How Hamlet is and isn't Star Wars

Shakespeare’s Hamlet and George Lucas’s Star Wars movies seem at first glance to be completely different and unrelated. Take a closer look at each of the two stories, however, and you will notice many similarities, most notably in the driving action of each story. For my blog, I will be comparing the roles of the ghost/spirit in each story, as well as comparing how each story executes the basic plot of avenging a father’s death.

A ghost ends up serving as a vital part of the story in both Hamlet and Star Wars. In Hamlet, this ghost is the spirit of Hamlet’s recently murdered father, the King of Denmark. Hamlet encounters his father’s ghost early in the story, who reveals to him that the new king Claudius, his brother, was the one who murdered him. The ghost then provides the driving action for the story, instructing Hamlet to avenge his death and murder Claudius. So, in the story of Hamlet, the ghost is obviously a very important character whose role is to provide the action for the story. In Star Wars, the ghost of that story serves a different purpose and acts as a mentor and a guide for the protagonist, Luke. In Episode IV: A New Hope, Obi Wan Kenobi is physically killed by Darth Vader, but only after uttering the words, “If you strike me down now I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.” And indeed, Obi Wan becomes a ghost and a guiding spirit for young Luke Skywalker, helping him stay calm in tense situations and providing useful advice.

The main similarity between the two stories is the overarching theme of avenging a father’s death. In Star Wars, Luke starts his journey by wanting to help defeat the Galactic Empire in any facet he can, but ultimately he finds that his goal ends up being to kill Darth Vader, the man who he believes killed his father. This is almost exactly the same as Hamlet, where Hamlet’s ultimate goal is to kill Claudius, again the man who killed his father. In the case of Hamlet, Claudius did very clearly kill Hamlet’s father, thus making him prone to some sort of revenge by the son. In Star Wars, Darth Vader didn’t technically kill Luke’s father Anakin, because Anakin Skywalker is Darth Vader as he famously puts it (“Luke, I am your father”), but Darth Vader did in fact kill Anakin. In a scene from Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, Obi Wan effectively explains to Luke that his “father was seduced by the dark side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed.” So, Darth Vader murdered the good and light side of Anakin Skywalker, just like how Claudius murdered his brother, Hamlet’s father. Both stories also end with the same type of ending, as the evil Claudius and Darth Vader both die. However, the essential difference is redemption; when Vader saves Luke from the Emporer, he regains his humanity and everything that was once good about him, thus properly avenging Anakin Skywalker. In Hamlet, however, everyone ends up dying, such as Polonius, Ophelia, the Queen, Laertes, and Claudius and Hamlet, thus not properly redeeming the ghost of Hamlet’s father.

Now, there are of course numerous differences between Star Wars and Hamlet, and I’ll just name a few of them quickly: Star Wars does not take place in Denmark, there are no lightsabers or Ewoks in Hamlet, Star Wars has Jabba the Hutt, Hamlet is fiction, and a few others. But ultimately I found some of the parallels that could be drawn between the two stories very interesting. (620)

Tragedy in Antigone

Sophocles’ play Antigone is most certainly a tragedy, similar to other Greek tragedies such as Oedipus by the same author. What makes this tragedy different, in my opinion, is the fact that there are two potential tragic figures in this play: Antigone, the play’s namesake, and Creon, the king of Thebes who is arguably the most important character of the play. Antigone is the tragic story of a woman whose desire to do what she feels is right and proper at any cost ultimately causes the loss of her life; it is also the story of the tragic downfall of a king whose strict adherence to law in an attempt to maintain order in his kingdom cause his entire world around him to crumble to pieces.

First, we will take a closer look at the character of Antigone and her tragic story. Right from the very beginning of the story it is obvious that Antigone is a very strong-willed woman who stands for what is just and right. After the injustice of Creon’s decree forbidding burial of her deceased brother Polynices because he was a “traitor,” Antigone is determined to give her brother the proper respect that he deserves in death. She decides to deliberately disobey the law and bury her brother anyways; in this action she not only commits the crime which physically leads to her death but also reveals her tragic flaw. This flaw is her failure to play it safe and recklessly commit a crime which she has a high chance of being caught for. Her reasoning of this stems from her belief that she is above the law and that she obeys the law of God and justice; this reveals a failure to understand her place in society as a female citizen who is not obligated to receive any special treatment.

