Carter’s Comments (group member since Jan 11, 2016)

Carter’s comments from the Ms. A's Advanced English Book Discussions group.

Courtney, I agree that there were adaptations, but maybe not directly correlated to the Lion King. In Hamlet, a different leader didn't really change the mood or the well-being of the people. In the Lion King, when Scar untied Pride Rock with the Hyenas, things went down hill fast. I never much thought of that view point, good discussion!

So the question remains, do you think Lion King can be considered an adaptation of Hamlet? Using your notes, use 5 specific examples (only two can be characters) on why you believe Lion King is, or is not, an adaptation of Hamlet. (should be 2-3 paragraphs)

Yes, I believe that the Lion King can be considered an adaptation of Hamlet. Scar banishes Simba after the death of Mufasa, just like Claudius "sent" Hamlet away after the death of Hamlet Sr. Simba eventually was found by Timon and Pumba which helped get him back on his feet and kind of build his strength. I relate this to Hamlet Jr. finding Rosencrantz and Guildenstern while away at school, and they became inseparable and literal best friends. One difference was that Timon and Pumba never betrayed Simba, where I feel like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern did in a way when they were taking the King and Queen's side of things. The last fight seen, was a lot like the fencing match to me. Claudius & Scar had master plans to kill off the son who should really be the king. They each had help at their side which were the Hyenas or Laertes in Claudius's case. In the end, the rightful died. But, sadly in Hamlet, the son did too. Scar represented Claudius very well to me. He came off nice and caring, but his intentions were always the opposite just like Claudius. Zazu and Polonius went hand in hand, they were sort of the group gossip and always reported back to the higher hand what was happening. I think in the Lion King though, Zazu was more loyal to Simba then Polonius was to Hamlet.

In response to Brad,
I believe you are correct when it comes to strategy. It takes a solid pace and a lot of repetition. If you aren't able to look in the mirror and say it, how would you in front of classmates? I think you did really well and it was obvious you had taken the time to practice and become familiar with the script.

Cassidy wrote: "How do you think you did? What is one thing you did well on. Explain why that was. What was a challenge for you in this assignment? Why? Do you think it would be difficult for people in Shakespeare..."

I think when presenting in front of the class, I started out well, but as it got into the part I wasn't so comfortable with, I stuttered a bit. I felt better doing it in front of the class and Mrs. Applegate then I would have performing in front of someone else. I practiced many times in front of my family over the weekend and the snow days, and I think that helped when it came time to do it in front of everyone else.

I don't think it would be difficult back then, because it was their time period. That was natural for them, and something they were familiar with. It's more difficult today because we have gone away from that type of talking and grammar. I don't look at the play any different now, because I already respected actors and actresses. They get up on stage and do things in front of hundreds that I Struggle with in front of 20 people.

I imagined Hamlet alone in a dark, secluded room. Somewhere that would give his speech an edge. He would be pacing back and forth with actions of the hand and his voice differing in octanes from word to word. He would have this sense of self defeat like he had truly given up on life but then come back in the end with a desire to live and breathe. The 1990 version with Mel Gibson represents not only my vision the best, but what "Shakespeare" was truly trying to get across.

Jadync4 wrote: "BradR5595 wrote: "Cassidy wrote: "Did William Shakespeare really write the works he is attributed to? What is your opinion? Why does it matter?"
I don't think that Shakespeare did write the plays. ..."
Jadyn and Brad both have very good points in this argument. There are too many opposing factors when trying to say he wrote them, the sea is a great example.

I agree with Kennedy. There was a person by the name of William Shakespeare, but I do not believe he was the of author of all of the books. His imagination may have helped propel some of the ideas that went on to become the writings, but none of them were his direct work. I think there was another writer that just wanted to express himself and was nervous when he started, so he decided to take none of the credit in case people weren't a fan.