Discuss the Roles of Language and Reason in History Essay Example for Free

Discuss the Roles of Language and Reason in History Essay History as the area of knowledge is virtually indivisible from language and reasoning. Language is one of the most potent means of interpreting and reporting historical information that is derived from the sources pertinent to the events and occurrences. The sources themselves, in their turn, are frequently presented by the written documents, recorded anecdotal experiences, and works of art, archeology, anthropology and photography which, yet again, are interpreted through the language in conjunction with the context of a historical event. It appears to be an endless loop, where language is the alpha and omega, the main vehicle of conveying history. However, to arrive to the valid interpretation of a certain historical event or development, historians frequently use reasoning to connect the factual data of the tangible sources since the latter ones often come in the form of fragments, related to a particular aspect of the happening. Ideally, reasoning, applied to the interpretation of historical data, should be impersonal, unaffected by predominant views and opinions and completely untainted by political agenda. Yet, it is hard to imagine that throughout the centuries those who held power would willingly allow the contemporary historians relate to the masses the adequate information on the details of their governing techniques and actions. As Winston Churchill pointed out, â€Å"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.† Therefore, it is up to an individual to interpret the language, deduce information through applying reasoning, incorporate other areas of knowledge such as science, sociology, psychology and arrive to conclusions in attempts to comprehend historical developments in question. It is important to point out that we frequently perceive historical events as they are presented by those who hold some form of authority: the individuals whom we refer to as experts or the mass media and research bodies who are entrusted with the responsibility to convey information to masses. And here comes the essential aspect: the validity of the statements and projections made by the mentioned authorities. In other words, in search for the truthful perspective of a historical event one needs to remember about the language that is used for such interpretations, the language of power. Truth in history is a dubious concept since any event which involves certain outcomes would be interpreted by a number of experts. The outcomes of the events be it revolutions, wars, or reigns of monarchs and are usually appear in form of facts: toppling of governments, changes in ideologies and laws that societies are to adhere to, development or stagnation of the economy in a given country. These are the facts that are presented in the form of explanations, commentaries, and justifications. And here the language of power might play the crucial role in the way this information is to be perceived. To distinguish the motives behind the language that is used for presenting the event, one needs to look for other sources that interpret the same development, but from a different angle. For instance, the attack on the World Trade Center, New York City, in 2001 is vastly believed to be executed by the group of terrorists known as Al-Qaeda, and hence perceived as â€Å"the terrorist attack†. The mass media of the entire world presented the fact that over 2,700 people perished during the atrocious bombing which involved the hijacked airplanes driven into both towers which collapsed within a short period of time. However, the independent sources point at the undeniable facts that the World Trade Center towers were â€Å"designed to take the impact of the Boeing 707 hitting the building at any location† (Les Robertson, WTC Structural Engineer) and â€Å"could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners† (Frank A. Demartini, Manager of WTC Construction) and still survive (Aaron Swirsky, WTC Architect)1. Other sources, such as a scientific research conducted by Dr Steven Johns, Professor of Physics, BYU, state that the way the buildings collapsed precisely follows the scenario of a controlled demolition. Here, historical event calls for the help of reasoning, which can raise further questions to authorities that put the entire responsibility on the Al-Qaeda. The more scientific and factual evidence emerges from the research, the more controversial this event seems to be. But it is for an individual to arrive to a conclusion provided he or she is concerned with the issue. However, the prevailing opinion that was projected into the minds of the public by mass media remains adamant: the terrorist group dealt a tremendous blow to the democracy of the United States and must pay for it. Hence, there is a fully justifiable war with Iraq, the country which has a doubtful connection with Al-Qaeda, apart from the fact that it is run by a dictator and constitutes a predominantly Muslim society. But the non-Muslim world has already been contaminated by the fear of Muslims who seem to be nearly synonymous with â€Å"terrorists†. â€Å"Thus, [†¦] crowds have come,[†¦] to acquire a profound antipathy for the images evoked by certain words†2 and fully accepted the justification for the war in Iraq. Reasoning is an indispensable tool for those who wish to form a personal opinion on historical events which are presented through language. Yet this process entails searching for the information from the alternative sources. Language is used as a powerful vehicle in creating certain views among various groups of societies, and such language is frequently applied by those who are concerned with power. History is abound with examples in which governing bodies used language to impose ideology and ensure that the masses are entirely convinced in the righteousness of such propaganda: the Soviet Union, China and socialism, Germany and Nazism, the United