Prosecution

Something is truly rotten in the state of Denmark. 

Unfortunately our Queen has failed us. She has forgotten our justice system and unfortunately has conspired to rid us of our dearest of princes; Prince Hamlet. 

In Act three scene Four, line 220, to be exact the first scents of conspiracy to murder can be deduced. Claudius comments with Gertrude on sending Hamlet to England, to not have to deal with his "madness."  Claudius, Gertrude, and Polonius coincide in spying on Hamlet´s conversations and then promising Hamlet of never opening her mouth to Claudius.  Then after Polonius´s murder in Gertrude´s presence Claudius confirms that Hamlet´s death will come by sending him to England. ( Act 4 Scene 4) 

In consequence not only conspiracy to murdering her own child will be prosecuted but also Obstruction of Justice, Negligent Murder, and Habeas Corpus will be present in the prosecution. 

Obstruction of Justice will held on the accounts of Act four scene 1 where in Gertrude´s presence Claudius orders Rosencrantz to hide the body in the Chapel so the trial system cannot be executed. 

Habeas Corpus will be pressed on the accounts of Act four Scene four where in the presence of Gertrude, Claudius orders Hamlet to England, besides sending him off to his death, Gertrude does nothing to stop Claudius from evading the right to a fair trial for the murder of Polonius. 

The prosecution will call to the stand: King Claudius, Polonius, and Rosencrantz to prove the case. 

After conspiring to kill her own son and evade our blessed constitution whose purpose is to serve all citizens with a righteous justice system; Queen Gertrude should face a minimum of one life sentence in prison. 

Thank you Your Honor and God Bless Denmark. 

Mother

Experience. In This American Life, there is one question that produces the "freshness" as the Daily Herald described the essence of the play. The question is: what are you in for? That simple five worded questions packs in the trigger mechanism for the revival of all sentiments and experience from all the inmates in the High- Security Prison.
All the feelings that spark by the simple question brings back and touches the feelings of even the most "evil" of criminals. These feelings are what make Hamlet a custom-fit to the inmates. All the inmates can dwell on the actions that put them in prison, many with regret. Therefore the "reading" of Hamlet causes a much different connotation compared to your typical "free" American. The inmates can connect to Hamlet´s perplex state of mind, in fact, not even seven minutes into the podcast and an inmate, after disclosing his crimes said at that very moment of his life "...I was confused...¨ All the inmates had also in one stage of their lives endured such bewilderment and the sole cause of such bewilderment was: "To be or not to be...To rob or not to rob...To kill or not to kill...¨ All these questions have been the cause of their misfortunes, individuals who weren't able to cope with their perplexity, unfortunately they decided "To be" or it may not be so unfortunate for Hamlet fanatics.
One can think of the inmates as the new "voices" in Hamlet´s head, not so much as in a paternal aspect but as a life-coach. Knowing the causes and effects when in complex mental situations the inmates by how they read the lines can try and put Hamelt on a path they deem to be the most viable option. Their own experience can help Hamlet´s figure question Shakespeare´s lines more appropriately.

As Pink Floyd once begged his mother for guidance in a world of nuclear siege. Hamlet can now turn to the five voices of experience to choose how he expresses himself in times of trouble.

Walk the Walk?

The underlining question in both works,J Alfred Prufrock and Hamlet, comes down to the simplicity of whether  it is worth it or not? Eliot uses  "Do I Dare" while Shakespeare uses "To be or not to be." Both authors illustrate young men possessed with the eternal curse of doing or not doing. Both characters are afraid of what consequences will come due to their actions. Nevertheless each character manifests their crisis in a different manner. 

Sexual distress is a blemish that both Hamlet and Prufrock endure throughout their odysseys´s. In an age where most men should flourish in both their sex-life and liberty to chase after whom ever they choose both men are placed under a chastity-belt. Both men; whether it be Hamlet´s perverted jokes to Ophelia or Prufrock´s craving for a "cheap night" indicate a resentment towards society. A resentment that starts to form a blood-shot blindness, an obscuring red that signifies hate towards human society. In Hamlet´s case it is hard to fully interpret his true intentions, due to the fact that his perspective on being the Prince of Denmark impedes him from showing true emotion, from being a human. Thus leading to the eternal speculation that what may really be behind Hamlet´s rage towards society might be the jealousy that his uncle to away the biggest love of his life, Gertrude. The reader is left to puzzle the pieces together. 

