The Poison Apple

This font uses 20% less ink. I am defintly going to be using it for my printed documents as much as possible now.

It’s free to download: http://www.ecofont.eu/ecofont_en.html

I got an offer of admission to Ottawa U with a $2000 scholarship for Honors B.Sc with specialization in Psychology! It’s conditional, I need to maintain a 70% average to keep the acceptance, but I got in! Whoo!
It’s not my first choice, so I don’t know if I’ll be accepting the offer or not, but it’s nice to know I’ll definitly be going to University next year.

I want to celebrate, but I’m broke and Nick isn’t back in town until tomorrow evening.

I can’t seem to get my third debate to be double spaced . . . sorry about the formatting issues again. I can’t figure out how to fix it right now, too lazy.

The morning of December 13, 2008, Mr Paul Murray’s ENG4UE class gathered for a third time to watch the debates of the affirmative; Adam Young, Mat Brown and Stuart Gendron versus the negative; Alex Van der Mout, Tyler Keith and Jon Hughes-Khatib. Their debate: did Gertrude betray both her husband and her son.

The affirmative side started with a definition of betrayal – how it involved deception, caused tension in relationships and is used as a device to twist a plot – they also explained how Gertrude was guilty of all forms of betrayal according to their definition. The negative stated that Hamlet only felt betrayed, when in actuality, Gertrude was entirely innocent (as stated by the ghost and logic). They argued that she did nothing but love Hamlet and all her actions were for his or her benefit, not to betray her son.

The affirmative side countered arguments with the fact that it is unknown to everyone what happened the two months before the play takes place – so there is a possibility that Gertrude did not grieve at all. She was always supportive of Claudius, and often ignored Hamlet – her own son. The negative countered the affirmative’s primary argument with the fact that Gertrude and Hamlet rekindle their relationship with apologies and understanding. Old Hamlet would also have full knowledge of his death as he is a supernatural being, so he would know if Gertrude was betraying him and not fight for her innocence. Lastly, they said Gertrude never lied, therefore she did not betray anyone.

The affirmative claims Gertrude never mourned Old Hamlet, and there is a strong possibility that she was unfaithful to her previous husband. The negative argued that Hamlet only knew about his father’s death due to the ghost and the ghost continues to claim that his previous wife is innocent. They also argued that she was female, hence under the influence of men during the time period, so many of her actions could be a reflection of that. The rebuttal of this section involved more points of Gertrude’s proof of innocence due to the Ghost’s claim and that there was no proof her mourning but there was also no proof of her not mourning.

The free-for-all involved mainly fallacies being thrown around from group to group, Ab Hominem, Poisoning the Well, Epiplexis and the Burden of Proof. Tyler attempted a soliloquy, though was unable to complete it due to interruptions, and 3 sword fights broke out between members of the opposing sides. The negative side won all of these fights. Towards the end, a point was made by an audience member that marriage was not about love during Shakespearean times.

After the free-for-all, the affirmative side continued to find flaws with Gertrude and her actions, basically stating she was a terrible person. The negative countered with how she couldn’t have betrayed anyone, especially Old Hamlet, because there was no love or commitment to begin with. She cares for Hamlet entirely, and does everything to protect and make things better for him. The affirmative rebutted with saying Gertrude did betray people, and deceive people – especially Hamlet because marrying Claudius endangered him. The negative countered with asking how betray could be helping one’s son through their problems. They had many rhetorical questions throughout their final rebuttal. In the end the judges decided, based on points that the negative side had won, though both sides had very valid arguments and put up a good fight.

The debate between Mary Collins, Ilayda Williamson, and Michaela Blaser versus Kelsey Campbell, Melissa Watson, and Jessica Barton was heated debate. The affirmative side opened with a strong argument on how Hamlet was crazy simply due to the inappropriate actions he committed (including his thoughts of suicide and death, his lewd actions towards unwed noble women, and persistent talking to no one but himself). The negative side opened with equally strong arguments on how Hamlet experienced deep emotions, due to his father’s death, mainly grief. All his actions related to the strong emotions he felt and therefore he was not insane. Though both sides provided strong arguments, the affirmative side started off stronger than the negative.

Mary pointed out a hasty generalization in Kelsey’s argument on Hamlet wanting to be a protector of the family. The point was also made that the grief that Hamlet is feeling could cause mental disorders and there is no proof that Hamlet was not crazy the events in the play. The negative side made a point about how the deaths were not random throughout the play, that they were premeditated. Polonius was killed accidentally, because Hamlet was planning to kill the King and Polonius was alone in the king’s room. His emotions ran rampant and that is the reason for his actions, not insanity. There were not statistics about his insanity, but that didn’t mean he wasn’t grieving. The negative side proved a stronger rebuttal.

The first argument made by the affirmative side described how Hamlet’s actions and thoughts, as well as attitude all lead to the fact that he had some sort of mental disorder. His delusions, hallucinations, and mood swings are possible symptoms of Mania, Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder. Hamlet is visibly clinically insane. The negative side argued that his symptoms were due to grief and love, because they both can cause changes in personality. They also argued that his grieving period was extensive, therefore he could be this way for a long time, but he would not be insane. Assonance was included at the end of their argument. The affirmative side clearly had a stronger argument.

