Hamlet

by banholzerma19

Cadet Michael A. Banholzer

ERH-321WX-01

COL Miller

1 DEC 2017

Hamlet

Early modern English attitudes about revenge are based strongly on religion. (Jordan 202) There are many places throughout the bible that provide a sense of revenge as wrong. Revenge is considered to be wrong due to the fact that it says explicitly in the bible and is thought of as a wild man’s answer to a wrong done against you. (Jordan 208) On top of the main conclusion that religion is supposed to be the driving factor in how you act and therefore you shouldn’t act out of spite and revenge, it also says in this reading that it is an honor and a privilege during this time, to forget and revenge and move in. It is a superior and “royal” thing to be able to do this. (Jordan 208) It’s ironic though because most of the high-ranking people in different society’s during this time was that a lot of them focused on revenge if something along those lines happened in their lives. It’s almost like if you ask anyone whether revenge is right or not, they would say no, yet they seem to be contradictory in their actions.

Regarding Hamlet, he is debating within himself almost the whole play. In scenes like when he doesn’t kill Claudius it shows that he has the ideals of the Christian religion in the back of his mind, however, he still continues to plot his revenge throughout the entirety of the play. Just like in the “Texts and Contexts” you see contradictory actions to the bible and the “right” thing to do during this time, in Hamlet. The way that Shakespeare presents the temptation of the devil, regarding Hamlet killing Claudius to avenge his father, is by the ghost of Kind Hamlet. This ghost in the play presents a physical means that Hamlet is tempted to go against what the bible says about revenge, however, Shakespeare does it in Hamlet for a very specific reason, in my opinion. All literature and just accepted thinking during this time about revenge, states that revenge is unholy and that those who truly are royal and of “higher-thinking” will not avenge something that has happened to them. Shakespeare presents this play with a character, Hamlet, that goes against what the bible says, but he tries to present it in a way that might allow people to understand and be able to see a different viewpoint of revenge in someone else’s shoes. Overall, I believe Shakespeare succeeds in making people take a second look at when revenge is actually acceptable, which is quite an astonishing feat due to how religiously dominant both law and reasoning was during this time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

  • Jordan, Constance, ed. Revenge. Hamlet: Texts and Contexts. By William

Shakespeare. New York: Pearson/ Longman, 2005. Print.

  • Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. Constance Jordan. New York:

Pearson/Longman, 2005. Print.

Measure for Measure

by banholzerma19

Part 1:

A lot of the actions in Measure for Measure, set in Vienna, seem to be far off for the audience watching them. In short, those viewing this play would not have been shocked by what they saw. (251) It wasn’t uncommon to have prostitution and thieves during this time. Many people went to these “bathing houses” for prostitution and what became known as a cure for the pox, sitting in there for an extended amount of time and sweating, sort of like a sauna. (252) Also, at this time were the prisons and a very specific set of “rules” that they all, more or less, operated by. Basically, if you could afford it or had the friends that could afford it, you could basically do anything in prison. Either from money or prostitution, or both, you had options in prison, if you had the money you could bribe your way out of whatever you needed to, and you had the access to even in prison. Those who could not afford any special services or living conditions were put in a place called “The Hole” where inmates slept on the ground without bedding, or anything else for that matter. (254) The law enforcement that oversaw these prisons and more specially, running these prisons either corruptly or justly. These people were looked down on quite often because they tend to be lower members of society.

 

Part 2:

Just like in society during this time, the characters in Measure for Measure were conducting a lot of these activities on a regular basis. Whether it was prostitution, stealing, or other illegal acts, many of them were not truly enforced the way they were written in the law. Just like the prisons during this time, you could bargain and bribe your way out of a lot of punishment. For the most part, the Duke was lenient on the laws that he was expected to enforce. However, when the Duke took a leave of absence, not truly going anywhere just hiding in plain sight, Angelo takes over and tries to change the way that things have been running for quite some time now. The irony of this story is that Angelo comes in and tries to use the law to put Claudio to death and eventually try to force Isabella to sleep with him in order to free Claudio. Then upon being caught by the Duke and the rest of the characters in the play is forced to marry someone he doesn’t want based upon the same letter of the law which he tried to use for his own personal agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

Kamps, Ivo & Raber, Karen, ed. Ch. 3: The Underworld. Measure for Measure: Texts

and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004, Print.