On the other hand, Prufrock´s bombardment of emotions leaves the reader wondering if so much thought is actually healthy. Prufrock opens himself up to the public, he does not doubt whether to state everything he feels contrary to Hamlet. But what both fail to do is act. Neither Pruforck nor Hamlet ever act on their maladies, as some say "they talk the talk but do not walk the walk." While both criticize  society´s maladies, Shakespeare and Eliot make it clear that their characters are the personification of society´s true problems. While one cannot even make up his mind to kill himself while others die by the thousands for nothing. The other questions love when asking "What is it?" as though afraid of getting hurt when not having the slightest idea of what love really is. 

When reaching the end of both works, just when the reader is convinced that the message of the play is dare to act, everyone dies. Thus leaving the questions: why? why bother suffering if at the end every one dies? why try to change society? Prufrock closes by saying that "till human voices wake us, and we drown." Hamlet ends by the death of even Hamlet himself. Neither Hamlet triumphs on his mission of vengeance not even Prufrock´s lover survives because with the first hint of transparent humanity, no one stays afloat. Both authors leave the audience with a terrible or better stated insufficient grounds to conclude what society should do. Or maybe it shouldn't do anything at all. 

Thank You, J.J. Cale.

Pop Culture; is the single story. As a Colombian, there have been countless time where the mainstreams of society have targeted, and banned any positive ideas serving from Colombians.

Living eleven years in a very privileged NorthShore suburb of Chicago, my eyes opened to a new kind of "single story." My first encounters with discrimination for being Colombian date back to kindergarden, first grade, basically since I can remember. But these first years of discrimination affected a great deal, I would take questions like: "Is your Dad a landscaper?" or "Is your Dad in the import, export, business (if you know what I mean)?" to heart. But as years passed, I realized that this single story of Colombia does not give birth in the minds of my friends, but from the mainstreams of American Culture. I realized very similarly to Adichie that even your "roommates" would express such stereotypes not in the way of an insult but a question, a sign that they don't know better. A sign in which their family doesn't even know better. This tone may seem condescending or disrespectful, but the ideas in my friends possessed were spoon fed. Their parents, amazing people, grew up in a time where Harrison Ford  starred in "Clear and Present Danger" and where J.J. Cale and Eric Clapton were singing; "If you day is done, and you want to ride on... Cocaine!" Both amazing pieces of art, but a prime example of the cause of a single story.

Don´t get me wrong, eleven years assimilating to the stereotypes of American society will leave anyone guilty of the single story. I too have committed the same expressions that once left me questioning my pride as a Colombian. Even in Colombia the single story of the Typical American exists; the "fat bastard."

T.I.A.

Although hard to digest, Kurtz loses the battle between Africa and himself. The continent that made him untouchable also brought  his demise. With the fall of Kurtz, Conrad imposes the ultimate expression of irony, in which, humans participate their whole lives. A similar message is depicted by Ridley Scott´s Blood Diamond. 

Blood Diamond illustrates the turmoil that have been casued by the white man´s quest to satisfy himself, a goal that has proven impossible to accomplish. The movie takes place in the mining fields of Sierra Leone and the the story of a family,  nation, continent, ripped apart by the "White Man´s Burden." A whiteman who rose to power, wealth, and women by taking the most of Africa, the continent who gave it all to him. But as it was once said "what goes up must come down" the same story goes with the mercenary in Blood Diamond. The same goes with HOD, Kurtz became a "someday" thanks to Africa, and that "somebody" was extinguished "with twice the speed of our upward progress; and Kurtz’s life was running swiftly, too. . . " The ironic circle of life that has been so highly critzced by the philopsohers of the 20th century is clearly present in Conrad´s ideology. A lifetime of sweat, cruelty, and sacrifice gives man the allusion of someday of becoming something, but when death calls,which is much swifter than the rising to power,  the man isn't ready because at no point in time did he ever realize what he became..."The horror! The Horror!"(130) As Marlow states "I saw on that ivory face the expression of sombre pride, of ruthless peer, of craven terror-of an intense and hopeless despair." Not even the best, most knowledgeable men die with the comfort of fulfilling their goal of dying with a clear conscience in leaving a successful legacy. So much work for no reward? Is that what; Ridley Scott and Joesph Conrad try to express?

