Madness or madness? 

As we have been reading Hamlet in class and Invisible Man at home, I noticed an interesting connection between the two. Oftentimes, the idea of madness is present within a variety of literary works. Sometimes, the idea is directly present within the novel. Other times, the reader himself begins to question the mental state of a particular character or the reliability of a certain narrator. In both of these literary works, I was interested to find the ambiguity of madness as an overarching theme - particularly regarding the character of Hamlet in the end of Act 1 and the narrator in the prologue. 

What do you think of when you hear the word "madness?" It is most typically associated with feelings of mental stress and instability. But in today's world, "mad" can refer to a variety of feelings including anger, frustration, misunderstanding, disappointment, craziness, adoration, etc. All the meanings and connotations of the word "mad" create a word that may not always connote something negative - but it certainly does not always connote something positive. Though the idea of being "mad" is present in both Hamlet and Invisible Man, I think the two pieces approach the idea in very different manners, giving the two pieces two distinct personalities. 

In Hamlet, there is much direct talk of madness. When Hamlet sees his father's ghost beckoning towards him, his guards warn him that following such an apparition may lead to his own madness. This is supposed to have a negative connotation - implying that madness comes from the result of something evil and mysterious. After his father's ghost reveals to him the truth of Claudius' lies and deceit, Hamlet promises himself to dedicate himself to his father's cause, and tells himself he must "put an antic disposition on." This may mean he wants to appear fanatic and crazy to everyone else: something we hear about when Ophelia speaks of his behavior. His odd and fanatic behavior come across to Ophelia as scary, she even claims that she was frightened. Again, this gives more of a negative connotation to the idea of "madness." The only time "madness" is seen as somewhat positive is when Polonius claims that Hamlet must be madly in love with Ophelia (as a result of hearing about Hamlet's strange behavior in his last encounter with Ophelia). But even then, Hamlet's supposed madness comes across as frightening, and something that has come into being as a result of something evil. 

In Invisible Man, the idea of madness is not clearly stated - but I definitely got some sense instability from our narrator's introduction, particularly in the prologue. After I read the prologue, which is actually the narrator speaking in the present time I came to the conclusion that the narrator underwent some pretty dark and life changing things to appear so pompous, strange, and careful all at the same time. He came across to me as crazy in a different way - his room filled with over a thousand lightbulbs and his quickly changing discussion of topics definitely indicate something a little off about the narrator. He's mad and I don't think he even realizes. Although the prologue doesn't give a distinctly negative connotation to madness, it does not give a positive one either. This left me, and without a doubt, many others very confused - something I believe was intentional. I think this literary work played more on the confusion and mystery surrounding madness, whereas Hamlet plays more on the mental instability and the whole idea of seems vs. is when it comes to madness. 

The different ideas of madness that were portrayed in Hamlet and Invisible Man brought about the question of what truly defines madness. Could Hamlet and the narrator really be mad? Are they aware of their behavior? Or are they simply not mad at all? Questions I will definitely be keeping in mind as I continue reading.

Hamlet: Polonius, Laertes, and Ophelia 

Much to my surprise, I have thoroughly enjoyed our class readings and discussions concerning Hamlet. I have never been a very big fan of Shakespeare, but this play definitely changes that opinion - I mean I don't even mind the crazy language. One Act into Hamlet and I am already able to pinpoint some of the overarching themes and motifs, and the characters have already taught me a lot about the setting and lifestyle in that time. I thought the third scene in the first Act was extremely intriguing, as it deviated attention from Hamlet onto the family of Polonius, and his children Laertes and Ophelia. This Act not only opened doorways into their family, but also served to illuminate the central character of Hamlet and the plotline itself. 