 

Shakespeare, William. Measure for Measure. Ed. Ivo Kamps & Karen Raber. Boston:

Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. Print.

Othello

by banholzerma19

Part 1:

In early modern England, there were very clear cut norms about the household and marriage within that household. These norms were the basis for the positioning of each individual female character in Othello. Women were completely defined during this time period based on their relationship to their husband and family (Hall 262). That relationship totally painted their portrait of respect. In addition, that relationship defined a lot of the social and political perspectives of the household as a unit (Hall 262). Even though the man was the dominate portion of the household, it was the woman that was under strict scrutiny and observation for her actions (Hall 262). The actions, however, that were expected of a woman were standard and widely accepted. Women were basically expected to make an immediate and rapid transition from an innocent and obedient daughter to their fathers, to a loyal wife for their husband (Hall 262). Due to this expectation, much blame is placed on the woman. Specifically, the woman’s behavior doesn’t just affect her reputation, but at this time, more importantly, it effects the reputation of her father and husband (Hall 262). If a woman wasn’t passive with her actions, and openly disobeyed the social “norms,” she would be labeled as “disorderly” and shunned (Hall 263). Probably the most disobedient and non-passive transgression that a woman could do is become the subject of sexual rumors, whether true or perceived, and be labeled a whore (Hall 263). Those women who were talked about in such a manner, were perceived of no longer being under control of their fathers and husbands. Now, I say control for one specific reason. English civil law explicitly makes women property of their husbands upon marriage (Hall 263). Therefore, a woman not being obedient, is basically a defective purchase in the eyes of the law. Since the reputation of the household is based on the women’s faithfulness, if a woman does commit adultery, it’s not just a disloyalty to her husband, but also a crime against God (Hall 264). Now, regarding the household, there was a lot of hypocrisy. Women were judged much more harshly for crimes within the household than men. Henderson and McManus state that female sexuality is so powerful, it is unfair and can overflow a man’s restraint and cause him to cave in (Hall 265). All the emphasis was placed on a woman’s sexual traits, making that the basis of their outward sense of honor (Hall 266). These ideals are peppered all throughout the plot of Othello. There are also some foreshadowing effects of some of the actions throughout Othello. Most early moderns, according to Wiesner and Ziegler, waited to marry once they had their own household (Hall 267). This may have been Shakespeare foreshadowing problems in their marriage.

 

Part 2:

Obviously the most prominent connection of these ideals to the play is the marriage of Desdemona and Othello. I am going to focus on the scene with the Duke and his council, because it is jam packed with early modern English themes of marriage and patriarchy. Moving from the beginning of the play onward, we see right off the bat how the reputation of the woman, Desdemona, is secondary to the reputation of the father of the woman, Brabantio. Brabantio says when asked about what is happening with his daughter, “Being not deficient, blind, or lame of sense, Sans witchcraft could not.” (I. iii. 65-66) In saying this, Brabantio is trying to save his reputation. He is saying there is nothing wrong with his daughter and the only explanation of her doing something as egregious as marrying a Moor, is that she is under witchcraft. Again, those women who did not follow the norms of society were labeled as disorderly. The disorderliness of Desdemona is expressed by Brabantio as a complete contradiction of what she “should” believe in. He says, “To fall in love with what she feared to look on!” (I. iii. 100) The interpretation of this quote can be taken multiple ways, but I believe it is to show that Brabantio says she “should” fear to look upon the Moor, however she does not, which creates the sense of disorderliness. The next part of this play that reflects principles of early modern England is the explicit changing of Desdemona from obedient daughter to loyal wife. This happens almost instantaneously and through the help of the father, Brabantio. He joins their hands together upon being convinced by Desdemona’s testimony and says, “I here do give thee that with all my heart.” (I. iii. 196) Not only does this show how quick the women’s transition is expected to be, but also how this transfer almost seems like a transfer of property, which is how a woman was defined in these days, legal property of the father, then husband.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited:

Hall, Kim F, ed. Ch. 3: Marriage and the Household. Othello: Texts and Contexts. By

William Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2007. Print.