States and democracy. However, upon a simple application of reasoning, a series of questions arise: how a nation that was claimed to be fed by pure ideology could exist for more than 75 years and build one of the most successful, self-sustaining industries and sciences that are still recognized, though grudgingly, throughout the entire capi talistic world? How could a nation develop such a potent economy that is still burgeoning while the other one is desperately trying to recover from the economic meltdown that has affected nearly the entire world? What could make a nation believe a mentally ill person3 and empower it to conquer the entire Europe? It is indubitable that the language of power and the power of language were effectively used by the leaders of those nations. However, it is reasoning that can help an independent researcher or a concerned individual in the quest of constructing a clear picture on what forces were involved in such profound changes on such vast scales. Of course, it is naà ¯ve to presume that reasoning alone might provide clarifications to the historical events under scrutiny. Reasoning in history is a second step in interpreting historical developments after pertinent to them materials were selected and carefully studied. These materials would include evidence from various fields and areas of knowledge, and the greater the scope of those areas, the more comprehensible and significant the features of events would emerge before the eyes of the researcher. Language might play the roles of obscuring the conditions and implications of historical events; yet the same language might be used in explaining the factors that led to the consequences produced by those events. However, it is the effort in applying reasoning and logic that would eventually create an unobstructed perspective on the historical developments and occurrences in question. References and works cited: 1. Joseph, Peter. 2007. Zeitgeist. Online. Accessed: Dec 21, 2010. www.zeitgeistmovie.com. 2. Le Bon, Gustave. 1841-1931. The Crowd: A study of the Popular Mind. 1841-1931. Translation: Psychologie des foules. Cherokee Publishing Company. Atlanta, Georgia. 1982. Pg. 100 3. The International Campaign for Real History. Hitler’s Last Illness. Online. Accessed: Dec 23, 2010. www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/Parkinsonism/VancouverSun170599.html

An Autobiography: Lee Iacocca Essay -- Book Reviews

1. Title: Iacocca, An Autobiography. 2. Author: Lee Iacocca with William Novak. 3. This book is an Autobiography. 4. Publisher: Bantam Books  ® 5. Copyright  © July 1986 6. Pages: 357 7. Historical Background: His name when he was born was Lido, not really Lee. He changed it when he had to go down South for a sales campaign. He thought that the Southerners would like it better if his name was Lee. It worked fairly well too. Anyway, his father was the first person to arrive in America. He arrived in 1902, at the age of 12. His father went back to his birthplace, Italy, and married Antoinette. They came back across the Atlantic. Except this time, his father, Nicola, was an American citizen. They moved to Allentown, Pennsylvania, also where Lee was born and raised. Lee (Lido, I’ll use Lee from now on though.) was born on October 15, 1924. Lee’s father was a sort of philosophical type of person. He always had an important lesson to tell his son. It usually was great advice that just about anyone and everyone could use. His father once said that ‘When times are tough, be in the food business. No matter how tough times get, people still have to eat.à ¢â‚¬â„¢ He was right. He had a hot dog food stand that stayed afloat during all of the depression. Lee was in the Allentown public schools, as a kid. He was an Italian kid in a place full of ‘Pennsylvania Dutch.’ So he was harassed by a lot of kids. He never let it get him down though. His father was always pushing him to be the best. His father was a hard worker and came from a foreign family. Back then, most parents that came from a foreign country always seemed to push their kids to do their best so they can have a better life style than their parents. Lee ended up going to Lehigh for college. He did very well for himself. Before he went to college though, he enlisted in the army. It was around World War II when he did so, of course. But because he had Rheumatic fever when he was a kid , he couldn’t go and fight. The doctors said it was gone. The army said it could come back though. So they rejected his application. He went to Lehigh instead. Ford always took the top student out of the top fifty colleges back then, for a study at Ford. They would get to work at Ford doing just about everything you could do. Lee was one of them invited. He enrolled at Princeton after that. He graduated with a degree in engi... ...no matter what. He thought that spending time with family was far more important than anything else. It’s a good thing to have values like that. He’s an honest hard working man that deserved all the good things he got. He didn’t fold when it looked hopeless at Chrysler, he did everything he could to keep the company alive, and now it’s having more success than it ever has in it’s history of existence. This is a very good book, and I recommend that everyone read this one. It’s got a lot of interesting stuff and advice in it. It also gives great insight into the auto manufacturing business. There are a lot of stereotype’s out there that say a car company tried to kill them. But really, all of the guys that make the cars are driving them themselves. They don’t purposely make bad cars, they drive them and so do their kids, and I don’t think all of them are suicidal maniacs either. I think most of them are sane people. I s ay one thing we need less of in America is blood sucking lawyers. They’re just greedy people that we could do without some of them. I learned that in order to succeed, you must not give up easily. You can’t give up on your dreams until you have put your all into it.

