And let us once again assail your ears

Act V can be summed up by a short list of everyone who had died. There was Laertes, Gertrude, Claudius and Hamlet.

Both Laertes and Claudius were by the hand of Hamlet.  Laertes’ death was  unintentional, but once Hamlet discovered the sword’s tip was laced with poison, he took no time in stabbing Claudius with it. Since Claudius was the one who came up with the idea that the duel should be carried out with deadly weapons, he in a sense caused his own death.

And his overzealous plan also led to the death of Gertrude. But Claudius tries to play it off as “She swoons to see them [Hamlet and Laertes] bleed” (Act V, Scene 2, Line 313).  But alas the Queen knows the truth that she is poisoned and in her dying breath she warns Hamlet of the poison. So up to the end, she still loved Hamlet like a son even though in the previous Acts she feared that he might kill her.

But in the very end Hamlet, after his mothers death, after the avengement of his father, and the forgiveness of Laertes of his and Polonius’ death, Hamlet dies by his own hand. Hamlet had followed out what he had set out to do and now he was left with no family or loved ones except Horatio, whom he entitled with the duty of passing on the account of what happened that night.

Like all Shakespearean tragedies, all the main characters die in the end and all the other characters are left with either a feeling of utter confusion or of deep admiration towards the fallen cast.

Well, the “elephant” of Scene 1 happens to be Polonius’ dead body. And the King is sort of like “well gosh darn it…now Idon’t have a spy but now I have a reason to get rid of Hamlet!” The King was obviously saddened by the loss of Polonius, but not to enough to be claimed sufficient. Polonius seemed to be a friend to Claudius, but Claudius did nothing but send Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to bring “the body” (not “Polonius”) to the church and bring Hamlet to him so that he can send him off to England.

In Scene 2 when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern confront Hamlet about Polonius’ body, Hamlet feigns innocence and madness. Like all he encounters, Hamlet answers them in riddles and screws with their brains. Then he does the same to Claudius in Scene 3. Hamlet’s conversation with Claudius is filled with riddles and an underhanded way of insulting Claudius. If you were there, you could cut the tension with a knife but that would be unnecessary because the piercing hatred of Hamlet’s eyes would pierce the thick atmosphere.

Then on a side note in Scene 4, the previously mentioned “elephant” takes on another definition of Fortinbras’ army. Hamlet sees them and thinks nothing of them. Its basically “Hello my ‘former’ enemies. You are welcome to walk through my country armed to the teeth, I’ll think nothing of it.”

And alas, in Scene 5 the proverbial “elephant” appears once again under the guise of Ophelia’s clear mental incompetence. Her ravings are almost as bad as Hamlet fake ones were,  but now she does her in song. Her mental breakdown caused by the untimely slaying of her father. Then later in Scene 6, Ophelia drowns but whether it was accidental or intentional is still  unknown. Ophelia portrays true madness in contrast to Hamlet’s fake madness. Also because of Polonius’ death,  Laertes returns with his blood boiling and bent on getting revenge and Claudius and him concoct a way to exact that revenge.

Throughout Act III, the reader/audience starts to fully understand the changing dynamics of relationships in the play. And the quote “I did love you once” (pg 79, Act III, Scene 1, Line 115) really sums up what the sentiment of all the characters are.

For Hamlet, he once loved his father but now he is only out to avenge his father. There is no tender love for his father, he has changed his father into a helpless victim in need of retribution. This also plays part in the change of feelings that Hamlet has towards his uncle, Claudius. Before the play started, before the King was murdered, before Claudius married Gertrude, Hamlet had once cared for his Uncle. But now, with all the changes in his life, Hamlet feels nothing but hatred towards his uncle. The change in affection also occurs with Ophelia. Hamlet and Ophelia were in love, but Polonius forbid it. So on top of all the things that happened with Claudius, Hamlet also lost the love of his life and his heart was hardened. Within his madness he tells Ophelia he did love her, but the reader is left to assume whether his harsh words were out of love or spite.

Another character afflicted with these bipolar sentiments is Gertrude, the Queen. She once loved Hamlet’s father, but as soon as he died, she ran to Claudius for comfort.

Madness plays a major role in Act II of Hamlet. Hamlet uses madness as a cover so that no one would suspect him of his treacherous intentions. And his acting proves a success because no one suspects him. And through the series of events and people he encounters through his trip down the rabbit hole helps him devise a plan to expose Claudius as the man who killed his father.

It starts with Ophelia scared of Hamlet because he came to her disheveled and all out of sorts. Hamlet did not even speak to her. But when Polonius hears of this, he thinks that his madness is due to lovesickness. But although love plays a major part in the heart and mind of people, it is not the reason behind Hamlet’s insanity.

Hamlet’s friends Guildenstern and Rosencrantz were also concerned about Hamlet’s state of mind. They are much closer to the reason behind the madness. They believe that Hamlet is unable to cope with the death of his father, which is true, but what they do not know is that it is the way his father died that troubles Hamlet’s mind.

