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

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

I agree with Aric. They were both guided by their fathers which helped them take the kingdoms back. The brothers were both very hungry and like Aric stated the kingdom was restored even though in Hamlet they all died they aren't being ruled by a murdering psychopath anymore.

I believe that The Lion King can be considered an adaptation. I think that it shares multiple similarities with Hamlet. Scar and Mufasa share the exact similarities with Claudius and King Hamlet. Hamlet and Mufasa were both great leaders and Claudius and Scar were jealous and power hungry, so in both examples the brothers killed the kings and took their thrones. The events leading up to the fight at the end were also very similar.
The fact that Simba and Hamlet were both banished to different places showed the same traits. They both went off to different places and were pushed back to regain the kingdoms. Hamlet had his fathers ghost guide and tell him what to do and in The Lion King Simba had his fathers face in the clouds which was able to guide him back. The end fight was very similar to because of the fact that revenge was restored by killing Claudius/Scar and this was able to restore both kingdoms. Even though Hamlet died in the end of Hamlet and Simba survived in the The Lion King this was one of the only differences between the two.

In response to brad: I think it was very important in keeping a good pace just like you said. I always thought that what you said about repetition was important because if you aren't able to say in with just you you won't be able to say it in front of other people. I think you did a great job and could tell that you spent some time looking into it.

I think that when I performed it in front of the class it was probably my best time saying it. I didn't mess up on things that I have previously messed up on. I think one thing that I did well on was not stopping and not messing up on things I usually mess up on. I think this was because I usually loose my place and have to get the start of the line, but I didn't have to do that today. I think the challenge I faced was getting in front of the class and performing it. It was because performing in front of the class is scary.
I don't think it would be difficult because that's how they talked everyday so it would be nothing out of the normal. I think it would be more difficult today because the language is not normal for this time period. I don't really look at the play different now because I already knew that it was challenging and would be intimating to perform.

I think that the version that best represented it was the 1990's version. I think that this best showed it because where it took place. The atmosphere set a dramatic type of mood for what he was talking about. I think that the other two didn't really show it very well just because where they took place and how they were acted out. I thought the way that the 1990's version was acted out it seemed more professional and just easier to fall into the story. So, overall the 1990's version just showed it more like I thought it would be and how it should be shown.

Bridgeth wrote: "Cassidy wrote: "Did William Shakespeare really write the works he is attributed to? What is your opinion? Why does it matter?"
I do not believe that William Shakespeare wrote all the works in whic..."
I agree with you that he could not have written all the works on his own. I also thought that his shaky signatures was a huge piece of evidence on why he couldn't have wrote them alone. With his signatures being inconsistent and shaky there would be no way that he could have wrote all the works he was given credit for.

Kennedy wrote: "Cassidy wrote: "Did William Shakespeare really write the works he is attributed to? What is your opinion? Why does it matter?"
I believe that William Shakespeare was alive during the time of the wr..."
I think that you are completely right about him being a real person. I think there was an actual William Shakespeare and that he was getting all the credit because the real author was scared of coming out with his works. So I think that they decided it was a win win because his work was getting published and Shakespeare started to become famous.

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. I think that he wa..."
I agree with you that he didn't write all the works because he didn't have the proper education. I think this is a very important piece of evidence because without the proper education he couldn't put certain things in his works that were in there.

Cassidy wrote: "Did William Shakespeare really write the works he is attributed to? What is your opinion? Why does it matter?"
I do not believe that William Shakespeare wrote all the works he was attributed to. I don't think he wrote them because he didn't have the proper education that was required for the works. He also wrote about many things that a small town man like himself would have no knowledge on. Another reason I don't think he wrote all the works is because they only found six signatures of his name, but they were shaky and very inconsistent. This is important because he couldn't have written all the works with this terrible hand writing. I think this all matters because people want to give credit to the person who wrote all the works. They don't want to give someone who didn't write the work credit for being one of the most important authors in literature history.