What happens when it's totally hilarious

There are not words that define this video nor are there sounds to contain this performance.

What happens when Shakespeare uses the trinity as a mold for Hamlet

The causation of motive within Hamlet can be determined by observing the interaction with their fathers. What causes Hamlet to be motivated to exact revenge against his father's murderers? After all, it was not Hamlet that had would-be murderers following him in the beginning of the play. Though Hamlet was pondering the union of his mother and uncle to be a malicious one, he still had no clear knowledge of the past event that lead to his father's death. It was not until his ghost father told him of the murderous events that Hamlet took action against his uncle, et al. Warning Hamlet before he was to unfold the past, the ghost father says, "So art thou to revenge, when thou shalt hear." From this point on Hamlet's mission is well defined. It is purely revenge.

The nature of the ghost father or, "Thy father's spirit" as he calls himself to Hamlet, is widely left up to the interpretation of performers and scholars. Is the ghost real or is it a figment of Hamlet's seemingly wide imagination? Hamlet's mother cannot see or hear the ghost in act 3 scene 4, but Marcellus, Horatio, and Barnardo do recognize the ghost as Hamlet's father in act 1. The only thing that matters for my argument is that there is an acknowledgement of a parental connection between the ghost and Hamlet.

The ghost is telling the truth. The events that he unfolds are steadfast in reality as we learn later in the play. Therefore, if the ghost is only his imagination then Hamlet is able to prophesy about the past. I do not think this characterization of Hamlet fits with anything else Shakespeare has written. Rather, I believe the nature of the ghost is that it indwells within Hamlet.

Hamlet is single-minded in his mission. He is the ghost of revenge. The metaphysical depth of the character Hamlet is overwhelming at times. I believe that the character of Hamlet is a mold of the structure and interaction of the Christian trinity itself. Hamlet is presented as son, father, and spirit. It is obvious that Shakespeare assumes that the characters in this play presuppose traditional Christian values. Hamlet would have had no qualms killing Claudius if he was not a good Catholic. Nevertheless, he does not kill him. In fact, his reaction to Claudius's private repentance is utter dismay over the fact that he did the only thing that could have stopped Hamlet from killing him.

The interaction between Hamlet and his father is very mysterious by nature. Hamlet is alive and his father is a ghost. I must catch myself and say that I do not think that Shakespeare is trying to emulate or explain the nature of the Christian trinity. He is merely molding his character Hamlet around the structure of a single character being three things at once. This concept of three in one can only be draw from Trinitarian theology since it is not present in any other explanation of existence. Likewise, the concept of a monotheistic trinity can only be found in Christian theology. I think Shakespeare understood the amount of mystery that such a concept would bring to a character and masterfully molded one of his most complex characters around it; mysteries that even Shakespeare could not explain.

What I am not saying is that Shakespeare understood the mysteries of the trinity. Rather, he knew that If he used a concept that was as profound as the trinity to mold Hamlet around, the mysteries would occur naturally. He understood that there was unknown mystery in the Trinitarian theology and he wanted to use it to write a truly horrifying and bloody tragedy.

Hamlet's steadfastness to keep a vendetta with his father's enemies points toward the ghost and son to become one. The father indwells in Hamlet making the house a castle of ghostly revenge. It is truly creepy how much blood is spilled in the name of revenge." Hamlet is right up there as the scariest story I have ever read with King Lear and Macbeth.

Let's pull back even further from the play. In Hamlet you have a Father imposing or working out his will (revenge) unto his enemies through his son. But, the father's will is only able to be imposed or work out because his spirit has revealed the truth. Come on. This is blatant use of Trinitarian structure. Now, read Hamlet again and it all makes sense. I hope at least.

What happens when your red blood cells hold lots of oxygen

This dude is having a worse day than you.

What happens when you have a semantic debate about censorship in a Shakespeare class

The word censorship is defined way too broadly. The dictionary defines it as, "The removal and/or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body." This definition is talking about two very separate issues. It is talking about the way that writers want you to define censorship. This is adding on the connotation of human rights violations so as to make argument against crap writing a sin. The second is actual definition of penalty not censorship or even persecution for that matter.

Writers, these days, use the word censorship to make excuses for crappy writing. I can't believe that censorship is anything more than group or body not allowing you to perches a particular manuscript. Likewise, censorship is not allowing a person to publish a manuscript even though the author has the financial means to endorse the publishing of their manuscript.

