please. Give me that man/ That is not passion’s slave, and I will wear him/ In my heart’s core, ay, in my heart of heart,/ As I do thee.” (3.2.61-79) First, he says that there is no need to flatter the poor, for they do not have anything to give as payment. This means that all he will say next is completely honest and free from ulterior motives. Hamlet then explains that he chose his friends carefully particularly, Horatio. His ability to accept both good and bad without emotions taking control of him based this decision. In contrast, this is something that Hamlet either cannot control completely or dominates entirely. He could be seen as impulsive since his thirst for revenge moves him even more strongly than any power reason could have. This is seen through the results of the many soliloquys which only serve the purpose of expressing his internal conflict. In this case, he would seek Horatio as a friend because of the need for a stable person to depend on, in the dire situation he finds himself in. On the other hand, Hamlet could be seen as a rational person that sees a very unjust situation and feels obliged to do something about it. Also, pushed even further by his father’s ghost, he strongly believes in his responsibility to kill Claudius. Even so, that he only sees two paths available to him: death or revenge. In that case he would need a strong friend with the same ability of reasoning despite the situation. Weather Hamlet is the former or latter is a matter of subjective opinion since both are acceptable interpretations. What matters here though, is not the interpretation. Instead, we should see Shakespeare was able to show such a vast amount of possibilities using only a quotidian situation, like a master giving orders to his servant.

What To Say and How To Act It

Reading through Hamlet I found a short speech my Hamlet that caught my eye. Usually we are told that one of Shakespeare’s most important attributes is the liberty he gives the actor. On any other play, this would be true since there are no specific instructions of how a play must be. He only gives general outlines of what characters must be and how they must act through the lines. These are usually open to a wide range of interpretations. Then comes the speech:

“Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue. But if you mouth it, as many of your players do, I had as lief the town crier spoke my lines. Nor do not saw the air too much with your hand thus, but use all gently, for in the very torrent, tempest, and (as I may say) whirlwind of passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness. Oh, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who for the most part are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb-shows and noise. I would have such a fellow whipped for o'erdoing Termagant. It out-Herods Herod. Pray you, avoid it.” (3.2.1-15)

It seems to contradict that idea since it is giving a very strong point of view won what appropriate acting is. Also, it is clear that these lines carried a meaning beyond what Hamlet wished to say, conveying an idea that came from Shakespeare himself. For this, it is essential to understand the difference between a moment when the author writes what one of his characters thinks or believes in and when he conveys his own thoughts through the character. This short speech is meant to show the excitement has about this play. He wishes to make everything go perfectly in order to ensure the full execution of his plan. Still, there are an infinite amount of way in which Shakespeare could have achieved this same purpose (like yet another soliloquy). The fact he deliberately makes it a speech about appropriate acting reveals his intentions.

Now, in terms of content it is meant as a rough guideline on what a Shakespearean actor must be like in order to fulfill the role intended. It must be performed using the exact words on the play, never showing excessive emotions and always in an appropriate volume and tone. At least, this play is meant not for the “groundlings” but for a more refined class that can understand a more refined level of the art. In general, these instructions intend to make the play more realistic. As Hamlet said: “For anything so overdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is to hold, as ’twere, the mirror up to nature…” (3.2.20-25) In other words, theater is a representation of reality and thus it must be as accurate as possible. This is meant to help Hamlet in his plans because the play must be realistic in order to have an effect on the guilty king. But also, it serves to the purpose of presenting Hamlet appropriately. Such an unlikely sequence of events as the ones that occurred to Hamlet are a very unlikely and therefore a great of effort is required from the actors in order to make it believable.