The Philosophy of Action in Hamlet

‘Words, words, words’: Hamlet’s philosophy of action Central to any drama is action. What distinguishes drama from other literary forms is the very fact that it is acted upon a stage, that voice is given to the words and that movement creates meaning. It is, therefore, puzzling that the most seminal dramatic work in the English language contains, arguably, precious little of what many might describe as dramatic action. Nevertheless it has moved, enthralled and, what is more, entertained generations of theatre goers across the centuries and is still regarded as one of Shakespeare’s most popular play.It has divided critics: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe regards as central to the play Hamlet’s inability to act[1] whereas T. S. Eliot reduces the work to ‘an artistic failure’. [2] If Tom Stoppard is to be believed, even the characters are at odds with this apparent lack of drama as Stoppard’s Rosencrantz asks ‘is it too much to expe ct a little sustained action?! ’[3] If then, we are to acknowledge that action is central to drama, it is important to remember that such action is usually derived from conflict.When regarding Hamlet through this basic philosophy, the play is in every way dramatic. The play is concerned with conflict. We have international conflict, familial conflict and internal conflict and it is these conflicts that drive the play. This is confirmed within the opening line ‘Who’s there? ’(I. i. 1)[4] Immediately we are plunged into the state of paranoia that envelops Elsinore, the question is confrontational and, furthermore, directs us towards the international conflict between Denmark and Norway. The drama of the play, however, is not as simple as this.For instance, we must also consider the dramatic structure of a play and apply this to Hamlet; a structure that goes from equilibrium to conflict and then on to a new equilibrium. It is impossible to relate this to the play; for who would agree that the Elsinore, at the start of Hamlet, is in a state of equilibrium? Indeed, as Stephen Ratcliffe points out, the catalyst for all action in the play does not occur within the play[5]. The murder of Hamlet’s father has already happened when Barnardo delivers that famous first line, a line which itself suggests a response to something that has happened offstage.Ratcliffe goes on to discuss that the line could almost be a response to a ‘knock knock’ joke but more seriously that it: begin[s] the play in response not only to some implicit, unspoken physical action- some motion or noise in the dark, [†¦] but to an implicit action not performed on stage – some motion of the Ghost of Hamlet’s father which Bernardo, who speaks this line, must imagine he has seen and/or heard. [6] Ratcliffe also suggests that the action not performed on stage does not happen at all.Alarmingly, he refutes Claudius’s confession of frat ricide in Act III, arguing unconvincingly that Old Hamlet’s murder had never taken place. [7] In spite of this he does raise an interesting issue that is concerned with the question as to why – when in Western literature dramatic narrative is defined by cause and effect – does Shakespeare place the primary cause off stage and beyond the gaze of his audience? We are left to imagine the dramatic possibilities of opening the play with the alarming and visually striking image of a brother’s murder.If Shakespeare’s decision to leave this exciting and sinister event in the wings confounds us, what, then, are we to make of the climax of the play? If we are to return to the classic dramatic structure of a play, we expect to see rising action leading to a climax that, in turn, leads on to the falling action culminated by the denouement. Hamlet gives us no such structure. There is no climax in the classic sense or if there is it appears in the final scene, n ot where one would expect. There is, nevertheless, one possibility that the climax may appear earlier in the play and that would be, in the traditional sense, in Act III.The murder of Polonius in Act III, scene iv might be regarded as the turning point of the play in the same way that Mercutio’s death in Romeo and Juliet is seen as such. It is at this point that we see Hamlet at a height of passion, ‘How now? A rat! Dead for a ducat, dead’ (III. iv. 23). The use of the word ‘rat’ shows Hamlet’s contempt for his supposed victim, the repetition of ‘dead’ embellishes his determination to kill, and the ducat is the small price Hamlet values the life he has just taken. The consequences of this action feed into every other event that is to happen: Claudius’s resolve to kill Hamlet, Ophelia’s eath and Laertes’s act of revenge which brings about the play’s final dynastic collapse. Once again, though, Shakespear e ‘removes’ the audience from the action, having the murder take place ‘offstage’. Polonius is murdered behind the arras and this takes us away from the immediacy of the action. There is no huge build up with a climactic duel as there is in Romeo and Juliet; we are not even given the drama of remorse that is evident in Macbeth. For these reasons, it is impossible to consider the death of Polonius to be the dramatic climax of the play, merely another cause leading on to another effect.This shortage of ‘action’, though, is illusory. A. C. Bradley comments