I decided to choose a simpler aphorism and do an essay on it. Just to make sure about the meaning of this aphorism, does it has to do something about appearance and their reality?
Is this essay a much better improvement then the previous one I did?
The Hamlet in Me
Deep within the castle of Elsinnore lurks a despicable creature that uses the blood of his own brother to feed his infinite ambitions. Moving swiftly and cautiously toward the king's orchard, Claudius the venomous chameleon pours the vial of toxin into the ear of his unsuspecting prey. Chained to the castle, the pitiful ghost, Hamlet, appears in front of his son, catalyzing the inevitability and demanding Claudius to be put to justice, which was necessary to give the tormented soul repose. While questioning his conscience whether to believe the ghost or not, Hamlet constructed a plan to prove the ghost's sincerity; a façade was created. However, due to his over-analytical manner and the complexity of the ghost's conditions, much time passes before Hamlet can carry out his orders. Shakespeare developed the idea that, by finding "indirections" we find "directions" out. Hamlet, Claudius and Polonius each inherit a chameleon's characteristic; the ability to camouflage and disguise itself in order to blend in with the changing environment and deceive its prey. This ability serves two purposes, an offense and a defense mechanism.
Polonius, the master of using "indirections", give us a vivid description on how deceits can be used to find out the truth. Before Laertes take off to Paris, Polonius gave his son some fatherly advices but in reality these advices turn out to be meaningless, hollow, and hypocritical. Like an iceberg, showing only one-eighth of his character above the surface, we see him set up an elaborate scheme to spy on his own son. "And thus do we of wisdom and of reach, / with windlasses and with assays of bias, / by indirections find directions out" (II.I.61-63), says Polonius, boasting of his ability to discover the real truth about his son's behavior in Paris.
After the play within the play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern questioned Hamlet, the reasons for his insanity. Hamlet then handed these two a pipe and asked them to play a tune. When they can't, he mocked them, "Do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, you cannot play upon me." (III.II.363-365). Hamlet realized that these characters were using "indirections", in hoping to receive some answers from Hamlet's guarded mouth, so they won't return empty handed to Claudius.
While Rosencrantz and Guildenstern failed in finding out the causes of Hamlet's madness, the mischievous Polonius uses his daughter, Ophelia, as a tool, to seduce Hamlet into revealing the truth. Once again the attempt failed and result Ophelia to be heartbroken. The characters in Hamlet seem to assume that the people around them are deceiving them, and trust cannot be given to just anybody, including the person you most love. "Hamlet: We are arrant knaves all; believe none of us. Go thy ways to a nunnery. Where's your father?" (III.I.137-139). Hamlet realizes that Polonius was hiding behind the curtains eavesdropping into their conversation. Hamlet main objective is to figure out if Ophelia is trying to deceive him, by asking "where is your father". Ophelia responded, "At home, my lord". Betray by Ophelia, Hamlet, experiencing bouts of uncontrollable rage, releases it upon the foolish girl.
Hamlet's "antic-disposition" act as a defensive mechanism to hide from his predators in order to carry out his ulterior motives. Hamlet was first introduced as an attractive, young gentleman, but both his appearance and behavior were change as the play develops. Ophelia, among other characters, Shakespeare uses her most to describe Hamlet "antic-disposition". "Lady shall I lie in your lap?" (III.II.107-108), this humorous question was asked right after Hamlet releases his rage upon Ophelia, giving the audience a piece of Hamlet superior acting skills when his predators are around.
Throughout my grade eight years, bullies were overpopulated and needed to be weeded out. In order to eradicate these annoying, unintelligent pests, a plan was needed. The first step included bribing these fools with sugar coated sweets, this in turn developed "friendship" among the bully and the one being bullied and their daily target would change. Of course, my revenge doesn't end there. They needed to be EXTERMINATED, to prevent others from getting sabotage.
During unit exams, these fools would cheat off each other, hoping to receive good marks. The results were as followed, "Billy Madison 28%, Scott Malcolm 32%..." Knowing these rascals would copy answers from me while my desk is unoccupied, immediately to take upon my revenge, the answers that were on my Scantron were switch from "a" to "b" and vice versa. As I return to my desk, before handing in the test the answers were re-corrected. Over time their test results and their incomplete assignments reflected in their report card, and were later forced by the administrators to repeat grade eight. The build up rage over the year was finally release, instead of throwing a fist it was release through a more civilize manner. In order to carry out my ulterior motives, the body and mind has to adapt to its changing environment; a façade like Hamlet was created. When opportunity is given and timing is just right, it is time to gobble up your prey. Hence, appearance may not be the reality.
In the end, this belief system "By finding indirections we find directions out" causes the downfall of every main character in the play. Only Hamlet was successful at using this technique, to revealed Claudius's secrets, by reenacting the gruesome murder of Priam, which serves to mirror Claudius previous actions. As each character is presented in the play most appear to be good and honest, making it a difficult task for Hamlet to uncover the hidden truth about the nature of each character. To expose their nature, Hamlet must first cover his own and thus that is how Hamlet seeks upon his revenge.
The aphorism referes to using deceit to find out the truth.
