"Hamlet" and "The Master and Margarita"

[SwedishPersian]

Hi im writing a world litt in swedish class comparing the 2 books "Hamlet" and "The Master and Margarita", i have 2 possible aspects which i want to compare these books in:

- The corruption of societies (denmark and soviet russia)

- Good and Evil, how can we tell them apart (is hamlet good/evil, is woland good/evil)

Are these titles focused enough? Or do i need to focus them more? What should i concentrate on writing about? And above all, how do i structure my world lit papper?

[sweetnsimple786]

About the structure, click on this link: Structure

For the corruption of societies, what about it? Add the significance in your title.

The second sounds okay. I don't know if it's considered too trite. Perhaps something about the juxtaposition of good and evil? How the authors [i've only studied Hamlet] intertwine good and evil and the significance of this.

Hope that helped.

[SwedishPersian]

About the structure, click on this link: Structure

For the corruption of societies, what about it? Add the significance in your title.

The second sounds okay. I don't know if it's considered too trite. Perhaps something about the juxtaposition of good and evil? How the authors [i've only studied Hamlet] intertwine good and evil and the significance of this.

Hope that helped.

thank a lot, i ended up choosing the corruption title. to add the significance, what do you think about this:

How do the authors criticize the corrupt societies Denmark and soviet Russia in hamlet and the master and margarita, respectively?

[SwedishPersian]

Hi as you may know from my previous post i am writing my world litt comparing the corruption of the nations in hamlet and the master and margarita.

In my first paragraph i talk about the authors styles and in what way they teach the reader about the corrupt nations in each novel. Since hamlet is a play and master and margarita is a fictional novel, what can i say about the differences between the two which help the authors in teaching us about these nations?

[sweetnsimple786]

I'd like to point out this thread: Click

Especially these two posts: Post1 and Post 2 [but read the entire thread!]

For my WL1, I chose between comparing poem and a novel and comparing two novels. I chose two novels because it was just easier, in my opinion. I don't know that you should go out of your way to mention the different genres of the works unless it will enhance your argument significantly.

[Sandwich]

Since hamlet is a play and master and margarita is a fictional novel, what can i say about the differences between the two which help the authors in teaching us about these nations?

Okay I'd like to second sweetnsimple in that you ought not to focus too much on the differences between play and novel. HOWEVER the examiner will think you've seriously missed a trick if you don't at least mention it in passing. With World Lit the ultimate technique is actually condensation. Saying as many things as possible in as little room as possible, because that thing has a ridiculously low word count! So what you'll want to do in order to highlight the effects of play versus novel would be to inject key things cunningly into what you write

For instance, if Hamlet starts monologuing, call it a monologue. You could say something like "this is particularly effective as it is spoken directly to the audience, revealing Hamlet's inner thoughts, which helps to show how he as an individual is/not corrupted" (sorry I don't know Hamlet!!) and you get bonus points for the word audience which shows very clearly you're appreciating the most essential quality of it as a text and as a PLAY as opposed to a novel. Go out of your way to incorporate the effect on the audience, the mention of stage directions, the sense of intimacy of monologues (which is a word which just shrieks play) etc etc. You can even lead into a contrasting sentence about novels -- for instance everything in a play has to be conveyed through speech. More or less all information is verbal, whereas in novels there's a LOT in what is left unsaid. You can't have silent characters in a play, really (at least not in Shakespeare from my experience, ahah), but you can have plenty in a novel. The phrase "you know most by what is left unsaid" DOES hold for both play and novel, but in plays it necessarily has to be heavily alluded to subtext. Whereas in novels it can genuinely be description. You can't really simulate the beauty of superb metaphor and description in a play etc.

Bring them in, but don't centre on them. Mention them enough to hit all of the "this candidate absolutely recognises that one is a play, one is a novel, what unites them and what makes each of them effective in their own special way" points!

[sweetnsimple786]

thank a lot, i ended up choosing the corruption title. to add the significance, what do you think about this:

How do the authors criticize the corrupt societies Denmark and soviet Russia in hamlet and the master and margarita, respectively?

From a grammar standpoint, you should add the word 'of' or 'in' after you say 'societies'

And capitalize and italicize, of course.

Also, I'd list the authors rather than just saying 'the authors'

Other than that, it looks fine. I'm guessing you're focusing on literary techniques throughout the paper, with a 'so what' significance in the conclusion.

[SwedishPersian]

I'm writing it in Swedish so theres no point for me to upload this file, but i have written a plan where i have 4 point of comparison, i talk about a lot of different things and i dunno if that is what you're suppose to do in a world lit since you just said that you though i was focusing on literary techniques. Well here is a short version of my plan:

Intro

POC#1 - How the authors writing styles reflect the corruption in these societies

POC#2 - The state of the countries in the plot of the two works (denmark is at the brink of war and russia is controlled by stalin)

POC#3 - Characters who fight the corruption in each book

POC#4 - How each book ends

In each paragraph, I talk about the POC title (bold) and then mention why the authors chose to write this way about corruption and how it connects to the corruption in real life.

I think it is also worth mentioning that The Master and Margarita was written in Stalinist Russia and even banned there, so the author (Bulgakov) was criticizing the country he lived in in between the lines of his book.

Is the essay covering too many topics or is this how it's suppose to be?

Edited July 31, 2009 by SwedishPersian

[sweetnsimple786]

That looks like way too much! The standard is 3 POCs, but even two is sufficient. The word limit is quite troublesome! And you don't want to favor breadth over depth.