Escape Pain

Hamlet, at the beginning of the act, finds himself reflecting upon his actions. He realizes that these will cause him great pain and also sees two paths he can follow. One is to “to be” (3.1.64) where he will “suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” (3.1.66). The other choice is “not to be” (3.1.64). In this case, he will “take arms against a sea of troubles” (3.1.67) “and by a sleep (…) end the heartache” (3.1.69-70). Put simply, in this scene he decides whether to end his troubles with suicide or face them, withstanding the pain that they carry. Hamlet sees death would prove an easy exit where all his troubles would end. There is just one problem that comes from human nature, which interferes with this apparently easy decision. He fears death and the possibly dreadful mysteries that come with it. Here, we see this fear he cannot overcome: “Who would fadels bear, to grund and sweat under a weary life, but that dread of something after death, (…) makes cowards of us all”(3.1.64-91). He explains why people would continue to suffer despite the pain that comes with living. The fear of the unknown that comes after death moves him to continue with his plan. Although Hamlet does not wish to kill, he finds that to be the only acceptable choice. The ideas expressed in this soliloquy are not complicated to do a close reading on. Still, their meaning with in the play and what they allow us to infer is what truly gives them value. These lines reveal a conflict inside Hamlet that puts him in a very human position. He knows that in order to live with himself, he will have to kill his uncle. Even, if this goes against his ideals. Also, courage or a sense of honor are never mentioned as a partial driving force. Instead, he constantly highlights that he cannot commit suicide because of fear of death, knowing it could mean having to kill his uncle. This questions my vision of Hamlet in the play so far. At first, he seemed like a character that would take revenge for his father and save the kingdom from the uncle: a rather heroic character. But now, he is a confused person that sees nothing but revenge or death and is willing to kill at the whim of a ghost. Is Hamlet then weak or strong?

To Interpret Emotions Unknown

Some of the most important elements that made this interpretation of Hamlet so unique were the inmates' experiences. They used these to relate with the play which in turn, allowed them to make a unique interpretation of it. Like any actor, the inmates had to draw from their own emotions to portray those of the characters'. Since as a class we are making our own interpretation of the play, we will undergo the same process. Still, even if the process is the same, the results will be different. While playing those roles, the inmates had the advantage of experiences that might have been similar to those of the characters. These allowed them to show very accurate emotions when acting a role. Also, this unique array of experiences helped them see it differently. Whether it be a violent past or the harsh life they face in prison, these inmates could show the vast collection of emotions that characters like Hamlet have throughout the play. On the other hand, we are interpreting the same play but under very different conditions. Most of us live in a comfortable environment that will not allow us to experience such complicated situations. This made me wonder of the outcome of our own play. It cannot have the same impact as the prisoners’ because we have not experienced as much or the same things they have. Due to this I decided to look at the play differently, looking for other elements my pathos makes me tend to ignore. Even if I do not understand them, it will expand my point of view so that I know there is still something unknown and mysterious about the play. Similarly to how the word pain holds no meaning until one actually experiences it, this play will have no meaning (or a very different one) until one experiences enough to relate to it.

The Same But Different

Hamlet is a play that allows the actor to show his true potential. Through the understanding of the characters’ situations and actions he can make inferences on their personality. These inferences reflect the interpretation of the character. In these two videos we can see interpretations of Hamlet in two different stages on the play. This explains why there is such a great difference in the way each represents him but also, it reveals details of the interpretations they have of him.

Here Hamlet has a more violent and active attitude towards his situation. He now wants to prove his uncle really killed his father. This scene shows the process that leads him to use the play as the mean to achieve this. His gestures and way of acting through the stage resemble those of a mad man. Two elements used here exemplify this. First, the moment when he destroys the camera to ensure he is alone. The play does not clarify how he does this. Hamlet only says: “Now I am alone” (Act 2 Scene 2 Line 549). The way he violently takes the camera and throws it on the ground shows the state of mind that the actor believes Hamlet is in. In this interpretation, emotions control Hamlet into bursts of rage that continue throughout the soliloquy. Although there are moments of reflection, these only serve to highlight the burst of emotions that precede or follow them. The second element is the way he glances directly at the camera. In these moments he looks at the camera as if asking for answers from the public. Although this does not mean he breaks the fourth wall, it does effectively portray his desperate need for one. Combining these two key elements that the actor uses, we can state his interpretation of the character. This is a desperate Hamlet, whose emotions have taken control of him to the point where we doubt of his sanity.

