-
First off, a poem.
Hamlet Off Stage: Laertes Cool
DC Berry
Laertes has groupies, proof he has taste,
has cool. Wears skate-board clothes: elephant pants,
the crotch snagging his knees, tent-size tee-shirt.
He wants the play staged at a roller rink:
him, Fortinbras, and me wearing in-lines,
the rest in quads. And instead of a duel,
we throw ourselves a roller-derby brawl.
Why not? Do something with a little class
to offset the end's cartoon slaughter house.
Connect this poem to our definition of tragedy.
Secondly, and I think much more serious, is an interesting point made by celebrated Israeli author Amos Oz:
He said in an interview a few years ago that Israel really has two paths - one leads to an end like a Shakesperian tragedy, where the stage is filled with corpses, and pretty much everybody is dead; the other leads to a Chekovian tragedy (Anton Chekov - Russian playwright who wrote "The Cherry Orchard"), where everybody is a litte bit disappointed about how things turned out, maybe shaking their heads, but walking away with their lives. Oz said he opts for the Chekovian tragic ending.
Considering our reading of Hamlet, your knowledge of Shakesperian tragedy, and maybe a little help from wikipedia's decent page on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli...inian_Conflict
,comment on Oz's statement.
<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ October 11, 2007 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Mr Branch ]</font></font>
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ October 11, 2007 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Mr Branch ]</font>
-
This poem explains Laertes' perspective towards how he wants to end with Hamlet. Laertes is among two other people and they are going to use in-line skates instead of the antique quad style skates. This gives them an unfair advantage to the battle.
Oz's statement is pretty interesting because of how he puts the endings. It seems very true that Shakespeare's plays do end with everyone dead. It is sad to see that Israel only has these two options. The Shakespearean ending is very sad and disappointing. Even though the Shakespearean is very negative, it seems as though the Chekovian is worse because you have been defeated and lost everything that you fought for. The Shakespearean takes away your life but you fought for your country because you choose not to live your life in any other way.
-
i find israels situation very saddening. Oz's comments are interesting in that he reffered the country's situation to a shakesperian play but it does make sense because the country could all end up dead like in Hamlet. he obviously chooses the check's side because with that situation everyone still lives, just in poverty.
-
This poem brings me great sorrow, for it is degrading to Hamlet and disrespectful to Shakespeare. His description of Laertes is childish and just not up to the level of critic that Shakespeare deserves.
Regarding Israel's situation, I believe Amos Oz is definitely right. The country can keep waging war until everyone ends up dead, just like they do in most of Shakespeare's plays, or they can do whatever else it is that will keep them out of war, and maybe they will keep on being abused by Muslims, but at least people will not die over it.
-
i think the poem ist not that good, it tries to relate it to your life too much, and it looses a lot of the purpose i think poems should have.
I think that the isreali/palestinain situation is very sad, and ozsimplifies the whole deal, and comes up with the two most realistic options. I like how he does not try to blame anyone, he just says it how it is, and this makes it much eisier to know what the best rational decision in this case is; compromise
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ October 15, 2007 08:04 PM: Message edited by: dainkelly ]</font>
-
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ October 15, 2007 08:05 PM: Message edited by: dainkelly ]</font>
-
Part I:
The change in the ending where Laertes and Hamlet decide to settle their disputes through a skate competition stinks in my opinion. The whole concept of tragedy is lost by this ending. Yes, the finale is now happy, prety, and wonderful, but it now stinks. Readers need all this drama to be satisfied. Who wants to read about how two boys settle their problems through a skate competition? We want death and disaster. It is in our nature.
Part II:
Most people will say "AWWWW, poor Israel. They have to suffer." But I say we all face these kinds of problems. At some point in our lives, we had to be in the "fight or flight dilemma". Should we choose to face our problems like courageous men or simply ignore those problems, try to forget them, and keep all that anger and suffering in our hearts for ourselves. It is not only Israel, ladies and gentlemen, it is something worldwide that happens to everyone.