Creon can be viewed as a tragic figure also, but his reasons and his flaws are much different than those of Antigone. Creon, as the new ruler of Thebes, attempts to lay down strict, specific rules and orders to keep his kingdom in line. His decree forbidding the burial of Polynices, and his faithful enforcement of this rule cause problems for him that ultimately lead to his downfall. In this one singular act, created with good intentions to protect the masses and maintain order, started him on his downward spiral. One of his significant flaws is revealed in this process, and that is his adherence to law despite its negative consequences. Creon thinks that he absolutely has to follow through with his punishment, as shown in his dialogue with Haimon and Antigone, and this is why he loses everything. Another flaw is his hubris, as shown in his conversation with the prophet Teresias and failure to listen to the advice is Teresias, and, in effect, the Gods. Creon is essentially a good person with good intentions, but his flaws cost him his son, his wife, and effectively his entire life.

So, I will leave it to you to decide who is the more important character in the story and who is the true tragic figure. (520)

Death is a lonely thing

In his introduction to “The Death of Ivan Ilyich,” Ronald Blythe discusses the “sheer desolating aloneness of dying,” and in this story this aloneness is glaringly obvious and a prominent aspect of the story. Throughout his painful course of death, Ivan receives very little support for his illness and mostly has to deal with his sadness and realization of death in solitude. Even his own wife, Praskovya, wishes he were dead so she would not have to deal with him anymore, but only has reservations about these thoughts when she realizes that she would no longer enjoy his salary if he was dead (because dead people don’t get paid money).

The true aloneness of Ivan’s death is apparent right from the start in the story’s first chapter. All of Ivan’s acquaintances, including to some degree his best friend Peter Ivanovich, are more interested in the financial and professional consequences of Ivan’s death rather than concern and thought for the deceased. Ivan’s wife Praskovya is concerned about receiving her government pension for her husband’s death and how to get as much money as she can while showing little respect or care about her late husband. Many of Ivan’s professional acquaintances are thinking about the implications of his death with regard to his position as a judge, while also feeling glad that they are alive while Ivan is dead. These post-mortem actions of Ivan’s “friends” reveal the lack of loyalty of his friends and how they, in effect, abandoned him after he died, making the loneliness of his death that much more pronounced. Even Peter betrays him, thinking about making his card game on-time and wanting to speed through the funeral processions so he can play his cards. This selfish act by Peter helps highlight the aloneness that Ivan had to suffer through in his death.

One specific event in his life that is very representative of the desolating aloneness that Ivan feels is the night of playing bridge with his friends late in chapter four. As Ivan is trying to enjoy the game and find some pleasure in his life, the pain in his side and the bad taste in his mouth begin to dominate him and Ivan ends up ruining a great hand that he had. His partner, rather than feeling sympathy towards Ivan’s condition, responds with anger and distress at Ivan’s failure. This leads Ivan down a road of depressing thoughts, as he thinks about how no one cares about him and Ivan is just poisoning other people’s lives. Ivan feels incredibly alone at this point in time, not believing there to be anyone who understands or even pities him.

Overall, the unfortunate journey to death for Ivan Ilyich is plagued with sorrow, sadness, and aloneness (457).

Similarities in the two similar novels we read

After reading both J.M Coetzee’s Waiting for the Barbarians and Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, it is easy to see similarities and to draw a connection between the two novels, particularly with the characters of Kurtz and the Magistrate. In similar and in different ways, both characters break away from the idea of a traditional citizen by each of their society’s standards. Kurtz and the Magistrate both “go wrong,” Kurtz by means of assimilating himself with the native African way of life and embracing the nature of the jungle, and the Magistrate by questioning the practices and workings of the all-powerful Empire.

The Magistrate and Kurtz are also similar and connected to one another because they can both be considered scholars and traitors to their societies. Kurtz can be considered a traitor to the European standards because he does not act in traditional ways and has “regressed” back to barbaric and native ways that the African people live by. Kurtz falls in love with the African wilderness, which the Europeans look at with disgust, and essential loses his sanity, betraying the idea that the Europeans are better than the natives and cannot succumb to their primitive ways. Kurtz can also be considered as scholar as a result of his love of nature and interest in the African ways. Similarly, the Magistrate is a scholar, although in a much more clear and defined way. The Magistrate takes a keen interest in barbarian culture and ways, as shown by his affection for and attention given to the barbarian girl, and also desires to learn of the barbarian history, also shown through the barbarian girl. In one part of the story, the Magistrate finds himself questioning why he is so interested in the barbarian girl, and wondering if it is just because of his insatiable desire of knowledge of the barbarians. And, of course, the Magistrate is a traitor to the Empire’s and specifically Colonol Joll’s standards because of his heavy interaction with the barbarians and his dangerous sympathy towards the barbarians and their culture.