The Hamlet here contrasts greatly with his other version. The news of his mother marrying his uncle so soon shocks him greatly. Even if these actions tempt him to take action, he continues to maintain control over his feelings. The actor portrays this internal conflict in his own way. When he talks, he turns around as if to face himself. This portrays how the character seeks answers within. Also, his final sentences which show his decision, reflect the actors interpretation. In this case, he takes it with a tone of frustration. This expresses his strong disagreement with this decision but is forced to take it quietly as he knows his opinions will not be taken into account. The general the body language of the actor shows this frustration and makes a clear statement of Hamlet at that point: his mother’s decision infuriates him, but he knows any actions against it from his part will only aggravate the situation. This frustrates him greatly not only because of his powerlessness but also because he is forced to look for answers in himself.

Because the two scenes are situated at different moments during the play, one could argue these differences in interpretation originate from the changes Hamlet undergoes throughout the play. Still, some very general notions about the character’s personality remain intact. Like the fact that the first Hamlet is much more unstable than the second one. This means that the second version will only break the social conventions instilled in him under specific circumstances of great stress. Meanwhile the first version will only need a small push to obtain the same results. This in conjunction with all the other minor differences make it hard to believe both are representations of the same character.

Krapp

The name of the character clearly makes a reference to his life and what he is. This appears throughout the play consistently, not by the judgment of the audience but by that of Krapp himself. He realizes that throughout his life he has improved, but, as time passes, this improvement turns into frustration. He knows that the tape he records right now will be object of his mocking at a later time (if there is one).

This moment shows when he makes fun of himself: “Hard to believe I was ever that young whelp. The voice! Jesus! And the aspirations! (Brief laugh in which Krapp joins.) And the resolutions! (Brief laugh in which Krapp joins.)” (Beckett) This passage contains elements used to describe a person in his youth. “The aspirations” portray the idealism that young people normally carry. “The resolutions” evoke that optimism a young person has about its future. Krapp has changed continuously through the course of his life and in the end, finds all his other versions to be fools. They were all lost, like he is now, only that in the present, he is never able to recognize this.

Krapp feels pity towards his other selves because of their inability to see the truth that he now has. Still, in the first shot from Magee’s representation, the character finds himself lost in thought. Like all those other versions of him, he can not find his current truth. Although his life seems dark and unhappy we can all relate to it. From our current advantageous position we can reflect upon the past and see which decisions were correct or incorrect. Aside from the acting and the script the idea of a person looking with disappointment at his past life is a possible future for everybody. Being something that can be so easily related to the audience, this play has the potential of truly capturing it. After all, everyone’s life can be Krapp if we choose to make it so.

From Words To Acts

Viewing and reading Krapp’s Last Tape highlights the importance of the acting. Here we see Patrick Magee in an adaptation that captures the scenes transmitted by the script and adds the emotions required to immerse the audience in it. From the script alone one can deduce the general tone of the play. Still, the acting remains essential. In this case, the subtle facial expressions and tone of the actor help show in greater depth Beckett’s idea.

The play has an overall darkness and melancholy. Although the setting and script evoke these emotions, their intensity remains to the actor’s discretion. From the insignificant pleasure Krapp experiences from saying “spool”, to the nostalgia in his expression when remembering his past love, the script tells us of their existence, but the actor defines them. Similarly to the way there can be several Hamlets and Romeos there can be different Krapps. In Krapp's Last Tape, the text describes with greater detail the actions of the character on stage. This restrains the actor more than Shakespeare but still leaves room for interpretation. If this play with such specific descriptions allows this, the possibilities for Shakespeare would apparently be endless.

In the specific case of Magee’s representation, we see a man with little of his sanity left that attempts to examine, in that special date, his past. The first shot shows him hopeless and lost in thought. This sets the tone of the rest of the play. When listening to his recordings, he has lost himself in the thoughts of what he used to be. We see, through the entire act, the efforts of a man trying to reflect and relive his past. The script does not include that key expression. It only covers the essential things necessary to portray what the writer wanted.