In this Act, we get an outside view of the central character we just encountered: Hamlet. When I was first introduced to Hamlet, I developed a liking for his character right away - he not only seemed to have wit and intellect, but genuine love for his father. He was a very easy character to sympathize for, but I also felt as if he had a strength within him to keep him going. In this Act, we encountered Laertes speaking to Ophelia about Hamlet. When speaking of their love, Laertes claims, "Perhaps he loves you now..." and "...his will is not his own. For he himself is subject to his birth" (Act 1 Scene 3). I think these phrases are very noteworthy, because they indicate Laertes' lack of trust for Hamlet - yet they do not imply any sort of lack of respect. It seems that Laertes values Hamlet as a man and a Prince, but recognizes the fragility in Ophelia's relationship with a Prince. When Polonius denounces Ophelia for her relationship with Hamlet, he claims she is the common and vulgar one, and that she is the one at fault for pursuing a relationship with a man like Hamlet. Not once does he condemn Hamlet, even though he believes Hamlet is simply playing Ophelia and has no true attachment to her. In this way, Polonius shows a form of respect for Hamlet as well. Furthermore, the way in which both the male characters speak to Ophelia as if she is the only person at fault illustrates the expected role of women versus men. Ophelia is expected to be a proper young woman for both the reputation of her brother and her father, while Hamlet has the freedom to pursue this "fling" with Ophelia if he pleases to do so.

Another interesting part of this scene was the whole idea of the relationship between Ophelia and Hamlet. Does Hamlet love Ophelia? How far has their relationship gotten? I want to believe that Hamlet does have a true attachment to Ophelia, I really do. But it's also necessary to consider his position and state of mind, making it a big possibility he is simply playing her. I thought that his relationship with Ophelia served to illuminate the Queen's new relationship with Hamlet's uncle, King Claudius. While Hamlet's relationship with Ophelia seems free of structure, and very emotional as Hamlet has sworn the vows of heaven. I perceive both the King and Queen as very fake people. Claudius tells his people that everything is okay when it truly isn't (seems vs. is) while the Queen barely mourns her own husband's death. The combination of these two yields a very dolled up and polished relationship that serves as a big contrast to Hamlet and Ophelia's supposed relationship. I'm looking forward to hear more about what this relationship truly is. 

I thought this whole interaction between this particular family was very significant for the plot itself - it's amazing how the smallest of interactions have such a level of depth. It reminds me that one can never rule out anything when it comes to fine literature. 

The Disillusionment of Ten O'Clock 
Wallace Stevens

The houses are haunted
By white night gowns. 
None are green, 
Or purple with green rings, 
Or green with yellow rings, 
Or yellow with blue rings. 
None of them are strange, 
With socks of lace
And beaded ceintures. 
People are not going
To dream of baboons and periwinkles. 
Only, here and there, and old sailor, 
Drunk and asleep in his boots, 
Catches Tigers
In red weather. 

I was first introduced to Wallace Stevens through this poem, and I still think that this poem is a great representation of Stevens' writing style, as well as his personality (although I suppose I'd have to travel back in time to truly learn about that). Throughout school, particularly high school, I have always felt that students are not given enough time to think. Thinking has always been a fundamental aspect of my life because I believe it is an outlet for the development of thoughts - whether it be creatively or analytically. Instead, ideas are drilled in our heads, and we are conditioned to perform tasks in a particular fashion, talk in a distinct way, and present ourselves in a uniform manner. It becomes increasingly difficult to stand out among the mass, and the majority of people opt to take the easy way out and succumb to the expectations of those around them - although their own beliefs may not align with those that surround them. 

So, what's the point? Why begin the discussion of this poem in such an odd way? Well - let's ask Wallace Stevens what he has to say about it. 

Reading through this poem for the first time, one may think it is silly or childish. Ironically, the poem is actually almost mocking the silly idea of conforming to what is around one's self. The speaker begins by talking about houses that are haunted by white night gowns. Note that house is plural, the poet is referring to more than one house, many for that matter, that are haunted by white night gowns. The use of the word haunted is meant to have a metaphorical effect and brings about a negative connotation to the word idea of a white nightgown. The poem then goes on to talk about how these houses are haunted by white nightgowns as OPPOSED to those of different colors (green, purple with green rings, green with yellow rings, etc.). Many lines of the poem are dedicated to describing the different colors that the nightgowns COULD be. With the use of bold and vibrant imagery, the poet highlights the way the current state of these houses appears by describing what it is not. These houses are not bright, colorful, and happy - they are dreary, dull, and sad. 