Mary committed a Straw Man in the beginning of her rebuttal for the affirmative side by assuming what the negative side would rebut with. She explained that the King was a hallucination, which is a symptom of many mental disorders. The affirmative side also argued that the other people in the play do not see Hamlet’s insanity because they cared for him. It is common for loved ones to deny the illnesses of someone they love, especially when it comes to mental illness because mental illness is still rejected by society. The negative side argued that the image of the king could not have been a hallucination because many people saw him. They also argued that Polonius did not like Hamlet, therefore he was not a loved one, and even he did not say Hamlet was insane. They made the point that the affirmative side ignored the symptoms of grief, and that Hamlet was simply repeating the five stages of grief over and over again. The affirmative side had a much stronger argument once again, as the negative side constantly referred back to grief.
During the free for all, the arguments continued on the grief and mental illness, many fallacies were committed, and Dawson gained a point for the negative side about how many people seeing the same thing could be a hallucination. A couples Shakespearean insulted were passed, and the free-for-all was over.

In the final argument, Mary explained how Hamlet was not only clinically insane, but legally insane so he was not responsible for his actions. Hamlet was unable to think properly, and his psychosis made it impossible to be able to commit the actus reus needed for someone to be legally responsible for his actions. She also explained how his views on right and wrong became skewed due to the actions of his uncle, and what his father’s ghost told him. The negative side argued that everyone knows that Hamlet is not crazy, and everything he did was a mistake but well thought out so he should therefore be responsible. The affirmative had a stronger argument once again.

The rebuttal included the affirmatives thoughts on how his premeditated murders made him crazy, not sane. They also included that he rambled useless to himself, which is a sign of being insane. The negative side rebutted with the fact that one of their own members rambles aimlessly to themselves, and they are not insane and that Hamlet was aware and sane with his killings. The affirmative once again had a stronger argument.

In conclusion, the affirmative side’s strong arguments of Hamlet being clinically and legally insane disproved the arguments of the negative side of Hamlet being overly emotional due to love and loss.

Hamlet is under deep depression due to his father’s death, and he is not taking it too lightly. He is also deeply angered by the goings on around him, not only with his own family, but with his lover’s family as well. Too much has changed for him to be comfortable in the present situation, especially after being gone to University for many months.

Hamlet is also at the age where most teenagers go through some sort of adolescent breakdown, and turn to a darker, state of melancholy. The death of his father is only the onset of this. His transformation is seen not only in her disposition, but also in his clothing choices and overall state of being. It is possible that it is just a façade, and Hamlet is a very good actor, but his actions that are sometimes deemed insane, his words and thoughts that are no longer noble and speak of death and suicide, hence making us believe he truly has transformed.

Ophelia and Gertrude seem the most upset about Hamlet’s transformation. We can see that Ophelia fears his madness, and it is possible that she does because she has already lost a loved one (her mother) and she may lose another. It is also always the mother and girlfriend who tend to feel the most grief when a loved male changes. Ophelia is also objected to some of Hamlet’s madness straight on, as well as his mother. They feel it most intensely because many of his angry rants are pointed in their direction.

Claudius does not seem too worried about Hamlet’s transformation, though he does seem uncomfortable. It is possible he feels threatened by the new disposition of his nephew/step-son. An angrier, darker Hamlet may be more likely to overthrow him, or discover his plan etc. There are many reasons for Claudius to feel fearful of the transformation of Hamlet.

Hamlet is mainly focusing on his self-actualization needs, and pushing away his safety, love/belonging and esteem needs. Of course, most of his physiological needs are being fulfilled, but that is inherent human needs that have to be fulfilled or you die.

His safety needs are not being fulfilled for many reasons. Hamlet is now unable to return to school, which does not secure his place in University (and being a student is considered a job, in most cases). There are also many family problems plaguing him, due to his father’s death and mother’s remarriage. The safety of his family has been compromised, and therefore his own safety has been as well. Also, due to the fact that his family is royalty there is less security of their property and estate thanks to his father’s death.

After Hamlet’s arrival, it is clear that his interpersonal relationships are failing. He resents both his uncle and his mother, due to the murder of his father and the remarriage, and his affair with Ophelia is slowly fading. He is also aware that his good friends, Rosencrantz and Gildenstern have turned against him.

The lack of fulfilling safety and love/belonging needs can effect one’s self esteem very easily. Hamlet has lost all respect for those he knows, and in turn they are beginning to lose respect for him. Being unable to avenge his father’s death in a timely manner has probably effected how he feels as a person, and whether he is of any value because he is unable to complete the one thing he needs to do.

Hamlet’s self-actualization is affected the most. Hamlet became very spontaneous in his actions, but also immoral and prejudice (against women mainly). It is seen that he is unable to control how he feels very well, and his emotions tend to run wild. He also is having trouble accepting his father’s death, as we can see from the visions of the ghost. Due to the downward spiral of nearly every other need, Hamlet’s entire hierarchy has fallen, especially towards the top.

I’d just like to apologize for the formatting issues my edublogs has been experiencing with posts. Copying and pasting from Microsoft Word doesn’t seem to be working too well lately, at least for me. Hopefully my next couple of posts will avoid that problem.