 

Henderson, Katherine Usher, and Barbara F. McManus. Half Humankind: Contexts and

Texts of the Controversy about Women in England, 1540-1640. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1985.

 

Shakespeare, William. Othello. Ed. Kim F. Hall. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2007.

Print.

 

Wiesner, Merry. Women and Gender in the Early Modern Europe. New York:

Cambridge UP, 2000.

 

Ziegler, Georgiana. “My Lady’s Chamber: Female Space, Female Chastity in

Shakespeare.” Textual Practice 4.1 (Spring 1990): 57.

The Merchant of Venice

by banholzerma19

In early modern England, there was a clash of ideals, beliefs, and interpretations of the Bible, regarding usury and charging colossal interest rates. Most of the time the act of usury was linked to poverty. Usury then becomes the only means of income for those people. The Reformation altered some of the attitudes towards the poor. The new belief, rather than misfortune as the cause of poverty, was the ideal that poverty was a direct result of your sin and thus deserved (Kaplan 187). The attitudes specifically regarding lending and the ability to charge interest, changed drastically during this period. The negative connotation that many people have regarding Jews and usury, stems from Hebrew laws that regulate interest (Kaplan 187-188). It also comes from history, when the Jews could charge interest in medieval times. Until around the beginning of the modern period, charging interest and the idea of usury was severely unaccepted and criticized. Towards the late sixteenth century into the early seventeenth century, many of these beliefs despising usury and interest rates, started to fade due to the economics strains placed on citizens (Kaplan 188). This caused more of a need for people to charge interest to make a living and feed their families, making the damnation of usury more lenient. The true definition of usury is not just anyone charging interest on their loans. It is specifically interest being charged with a ridiculously excessive rate (Kaplan 188). The usury issue was directly placed upon one people group, the Jews. Sir Edward Coke claims that it was the Jewish usury which lead to housing crashes and a sinful nature in the early medieval period in England (Kaplan 189). According to the statute of 1290, Jews are prohibited of charging interest on loans. Coke says that because of this statute, it made it impossible for the Jews to live and provide for themselves, because it took away their main source of income (Kaplan 189). The Rabbis reached a conclusion that the only acceptable way of lending with interest, without disobeying God, was if it was absolutely necessary to provide your “basic needs” (Kaplan 190). The biblical law, based on the Hebrew Bible, is somewhat controversial. Both the books of Exodus and Leviticus say no usury to either a brother or a stranger. Exodus 22 says, “If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury” (Kaplan 194). Deuteronomy, however, says you can charge interest to a stranger but not to a brother of God. Deuteronomy 23 says, “Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury” (Kaplan 194). The disapproval of usury and those who conducted it, eventually morphed into the idea that it is just necessary for some people to survive.

Obviously, the prime example of usury and how those involved in loaning money with interest were treated in this play, is Shylock. First off, comparing the cultural aspects to the play, the idea of poverty playing a role in whether people need to be a usurer, is prevalent because Shylock was not well off. On top of that the stigma for Jews during this time was that all Jews would maliciously charge you high interest rates to make a huge profit. Shylock during this play was shunned and spit on during multiple occasions because he was thought to be committing usury. Antonio specifically has disrespected and degraded Shylock multiple times for usury, but, just like the changing thought pattern going into the seventeenth century, Antonio has changing thoughts as well, and comes to Shylock for three thousand ducats. Shylock says in Act I, “Fair sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last, you spurned me such a day, another time you called me dog, and for these courtesies ill lend you thus much moneys?” (I. iii. 117-120). The issue with the bond created between Shylock and Antonio is that eventually in court later, it doesn’t truly matter who is right, in the sense of the contract, because it is always going to work out in the favor of the non-Jewish person, because of the stigma during this time-period. The Jewish people have basically no representation in a difficult situation like Shylock was in and, therefore, end up repeating the cycle of poverty which leads them right back to usury as their only means of income and to stay alive and well. Specifically, how Shylock lost half of his wealth and had to give all of it to Lorenzo and Jessica when he dies. Shylock projects the stigma of Jews, specifically regarding usury, during this time, and the ultimate consequences when something like a contract that needs to be fulfilled is brought before a judge. The Jewish person is wrong before the trial even begins.

 

 

WORKS CITED:

 

Kaplan, Lindsay M, ed. Ch. 2: Finance. The Merchant of Venice: Texts and Contexts.