The ability to portray the characters they want without having to express their emotions directly, makes both Shakespeare and Samuel Becket similar. A true Krapp’s Last Tape must be melancholic and sad the same way The Taming of The Shrew must be comical in its nature. The author achieves this not by writing what the actors must be expressing but by allowing the actors interpretation of the script take shape. Although this might seems as great amount of freedom given to the actor, the author has narrowed the possibilities enough to ensure his will prevails. Due to this, in the case of Hamlet and other Shakespearean works, the actor may only perform a character a certain way. Not because the play mentions it directly, but because of the setting, and general events that take place only allow a few possible outcomes. This changed my views on the apparently permissive Shakespearean works (in terms of acting) by helping me realize a good Shakespearean actor is one that not only leaves his unique signature in the character but also, one that portrays most accurately Shakespeare’s version of it.

The Canterbury Tales Remade: The Pardoner's Tale

To walk in search of warmth and tales a man,

the head of a business, with a woman,

who was a knight for rights along her life.

They met along a low-life that a wife’s

Tale told about a place of cheating love.

A soldier came that heard the tale of love

Insulted he was and for justice he asked.

Agreed them all and so the head was tasked

to tell a moral tale. By them he was

soon pushed to start this thoughtful tale. Because

to them he was unknown, about himself

he talked, about his greed and vicious self.

When done, his tale, he begun. About three men,

Who were then leading all of the tradesmen.

Long ago while drowning in excess and

Vice the three news heard that a friend a grand

end had by deaths hand. Enraged by this they

set out to kill this death. Then they said “hey”

to a tired elder who passed by, “we

need to find a certain death, old shabby

man, do you know of his whereabouts?” He

answered, “why young lad, for him I simply

wait, but if you wish to find him, that tree!

Underneath it he usually rests”. So

They set out to end this death an also,

make him for his crimes pay. Under the tree

a sac full of cash they found. The bulky

bills they decided not to deposit

until the night, when accountants don’t sit,

instead they party and drink as will soon

they. To do this they sent the youngest one

for food and ale for their greedy bastion.

One in town the young one found some poison

From his job and with it defiled some

meals for his bros. Meanwhile, the two, gruesome

Like gangsters of old, plotted machine guns.

When the friends met again the bang of guns

Made the youth’s blood flow with the poisoned ale

Since they all met death it was not all failed.

Still, it was greed that caught them, just like I

Will be caught by my own varied dark lies.

Rereading

During the entire blog entry, Chung made and an argument about the importance of rereading in order to understand a text. Although she described her experience in revisiting texts, specifically The Great Gatsby she also made it clear that doing this is an essential part to becoming a good reader and therefore, writer. Still, this has not been the first time I have been exposed to this concept. During class, not only did I watch a lecture that emphasized greatly on the importance of rereading but also, the very activities we do. The analytic essay we did on The Albatross shows this practice in a smaller but equally important way.

Before reading this blog I underestimated the importance of rereading books. Since most of their ideas seemed clear I believed that such practice was not necessary in order to completely understand it. Now, I see the connection between reading smaller texts like those on an exam and the longer books. Just like it is necessary to read the same poem several times in order to understand its meaning, a book must be reread in its entirety. Usually, when I was given a book of a certain length I didn’t consider the possibility of reading it several times. My process was simply reread any segments that were troublesome or particularly dense. Although this provided with key information that allowed to me to perform close readings and do most of the analysis required to obtain a good idea of the book’s meaning, I lost in an area I had not seen before. The process itself made me lose sight of the more generalized view of the book. Although I might understand all the pieces individually, I might lose myself in the way these independent pieces fitted together. This process came from the misconception that a book was a collection of smaller texts but as Coming Through Slaughter proved to me this is not always true.

Although the writing in this book may seem episodic, in the sense that it deals with glimpses of life rather than a fluent narrative, understanding how those independent pieces tie themselves together is essential. Thanks to the course I now understand how the workshop on close reading, the lecture on how to become better readers and this blog entry come together. Even if this was not necessarily the original intention of the class what I learned through these three essential processes will allow me to view future readings in a different way. Now, books will no longer be a collection of smaller pieces but a whole that must be seen in its entirety in order to be understood.