The dictionary definition assumes that human are obligated to hear (or in this case read) anything ever written. It is up to the writer to produce a product worth reading. If the public doesn't want to read the manuscript, it can still be written. I find that a large amount of "writers" want to complain that because a large group of people don't want to pass on or interact with the information or ideas presented in their manuscript, they are being censored. No, that is merely penalty. Think of a penalty in a football game. You roughed that passer so you get something taken away from you that would otherwise want in order to succeed. “Writers” use the word censorship to explain the penalty that a large group of readers impose because of their common dislike for the manuscript’s content.

Penalty is not always bad. In fact, in most cases it can be used to stop an action that is harmful. Think of the roughing the passer analogy. Just to be clear, I am defining censorship as a penalty not as a punishment. The writer is being penalized by the public. The public is not going to give him their support, both monetarily and morally, because they don't want to. I want it to be clear that I am not defending censorship. I am redefining it as a monetary and moral penalty. Then I am saying that my redefined censorship can be used to weed out bad writing.

The dictionary definition of censorship assumes a moral homogeny. Another words, it does not take into account the antithesis. It assumes that there is no one truth. This is the same old tune that pagan relativistic ninnies try to foist onto the world. They do this so that they can pretend that their crappy writing means something. The most annoying use I have ever read of this is Jonathan Safran Foer commenting on his book Extremely loud and Incredibly Close. He told an interviewer, “Why do people wonder what's "OK" to make art about, as if creating art out of tragedy weren't an inherently good thing? Too many people are too suspicious of art. Too many people hate art.” –Jonathan Safran Foer, on why he wrote a 9/11 book. Here we have an author calling his work, “Art”. So if you dislike his book then you dislike art. Foer is interpreting dislike for his book as artistic persecution. He even uses the word hate. It a real asshole thing to do.

The definition also assumes a communistic society. How might it assume a communist society? Well it’s simple. In the society we live in it is impossible not to hear any information. True or false, all information is jammed into our senses. We are made to sleep with it and told that it is good and warm and tender. Just as soon as we realize that we are in bed with a lie, we are told not to worry because some of it is still true.

Today I heard the stupidest thing ever. I was educated (at $357.49 per credit nonetheless) that there exist such a thing as self censorship. This is when an author feels that what he or she is writing will bring persecution upon themselves; so they don’t write it. This is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. I would like to see one example in the last 100 years of an English language writer that silenced themselves because they were afraid of the consequences. You would have to go to China or Cuba to find examples of that. And, those examples would be persecution against Christian doctrine. This is why it assumes communistic society. The only real place you see censorship is in communistic societies.

In my opinion if a writer does not have boulders large enough to say what is true then he shouldn’t be saying it at all.

What happens when you turn the sound down

This is great commentary on the first Harry Potter movie. Stay tuned throw the whole thing as it get crazier bu the second.

What happens when you have a child

Toady I watched my child from noon to 3:00 while her mother was sleeping. We went to cougar country and ate fries and a a burger. She got full and wanted to leave so she just started shoving the fries in my mouth. She would take a fry dip it in ketchup lick off the ketchup then dip it again and eat the fry. I realized that for the first time in her 17 months of existence she realized that things have multiple purposes. In this scenario a fry was both a spoon and a thing to eat. But really, she was just being cool. She was just eating fries with her dad.

What happens when the universe speaks

Today, I remembered a class that I took about 2 years ago. The prof, an unapologetic narcissistic daft dink, decided to prove the nonexistence of a god by showing us an audio of rain on Titan, one of the moons of Saturn. There was a student sitting to my right that interjected right around the, "And so you see mankind has to create a concept of "god" in order to keep themselves" by standing up and saying, "This is the creepiest thing I have ever heard". The sound bite is an audio recording on the surface of Titan. It has been said that if God could tell a joke we would die from laughter. Well, if God told a scary story this would be the soundtrack.

This is all beside the point. Watch this movie about Enceladus and this movie about Titan too.

What happens when Shakespeare

Read a play! Here, there is no need.

What happens when you are have no subtlety.

This kid is going to be a rich prick some day.

Then lets take our babies to Arkansas. Or lets not. The stench from the bench could make you barf.