on this when he suggests a hypothetical reaction to the play: What a sensational story! Why, here are some eight violent deaths, not to speak of adultery, a ghost, a mad woman, and a fight in a grave! [8] Hamlet does have a dramatic conclusion, of that no one is in doubt, but this has come after a series of procrastinations from the titular hero. All other action is kept firmly offstage. One mig ht hear Bradley go on to say ‘Treason, pirates, war, the storming of a castle and a regime change! The latter two were included in Branagh’s film version strongly alluding to the storming of the Iranian embassy in 1981 an event that was intensely exciting and dramatic for any that can remember it. For Shakespeare, however, such extravagant action appears to be superfluous to his play and is, therefore, not of importance. As a consequence, it would appear redundant to continue analysing what is not in the play, as Ratcliffe has done at length[9], and to focus on what Shakespeare does give us. What Shakespeare does give us is words, ‘words, words, words’(II. i. 192) and it is through these words that he provides the action. It is here where I must agree with Ratcliffe when he suggests that, in Hamlet, it is the language that is of importance and not the action. [10] It is necessary, then, to look at the power of language within the play and how Shakespeare fa cilitates it in order to sustain a dramatic structure. Firstly, as mentioned above, the catalyst for all the action in the play happens off stage but is delivered to the audience, and Hamlet, through the words of the ghost. We know that these ords are to hold significance as we have shared Horatio’s anxiety for the ghost to ‘stay and speak’ (I. i. 142). The appearance of the ghost is not enough. It is, therefore, the words that are spoken to Hamlet in conjunction with the apparition that help to creates the first piece of dramatic action in the play: Now, Hamlet, hear. ’Tis given out that, sleeping in my orchard, A serpent stung me – so the whole ear of Denmark Is by a forged process of my death Rankly abus’d – but know, thou noble youth, The serpent that did sting thy father’s life Now wears his crown. [†¦]Ay, that incestuous, that adulterate beast, With witchcraft of his wit, with traitorous gifts- O wicked wit, and gifts that have the power So to seduce! – won to his shameful lust The will of my most seeming-virtuous queen. (I. i. 34-46) What is striking about this scene is how it is dominated by the ghost and how little Hamlet actually says. If it were one of the lesser characters, it could be assumed that they were struck dumb and in awe of the presence of a spectre but, even this early in the play, we know enough about Hamlet to realise that this would not be the case for him.He mentions a few lines earlier that he is not afraid, saying ‘I do not set my life at a pin’s fee’ (I. iv. 65), so why now is he so quiet? Surely Shakespeare feels that Hamlet, like the audience, should be still with trepidation at the drama that is unfolding before them. In this short passage of the ghost’s speech we have incest, adultery, witchcraft, treachery, not to mention murder. Here we see Shakespeare using the power of words to create the action upon the stage, words that, like Ra tcliffe points out, enter through our ears as did Claudius’s poison. 11] Later on in the play we will see words used as poison, again by Claudius, when, in true Machiavellian style, he corrupts the mind of the vengeful Laertes. When discussing the power of words we must look at the play-within-a-play sequence of Act III, an aspect of the play which has been discussed at length by the critics but also one that brings into question another facet of action, that of acting. Hamlet is an extremely self-conscious play, bringing comedy into a highly dramatic moment in Act I, scene v when Hamlet asks the ghost ‘Canst work i’th’ earth so fast? (l. 170): this is an obvious comment on the crudeness of Elizabethan stagecraft. Earlier in the same scene Shakespeare has commented on the possibility of a bored audience when Hamlet comments on ‘this distracted globe’ (l. 97)[12] and, when Polonius states that when he played Caesar ‘Brutus killed me. â₠¬â„¢ (III. ii. 103) Jenkins points out that the actors playing Hamlet and Polonius were likely to have played Brutus and Caesar respectively in an earlier play and therefore are about to ‘re-enact’ the murder. 13] If we look at Hamlet’s instructions to the players: 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-cryer 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 your passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness.O, 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. (III. ii. 1-14) Again, we have a very self-conscious speech where there seems to be an in-joke upon the acting style of the actor who plays Polonius, if not intended by Shakespeare it could certainly be performed as such.There is also the awareness of audience as well in the comments about the groundlings which is rather a brave joke which, had they been enjoying the play, would have gone down in good humour. It might also be considered that Shakespeare followed up the joke by including the dumb-show that followed! If we look closely at the instructions, however, we notice the emphasis on the words rather than the action. The