Zooming Out

In a more general perspective the book keeps its reader interested while always maintaining an overall constant tone through the whole work. This tone flows with the context in which it the story takes place. Anguish, solitude and powerlessness remain constant for both father and son. If we continue, we even see that this son and father have something in common with city life. They do not try to live but to survive. As I continued to read through I realized that they became the carcass that used to contain a human being, as society defines it. Now, they are empty, like moving corpses striving to survive.

We can see the state of their mind from the way both characters interact with each other. For example, when they discussed whether they will die or not due to their lack of food, I did not feel fear or even any emotions at all. This type of conversation does not remain unique in the book but repeats itself and continues from beginning to end. This is it:

“Why do you think we're going to die?

I don’t know.

Stop saying I don’t know.

Okay.

Why do you think we're going to die?

We don’t have anything to eat.

We'll find something.

Okay.

How long do you think people can go without food?

I don’t know.

But how long do you think?

Maybe a few days.

And then what? You fall over dead?

Yes.” (100)

In this point I realized they were not trying to reach any goals with their endless walk. They were just fighting for survive but only because they fear death like animals fear death. No longer did they wonder what came after death or what it would mean to the other. It was simply an event that had to happen and that should be avoided if possible but not something to worry about. The reason I came to this conclusion is the neutral tone of the conversation. They analyze their possibilities of survival coldly and don’t show any trace of fear. Death can only be talked about like this if one no longer fears it.

I also realized that there was no small talk between them during their long walking periods. If any, it was concise and greatly composed of monosyllables. Enjoying life no longer interested them, only surviving. This reminded me greatly of the life we have which can sometimes lead us to concentrating so much on obtaining what we need that we forget what we want that makes us happy. The two of them have lost the possibility of achieving happiness from their sight either because they no longer care about it or they no longer believe they can obtain it. Although the setting we see here is post-apocalyptic I believe this can be applied to our current situations. Could this be one of the intended messages this book had? This reminded me that zooming out can be good since we are able to see where we are truly aiming at with out actions.

Forced To Leave Humanity Behind… Again

A particularly shocking scene occurred when father and son encountered the man that lightning had hit. Somehow our two main characters find themselves forced to do something that would normally go against their ideals because of their own dire situation. This moment is probably a cliché since it has been overused by many apocalyptic stories. In these, the characters find themselves in a position where they have to sacrifice their morals or ideals in order to survive. At some point this might have been a shocker to the reader but now such a scene has lost some of its initial power. Still, this raised the question of why would such an obscure theme become recurring in pop-culture.

At some point this might have intended to deal with the hard decisions people have to take in order to survive under certain extraordinary circumstances. Still, in this book it seems different because the moment when circumstances force them to leave the man on the road, the decision has already been taken. They don’t doubt whether they should leave him or not behind. They continue walking although they know that without assistance he will perish. Cleary seeing such a gruesome occurrence must disturb them deeply and the child has a harder time assimilating this. Still, both know that they cannot help him. They only have the choice of how to deal with this. The moment that reflects this idea to the fullest is:

“They went on. The boy was crying. He kept looking back. When they got to the

bottom of the hill the man stopped and looked at him and looked back up the road.

The burned man had fallen over and at that distance you couldn’t even tell what it was. I'm sorry, he said. But we have nothing to give him. We have no way to help

him. I'm sorry for what happened to him but we can’t fix it. You know that, don’t

you? The boy stood looking down. He nodded his head. Then they went on and he

didn’t look back again.” (50)

What most shocked me of this scene was not the fact both left their humanity behind long ago but that the boy supposedly being innocent accepted this so easily. He cried but he understood the situation. This attitude makes a testament to the hardships they have experienced before this point and also it proves such a thing has happened to them multiples times before. This leads me to the conclusion that their situation has “broken” both of them. The fact that the child has lost all hope could signify that humanity, in this book, has lost its future as well. Since I have not finished the book I cannot say for sure the true message the author tries to portray in his work but this could prove to be a possibility later on: children can symbolize the future and what is to come, could this child represent that he views humanity’s future as one without hope?