Whether a battle of "principles" or the direct pursuit of wealth, there is no thesis on the "effective way" of how to leave a successful legacy. Many die in vain, discomfort, and others like the existentialists just "accept." Di Caprio just accepts and says: "T.I.A" "This is Africa."

Use Purell

It is safe to say that getting shot by an arrow, is a safer bet than drinking water. Not only in Africa has disease turned the tables of conquest; Guns, Germs, and Steel  shows how an entire empire fell to the hands of sickness. Can this time the fallen empire, be European?

Overhearing the Manager´s Uncle speak of leadership, and specifically of "standing the climate"(58), Marlow realizes Kurtz´s ingredient. As stated in Part One, Kurtz´s ability to immunize himself from any disease in Africa makes him an idol-figure. It is not the natives´ military power that determines the fate of the Europeans, it is mother nature. Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond tells the story of the many conquering expeditions that Europe has been involve in: from Sub-Saharan Africa to South America. The most interesting is Mexico´s story. In short; the Spanish Armada lead by Hernan Cortes had not to fire their weapons, all they had to do was interact. One by one the Aztec population started to fall of disease. Such ¨superhuman¨ features made the Conquistadors resemble gods to the Aztec people: domination. 

A similar story starts to unravel in the beginning of Part Two. The only thing that needs to happen for a leader to rise and conquer is surviving interaction. Interaction with the natives, and the "patient wilderness" as Marlow states it. The problem is that unlike Guns, Germs, and Steel, Marlow´s expedition is not intended on evangelizing natives or direct interaction, Marlow´s plan is to take mother nature´s sons away. They are only after the "ivory-that can be smelt in the air..."

It seems as though this expedition isn't human versus human, but a battle between Man and Superman. Will Marlow conquer mother nature or fall ill like Mr. Kurtz, at the height of his power?

Soldiers...Of Fortune

Patriotic? The word empire, has become a word much too glorified. A word that many times is paralleled to "King and Country," but far too many times have these Sir Francis Drakes forgotten their principles and gone to conquest a name for themselves. The word; nation is lost and the highest bidder comes into plain view. Mercenaries. 

One cannot help asking as the novel runs deeper into Africa, the true meaning of glory. "He was the only man of us who still followed the sea..." Marlow is the first to question the significance of imperialism. As he furthers into the Congo, and hears the stories of: money, ivory, and Mr. Kurtz. The connotation of glory and light starts to quickly fade away. "ELDORADO EXPLORING EXPEDITION..."  suffices in expressing what this "nurturing of less privileged peoples" in Africa was all about: money. This idea of: money, foreigners, and  Man-of-Wars, created a comparison to what Conrad is trying to express; BlackWater. 

Even though Marlow doesn't seem to be a cold-blooded "conquistador," his whole situation of being English, working for a Belgian Company in Africa, creates an image of a Mercenary. He may not be committing the atrocities but his companions are. A "Soldier of Fortune" is the image that is created in my mind when these imperialistic descriptions are narrated. “The word ‘ivory’ rang in the air, was whispered, was sighed. You would think they were praying to it." Mercenaries are often described as nationless, men living in exile. Men who have given up the nationalistic sentiments that lie in fighting for your country by selling themselves to the highest bidder. In addition, the map that illustrated the "proportions and disproportions" of Africa shows that not only King Leopold was enforcing his self-interests with foreign forces. 

As Part One comes to a close, Her Majesty´s Empire seems to be not so majestic after all. And the reader  is left wondering whether or not; God should save the Queen?