By William Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002, Print.

 

Shakespeare, William. The Merchant of Venice. Ed. M. Lindsay Kaplan. Boston:

Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. Print.

Henry V

by banholzerma19

Part 1:

The ideals of civic order and rebellion, with respect to the ruler or king, were controversial topics in the 16th century. The first and most widely accepted concept of political order was natural law. Natural Law says the ruler or king gets their power directly from God, and that authority is “independent of a ruler’s individual will.” (Hodgdon 170) Natural law is a definite entity and doesn’t change. This idea was becoming increasing popular during this century, because it meant that rulers could get away with a lot more without being checked. Everything they did was a direct reflection of God’s will. During this time, many also wanted to unite the entire state based on these Christian principles. Following these thoughts, however, is a push-back to absolute ideas like those stated previously. The emerging idea was based on the social structure of an obedient servant. At this point to only clear example of an actual rebellion during Queen Elizabeth’s reign is the Northern rebellion. (Hodgdon 171) Regarding church, there was strict scrutiny on who attended. You could be either fined or imprisoned for not attending church. “An Homily Against Disobedience and Willful Rebellion” was a specific Homily concerning correct behavior and discipline. The Homily is split into five parts. The first part has to do with the beginning of time. More specifically, the creation of heaven and hell, and explicitly lays out the rules and regulations of good order. Lucifer was actually the first “rebel” and God made his Ten Commandments centered around reestablishing good order because of what Lucifer had done to disobey him. The second part gives specific and clear examples of obedience to superiors. It also provides the broad definition of “good vs evil.” The third part paints a crystal-clear picture that rebellion itself is the “most dangerous violation of all God’s commandments.” (Homily 173) The fourth part zones in on the other side of the argument i.e. calling for the excluding of rebels and not acknowledging them as a valid argument. The fifth and final part basically says how those who are easily lead into rebellion are weak minded and ignorant. Referring to the third part, rebellion is not only unacceptable but it will flip upside down your social and family structures. In other words, it will curse everyone within the family with the wrong mindset, therefore cursing the children yet to be born as well. Not only will it curse them but it will bring dishonor to anyone around them, and anyone who knows them. Even worse than civil war, rebellion is the worst of all war, and the most gruesome. You must be weary of how close rebellion can infiltrate into your life, because most of the time it will be a close friend or advisor that are the partakers of rebellious thoughts and temptations.

 

Part 2:

Regarding Henry V, the ideals and temptations of rebellion can’t get much closer than where they ended up. There is not only rebellion outside of Henry’s circle in other countries, but also within Henry’s nobility and closest advisors. There are two main connections between Henry V and the culture of this time that the play brings to light. The most notable themes are the close proximity that rebels ultimately are to you when they are exposed and the extreme violation of the Ten Commandments and how unacceptable rebellion is. The first part of rebellion in Henry V was, in Henry’s eyes, the parts of France that he claims is his. Henry says that he has the rights to this land so when the Dauphin and France laughs off the fact and mocks Henry for saying it’s his land leads to war. However, the main, and most important portion of rebellion that reflects the cultural aspects of this time, is the rebellion with Henry’s people. First, is the plot to kill Henry amongst three of his people, including his old friend Scrope. This reflects perfectly the ideal that rebellion happens closet to home. Another portion of rebellion, not against Henry himself, but did rebel against the ideals that Henry was standing for, was Nim and Bardolph being caught looting. Although it wasn’t directed at Henry himself it punched holes through the values Henry was enforcing and expected so it was taken as rebellion against him. Going from that ideal is the last point, that rebellion is the most extreme violation of God’s Ten Commandments. It’s very cut and clear how unacceptable rebellion is at that time. That idea is expressed explicitly in Henry V. Shakespeare does this by having Henry immediately execute the traitors threatening his life and the looters. The ironic part, however, is not only does Shakespeare have Henry be ruthless and unwavering in his punishments because of the values of that time, but also because Henry himself, used to participate in those “rebellious” activities when he was younger.

 

 

Works Cited:

Shakespeare, William. The Life of King Henry the Fifth. Ed. Claire McEachern. New

York: Penguin, 1999. Print.