Juan Max Boettner--> Save the APES! [img]graemlins/island.gif[/img]
-
1. From what I understand, the poem's central topic is that of a group of individuals interpreting a scene from "Hamlet" in a skating rink. In the poem itself, there's very little "tragedy"; it mentions a duel, but it does not construct the story in a manner that makes said duel significant. Thus, from a purely literary interpretation, there isn't any "tragedy" in the poem, I think.
The only obvious tragedy, I think, is the elaboration of such a comical parody of "Hamlet" in a nonsensical poem that uses an excessive amount of slang words to make a rather obscure point. In that sense, the poem in itself is a "tragedy", since it portrays a degenerated imitation of a magnificent piece of work, all the while refusing to at least use vocabulary that's up to par.
All my conservative rant apart, however, the poem isn't a tragedy in it of itself: it just references a well-known literary example.
2. All things considered, I think that a "Chekovian" conclusion to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unlikely. These are two cultural groups, one cemented in the territory more recently than the other, who have been locked in a hostile confrontation for over thirty years. Israel isn't likely to cede larger portions of its territory to a state that it considers unfriendly. Likewise, Palestinians aren't likely to water down their demands to anything that's nearly acceptable to Israel.
However, I also don't think that a "Shakespearian" conclusion will take place, either. Israel is supported by the United States, which has considerable political and military power at a global scale. From a diplomatic point of view, it isn't convenient for the United States or Israel to try and exile the Palestinians from the latter's territory. Likewise, it isn't a viable option for Palestinians to scale their hostilities with Israel.
Most likely things will stay as they are, with Israel controlling most of the territory and Palestinians controlling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. I don't think that there'll be any "tragedy" elements involved.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ October 16, 2007 08:57 PM: Message edited by: alberto_dacosta ]</font>
-
This poem is a modern interpretation of Shakespeare done in a skating rink by what seem to be teens or young adults. The previous classmates' posts have criticized it severely already so I won't do that. I believe that this interpretation of Shakespeare, as attempted by these young men, is a comical take on tragedy. The last line of the poem says that it was done for the purpose of lightening up the tragedy that is Hamlet.
I agree with Oz that the best solution for that conflict would have to be a nonviolent one, even though all parties might not be completely happy with the results. The ending of a Shakespearian tragedy, however great in the end, involves much bloodshed that could have been prevented. My personal opinion is that a Palestinian state must be created. The Palestinians, no matter if they are right or wrong, will not be conformed any other way... and we know what happens when they are not. A couple of days ago I saw this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7044914.stm) which tells of Condoleezza Rice (therefore the U.S. basically) urging for a Palestinian state. This is interesting considering the extensive U.S. backing Israel has and has had in the past.
-
Connecting this poem to my definition of tragedy, I think that Hamlet?s tragic ending is twisted by D.C. Berry?s verses. Although the author ensures that Laertes, Fortinbras, and Hamlet are distinguished from the others by ?wearing in-lines? instead of quads, he suggests a ?happier? finale for these tragic heroes. If his supposition becomes true, Hamlet would not have the virtues it has, since the radical drama no longer exists.
Oz opts for the Chekovian tragic ending, where ?peace? is established and there be no more violent conflicts. But we may also look at the other perspective, where people prefer the Shakespearean for they can?t make any concessions (and maybe can?t tolerate to live in disgrace). For such advocates, essence precedes existence. Thus, they?ll take drastic measures in order to claim their land.
-
I did not like the poem because I cannot extract anything meaningful from it. I cannot tell if the author is trying to ridicule the fight between Laertes and Hamlet or simply attempts to describe another perspective. Either way, I fail to see the point.
I believe that Amos Oz statement is too simplistic when considering the war and the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. I agree that both possibilities he argues are possible, but it is not the only result. Amos is trying to summarize something that cannot be compressed because of the deep roots and magnitude that this quarrel contains.