But unknown to any of the people around him, except Horatio and Marcellus, Hamlet is not insane but merely putting on the appearance. He deliberatly misinterprets and confuses people. He calls them the opposite of what they are and he uses words that have two very different connotations. But one must realize that Hamlet is good at pretending to be insane, almost too good.

“Conversations”

Do you remember talking?

Sitting among stiff blades of deep green grass.

Effortless conjecture, supportive smiles

and tears. So many important

yet forgotten catastrophes carried

away with the cool breezes.

LOL. No secrets,

every weakness, strength and

joke remembered. Never

erased by time or age.

Do you remember talking?

Chair, beautiful screensavers,

passwords, passed time.

: (

This poem is like Lee’s poetry because it brings to light the ideas of one’s voice and also about memories. But this one uses more modern ideas and slang. Lee uses more flowy words, but the technological age encompasses the world and so we should use it to the fullest. Even in poetry, there are many websites for poets to publish their work. Even the structure is similar to Lee. He many times splits sentences over two or more lines or scrunches two sentences into one line.

Li-Young Lee is very similar to Walt Whitman. They both are interested in the ideas of Ralph Waldo Emerson but both are against his ideas on the Oversoul and God. Lee and Whitman use Emerson as a base some of their poems, but instead of furthering the transcendentalist ideologies, they challenge it. “According to Jerome Loving, one ‘of Whitman’s achievements in his first edition of Leaves of Grass was to advance Emersonianism or transcendentalism by contradicting it’ (452-53)” (Partridge).

A way that Lee defies Emerson’s trancendentalist ideologies is very straight forward. He states point-blank that he does not like Emerson:

  The deaths at the sinks, those bodies prepared

  for eating, I would eat,

  and the standing deaths

  at the counters, in the aisles,

  the walking deaths in the streets,

  the death-far-from-home, the death-

  in-a-strange-land, these Chinatown

  deaths, these American deaths.

   I would devour this race to sing it,

   this race that according to Emerson

   managed to preserve to a hair

   for three or four thousand years

   the ugliest features in the world.

   I would eat these features, eat

   the last three or four thousand years, every hair.

   And I would eat Emerson, his transparent soul, his

   soporific transcendence.

   I would eat this head,

   glazed in pepper-speckled sauce,

   the cooked eyes opaque in their sockets.

   I bring it to my mouth and—

   the way I was taught, the way I’ve watched

   others before me do—

   with a stiff tongue lick out

   the cheek-meat and the meat

   over the armored jaw, my eating,

   its sensual, salient nowness,

   punctuating the void

   from which such hunger springs and to which it proceeds.

 Lee’s use of the verb “to eat” is used throughout the poem “The Cleaving” (The full poem can be read on the page link to the left) has a very negative connotation. He uses very grotesque descriptions and when he said he wants to eat Emerson, it can be seen as he wants to get rid of Emerson. Lee says that his reason for not liking Emerson is because Emerson said that the whole Chinese race – or Asians in general – are an ugly race that has barely survived over the past three to four thousand years. But Lee’s disagreement with Emerson is different than that of Whitman. Whitman was alive when Emerson was, and he had even sent a letter to him. Emerson even praised Whitman’s work even though Whitman did not fully comply with Emerson’s ideologies.  Both of them, however, follow Emerson’s teachings too. Whitman followed his teachings through using Emersonian ideas to contradict Emerson. But Lee’s Emersonian-esque tendencies are also shown through the use of the poem, “The Cleaving.” His use of the word “eat” can also be seen in the positive connotation. When a person eats, they take in nourishments and make their bodies healthier. So Lee could also be saying that Emerson is a nourishing bit of food that he wants to take in and make himself healthier in mind and body.

One other way that Whitman and Lee go against Emerson is through their admiration of the human body. For Whitman, he writes poems like “7-Poem of The Body” that focuses on and names many parts of the human body and indulges them. Then there were others like “I Sing the Body Electric” where it also reads off body parts in a list, ” ‘Head, neck, hair, ears, drop and tympan of the ears’ (257) ” (Partridge). This is very similar to what Lee does in his poem, “The Cleaving.” He talks about the body of the Chinese and also of the American. Lee acknowledges even the “imperfections” of the Chinese body that are compared against the American body.

Well, the families of Princes Hamlet and Fortinbras are a Social Services nightmare. Both the previous Kings are now dead, and their brothers are now King. But in Hamlet’s case, his family is far worse than Fortinbras.

Hamlet’s uncle, who is now king, also has married Hamlet’s mother. So now Hamlet has an uncle/stepfather and a mother/step-aunt. But even though the King, Claudius, calls Hamlet son, he does not speak to him as if he is family, he speaks to him formally as if they barely know each other. The same sentiment is mirrored in Hamlet. He does not respect and act like Claudius is his father. He sees Claudius as “A little more than kin, and less than kind” (Shakespeare 12, 65). The reason that is so is because his father hasn’t been dead long and he is still not over it. Also, almost the very next day his mother and uncle married. But Hamlet cannot speak out against his mother’s wishes because she is happy now.