 

Hodgdon, Barbara, ed. Civic Order and Rebellion. The First Part of King Henry the

Fourth: Texts and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997.

 

“An Homily Against Disobedience and Willful Rebellion”. The First Part of King Henry

the Fourth: Texts and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. Ed. Barbara Hodgdon. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997.

Henry IV

by banholzerma19

Part 1.

The required “education” of a Prince, or the knowledge necessary for kingship, changed from the 15th to 16th century, almost in the complete opposite direction. At first the “tradition” was strictly through experience with little or no professional education. Experiences were gathered through the bar scene, society, and passed down from a prince to his apprentice. The “literature” that was necessary to qualify a prince for kingship was simply the father’s advice and wise words to his son (Ascham 276). The common thought, or consensus, was that professional education was not highly valued. The foundation or a prince’s “education” for kingship was a “traditional chivalric upbringing,” which consisted of riding, jousting, and wearing armor (Ascham 278). Moving into the 16th century, however, society begins to recognize that the nobility was lacking basic common sense and educational training in school. Thomas Starkey used the expression “very true commonwealth” to describe the entire state being enlightened and educated, especially the nobility (Ascham 278). The thought was that educational training would make citizens more godly and loyal. Sir Thomas Elyot also called for an improvement in the base of knowledge and understanding for “society as a whole.” (Ascham 278). Roger Ascham called for citizens to have actual practical skills that were useful for society (Ascham 278). Both Elyot and Ascham wanted to guide the future kings and counselors. They believed the best way was to set aside the “nobility” aspect and become educated and competent (Ascham 279). Juan Luis Vives says that even the nobility should be trained and correctly educated to become lawyers, statesmen, and soldiers (Ascham 280). Baldessare Castigliones has the same idea but just refers to it as a type of “renaissance or all-around” man (Ascham 280). This type of man is well versed in all aspects of both practical and professional education. The prince will use this skill and education to, instead of fall back on his father’s orders and guidance constantly, adapt and overcome issues on his own. In Ascham’s “The Schoolmaster,” he breaks education down to two parts, bringing up the youth in the correct manner, and then teaching the correct professional education of Latin tongue (Ascham 281). Ascham, however, implies that this education should only be for aristocrats, because it might mess up the social order (Ascham 282). He believes that the foundation of any professional education is an expertise in both Latin and Greek. Not only have this information, but be able to execute skill and whit with ease, “con sprezzatura.” (Ascham 283). These things must be taught as young as possible, because ages 17-27 are the most dangerous time for learning the wrong ways (Ascham 284). The argument for proper education through books and school is this. Experience is essential and can make you capable, however, to get to the same knowledge and competence you can reach in 1 year of professional education, you would need 20 years of experience alone (Ascham 287). The other issue is there is no guarantee of those experiences being beneficial in the long run, however, education will always benefit you.

 

Part 2.

The poster boy for everything having to do with “educating of the prince” is obviously, Hal. All of Hal’s actions are based on those passed down from his father, which is part of the reason that he begins to misbehave. He begins to look at Falstaff as a sort of father figure. This is in direct comparison with the cultural attitudes of this time period. Hal is having almost no professional schooling, learning almost everything from his surroundings. He claims to be doing low-life activities like robbing to ultimately change himself and restore honor with his father (I. ii. 148-170).  These activities are perfectly consistent with what Ascham says in “The Schoolmaster,” about 17-27 being the most dangerous age for formation of the wrong habits (Ascham 284). These wrong habits not only look bad for Hal himself, but also bring dishonor and the wrong political image to his father. Another point of comparison is Shakespeare’s Hal seems to gather all his skills and norms from the society and environment around him, while the historical Prince Henry read many books in Latin, studied law, ancient history, and cornicles of the Crusades (Ascham 279). Hal also uses the things he learns to adapt himself to political agendas. For example, the way he does some untasteful things just to adapt to the correct way of thinking and show everyone, including his father, that he can change for the better. Hal is a great example of this century’s type of thinking, and starts to exemplify the next century’s enlightened type of thinking, making him an all-encompassing character for that time period.

 

Works Cited

Shakespeare, William. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth. Ed. Barbara Hodgdon. Boston:

Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997.

 

Ascham, Roger. The “Education” of a Prince. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth: Texts

and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. Ed. Barbara Hodgdon. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997.

