1. His hesitation for killing Claudius is due to his desire to attain the greatest satisfaction from his uncle’s death. Hamlet had the opportunity to kill his uncle while his uncle was in church. However, Hamlet chose not to do so because then his uncle’s sins would be forgiven. Hamlet, instead, wanted to kill his uncle when he is doing something savage and animal-like such as making love with Hamlet’s mother so when Claudius dies, he would go to hell. In addition, he wants to catch his uncle off-guard in his death just like how Hamlet’s father died.
2. Hamlet wants to pretend to be insane because his desire is to kill his uncle, who is also presently the king, with his bare hands. If Hamlet shows the court that he has lost his wits and is incapable of making a right decision, the act of killing his uncle might be forgiven for the perception that he is insane. However, for Ophelia, her madness is not fake and she has lost it due to Hamlet’s break-up with her and her father’s death. She has no support system.
3. Hamlet believes that all women are vulgar and vile. Due to the immaturity of his youth, his perception of this is brought about by his mother’s quick marriage with his uncle, which he finds deplorable and utterly disgusting. With that opinion of females in mind, he tells Ophelia to go to a nunnery because he no longer wants anything to do with the female sex because of what his belief that he will eventually be betrayed by them. As for his love for Ophelia, I cannot tell easily because his paranoid behavior makes it difficult for me to distinguish between his act of insanity of true insanity.
4. Suicide is treated under a religious context. Even though Hamlet professes that suicide would be the easier and preferable way out of his wretched existence, he chooses not to because of his affiliation with Protestantism. In addition, despite his grief and dark outlook on life, he also recognizes that most human beings continue living despite the harshness of life because they remain hopeful that there is something better and worthwhile out there.
5 . “To be, or not to be, that is the question.” To live or not to live, that is the question. As addressed in the previous question of suicide, this soliloquy makes me question Hamlet’s intent. After he had planned to kill his uncle, I wonder if Hamlet desired to take his own life as well. However, his selfishness seems to be an essential element in the play. He always wanted the greatest pain for his uncle’s death as opposed to just killing his uncle. The selfishness of Hamlet (the death of his uncle), his uncle (for Gertrude and power), and even Hamlet’s mother (her desire of Claudius) seem to be the downfall of their decisions and the turn of events in the play
From the Collegeboard advice, the thing I found most helpful was the checklist of the 6 steps we must take in order to write a good synthesis essay. Some people may find a list or a established structure as something that limits their writing. However, for a specific essay style, I think the 6 steps are perfect for guiding someone in how to write a synthesis essay. I liked the last four steps since the first two steps seem to be very obvious. A thesis is established in a generalized way. The sources are used for support and they converse with one another. The presentation of the sources is refined and supports your claim. Your claims is argued again. This list is also an effective structure of a synthesis essay. What I would have preferred is an example of a synthesis essay under this advice.
The purpose of this piece is to criticize the treatment/perception of the impoverished in Ireland and the lack of compassion in ways to help them, which are all presented in a dark satire. The indirect claim is put forth by a sharp contrast of the reader’s perception of the author’s intent. Throughout the entire first half, the author addresses the problem of poverty in Ireland and the holes that exist in the solutions. The reader sees the author as a sincere citizen concerned for the well-being of his country. However, his main claim is presented by his suggestion to sell the children of the poor as food. His satire emphasizes on his argument that the Irish, at the time when he was writing this proposal, do not care about the poor and are condemnable in their opinions of the poor. Swift achieves this by addressing the poor as livestock as he suggests on how many males and females are needed to reproduce to keep up this market and how the skin of the children can be used to create gloves for the wealthy in Ireland.
There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it
will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice
of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent
among us, sacrificing the poor innocent babes, I doubt, more to
avoid the expence than the shame, which would move tears and pity
in the most savage and inhuman breast. (sincerity)
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance
in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year
old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether
stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it
will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust. (dark contrast, reveals to the reader that his proposal is a satire)
Those who are more thrifty (as I must confess the times require)
may flea the carcass; the skin of which, artificially dressed,
will make admirable gloves for ladies, and summer boots for fine
gentlemen. (his criticism of the wealthy)
Chesterton claims that true inspiration comes from lying in bed. He starts by describing his search for a blank, white wall where he can paint. During his entire time of walking around his house, he found no such wall but when he simply laid in bed, on the verge of giving up, he sees his ceiling and inspiration comes to him.
1. Humor is always an effective way of holding the reader’s attention and promoting your claim. His clever references to his wife and historical occurrences, which he compared to wallpaper, convinces the reader to continue reading and listen to the author’s claim.