Then, the whats that happen when there is no point to a point.

What happens when you are icredibly loud and extremely close to an ok book

Jonathan Safran Foer’s book Extremely loud and Incredibly Close is indeed extremely loud and incredibly close to a good book. This book follows a boy named Oskar Schell through his adventures around the five boroughs of New York City. With his father having just died in the tragedies of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, Oskar seeks to find meaning in a name written on an envelope and the owner of a key that is found inside the envelope. The question, “Why do we exist” on pg. 13, is asked very early on in the novel. Questions permeate this novel. Questions of identity and meaning can be found in all of the characters. Even questions of believability, both within oneself and in one’s environment, are posed on virtually every page. Questions soak both the city and its people in a downpour of unbelievable circumstances. Foer gets to the very heart of the existential dilemma.

Foer has an uncanny ability to describe vividly New York City. As Oskar follows a precise stratagem to find the person’s whose name is on the envelope and the owner of the key found inside the envelope, Foer constructs a community of people so real that it is down right edible. With a vivid use of descriptive language, each scene is set in bright detail. Foer also messes with the medium of the novel by giving us visual snapshots throughout the novels. These snapshots could be his use of letters or pictures taken by certain characters. In each instance, these snapshots add depth to the novel. Foer’s novel is definitely an original take on an old medium. This novel begs the questions, “What is art?” and, “Where does literature belong in art?” Although he generally comes across well, Foer’s organization does bring stylistic limitations to his work.

Foer organizes his book in an entirely original way. However, some of the actual context and story line, like the love between two characters or the inner turmoil with one, take a back seat to his order. This hierarchy of style is usually in balance, but it can sometimes become very obvious, repetitive and loud

One of the main criticisms of this book is that the main character, Oskar, is not believable. Would you find Oskar in the real world? Most critics of the book would say no. However, Oskar does fit very well in the world Foer has created. This leads to the question, “Is the world that Foer created believable?” The world that Foer is describing is a post 9/11 New York City. He sculpts a city that is emotionally bare and raw with questions. Oskar is distraught and looking for meaning. The five boroughs are also looking in much the same way as Oskar. Oskar is just as much a product of his environment as his environment is product of him. The give and pull between Oscar and New York City lend the book its true believability.

Foer’s world is believable because the very nature of the subject he is writing about is almost fantastic. It is not the fantastic you get when you clean you floors of finish a project, it is the fantastic you get when you read fairytales and legends. The story shocks and startles you into an unknown right in you back yard. Readers don’t have much of a context to judge the psychosomatic effects of a tragedy like that of 9/11. Foer also uses sub-stories like the carpet-bombing of Dresden and the bombing of Hiroshima to set the tone of his book. All three of these settings are unbelievable because of the violence and inhumanity.

As the reader follows young Oskar through his excursions through the five boroughs, he is presented with the very heart of the existential dilemma. What is the meaning of life? Why do we exist? Foer answers these questions through the characters. He answers these questions in a completely original way; for instance, Foer answers his questions through different story lines. Specifically speaking, Foer uses the story line of Oskar’s grandmother and grandfather to answer questions of existence and being that a child might not be able to understand. Grandma and grandpa can delve into questions surrounding an intensely confusing sex life that has been present for several years.

Throughout the novel, the story of a sixth borough acts as another story line that Foer uses to answer the overarching question. How does a community like post 9/11 New York City keep on existing? A tortured community survives only if the people help each other and stick together. Likewise, the question is asked, “Why does a post 9/11 community exits”? Foer answered with a resounding, “So that they can continue helping each other and stick together.” Foer shows us that post tragedy existence depends on a community.

At the books end, all of the questions are answered. Foer has limited his aspects of his novel with his artistic organization. With themes surrounded by pictures and repetition, this novel lacks a certain level of subtlety. Themes are repeated not just with words, but also with items like pictures, letters, and business cards. The themes tend to stack and crescendo into falling roar. The novel becomes a little too extremely loud and incredibly close on occasion. Themes of loss and victimization come across so strong that it is hard to separate them from their sentimental roots. However, taken with a grain of salt, this aspect of the novel is also fitting with its overall theme. Tragic attacks are loud and close and not at all subtle. Most importantly, this book is a relief to finish but a pleasure to read.