Two Views on Post-Apocalyptic Parenthood

As I began reading The Road a part of the father’s personality caught my attention: the importance of his son. Having seen other post-apocalyptic works like Akira and Neon Genesis Evangelion, a dichotomy of ideals of parenthood appeared that proved too great to ignore. In this novel we see a father who apparently cares deeply for his son and willingly sacrifices pleasures like a coca- cola (apparently very scarce here) that might give us, at first glance, the impression of a loving father. In contrast we see in those two films in general, adults who either do not care for children or that are too immature themselves to care for them. In any case, these adult characters demonstrate very little parenthood skills due to their lack of hope in the future. Why does such a great difference appear? Is this simply something cultural? Or can this whole act be just a way for him to maintain sanity after losing it all?

In The Road the moment that shows this dependence in the man for the child is here:

“Can I ask you something? He said.

Yes. Of course you can.

What would you do if I died?

If you died I would want to die too. So you could be with me?

Yes. So I could be with you.

Okay.” (p.11)

Under different circumstances such a statement would show a father’s love for his son. In this case though, I do not clearly understand what moves this character to have such a deep attachment for his son. After (apparently) losing it all and having to fight very hard for survival why carry this child and give him so much? Even a parents’ love has limits for we can only tolerate losing a certain amount of those essential things for our psychological wellbeing. Family, friends, national pride and material acquisitions exemplify some of these things that help us continue. I imagine after losing one, people depend more on the others but even so, loosing too many too quickly can shatter a person’s will to live. Maybe his son was important enough for him that he could accept all other losses and move on with him. Still, considering the accommodated life most people in the United States have such losses would have very probably defeated an average person. The cover of the book portrays this idea of defeat. The man looks forward but with hopelessness and exhaustion.

In the relationship between him and his son, this means that maybe he only seeks a reason to continue living in him but that does not mean the strength of such attachment will remain constant throughout the novel. Because the environment around them is so hostile, and any sings of people mean danger to them, they are forced to bond between each other. If this condition doesn’t remain, the father’s love for his son can easily disappear. Encountering a community of refugees or simply a friendly person can suffice in order to break that apparently strong bond.

I compare this untried adult-child parental relationship to the tried ones that appear in those two Japanese films because of their contexts’ similarity. The one difference is that both films are placed several years after and apocalyptic event and society has reconstructed itself to some point. Still, the adults that have seen such an event prove egotistical and do not care for the children’s future. These two reflect part Japanese society after World War II. For them, the two atomic bombs and the fall of their government, which had taken a very important role in the society during that period, meant the fall of those essential pillars that keep us willing to live. In the films, the result was a society that “broken” adults had built and that because of this reflected their morals and ideology. This relates to the road because the moment those adults that rebuilt their societies began losing themselves was a time similar to where the father and his child walk right now. When they slowly give up and loose hope.

Due to this I question the relationship we are given in the beginning of the road. The man no longer envisions a future with his son but dreams of a past with his love that vanished forever. This attempt of his to run away from reality in his dreams signalizes that he might do the same when he recieves an opportunity in real life. If the opportunity to attain that dream appears will he willingly sacrifice his relationship with his son in order to attain it?

A Darkness That Fills Our Minds And Covers Our Eyes

Throughout Edgar Allan Poe’s Poem The Raven, a feeling of darkness overwhelms the reader and allows him to enter the poem. Although a lot of symbolism appears in the story, it would not have the same effect without this dark setting.

Even if the feeling of darkness and cold results from the whole poem, several elements contribute greatly to this. One of these elements appears in the repetition of phrases that give the feeling of fear as if the character tried to convince him of what he says. Such a thing appears here: “’Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door— some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door;—this it is and nothing more.” (Poe)

The first sentence is even more important in this sense as we can see here: “Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary” (Poe) This phrase sets the tone for the poem. It gives a very vivid image of loneliness, darkness and sadness. Even though this tone does not contain the majority of the meaning in the Poem, it proves essential to the effect it has on the reader.