-
Hamlet Off Stage: Laertes Cool
DC Berry
Laertes has groupies, proof he has taste,
has cool. Wears skate-board clothes: elephant pants,
the crotch snagging his knees, tent-size tee-shirt.
He wants the play staged at a roller rink:
him, Fortinbras, and me wearing in-lines,
the rest in quads. And instead of a duel,
we throw ourselves a roller-derby brawl.
Why not? Do something with a little class
to offset the end's cartoon slaughter house.
Connect this poem to our definition of tragedy.
Secondly, and I think much more serious, is an interesting point made by celebrated Israeli author Amos Oz:
He said in an interview a few years ago that Israel really has two paths - one leads to an end like a Shakesperian tragedy, where the stage is filled with corpses, and pretty much everybody is dead; the other leads to a Chekovian tragedy (Anton Chekov - Russian playwright who wrote "The Cherry Orchard"), where everybody is a litte bit disappointed about how things turned out, maybe shaking their heads, but walking away with their lives. Oz said he opts for the Chekovian tragic ending.
Considering our reading of Hamlet, your knowledge of Shakesperian tragedy, and maybe a little help from wikipedia's decent page on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli...inian_Conflict
,comment on Oz's statement.
1. I believe the poem is using humor to explain the crazy way that the characters in Hamlet approach the duel. They take it so light-heartedly as if it weren't a big deal, almost not even caring that their lives are on the line.
2. I agree with Oz's statement about Israel, and I think the same statement could also be used with many counties with conflict. I think many of these countries are destined to end as a Shakesperian tragedy by they way they're governed.
-
A quick thought on the pseudo-poem:
Although it has some idea behind such vulgarity, I think that Shakespeare would be ashamed of being quoted (indirectly) on such a poem. This poem has a more contemporal connotation of a tragedy, becuase instead of fighting (literally), they duel each other to a sport; in this case, skate-boarding. More than being an example of a tragedy or direct relation to Hamlet, it is more of a parody to what Hamlet and the Shakespearean tragedy represent.
I must say that Israel's future is somewhat foreshadowed by Shakespeare, because the Muslims will not rest until they see Israel exterminated. You have a country like Iran that has been openly advocating a war against "Jews and their allies." The Israelites have already been targeted since Roman times, maybe their time has come to an end. You never know.
I personally, prefer having a peaceful Middle-East where everybody lives in a somewhat-peaceful arrangement. But I guess that is not possible. Instead of having a mass killing spree on behalf of both sides, I prefer having a not so popular approach to the Middle-East issue where most people are angry at the outcome but then things return to "normal."
*Note: Sorry if I generalize. No harm was intended.
-
The poem shows a different interpretation of Hamlet, trying to relate it to more modern terms. In my opinion it is an awful and demeaning poem. The poem does mention a duel but does not really seem like a tragedy. The poem is simply a poor imitation of the true masterpiece and becomes pathetic with its vulgar attempt to make a more contemporary version of the scene. Its effort to be comical is pitiful and exaggerated.
Oz's account really simplifies the whole outcome of the affair. I like how he narrows the consequences and makes such simple and easily understood comparisons. However, i'm not sure how accurate his conclusions are.
-
The poem tries to show a rather modern side to Hamlet but it ends up losing the play's main concept of tragedy which is that everyone dies at the end and that it is a very sad, dark and gloomy ending. Saying that the duel between Hamlet and Laertes can be settled in a skating rink is just a childish solution and it changes the concept of the play completely. Oz says that Palestine is going to have a shakespearean end by saing that a tragedy is going to take place because everyone is going to end up dead because they are fighting each other. There is a duel between two sides one representing Hamlet and the other Laertes. I actually dont think that there will be a mass murder in palestine because there are organizations like the United Nations that have the job to re-establish peace and take actions into their own hands to see that this happens.
