Girl Scouts

When we as a society send girls out to sell cookies to the masses we give them a message. I doubt most think about this fact, yet it still is a fact. Girl Scouts sell cookies for the good of their troops or the girls scout organization or whatever, it doesn't really matter what it is for, it just matters that they do. In a sense they are providing for their troop, which later in life translates to providing for their families or those they love. Apparently girls are thought of as the care takers and if a girl cannot provide for her "troop" how is she suppose to provide and take of her family when she is grown? A girl scout has no say in whether or not they sell their thin mints and tang-alongs just like most woman don't have a choice in providing for their families, it is something they have to do whether they want to or not. This is what society is telling young girl scouts unbeknowst to them.

Deconstruction

On friday I had a conversation about what it really means to be angry with my 11 year old sister. It started with me asking what angry mean to her as she expressed her feelings about some kid. She said it was when your mad at some one and then said mad was when you were annoyed and then kept using the same words to describe other annoying which was obnoxious which became annoying again. Finally she called me annoying and left giving me strange looks. She couldn't describe what she meant. She had to resort to repeating herself over and over again. She thought I was crazy until we finished and I told her what was going on, then she laughed. The truth of the matter is she could not explain what angry really is with the words we are given to sigify our thoughts and feelings.

Writer or Viewer?

I think that the responsibilty of what people watch today falls inbetween. The writer should care about what he writes and whether or not it alines with what he believes, but today unfortunatly that does not seem to happen that often. Viewers, well most viewers are smart enough to figure out if they are watching somthing they should or not and they can't blame the writer for their viewing of the show. Writers are responsible for what they write in some way or another, but viewers can't blame them for their kids acting a certain way if they allowed their child to watch the show and then that child went out and copied the behavior. That is ineffitable. For all we know the writers wouldn't write what they write if they were held responsible and if viewers stopped watching the shows with inapproiate behavior they would stop writing it. It is a two way street and everyone who takes apart in the show, movie, book, or anything that someone has to write will be responsible in some way as to what they took in or wrote.

ART

When, we think about art and what is art, you have to take into consideration the artist. Yes, when the paiter or the potter or the writer sat down and started their masterpiece no one called it art except themselves. Yes, it is helpful if other's find it worthy of thier liking, but you don't need others to approve of it in order for it to be art. A two year old can scribble four colorful lines and and to the two year old and his or hers parents think it is not only the best art, but the coolest art to ever exist. Art is different to everyone and that is why we each indivulally decide what kind of art we like and how we express it, but you can't tell any kind of artist his art isn't art. Even if it's horrible it is still art. Anything mankind creates with his hands is art, liked or not.

Toast

The break down of words into today's world literally doesn't mean anything. As Atwood says, "electricty skip that." Basically words are something we decided needed a common meaning, whether or not that was how it was in the beginning that is how it is today. No one cares if names are important, if we wanted we could change them in an instant, we don't understand the importance of a name and therefore can change it. If we can't explain what toast is we might as well say, "I am toast", but isn't that because we don't have the knowledge, not necessarily that it can't be explained. The breakdown of words is simply that we haven't learned how to articulate what needs to be said. None of what I said really matters though because in our world everyone says that toast could mean a koala or whatevevr else you want it to mean and the actual meaning no longer matters.

Hyper Reality

Hyperreality effects everyone of us, in the area of music, food, and even phones.
"Hyperreality is a means to characterise the way consciousness defines what is actually "real" in a world where a multitude of media can radically shape and filter the original event or experience being depicted." What this is saying is that what the media tells us gives us an idea of what we think is real, but when we are given the actual product, in this case a cell phone, we find ourselves to be disappointed. This is the case with my phone, which was dipicted to me as a cute, music playing, phone with lots of cool features. As the t-mobile websites states, "The Nokia 5300 XpressMusic is the perfect marriage of music and style." When I say the phone on the web-site and how they advertise it it sounded like the best phone in the entire world, but I find you change your mind quickly when you're glad it's under warrenty and they've already sent you two new ones because the screens die.I've only had the phone since June and am finding that I regret the day I first thought my phone was so musically and stylish because I would give anything for my old phone back. It's obvious that not everything is as we see and the fantasy of the things we want aren't always the way the media protrays them to be.


http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/phones/Detail.aspx?device=03e32d1d-b4e8-4de1-a5fc-01b1f8bbf3f4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper_reality

The Postmodern Crisis

As Christians we can't shun everything the world does or believes. We have to be in the world, yet not of it. In a sense we have to embrace parts of postmodernism, but not all of it because God "trumps" everything the world has to say. So fragmentation is all good, and mettafiction can still be entertaining, but there are absolutes and not everything is relative. What God says goes, but as long as a Christian understands that, then it's almost better that embrace parts of postmoderism because then we can relate to everyone, making it easier to share God's love. The rel crisis would be if christian's put up blinders to everything postmodern, said it was all wrong and everyone who thinks that way is going to hell. No one would listen and Christian's would look like, well... a goody two shoes who can't function in today's world; it would get the Christian community no where.

ant

So at work there is this one guy who comes into the gym and he never says hi, never really does anything. It doesn't help that he's kind of scary looking too. Anyway instead of just saying hi and having him glare like he usually does before he heads off to some other part of the gym like normal I asked him how he was and tried to start a ocnversation. It didn't work all that well, he gave me one word anwsers like, "fine" and "sure" the whole time and still did not smile. I'm begining to think he looks scary because he is anti-social. I don't know, but it was kind of weird andawkward. I got the feeling he just wanted to run away as i asked him about his day.