But In Context…

“The Pardoner’s Tale” shows a classic moral story that convinces its audience of the evil in greed. Such a tale would not demonstrate any outstanding characteristics if it was not for the short prologue that describes who is telling this story. Unlike the normal setting where the story teller typically shows superior wisdom to his listeners, greedy and flawed characterize the Pardoner. These problems our character has develop into an ironical situation since he preaches against his own lifestyle. These twisted morals appear most evidently here:

“423 "But shortly myn entente I wol devyse:
424 I preche of no thyng but for coveityse.
425 Therfore my theme is yet, and evere was,
426 Radix malorum est Cupiditas.
427 Thus kan I preche agayn that same vice
428 Which that I use, and that is avarice.
429 But though myself be gilty in that synne,
430 Yet kan I maken oother folk to twynne
431 From avarice and soore to repente.
432 But that is nat my principal entente;
433 I preche nothyng but for coveitise.
434 Of this mateere it oghte ynogh suffise.”

Lines 423 through 426 not only describe the ideology the Pardoner spreads but also show the personality he uses when he is preaching. While doing this, The Pardoner instills in people the ideology he supposedly believes in. Line 426 explains this ideology: “426 Radix malorum est Cupiditas” or “Greed is the root of all evil”. It would seem like this man represents the average religious person who tries to improve the world through religion. The next few lines though, change that vision by showing the true person that hides bellow that curtain of ideology.

Lines 427 to 434 show the Pardoner’s corrupted thinking and demonstrate a darker side, not only of his personality, but also the Church’s. In line 427 and 428 he says that he preaches against the same vice that drives him: greed. Still, even though it corrupts him, the Pardoner continues to exercise great power over people which lines 429 to 431 demonstrate. Here, The Pardoner says that although he has to carry the responsibility for that sin, he continues to cleanse others of it. The last lines complete the picture of the Pardoners mind by explaining his true intentions with these apparently selfless actions: he only has interest in the economic benefits preaching like this can give him.

Anyhow, this man’s description matches an institution’s that many times demonstrates similar flaws and actions: The Catholic Church. The Pardoner could represent the corrupt Church that proved guilty of many of the crimes it preached against. Still, this preaching does not damage others but also the good ideals the church tries to teach. The “Pardoner’s Tale” does try to teach a good lesson but it becomes an ironical joke due to the teller’s blatant greed.

In a similar way the Church corrupts the positive ideals the bible tries to portray by committing the crimes it fights against. Today this duality of the Church appears more often since the institution can no longer hide these flaws but at the time secrecy hid all of the its mistakes from the general public. Still, many saw the injustices The Church committed and fought them even with things as simple as a story, of a corrupt pardoner, that told a tale with a moral that vanished with the teller’s own greed.

Freedom’s Burden

In the Prologue and Tale of the Wife of Bath a single idea repeats itself through both of them. This idea appeared due to the oppression of women during that time or at least presents such a sharp dichotomy with their status of repression and submission that it has to relate to that. This idea portrays a very strong feminism which the following quotation explains to its fullest:

“1038 "Wommen desiren to have sovereynetee
1039 As wel over hir housbond as hir love,
1040 And for to been in maistrie hym above.”

In the Tale we see this as an ideal to reach and in the prologue it appears as the results of acquiring such freedom and power. Such an ideal appears takes particular importance since the Wife of Bath based her entire way of living upon this. She took control of all her relationships but this came with several problems. These appeared due to her application of such idealism. They based on her need to maintain this power in order to remain happy. This happened the first time when she reached her final husband and he didn’t allow her to take absolute control. Every human has a desire for power but basing one’s happiness on it, like she did, will without a doubt make such happiness unstable. For someone to have so much power over another like her will have great effects on both the subject and the ruler. She became addicted to it and became very good at obtaining what she wanted. Meanwhile her husband’s weren’t necessarily agreeable with her like the last one but the majority of the time she outlived her subjects. In the end, her source of happiness has the single fault of being based on another person. Even if that other person can be replaced, she will be alone at some point and therefore she will be unhappy at some point. Can such power truly be a positive source of happiness for women (or anyone) as she attempts to show in her tale and prologue?