You could write your entire essay on POC 1, 3, or 4

I think to answer your question [How do the authors criticize the corrupt societies Denmark and soviet Russia in hamlet and the master and margarita, respectively?], you should talk about the authors' tone/writing style as one POC and perhaps how the book ends as another POC. I haven't read either book, though, but it seems plausible that neither had a "happily-ever-after."

I also think it's a good idea to mention the censorship.

Edit: Explanation for the POCs I mentioned--POC 2 doesn't seem like it would answer your questions. How does explaning the setting talk about how authors are criticizing the corruption? You need to mention the culture/setting, but you have to cleverly weave it into your paper like Sandwich mentioned earlier.

Edited July 31, 2009 by sweetnsimple786

[SwedishPersian]

Well actually the master and margarita ends in the two main characters travelling back in time and escaping from their lives in soviet russia with the help of the devil hehe pretty random... but I'm mentioning that as one of the ways in which the author criticizes soviet without having to write about its destruction. Anyways I agree with what you says so I modified my plan a bit.

Intro

POC#1 How the authors' tone/writing style reflect the corruption in these societies (here i will mention the novel vs play thing etc)

POC#2 Evidence of corruption in both extracts (cencorship, tretchery and perhaps atheism[if that doesn't tead too far away from my main topic])

POC#3 How the books end

Conclusion

Each POC doesn't necessarily have to be 1 paragraph does it?

Thanks for the help by the way, I appreciate it a lot.

EDIT: Here is my modified title by the way - what do you think?

In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Michael Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita, how are the Corrupt Societies of Denmark and Soviet Russia Criticized, Respectively?

Edited July 31, 2009 by SwedishPersian

[sweetnsimple786]

Each POC doesn't necessarily have to be 1 paragraph does it?

Thanks for the help by the way, I appreciate it a lot.

EDIT: Here is my modified title by the way - what do you think?

In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Michael Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita, how are the Corrupt Societies of Denmark and Soviet Russia Criticized, Respectively?

No, but they usually are. Break up a POC into two paragraphs if you're talking about two different ideas. I think it'll be hard to have more than 3 fully fleshed out body paragraphs in a world lit essay, so I don't recommend extra paragraphs.

Capitalization thing... perhaps your teacher told you differently, but as far as I know, you don't capitalize nonproper nouns in the middle of a sentence unless you're personifying them or something.

In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Michael Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita, how are the respective, corrupt societies of Denmark and Soviet Russia criticized?

or if you're making this question the title of the paper, go and capitalize every 'important' word [like everything but articles and preposistions]

In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Michael Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita, How Are the Respective, Corrupt Societies of Denmark and Soviet Russia Criticized?

I personally don't make my titles questions.

Edited July 31, 2009 by sweetnsimple786

[SwedishPersian]

Yeah I usually get confused when it comes to which letters to capitalize in titles, sorry . But my plan is fine now right? I think only POC#2 will have to be put into 2 paragraphs. I don't know if you've read Hamlet, but as part of that POC I'm thinking about mentioning the ghost in the begging and how one person (Horatio I think it was) says "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" and discussing that. After that I'll continue to give one or two more significant examples and relate them to criticizing society. Is that okay? Or should I focus less on examples and more on style/tone?

[sweetnsimple786]

In history class, we get about 45 minutes to write an essay. Half of our grade on each unit is the grade of the essay. I write furiously, and I'm scribbling words even as the bell rings. I hand in about 3 pages. A friend of mine finishes about fifteen to twenty minutes early and hands in about 1.5 pages. We get about the same grades on essays. I'm all about the details and showing my teacher what I know, while he's concise. My point is that you may be concise, and in that case, you can fit in 4 body paragraphs. However, I'd break into a cold sweat if I wanted to makes 4 BPs for my WL. I think you have enough advice for now about paragraphs. Start writing to get a better feel for it. I might write the 2nd POC paragraph and then decide if the POC is better as 1 paragraph or 2.

Well you need specific textual examples

in every paragraph.

Also, you want to balance our your POCs. Don't let #1 be 2 pages long, with lots of quotations and #2 be skinny paragraphs. Give each POC equal treatment =)

[SwedishPersian]

Allright thanks a lot for your help I'm feeling a lot more confident about writing this now and hopefully I'll do good!

[Tilia]

Yeah I usually get confused when it comes to which letters to capitalize in titles, sorry . But my plan is fine now right? I think only POC#2 will have to be put into 2 paragraphs. I don't know if you've read Hamlet, but as part of that POC I'm thinking about mentioning the ghost in the begging and how one person (Horatio I think it was) says "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" and discussing that. After that I'll continue to give one or two more significant examples and relate them to criticizing society. Is that okay? Or should I focus less on examples and more on style/tone?

De enda ord som ska skrivas med stor bokstav i en titel på en svensk uppsats är det första ordet och eventuella namn, reglerna är annorlunda beroende på vilket språk man skriver, så var försiktig. Exempelvis skriver man Brott och straff på svenska, men Crime and Punishment på engelska.

Om du ska skriva om samhällskritik, kan det vara en bra idé att ta reda på lite mer om hur samhället i Ryssland och Danmark såg ut på den tiden, och inkludera lite bakgrundsinformation från sekundärkällor i din uppsats.

Kom också ihåg att välja ett litet ämne, 1500 ord är mycket mindre än vad man kan tro.