2. His logical arguments are presented in a clear manner. “A man’s minor actions and arrangements ought to be free, flexible, creative; the things that should be unchangeable are his principles, his ideals.” The reader understands this point with much thinking.
3. His references to historical figures and events strengthens his credibility as an educated man.
4. His humor makes him appear like a regular guy, which clearly appeals to the audience by getting rid of the presumption of the author as some pompous writer. “For my proposal to paint on it with the bristly end of a broom has been discouraged—never mind by whom; by a person debarred from all political rights—and even my minor proposal to put the other end of the broom into the kitchen fire and turn it to charcoal has not been conceded.” (a jibe directed towards his wife)
The purpose of Downe’s letter is to convince his wife to emigrate to the United States with their children. He achieves this purpose by dividing his letter into three parts, two of which are arguments for why she should come here and one being a counterargument against an expected response of cynicism towards Downe’s credibility. His first two arguments are in the beginning and the end. Downe claims that everyone in the U.S. including the wealthy are generous and giving. He achieves this effect by presenting an unrealistic list of all the food he can obtain free of charge such as apples and peaches that are freely picked. This portrayal of how he is treated by the upper class leads to a smaller argument branched off from the first one: No one considers themselves superior to others in the U.S. Downe’s second argument is aimed at swaying his wife that there is still room in the U.S. for more immigrants and he uses a hyperbole of “1000 years” to convince his wife of the largeness of the U.S. His counterargument is in the lower half of the letter as he addresses and apologizes for his abrupt departure. Downe tries to make it sound that he left for the family’s benefit to search for work. He achieves this effect by saying how much he loves his children and his wife.
When I heard the assignment was to juxtapose two images, I instinctively looked for photographs based on historical events since I am not familiar with paintings or sculptures. I entertained my first notion, which was to see if I could juxtapose two images with completely different connotations, and use them based on their visual similarities. With that in mind, two names came to me, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Adolph Hitler, two completely different people on the opposite ends of any spectrum. With the assistance of Google image search, I was fortunate enough to stumble upon these two photographs, which eerily illustrate similarities.
The two black and white photos both depict Dr. King and Hitler speaking. They are standing on podiums equipped with microphones broadcasting to a large audience. The countenances of the two leaders are nearly identical. Their facial expressions are strong, bold, confident, declarative, and imposing. Their mouths are open, forming the shape of someone shouting, and they carry authority with their serious demeanor. They are there with a purpose. They are there to say what they need to say and they demand the audience to agree with them through their rhetoric and through their disposition. We do not think for even a second that these two men possess any doubt about their message or their purpose, and even if they did, it is buried beneath their visual display of strength and resolve. Both leaders raise their hand to command the floor so that not even a diminutive whisper would dare to interrupt them. I cannot help but think about the hand gestures associated with the two figures when I look at these photos. For Adolph Hitler, our minds are forever ingrained with the image of the Nazi salute by German youths. For Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we recall the raised fist that symbolizes black power. He did not start this gesture but it does fit in correlation in most people’s mind to the civil rights movement. These visual displays of support and agreement to a doctrine are so similar physically yet they carry entirely different messages. One gesture projects the empowerment of an oppressed people who desire equality and the other projects the rise in power of a people corrupted by the belief of ethnic cleansing.
The horizontal perspectives of the photos also illustrate key contrasts. Even though both men are standing, the form of Adolph Hitler seems smaller than the form of Dr. King. With his hand raised higher, Dr. King’s posture appears taller and it points upwards. This is ironic because the negative space for Hitler is smaller than the negative space for King’s photograph since we have a closer view of Hitler. With a close-up view of Hitler, the emphasis on his size should make his posture appear larger than Dr. King’s posture. However, it’s the opposite. Our distant perspective of Dr. King actually emphasizes more on his tall, commanding disposition than it does for Hitler’s disposition even though Hitler’s proportion to the photo is greater. In addition, the value of tones for Hitler’s photo is much darker; his background is darkness with him standing alone on the podium. Dr. King’s photo has lighter value of tones with a background of white pillars. Dr. King is also seen with people on the podium as he gives his speech.
I believe the similarities and contrasts of the photos illustrate perfectly the historical context of these two influential figures. Their similar stance on the podium, with a raised hand and a countenance of authority as they speak to the audience clearly depicts their roles as leaders. In that visual respect, it is the only similarity between Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Adolph Hitler. The differences of the photos, on the other hand, reveal more information through symbolism. Adolph Hitler stands alone in darkness and the photo is a close-up shot of him. This perspective symbolizes how Hitler’s campaign of prejudice and war was solely for individual gains and how he was the cause for one of the worst regimes in history. In addition, the dark background reflects the nefariousness of his desire for power at any cost. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stands with people behind his back and white pillars are his background. It shows how Dr. King’s crusade for civil rights was for the benefit of society and the white pillars illustrate the pillars supporting freedom and equality in our country since the photo is taken at Washington D.C. during King’s I Have a Dream speech. In addition, the white pillars can symbolize the pureness of his goal. We can also learn something about ourselves from the two photos even though we are not a civil rights leader or a despot.