Researched Essay

by banholzerma19

Banholzer_Researched_Essay

Cadet Michael A. Banholzer

Mrs. Smith

ERH-102-08

11 April 2016

The Root of Trepidations in The United States

As technology advances in all aspects of life, one of the most influential aspects to our younger generation is video games. Video games have become more and more in depth using different tools to create realistic situations and experiences. With this, video games have also become one of the most controversial topics of the twenty-first century. Specifically, violent video games have come under fire due to accusations of aggressive behavior stemming from the violent content in some of today’s video games. With the introduction of video games such as Call of Duty and Battlefield, the question continues to circulate as to what the effects of these games are on children and young adults. This is a sensitive topic that many are willing to take a side against violent video games without incorporating key results to prove their accusations. This is problematic for two reasons. First of all, many people continue to take sides on the topic of violent video games and their effects without backing up their allegations. They refuse to “switch sides” even if information is presented that proves their belief wrong. This is why no true information can be presented proving one side or the other. Peoples’ continued stubbornness causes research to get absolutely no where. Lastly and most important, this subject is truly challenging because of its issues concerning the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, the freedom of speech. This contributes to the attitude of our country presently. Instead of blaming violent tendencies in children on true causes of nurture of home life, people want to blame it on violent video games and the manufacturers of the game. The cause of this blame directly stems from the decline of two-parent households in our society. Kirsten Anderson writes that a study in 2011 by the University of Melbourne found that “absent fathers were linked with higher rates of juvenile delinquency.” (1) Also, a Canadian study stated “kids whose fathers were active parents in early and middle childhood had fewer behavior problems and higher intellectual abilities as they grew older, even among socio-economically at-risk families.” (1) Individuals will listen to biased experiments on video games just to provide an easy explanation as to why a child has aggressive tendencies rather than looking within at the surroundings in which the child has grown up in. Rather than says playing violent video games increases isolation and negative thoughts, realize that the isolation and aggressive tendencies experienced by that child stem from within and cause them to play violent video games rather than vice versa. The ideas presented in this paper show what’s at stake with our younger generations. If we continue to blame our children’s problems on things like video games instead of recognizing that the parents and home life experience are at fault, then our youth will learn, more than they already have, to never take responsibility for their actions. This topic is more serious than people take it for. Video games are an essential part of the younger generations childhood. It allows them to try out their value system in a safe environment with no real consequences other than maybe losing a life in a video game. However, if that value system they put into the video game is turned into where we blame the child’s behavior on the video game’s content, severe consequences will ensue with the next generation of technologically enhanced youth. They will not learn taking responsibility for their actions and will continue to head down a slippery slope.

The first causal that must be defined is what truly causes violence. Is it more nature or more nurture? I argue that it is both. After interviewing, Cadet vanLeer, about topics concerning video games, he being an avid video gamer himself, he brought up a couple key points that I would like to touch base with providing evidence to support my claim. First of all, what is truly the purpose of violent video games? Cadet vanLeer claims it is entertainment just like something such as movies or television shows. The entertainment opportunities that video games provide also help children express their values in a fictional setting with no real world consequences. The common belief that violent video games teach violence and enlightens children to using violence to solve their problems is absurd. Cadet vanLeer made a really good point in our interview where he makes a comparison from violent video games to violent movie selections. Violent movies have not been under fire for causing violent tendencies even though it is the same principle of playing a violent video games minus the joysticks. In an article online by Greg Toppo, a reference is made to the unfortunate actions of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shootings (1). One of the big rumors surrounding the media throughout the investigation into the shooter was that violent video games contributed to him becoming aggressive and hostile. However, later research found that his most commonly played game was Dance Dance Revolution (1). This shocked the public because it had become common belief that video games had turned Lanza, the shooter, into a killer (1). Lanza also played Call of Duty and other violent games which is to be excepted. Any person who is hostile at their core will also tend to lead towards playing more violent video games rather than the video games causing that violence. This just shows, in it’s most extreme case, that truly violent tendencies and hostile actions stem from within, either through nature or nurture, and do not have any direct correlation to violent content in video games.