Echoes

The Echoes are significant because they happen when R & G are not needed and therefore don't really seem to matter to the other characters. When R& G are noticed is when they are needed and have been sent for because that's all they are good for. It's when they are talking amongst themselves and no one cares that the echoes take place as if telling the world that they still are there. It seems that everyone forgets them and then they echo and then everyone else is reminded that they do exist and therefore can use them.

Approval

I think that when Horatio says, "So Guildenstern and Rosencrantz go to 't", he approves of their deaths and what is to come. After all they were taking Hamlet to his death. Whether or not they knew what was going on they never really seemed to care and went along with everything Claudious said and yet they are suppose to be really good friends of Hamlet. Besides Rosencrantz and guildenstern are such minor characters that I doubt Horatio really cares what happens to them. Horatio knows that they were Hamlet's friends from school, but ever since they arrived in Denmark they have done nothing to show that this is the case, instead they spend their time doing Claudious' dirty work. From everything that Horatio knows they have done nothing to show that they really care about Hamlet, but instead they act as if Claudious' opinion is all that matters.

bating

The use of bating in Hamlet takes place all over. Reynaldo is used to bate Laertes in France, Rozencranz and Guildenstern are used to bate Hamlet, Ophelia and Gertrude are also used to bate hamlet. Hamlet used the play to bate King Claudious. Basically the bating becomes a themes that doesn't end well. Reynaldo, well it doesn't matter what he discovered because Polonious is dead before he ever finds out what his son was doing in France. The reason Polonious is dead is because when Gertrude was bating Hamlet Polonious was behind a curtain and well Hamlet stabbed him. Ophelia get's yelled at and called a whore when she is used for bating and in the end she dies and it never mattered if Hamlet loved her or not. Whem Hamlet used the play to bate the king, claudious became determined to get rid of his nephew and in the end they all die, rosencranz and guildenstern included. Bating doesn't end well, spying and the use of deciet end in death or at least so it seems in Hamlet.

The World Views of Hamlet

Hamlet has alot to deal with when it comes to his family; not only was his father murdered, but the murderer married his mother. On top of that he grew up thinking that he was going to become king someday, but when he finally is suppose to assume that position his uncle takes that from him. He has to deal with everyone, inlcuding his parents thinking that it's alright to get drunk and be drunk whenever they please. He lives in a state of capture because there is all this stuff going on around him and he doesn't agree with it all and it seems as if he has no control. He supposedly had no choice about becoming king, yet he doesn't get to. His mother and uncle seem to think incest is okay and avengeing murder is expected. There is alot to take in and handle.

Claudius's assumptions

I believe that Claudius may think that Hamlet is faking or at least knows something. First of all as soon as the play ends he tells Rosecranz and Guildenstern to take Hamlet to England as soon as possible at the begining of act 3.3. Another issue that points to Claudius's awareness is that he is so concerned with why Hamlet is mad. He sends for Hamlet's friends to spy on him, he agrees to test Polonius's theory and continue to use him just to figure out why his nephew/ son is acting insane all through Act 2.2. He does all this when as Gertrude has a perfectly reasonable explanation, that his father had just died and she re-married rather fast. I guess I think that Claudius just acts as if he has somthing to worry about where Hamlet's madness is concerned. I think that Claudius thinks that if Hamlet knows what he did he could either have gone insane or that he would do whatever it takes to get revenge. Claudius is smart, he managed to kill his brother and marry his wife and Hamlet has made a few connections from conversations his Uncle has had in his own insane speeches, if Claudius ever picked up on any of those, he could think that Hamlet is faking.

Questions...? Hamlet 3:3

My first question is Does King Claudius think that Hamlet is on to him? Cause as soon as the play ends he wants Hamlet taken away to England. The second question is why didn't Hamlet just kill his uncle? He was right there, he has putting on this madness act so can figure out if the ghost is lieing and then kill Claudius, why is his consciense getting in the way, especially if it was expected to revenge murders?

Hamlet's feelings for Ophelia

Personally, I think Hamlet never really loved Ophelia, but that he lusted her or maybe thought he loved her. Hamlet puts a whole lot more thought into the 12-16 lines for play that Hamlet believes might incrimate Claudius then in the love letter he wrote to Ophelia in Act 2.2 lines 116-127. I think he wanted Ophelia to think he loved her, otherwise he have spent more time on expressing his feelings. Besides, like Polonius told Ophelia, Hamlet can't be sure he would even be allowed to marry Ophelia because it would have to be the best option for all of Denmark, not just himself. Another thing to consider is the fact that if Hamlet is pretending to be mad, as I believe he is, then I believe he would have found away to tell Ophelia what he was going to do, so she wouldn't offended or hurt. If he really loves her she will never want to speak to him after how he has acted towards her since he went "mad". Either he is in love and stupid because he thinks Ophelia is just going to forgive him when it is all over, or he never really loved her and Laertes and Polonius were right back in Act 1.3, which is what I believe is the case. It is a good thing Ophelia promised to obey her father and kept that promise.

Hamlet's madness 3:1

In Act 3:1 Hamlet is expressing his "madness" to Ophelia as she tries to figure out if he loves her. He sounds mad, but with a saness twist to it. It is as if he is crazy because he tells Ophelia to go to a nunnery over and over again, as if he is saying I love you, but I don't. He tells her that to protect herself from marriage and giving birth to sinners. This all seems a little strange, but thought had to go into this madness, which I believe suggests that he is faking. Polonius, Claudious, and Gertrude were watching; Hamlet can't stop being insane ever if he is to pull off his act. Yet, as I said before it seems as if he put thought into his madness. How can a really crazy person seem to sane every once in awhile? King Claudious seemed to agree in lines 165-167. I'm still not sure exactly were I fit in this argument, because I guess an insane person go through sputs of saness as they go insane, I don't really know how the process works. I am leaning towards Hamlet is just putting on an act, there seems to be more evidence in that direction.