opening imperative is ‘Speak the speech’ and interestingly ‘as I pronounced it’ not as I acted or showed it which seems strange to say when instructing actors.It is true that in the restricted views of an Elizabethan playhouse an audience would go to hear a play but this would not be the case in a private cou rtly performance. Also we must remember that Hamlet is only concerned with one member of the audience; someone who, one might assume, would have the best view of the play. Hamlet’s instructions are followed by references to the tongue and mouth where the words must inevitably come from and then the simile of the town cryer again placing stress on verbal communication.Hamlet requests a limit to the ‘action’, the body movement – the acting- so that it is the language that is of paramount importance. In such a self-aware moment of the nature of acting and drama in the play are we not to assume that this is coming from Shakespeare as much as Hamlet? The players’ sequence has significance because here we have on stage the mechanics of Hamlet. There is the murder of Gonzago/Hamlet acted out on stage, the betrayal of Lucianus/Claudius and the union between the Lucianus/Claudius and Queen/Gertrude.Here Shakespeare gives us what we were denied in the first a ct the event which sets the whole play in motion. Not only that but by having Lucianus as the nephew to Gonzago we are also witnessing the events that are about to happen on stage or, at least, those that we expect to happen. Interestingly enough, though, is that Shakespeare has included a dumb-show as if to appease the groundlings despite his earlier comments but it is not through watching this that Claudius reacts but rather the words of the players that follows.At the line ‘On wholesome life usurps immediately’ (III. ii. 254) Claudius can no longer remain seated for he cannot deny the words, something that has been discussed and embellished by Ratcliffe. [14] The question as to why Claudius does not react to the dumb-show can be resolved in performance by choosing to have Claudius showing signs of discomfort throughout until he can finally stand it no more as in Olivier’s film version. There is nothing in the text, however, that suggests that this is how it sh ould be performed. The king questions Hamlet, Is there no offence in’t? ’ (III. ii. 227) and in this dialogue there is nothing to suggest that he is suffering from any anxiety regardless of how this line has divided critics. [15] So once again we see that it is words that have more power, more effect and more significance than mere actions. In looking at the philosophy of action in the play one must recognise that the play is essentially a revenge play and that all action must stem from the concept of revenge. Michael Mangan defines the revenge play as a play which: harts the protagonist’s attempts to [revenge]: this may involve a period of doubt, in which the protagonist decides whether or not to go ahead with the revenge, and it may also involve some complex plotting (in both senses of the word) as the protagonist decides to take revenge in an apt or fitting way. The revenger, by deciding to take revenge, places himself outside the normal order of things, and often becomes more and more isolated as the play progresses – an isolation which at its most extreme becomes madness. [16] It would appear, from this definition, that Hamlet is, indeed, a revenge play but who is it that seeks revenge?I would argue that it is not Hamlet for, as Catherine Belsey notes, ‘[r]evenge is not justice’[17] and we are reminded throughout the play that Hamlet seeks justice. For instance, Hamlet does not act rashly for he states: 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 (III. ii. 71-73) This might suggest that Hamlet holds reason close to his heart. Here we see that contrary to popular belief Hamlet is not a man that is ruled by passion but that is not to say that he is not passionate.If Hamlet were ruled by passion he would not have devised such an elaborate ploy to confirm the guilt of the king but would have acted straight away. Gone would be the procrasti nations and Hamlet could have roused up the populace as easily as Laertes does in Act IV, as Bradley points out[18], and Claudius would have been dead by Act II. Many critics that have argued this case seem to suggest that Shakespeare’s reason for prolonging the action was to fill out the five act structure of the play. [19] We are given three possible revenge heroes in the play: Hamlet we can discount, Fortinbras and Laertes.Shakespeare has provided these two characters to put Hamlet’s inability to act into stark contrast. Through Fortinbras we see the noble prince revenging the death of his father through careful planning and sharp resolve and in Laertes we see a rash young man whose desperate bid for revenge only quickens his own demise. It is important to note that even with the careful planning Fortinbras still shares Hamlet’s prolonging of the act when we consider that Denmark’s defeat of Norway was at the time of Hamlet’s birth some thirty y ears previous.Hamlet, however, does not seek revenge. He could have easily been able to exact it when he says ‘Now might I do it pat’ (III. iii. 73). The semantics of the word ‘might’ suggest that he has no intention of committing the murder. ‘Will’ or ‘must’ would imply a more decisive move yet Shakespeare gives us a Hamlet who is questioning his actions. His decision to spare Claudius whilst at prayer further indicates that it is justice and not revenge that Hamlet desires.Claudius points out to Laertes that ‘No place indeed should murder sancturise’ but Hamlet delays his action because he wants justice – a death for a death- like for like. Significantly, Hamlet is a revenger who is unable to act as Calhoun states he is unable to ‘play the role’,[20] or to use Ted Hughes’s metaphor: Like the driver of a bus containing all the characters of the drama, he hurtles towards destruction, in slow motion, with his foot jammed down hard on the brakes. [21] Having established the substance and value of words in Hamlet it is necessary to return to the question of dramatic climax in the play.It has always been recognised that it is a dramatic impossibility to act Hamlet on the stage in its entirety and it is not unknown for students of the text to skip through sections when reading but one thing always remains and that is the soliloquies. Within the play we have the most beautiful speeches composed in the English language and it is one of these that, I believe, forms the climax of the play. The climax of language that we are given in the play does follow the classic dramatic structure coming in Act III and at the risk of sounding cliched I would suggest that it is the ‘To be or not to be’ speech.It is in this soliloquy that we have the nub of the play rests and that is Hamlet’s internal conflict on how he should act. It has long been considered to be the musin gs of a troubled mind contemplating suicide and whilst no one will argue that Hamlet’s is not a troubled mind is he really deliberating the end of his own life? I would argue no. Shakespeare has already given us such ruminations earlier in the play with ‘o that this too too sullied flesh would melt’ (I. ii. 129) and I find it difficult to accept that a dramatist of Shakespeare’s calibre would not have developed his main character by the third act.In fact, I would argue that after confronting the ghost and hearing the charge against Claudius, Hamlet has been given new meaning to his life and that all thoughts of suicide have faded. ‘To be or not to be’ should read as ‘To do or not to do’ or ‘To act or not to act’ for it is in this speech that we witness Hamlet’s thoughts on whether to proceed with the killing of Claudius. Not once in the speech is there an ‘I’, nowhere does Hamlet refer to himself. His examples of the ‘whips and scorns of time’ (III. i. 70) save one do not seem to be justifications for taking one’s own life:Th’oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely, The pangs of dispriz’d love, the laws delay, The insolence of office, and the spurns That patient merit of th’unworthy takes (III. i. 71-74) Apart from unrequited love, for which many have taken their life, these seem to be the wrongs that are urging Hamlet to seek justice against Claudius. I might take this further and suggest a reading of the soliloquy where Hamlet knows that Claudius is eavesdropping, something that seemed to me implicit in Brannagh’s film. Through this reading we can see that Hamlet is acting a role for us as an audience but specifically for Claudius and Polonius.He is diverting attention from his true thoughts of murder whilst also confirming his ‘antic disposition’ (I. v. 180). In addition to this it explains why he apparently forgets the ghost of his father as he claims ‘No traveller returns’ (III. i. 80) as it would not be practical to reveal the truth at this stage. Also, the speech concludes that it is conscience that prevents him and the fear of the unknown when prior to this he has stated that it was because that God has ‘fix’d / His canon ’gainst self-slaughter’ (I. ii. 131-132).Arguably, this could be a variation of the same rationale yet there is a distinct change in tone which suggests a difference in attitude. Therefore, it is within this soliloquy where Hamlet reaches his decision which he reveals to Ophelia (and Claudius) when he says that ‘all but one – shall live’ (III. i. 150). One might argue that the opening line of this speech, ‘To be or not to be’ (III. i. 56), uncontrovertibly suggests that Hamlet is, indeed, reflecting on suicide but, once again, this is another self-conscious reflection upon the nature of drama.For Hamlet, the character in the play Hamlet, must act in order to ‘be’ and as a revenge hero, that act is the murder of Claudius. While Claudius is alive, Hamlet’s mind and soul are troubled and only through the act of revenge with ‘a bare bodkin’ can he bring about his ‘quietus’ (III. i. 75-6). Words, therefore, are the focus of this play. It is Shakespeare’s longest and in it we are given a character who ‘â€Å"comes alive† only in language’[22], it is through words that the dramatic action, except the final scene, takes place upon the stage.In terms of drama, the play is at odds with its form in that the driving action of the plot precedes the start of the play. We are given a revenge hero who is unable to live up to that title and only seems to spring into what one might call action when he has been hit by Laertes poisoned rapier and he knows that he is about to die, something which he poin ts out twice in the scene. Indeed, in performance, the final scene can be played as equally low-key as it can be played dramatic. In a self-conscious play such as this it seems clear that Shakespeare understands the power of words.To a dramatist, all action that can be created on a stage is a representation – one that is created through words. Crucially it is through language that the world of Elsinore is created and all those that exist within it exist through the words that they speak. It is, therefore fitting that Hamlet’s dying words are ‘the rest is silence’ (V. ii. 363) for he knows that without language he is nothing. Through Hamlet Shakespeare gives us a world where action is secondary to language because, in drama, one creates the other. 