The speaker then claims that none of the white nightgowns that "haunt" the houses are strange in any way with odd lace or beads. They are simply white, no different from one another, with no remarkable quality that makes them special from the others. And because of this dullness in their clothing choice, the people will not be dreaming of the wild and creative, such as baboons periwinkles - perhaps they will not dream at all. The speaker claims that the only people that do dream of the imaginative (catching tigers in red weather) are sailors that are intoxicated. It is interesting to note that because sailors are out at sea very often, they are more isolated from the rest of the human world. Perhaps the speaker means that this isolation from the rest of society gives the individual a chance to be imaginative and creative - to think for one's own self. It is also interesting to note that this sailor is said to be "drunk," indicating that when a human is not in his typical state of mind, he becomes capable of great thoughts and dreams. Maybe the speaker is trying to tell us that we need to be more open-minded - or perhaps he means to say that we are most ourselves when we believe ourselves farthest from what we think we are. 

This poem that seemed so odd and childish at first glance can be read from so many different perspectives. It may simply be seen as a poem that wants to rekindle the child inside every individual. It may simply be seen as a poem that years humans to take time to be more creative and add color and mystery to their lives. It may even be viewed as a social commentary, discussing the idea that society (and its institutions) take away from the individuality and freedom of expression of individuals. With so many different meanings, this poem can apply to a wide audience. 

This poem definitely ranks high among my all time favorites, and serves a reminder that tough language and long words aren't always the best way of communicating an idea - the simplest of ways may be the best after all. 

The Invisible Man: Prologue 

Honestly, society is a confusing thing isn't it? 

Ever since the beginning of this class, one thing has been clear. It's the whole idea that the individual - humanity in retrospect - is embedded into the fabrics of society in such a way that categorizing a singular person becomes increasingly unclear. It becomes an incessant battle, pinpointing whether someone symbolizes a victim or a victimizer - I mean, who truly is morally correct - what defines morally ethical? What makes a whistleblower right? It's these questions that gripped me while reading the prologue to what seems like a peculiarly interesting novel, Invisible Man. 

I'd like to think that all individuals have a small bundle of goodness deep within the depths of their being - of their composition. These bundles shine brighter than any other part of the individual - these bundles make them human. It makes a novel so exciting when this small bundle is apparent in the midst of pretentiousness, temptations, and violence. That's how I view the narrator of the novel thus far. Needless to say, this by no means makes the narrator morally sound. It becomes more difficult to feel sympathetic towards this man (as most novels usually have me feeling towards such passive aggressive characters) as the prologue progressed. He almost kills a man that bumps into him and insults him, he lives in a way that allows him to evade his rent and bills - and all as a means of embracing his invisibility? 

He claims that his "awareness" of his invisibility is what causes him to behave in this way. He claims that he did not become "alive" until he "discovered" his invisibility. But for some reason I can't help but imagine the narrator in a state of self-deception. Do his actions manifest those of enlightenment and awareness or those of succumbing to the level society has defined him as? It's just something that really got me thinking, very Grendel-like narrator if we're going to draw some comparisons here. Much like Grendel, I find it very hard to draw some distinct conclusions about his character. The narrator's encounter with the man that insults him is most significant, because it reminded me very much of Grendel's encounter with Wealtheow - both characters hovered between the decision of murdering someone - but an inner epiphany stopped the two of them. The narrator here claims he was both "disgusted and ashamed" (Ellison 5). These peculiar similarities strike me as significant, there must be something more to this narrator - something greater to this confusion that consumed me. 

Another thing that I found very interesting was the Louis Armstrong music that the narrator focused on, and I love this quote that the narrator uses to describe his sense of self: "Invisibility, let me explain, gives one a slightly different sense of time, you're never quite on the beat. Sometimes you're ahead and sometime behind." It was a brilliant piece of writing on the author's part and a perfect way to describe the narrator's position, also making me be better able to understand the narrator's feelings. I see the tinges of racism and society that are prevalent within the prologue, but I still remain slightly confused, hopefully my confusion is clarifies as I progress - but then again, this will probably allow for a plethora of new questions. 

Definitely looking forward to this novel, and I'll definitely be posting more as I progress through. Feel free to comment, I'd genuinely interested in seeing some of your thoughts!