Another way in which the novels themselves are similar is the idea of an enemy featured in each novel. The Africans and the barbarians in Heart of Darkness and Waiting for the Barbarians, respectively, both are a “threat” to the Europeans and the Empire. Both societies portray their enemies as subhuman and at a lower level than their esteemed cultures. Both societies perpetuate the idea of fear to keep their denizens in check and to discourage questions regarding anything in their life. Overall, Waiting for the Barbarians and Heart of Darkness are curiously similar to each other.

First impressions of Waiting for Barbarians

J.M Coetzee’s novel Waiting for Barbarians made an interesting first impression on me, to say the least. The plot and the characters were both interesting, but I feel like the more important aspect of the novel which made a significant impression on me, as well as affecting the reader’s knowledge of the plot and characters, was the style of the novel. The narration of the Magistrate and the author’s constant use of the present tense in the narrative is different from any other story that we have read in this class this year, and this narrative style plays a large role in the novel as a whole. I was intrigued by this unique style of narration, but was not sure if I liked it too much. This style led to many descriptions of small details and seemingly pointless details, such as the narrator’s long, drawn-out description of himself in the bedroom with the barbarian girl. I found this whole scene rather odd, but I will trust the author and believe that there will be a point to this focusing on minute details. The style does, however, make the novel easy to read and relatively straightforward, which is the kind of novel that I like to read

This style also affects my interpretations of the characters in Waiting for Barbarians. Through the narration, I found myself able to learn about the personality of the Magistrate. The narrator seems to be, overall, a good person. He appears to be someone who is genuine and moralistic with good intentions. Another character in the novel that is described is Colonel Joll. What is interesting about this character is the fact that he is the only to this point to be named. The Colonel appears to be a representation of evil in the novel, of the negative rule of the Empire that is prevalent throughout. A third character who I decided merited discussion in my blog was the barbarian girl that the Magistrate had a relationship with. I found her to be a strange character but a useful one for her role in the novel.

Overall, I would say that I am enjoying the novel, in large part to the fascinating overarching plot of the Empire and the barbarians with the side plot of the Magistrate. I am looking forward to continuing the novel. (389)

Alan Simmons' on Conrad, Casement, and the Congo Atrocities

--Both Joseph Conrad and Roger Casement were profoundly influenced by their time spend in the Congo Free State

--Casement and Conrad were friendly towards each other, both spoke very respectfully of one another and expressed pleasure regarding their acquaintance

--Both spoke of the horrors and atrocities of the Congo but went about it in different ways and for different reasons, both mutually detested the atrocities

--Inconsistencies in the works and letters of both Conrad and Casement, especially regarding the degree of “mutilations” that each person witnessed in the Congo

--Questioning of Conrad’s basis for some parts of “Heart of Darkness,” big question on whether parts where drawn from Conrad’s own experiences or simply from reports and rumors of atrocities in the Congo

--“Profound change in [Casement’s] attitude towards the Africans,” how Casement’s attitude and sympathy towards the plight of the natives grew and changed

--Casement’s leadership in the Congo Reform Association, the developing of it, how he used Conrad, Conrad’s letters, and “Heart of Darkness” to help the cause and the important role of Conrad

--The general importance of “Heart of Darkness” as a story and what it meant

--The language of atrocity; how Conrad and Casement went about describing the “unspeakable actions” in different ways, questioning how one even talks about atrocities, how the innate shock and disbelief of stories from the Congo comes from lack of context to draw from in Europe

Closure in The Sound and the Fury

The final section of The Sound and the Fury provides significant closure to the novel because it shows the story of the Compson family coming full circle and definitively highlights the problems of the unfortunate family. These two points are especially evident in the final scene of the novel. As we discussed in class, the story ends in chaos: Jason is angrily fuming at Luster, Luster is confused and overwhelmed, Benjy is wailing and upset, mother is at home, Lady Quentin has run away, most likely with a boy, and no one is sure where she is, the reader still is unsure about the condition of Caddy, and Quentin, Father, and Damuddy are all dead. All of these things provide an excellent snapshot of the ridiculous amount of collective problems that the Compson family has. This highlighting of problems provides closure to the novel because it is consistent with a running theme of the novel, the “tragedy” of the Compson family and all of the family’s imperfections and issues. The last section and scene of The Sound and the Fury also provides closure by having the novel essentially end where it started: Benjy and Luster together, as well and a bunch of unanswered questions. (204)