3967 words (exc. footnotes) 4338 words (inc. footnotes) Bibliography Primary SourcesShakespeare, William, Hamlet, ed. Harold Jenkins, The Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series (London and New York: Routledge, 1994) Stoppa rd, Tom, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (London: Faber & Faber, 1967) von Goethe, Johann Wolfgang, Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship, ed. and trans. Eric A. Blackall (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995) Secondary Sources Belsey, Catherine, ‘Revenge in Hamlet’, in Hamlet: Contemporary Critical Essays, ed. Martin Coyle (London: Macmillan, 1992), pp. 154-159. Bloom, Harold, Hamlet: Poem Unlimited, (Edinburgh: Canongate, 2003) Bradley, A. C. , Shakespearean Tragedy, 3rd edn. London: Macmillan, 1992), pp. 84-166. Calhoun, Jean S. , ‘Hamlet and the Circumference of Action’, Renaissance News, Vol. 15, No. 4. (Winter, 1962), 281-298. Dickson, Andrew, The Rough Guide to Shakespeare, (London: Rough Guides, 2005) Eliot, T. S. , ‘Hamlet’ in Selected Essays (London: Faber & Faber, 1951), p. 141-146. Fernie, Ewan, ‘Terrible Action: Recent Criticism and Questions of Agency’, Shakespeare, Vol. 2, No. 1 (June, 2006), 95-11 8. Hughes, Ted, Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being (London: Faber & Faber, 1992), pp. 233-239. Jump, John D. , (ed. ) Hamlet: A Selection of Critical Essays (London: Macmillan, 1968), pp. 2-32. Kettle, Arnold, ‘From Hamlet to Lear’, in Shakespeare in a Changing World, ed. Arnold Kettle (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1964), pp. 146-159. Mangan, Michael, A Preface to Shakespeare’s Tragedies (London and New York: Longman, 1991) Ratcliffe, Stephen ‘What Doesn’t Happen in Hamlet: The Ghost’s Speech’, Modern Language Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3/4. (Autumn, 1998), 125-150. ——————–, ‘‘Who’s There? ’: Elsinore and Everywhere’, Modern Language Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2. (Autumn, 1999), 153-173. ———————– [1] Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship, ed. and trans.Eric A. Blackall (P rinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), p. 146. [2] T. S. Eliot, ‘Hamlet’ in Selected Essays (London: Faber & Faber, 1951), p. 143. [3] Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (London: Faber & Faber, 1967), p. 86. [4] William Shakespeare, Hamlet, ed. Harold Jenkins, The Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), subsequent references are to this edition. [5] Stephan Ratcliffe, ‘What Doesn’t Happen in Hamlet: The Ghost’s Speech’, Modern Language Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3/4. (Autumn, 1998), pp. 125-150. [6] ——————–, ‘‘Who’s There? : Elsinore and Everywhere’, Modern Language Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2. (Autumn, 1999), p. 153. [7] Ratcliffe, ‘What Doesn’t Happen in Hamlet: The Ghost’s Speech’, pp. 135-139. [8] A. C. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy, 3rd edn. (London: Macmillan, 1992), Lecture III, p. 93. [9 ] Ratcliffe, ‘What Doesn’t Happen in Hamlet: The Ghost’s Speech’ pp. 125-150 [10] Ibid. , p. 129. [11] Ibid. p. 131 [12] Having opened my Christmas presents and receiving Bloom’s Poem Unlimited after I had written this essay, I feel obliged to cite him for what I assumed to be an acute and original observation.If only Father Christmas hadn’t been so efficient, I could have at least pleaded ignorance! Harold Bloom, Hamlet: Poem Unlimited (Edinburgh: Canongate, 2003), p. 10 [13] Jenkins (ed. ), Hamlet, p. 294 [14] Ratcliffe, ‘What Doesn’t Happen in Hamlet: The Ghost’s Speech’, pp. 131-132. [15] Jenkins explains how the line has been used to show Claudius’s calm attitude to the play and to prove his unease in Jenkins (ed. ), Hamlet, p. 301. [16] Michael Mangan, A Preface to Shakespeare’s Tragedies (London and New York: Longman, 1991), p. 67. [17] Catherine Belsey, ‘Revenge in Hamlet’, in Haml et: Contemporary Critical Essays, ed.Martin Coyle (London: Macmillan, 1992), p. 154. [18] Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy, p. 98. [19] Notably the anonymous critic in ‘Extracts from Earlier Critics, 1710-1945’ in Hamlet: A Selection of Critical Essays, ed. John D. Jump (London: Macmillan, 1968), p. 22. [20] Jean S. Calhoun, ‘Hamlet and the Circumference of Action’, Renaissance News, Vol. 15, No. 4. (Winter, 1962), p. 288. [21] Ted Hughes, Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being (London: Faber & Faber, 1992), p. 236. [22] Ewan Fernie, ‘Terrible Action: Recent Criticism and Questions of Agency’, Shakespeare, Vol. 2, No. 1 (June, 2006), p. 96.