In my opinion, the images of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Adolph Hitler capture the true essence of one aspect of human nature: our innate drive to improve the world. The photos capture our passion, our ambition, and our moral fragility. I use the term “fragility” because I believe our chances of doing good in the world are equal to our chances of doing evil. My claim is going to be met with heavy opposition since I am claiming that Hitler had the sincere desire to improve the world. My defense is that if someone could commit genocide and live with himself, despite his corrupted reasoning or perhaps even insanity, he must have truly thought what he was doing was for the greater good. After comparing the photos, it was frightening to see the similarities between the two individuals’ circumstance. Dr. King fought for civil rights for African-Americans after generations of oppression and racism in America and Hitler stood up to restore his nation’s image and his people’s pride after economic strife brought about by Germany’s European neighbors after WWI. However, one decided to use non-violent protest and the other started a world war. This is what I mean when I said human nature and our morals are fragile. When faced with similar situations, two people had completely opposite outcomes. In the end, the true difference is that Hitler’s goals were selfish and Dr. King’s goals were not. Therefore, when we are caught up in the moment, when we believe what we are doing is good and just, we need to reexamine our aims to see whether our goals are for the greater good or only for our personal gains.
Pro:
The news in our media portray our society as one riddled with murders, rapes, and robberies. Critics interpret this observation as our society’s unhealthy fear and obsession. However, the facts stand on their own and the facts tell us that these atrocities are not made-up and occur daily. With that in mind, who can argue against our right granted by our Founding Fathers to own firearm to protect our wives and children? Opponents spin their argument and promote a notion that if gun control was increased, crimes would stop. They presume that criminals simply go to a gun store and purchase their weapons. What a naive illusion. Criminals obtain their guns through the black market. Even if gun control was increased, it would stop criminals from obtaining firearm. Therefore, we, the citizens of this country, need to own guns for protection against an increasing criminal infestation.
Con:
We need guns to protect ourselves from criminals with guns. This argument is the basis of most opponents of gun control. But what would happen if we simply take guns out of the equation? It seems that the problem at hand would be solved and criminals would lose their power. Do not presume that I have not taken other weapons into consideration that might be used by criminals. Sure, criminals could be a knife or another blunt object. However, their ability to cause immediate deaths with bullets is no longer a factor. In addition, has everyone forgotten about the police? The sound of sirens will always persuade the criminals to flee and no unnecessary acts of heroism are needed to be taken.
My response to this prompt would be in accordance with Kennan’s observation. He claims that power in the United States is diffused among three primary branches: the government, the underground world of crime, and most importantly, our social structure. My nuisance thesis for this passage would be, “Kennan’s observation of how power in the U.S. is distributed unevenly among three parties, most of the power going to the social structure, seems to be an eternal truth of how our society functions since it still accurately reflects what our lives are like; however, in the present, more power has be taken out of our social structure and given to our government.” My claim would be supported by current examples of how our government and their institutions have accumulated more power over the past few years. For example, the wire-tapping policy created to spy on U.S. citizens. This increase of power in our government has shaped our opinions of how we perceive different groups. By having an influence on the culture, the government has taken more power of out of our social structure. I would use 2 current examples that shows 2 different ways that our government is increasing power and perhaps one counterexample that is analyzed in a manner that would support my claim as well.
High school and drama are the two axles in the life of a high school senior suffering in 2nd semester, moving the gears of a mundane existence. John never expected himself to be involved in a typical high school conflict engendered by rumors, problems with friends, and, most of all, girls. Invariably, either by chance of by fate, John has stumbled upon a dilemma where he knows that he has to choose between a friend or his desire. In the last moment, before he was consumed by his wants, before his willingness to betray his friend persuaded him completely, John chose his friendship over his desires and rescued a friendship from crumbling.
After reading the text and examining the pictures, I am reminded of the expression, “Seeing is believing.” The author’s claim on how racism is a continuing problem is reinforced by the selected photos. The pictures add an element of undeniable verification about what the author has to say. If there were only text, for example, the one story with the mother and her child falling off the fire-escape, the reader would not be impacted as much. By putting a human face on the story, we give a deeper reaction. Other pictures that were not directly related to race supported his arguments by providing historical evidence of how the American flag was portrayed in contrast with the initial photograph.