Anyhow, attaining power doesn’t necessarily mean that she tries to obtain happiness through it. With that she would be able to obtain an extensive amount of freedom, really rare for her time period. That freedom which appears to be the most sublime of desires a woman can attain, could mean a burden she doesn’t necessarily take into account when her hunger for freedom reaches its peak. We see an example of this at the end of the tale where the old woman asks the knight to choose. He then decides to give his own freedom to the woman like this:

“1230 "My lady and my love, and wyf so deere,
1231 I put me in youre wise governance;
1232 Cheseth youreself which may be moost plesance
1233 And moost honour to yow and me also.
1234 I do no fors the wheither of the two,
1235 For as yow liketh, it suffiseth me."”

At that moment the woman receives the knight’s freedom and she becomes partially responsible for his wellbeing. Even if the knight, having chosen to give his freedom, will have to bear with his decision, she, being the one that decides, now carries the responsibility for both of their futures. Although the decision the woman took in that case was probably the correct one, (or at least one in which both found happiness) can that feeling of freedom suffice to compensate for carrying the weight of their decisions? Having freedom empowers us and allows us to make our own future which many find to be positive. Still, the responsibility for our own actions can be enough to break a person. Can you imagine having to carry the responsibility of taking decisions for others? Only a psychopath would not care if he hurt another person by doing this.

The freedom these tales advocate does show a possibility for pain and suffering. Even the Wife of Bath has not achieved happiness this way because her husband does not give her the absolute freedom she needs. This tale reflects a good ideal that one must apply in moderation. Everyone should have a right to choose but going as far as choosing for others proves to be excessive especially for those that decide. Still, such an unchangeable society required an extreme ideal such as that one to promote any kind of change. Although it seems extreme for us now, it was necessary at the time to exemplify a freedom for women. A freedom that was unseen until very recently.

A Drunk’s Tale

This tale has a unique narrator that differs greatly from the Knight’s epic tone. Told by a drunken Miller who knows of his state, this tale has such an unusual content that it resembles more modern pieces of satire such as Family Guy. Few elements of society escape these pieces’ critiques. One of these many elements was the church who played a great role in that time’s society.

The carpenter: an ignorant and simple man. This can describe most of England’s population at the time. Since the church controlled all information, everyone believed what they were told to believe. Any dissent meant severe punishment or even death. This tale mocks people’s ignorance by making the carpenter, a representative of England’s majority, suffer from this ignorance. Nicholas the astronomer, who has received an education, ultimately achieves all he wishes by using the carpenter’s ignorance against him. Although this Church created ignorance barely appears in the story it can be clearly seen here:

“3454 Men sholde nat knowe of Goddes pryvetee.
3455 Ye, blessed be alwey a lewed man
3456 That noght but oonly his bileve kan!”

Here the carpenter argues strongly against Nicholas’ studies and education. The church probably instilled such believes into him. Still, Nicholas uses these believes further when he talks to him about the flood by making it into a repetition of the biblical one. This reference made such an unbelievable idea plausible in the carpenter’s mind. These two religious elements within the story criticize the Church and its way of manipulating general knowledge. It is true then, that

“3842 And turned al his harm unto a jape.”

since his situation and the conditions that led to it show so much absurdity, they are laughable.

Finally, everyone fooled the carpenter because of his ignorance. His suffering probably showed absurdity to an educated mind at the time, which proves that this story aimed at such an audience. An audience that wouldn’t take the story seriously and that would go beyond the obvious jokes seeing the bold critiques. This critique, at least, daringly defied the systems of the time which remained closed to change for centuries after its publication. Even though this tale went beyond bathroom jokes and humor, we must not take it too seriously since even so it remains a drunk’s tale.