I found the opening paragraph of your essay rather confusing. "The ghost of Hamlet appears in front of his son, revealing his murderer and catalyzing events that are bound to happen. While questioning his conscience whether to believe the ghost or not, Hamlet has already constructed a plan to prove the ghost's sincerity" -- if Hamlet is the ghost, why is Hamlet trying to decide whether to believe the ghost?
Your essay also seems to be two different essays. It was rather a jolt when, right in the middle of your essay, you were suddenly no longer talking about Hamlet, but about events that happened to you in school. There is no transition, either to get to the paragraphs about the school bullies, or to jump back into Hamlet. If you are supposed to relate this aphorism to your personal life, you need to find a smoother way to work it into your analysis of Hamlet. If that is not a requirement, I'd take it out.
Without even trying, I found a web page which contains some sentences, word for word, that are in your essay; for example, "master of indirection is the one who gives us the explicit description of how this process works." If you use someone else's words, you need to include a citation to the reference, otherwise it is plagiarism.
I hope this is helpful to you!
This brings up an important point regarding plagiarism. Let's compare the two sentences, the one from the web page and the one you have reworded "so it would be my own."
"Polonius, the master of indirection is the one who gives us the explicit description of how this process works."
"Polonius, the master of using 'indirections', give us a vivid description on how deceits can be used to find out the truth."
Just because you change a few words so that it's not an exact match does not mean the idea becomes yours. If you take someone else's idea -- here, calling Polonius the "master of indirection" and saying he "gives us a description" -- then it is plagiarism. A lot of students find this confusing, believing that as long as they have changed a word here and there, it can't be plagiarism. Look at it this way: if someone took something you worked long and hard to write, used your ideas, and changed only an occasional word, then published it as their own without giving you any credit, how would you feel? It can be a fine line sometimes; after all, Polonius is what he is, so if you describe him there are bound to be some similarities to what others have written. But simply describing the same character correctly is not the same thing as using someone else's turn of phrase ("mater of indirection"), and describing what he did in virtually the same way as the source you were using. You could say "Polonius turned indirection into an art form" and it would mean essentially the same thing as saying he was a master of indirection, but without stealing someone else's words. (You may use mine, if you like -- it's okay with permission ;-))
Now, about transitions: it can be something as simple as, "I used this sort of indirection myself when I was in school ..."
Beware of using passive voice: "the answers were switched ... the answers were corrected ..." Better would be "I switched the answers, " etc.
I think you did a good job of transitioning back into Hamlet with "a façade like Hamlet was created" except that it is again in passive voice; also, you tend to leave out possessives entirely. Several times throughout the essay, you say Hamlet when you mean Hamlet's. "Hamlet's main objective"; "Hamlet's 'antic-disposition'."
Go through the essay carefully and make sure you stay in the same tense. Sometimes you use past tense, sometimes present; be consistent.
Best of luck in your studies!
These are very good questions! Passive voice doesn't have to do with first person vs. third person. A passive voice makes the object of an action into the subject of a sentence. The one performing the action is not the subject of the sentence. Example:
"The ball was thrown by the girl." - The ball is receiving the action, yet it is also the subject of the sentence. Active voice would be "The girl threw the ball." You can put something in first person and still make it passive voice. Passive voice: "I was laughed at by the other students." Active voice: "The other students laughed at me." Passive voice is not ungrammatical, nor is it always wrong. It does have a tendency, though, to weaken your writing and make it less interesting because it removes the reader a step farther from the action.
In rare instances, it may be possible to have both present and past tense in the same sentence, depending on sentence construction and context, but generally not. In the example you gave, all of the words you put in bold are actually in the present tense. The only verb in past tense is "was" in "which was necessary to give the tormented soul repose." It should probably be in the present tense: "Hamlet appears ... demanding ... justice, which is necessary to give the tormented soul repose." You could also re-write it to say "demanding Claudius receive the justice which will give Hamlet's tormented soul repose." That sounds a little smoother.
I hope this clears it up a little, rather than making it more murky!
At “closes in the consequence.” Ay, marry.
He closes thus: “I know the gentleman.
I saw him yesterday”—or “t' other day,”
Or then, or then, with such or such—“and, as you say,
There was he gaming, there o'ertook in’s rouse,
There falling out at tennis,” or, perchance,
“I saw him enter such a house of sale”—
Videlicet a brothel, or so forth. See you now,
Your bait of falsehood takes this carp of truth.
And thus do we of wisdom and of reach,
With windlasses and with assays of bias,
By indirections find directions out.
So by my former lecture and advice
Shall you my son. You have me, have you not?
“It will be natural for him to agree with you.” Ah, yes, that’s right. If he agrees he’ll say something like this: “Yes, I know the gentleman you’re referring to. I just saw him yesterday,” or “the other day,” or whenever it is, you know, “and there he was gambling,” or “there he was, totally wasted, or fighting with somebody about a tennis match, or going into a house of ill repute”—that means a whorehouse, you know—or whatever. Make sure your little lie brings out the truth. We’re doing this wisely and intelligently, indirectly, finding out things by roundabout means. That’s how you’ll find out what my son is up to in Paris. You get my point, don’t you?