But in the end, Hamlet still remains faithful to his fallen father. Once he encounters his father’s ghost and finds out the reasons behind his father’s untimely death, he vows to seek revenge upon Claudius. But he will not take action against his mother because he still loves her, but not her choices.

On the same idea of relationships, there are also friendships not just kinship. Hamlet is very good friends with Horatio. The closeness of their friendship is shown through Horatio coming to the funeral of Hamlet’s father. Whereas Laertes, the Chamberlains son, came to the castle to see the Claudius’ coronation.

Li-Young Lee’s poetry has been heavily influenced by his past and family. He grew up in a family that had been exiled from China. But even before that, his parents were frowned upon because his mother was the granddaughter of the first president of china and his father was from a family of gangsters. In China, social standing and honor is very important, so this coupling was not very popular so they fled for the first of many times. On top of that, his father was very interested and well versed in Western culture. During those times, that was also frowned upon especially since his father was also teaching the Bible and Christianity.

In his poems such as “Cuckoo Flower on the Witness Stand,” Lee references to church, war, death and one’s voice. These themes are prevalent in his other poems.

The church and biblical allusions were due to his father who became a pastor once they moved to America. “[Lee] was often enchanted by his father’s poetic preaching and reading of the Psalms. Many of his poems recall his father, who is portrayed as strict and tender, powerful and vulnerable, godlike and human” (cengage.com). However, the spiritual references made in his poems are not solely Christian-based. He also has quite a few references to Daoist beliefs. He portrays the wonder and mystery perceived in the world. In “Cuckoo Flower” Lee writes about singing in the church choir, his fathers twenty-minute Pastor’s Prayer and contemplating whether Adam’s promise or Jesus’ disgrace was the first though in God’s mind or the second. Daoism shows itself when Lee writes “When asked about my religious training, I answer, ‘I seek my destiny in my origin’ ” (Lee 64).

The war and death were common because of the turmoil and death that had surrounded Lee as a child. Once in America, he was not surrounded literally, but figuratively by the memories and hatred Lee felt towards him from others because he was Chinese and an emigrant. Lee shows his feeling of being lost in “Cuckoo Flower,” “I’ll seek asylum in the final word, an exile from the first word, and a refugee of an illegible past.” When he was young, he moved from place to place because his family was not wanted anywhere. This treatment would have harmed the well-being of any young boy, but Lee lived through it and has found an outlet for any emotions he may have.

The idea of voice is very dear to Lee. When he was young and lived in Indonesia, he hardly spoke to his family. But once he moved to America, he spoke even less because he didn’t know English. So he hung out with children who were also emigrants and didn’t know English either. Lee actually did not care for language or writing until he was in college.

Lee found poetry as an outlet for his emotions he has built up over time. The most eloquent way to sum it up was said by Robert Peake, the man who I posted on his blog. “This is the kind of poetry you just can’t fake. I am sure there are flaws aplenty, and that my eyes simply do not see them–because they are clouded with respect for the unbridled sincerity, capacious negative capability and compelling, forceful tenderness of these poems.” Peake is a poet and the way he forms his words compliments Lee. One of the best people to critique a poem is another poet.

Information found on http://www.cengage.com/

And other previously used websites, including the URL in the post below. *Also see the websites and sources used page*

\(^o^)/*****POETRY*****\(^_^)/

So, I just commented on another Li-Young Lee blog. And I did find it very insightful. But now we just have to wait and see if the guy approves the comment  (^_^)

URL: http://www.robertpeake.com/archives/302-li-young-lees-compelling-tenderness.html

Though there are not many published papers, magazines, etc. about “First World,” there are quite a few sources about Lee’s newest book Behind My Eyes, which “First World” is a part of.

In one interview with Liz Logan, an accomplished poet and a masters candidate at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, on Poets and Writers (www.pw.org) Lee comments on what he was trying to achieve with Behind My Eyes.

“I just wanted to go to a deeper understanding, a deeper music, deeper argument with God, deeper encounters with God. I wanted to ask deeper questions…I hope it’s clearer than Book of My Nights. I think i had to go through some real wilderness, tangled vines and trees and being lost in Book of My Nights…to get to this book. I hope it’s deeper and simpler.”

Lee’s personality has not changed much from when he was a child. He remembers what it is like when he has grown up in America.

“I became obsessed with the unknown things in the world -  the stairs to the basement, the stairs to the attic, and when we moved to the U.S., the place in our yard in Seattle where the woods began. We were not allowed to go into these woods, and I projected all kinds of things into there. Death, mystery, sleep.” (Lee)

Lee’s outlook on death is not what many would consider normal. However, I agree with his perspective. It is a very good description of it, and since Lee is a poet, he tells it in a poetic format.

“My relationship with death was almost to a relative…I felt warm about it – not morbid. I associated death with the underside of a pillow. When I went to bed at night, I remember there was the side that I could see, and an underside, where all the dreams come from, and that must be death.” (Lee)

Lee’s fascination with death and his attraction towards the mysterious has shaped his poems into what they are today. “First World” has everything to do with death, mystery, God and family. All these make up Lee’s repertoire.