The Importance Of Privacy And Law Enforcement Essay

Twenty-seven years ago, scientists at The European Organization for Nuclear Research created the World Wide Web. Because of this, we now live in an interconnected world that has transformed the way we communicate ( ), the way we do business, the way we live, and the way criminal activity takes place ( ). Here in the United States where privacy and security are such an important part of our national ethos, it is critical that our intelligence and law enforcement (LE) community confront the dangers - as well as producing new-evolving tools, for both digital surveillance and data collection. I believe privacy is important because it secures our nation from both internal threats and external threats, as well as protecting our civil liberties; for without security, we cannot have privacy. According to our literature, privacy is a common value, a public value, a collective value, and to some extent, a positive and negative right. However, in times of national security, the relationship and broader value are the sum of all three values. For instance, in the aftermath of the September 11, 20001 terrorist attacks, the idea that civil liberties had to be reduced in favor of national security emerged with renewed vigor. Many have noted the paradox that security measures intended to protect a liberal democracy can end up eroding the civil liberties at the heart of liberal democracies ( ). Because of this, it is common to view this problem as a juxtaposition dealing with the appropriateShow MoreRelatedFederalism Is The Division Of Powers Between A Central Government And Regional Governments1480 Words   |  6 Pagesprotects the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures†. The Fourth Amendment, spoke to the importance of federalism as a mechanism to secure liberty for the American people. State courts would be responsible for determining if the searches were conducted with reasonableness, giving the government the closest to the people the most say in such matters. Regarding privacy rights there have been positive and negative impacts throughout history. A conflict ensued between two groupsRead MoreSeizure : Origins, Text, And History1169 Words   |  5 PagesAnd History). The second was the importance that prohibition-era cases began to place on requiring a warrant to search and seize evidence (Search and Seizure: Origins, Text, And History). Third was the rising standard of probable cause need to achieve a search warrant (Search and Seizure: Origins, Text, And History). This effectively made Fourth Amendment law standard while ensuring that probable cause was needed to achieve a warrant. Today’s search and seizure law were made by the founding fathersRead MoreSurveillance Cameras Essay1254 Words   |  6 PagesSurveillance Cameras How are kids safe at night? Do they roam the streets without adult supervision? Are drug dealers taking over the streets? Are drivers nervous of everyone else’s bad driving habits? Although some believe law enforcement cameras invade privacy and disrupt everyday lives, cameras help keep citizens safe. â€Å"Police departments across Great Britain credit cameras with dramatic crime reduction, citing such impressive results as 75 percent drop in Airdrie, Scotland, a 68 percent reductionRead MoreFourth Amendment Essay1438 Words   |  6 PagesThe Fourth Amendment of the Constitution holds grave importance for the citizens of the United States of America. This amendment of the Constitution is exceptionally important due to the fact, that it protects citizens from unreasonable searches or seizures. However, the phrase, â€Å"reasonable expectation of privacy† is a different aspect that is pertinent to the evolution of the Fourth Amendment, and Riley v. California. To diss ect this phrase, reasonable is the important aspect here, this is whereRead MoreWho Could Spot Drone Regulations?995 Words   |  4 Pagesattachments like weapons, or storage compartments (Dolan; Goodman). The accessibility in obtaining a domestic drone is as easy as buying it at a store or ordering it online and can be operated by anyone, civilians, hobbyist, the government, and law enforcement. Some of these aspects of domestic drones have caused many people to hold concerns about weak drone usage regulations. So far, the drone usage regulations that have been in enacted are difficult to understand, vague, obscure, unenforced, andRead MoreUnmanned Aerial Vehicles ( Uav )992 Words   |  4 Pagesattachments like weapons, or storage compartments (Dolan; Goodman). The accessibility in obtaining a domestic drone is as easy as buying it at a store or ordering it online and can be operated by anyone, civilians, hobbyist, the government, and law enforcement. Some of these aspects of domestic drones have caused many people to hold concerns about weak drone usage regulations. So far, the drone usage regulations that have been in enacted are difficult to understand, vague, obscure, unenforced, andRead MoreOn November 18, 2011, Charges Were Brought Against Antoine1104 Words   |  5 Pageswere the law enforcements along with Deputy Michael R. Dreeben and the defendant Antoine Jones. Each party had a chance to deliberate their opinions and stating their case against Antoine Jones. This case was not only brought into court for Mr. Jones’s cocaine distribution but for authorities violating Antoine Jones Fourth Amendment rights by planting a global positioning system on the defendant’s’ vehicle without his consent. The law requires a warrant must be obtained before law enforcements can attachRead MoreThe USA PATRIOT Act of 2001: Need for National Security vs. Protection of Civil Liberties1247 Words   |  5 Pagesâ€Å"terrorist† to spark any number of emotions in its citizens. In response to activities such as the attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, as well as the 2001 anthrax scares, Congress proposed the USA PATRIOT Act. Supporters of the Act cite the importance and immeasurable need for greater protection in terms of national security, which is the government’s responsibility first and foremost to protect its citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. However, for every proponent there is an equally passionateRead MoreThe Dangers Of The 4th Amendment And The Fourth Amendment1610 Words   |  7 Pagesthe advances in technology, the government is able to use GPS technology to gain information on certain criminal prospects without probable cause. This is considered unlawful in regards to what the Fourth Amendment stands for. Even under the current law, it still comes to the matter of question if this type of scrutiny was done in a public or private area. However, the Supreme Court issued a statemen t that devices that contain GPS tracking capabilities are acceptable on a public highway but not a person’sRead MoreFirst Amendment: Protection of Privacy899 Words   |  4 Pages As a private citizen, my privacy is very important, especially when in this new digital age; governmental agencies will use that information against you if they have a probable cause to. However, we are protected under the First and Fourth amendment, which gives us rights to speech, to drink or smoke in our homes without governmental intrusion. But when those rights are violated, we have the options to dispute those actions and if not satisfied with the results we can take it to the courts.