Violence in video games is an ever controversial topic that no one really knows how to test. In a peer reviewed article by Jack Hollingdale, levels of aggression from violent video games are attempted to be explained although end up having no backbone to hold up an argument (1). In this journal article half of the test subjects are instructed to play the violent video games, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, while the other half plays the non-violent game, Little Big Planet 2. The test subjects’ hostility was then tested using hot chili. The experimenters were required to make a sample of hot chili for their opponents to taste. They were also informed that the test subjects did not like hot food. The idea behind the experiment is obvious, the violent game will cause you to punish your partner more with hot chili. However, this experiment failed miserably for two reasons. First off is there is no background information of the test subjects, therefore making the experiment biased in of itself. Without prior knowledge of practical jokes, you would not know that, myself included, no matter what video game they played they would still have loaded up the hot chili just to see the reaction from their fellow experimenters. Lastly, the experiment has a key flaw. The control group is invalid. The control group in this experiment needs to be a group of people sitting in a comfortable room with couches and chairs either talking or sleeping and not playing video games. Using Little Big Planet 2 as the control makes the results invalid because you are then also testing the effects of relaxing games on your personal mellow state of mind. Using this experiment to decipher whether or not your aggression stems from violent content in a video game is asinine and does not apply whatsoever. In a peer reviewed journal article by Tobias Greitemeyer, he enlightens a perspective that is ever present throughout all aspects of America, however not currently a view in violent video games (3). Most people choose one side or the other as to whether or not violent video games actually produce aggressive actions and Greitemeyer believes that will never change (1). I believe, however, that like the rest of the ideals in America, there will eventually be a common ground that most people are a part of.

The last element of my research on the topic of violence in video games is that of the Constitution of the United States of America, or more specifically the Bill of Rights. An essential point brought up in a peer reviewed journal article by Christopher Ferguson, is that because of the bias that exists within all experiments conducted on this topic there is truly no way to correctly test what violent content in video games actually affects (1). The only way that would be possible is if each persons’ genetic makeup was the same which is just implausible for an experiment (1). This brings us to the most controversial part of the topic, whether or not it is possible to prohibit a company from producing a violent video game because of beliefs that it affects children’s’ hostile ideals. The answer is no. According to an article on “procon.org”, there was a Supreme Court case that attempted to ban the sale of these violent games to minors (1). In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) the Supreme Court ruled significantly that California could not ban the sale of violent video games to children and youth. This shows how the 1st amendment is even being tested today and we cannot wavier our rights just because some people believe that violent video games cause their children to misbehave. The overall idea of violent video games affecting our children goes along with the liberal notions that have consumed our country. Rather than blame themselves for lack of parenting, because each parent is at work 24/7 and their children bounce from daycare to daycare instead of spending time with their mother, which is essential, they find it easy to blame video games. Even though video games are the only way that the children are learning to express themselves because of the lack of parental input into their learning curve. From 1960 to present, the amount of children living in two-parent households has decreased from just under 90% to under 70% (US Census 1).

This ongoing debate of violence in video games seems to have no end in sight. With new technologies coming out every day it seems there is no middle ground and no one will agree one way or the other. The facts remain, however, that there is no true correlation between violent video games and aggressive behavior. Multiple studies have proved that and multiple studies have failed attempting to disprove it. The true causes of violent tendencies lie with the nature and nurture of a child’s developmental stages. Without being raised properly, video games or not, you have the likelihood to experience violent tendencies that would in turn make you want to play violent video games rather than vice versa. This correlation of thought contributes to a bigger meaning across our country. Our country is headed down a dangerous path and ideals such as this that put the blame on other people or entities, only amplify the issues at hand. The Washington Times reflected on 2010 census data and showed the number of children living in single parent households has doubled since 1960 (Anderson 1). One-third, close to 15 million, of children in America are being raised without a father (Anderson 1). The ideas of taking responsibility for your actions and owning up to your mistakes are slowly slipping away in our country and in order to get back the true values that our country was founded on, there must be a nationwide change of attitude, beginning with small elements of responsible actions like this as well as a rebirth of the standard household that our country was founded upon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Cadet Nik vanLeer

Ferguson, Christopher J., Benjamin Trigani, Steven Pilato, Stephanie Miller, Kimberly Foley,

and Hayley Barr. “Violent Video Games Don’t Increase Hostility in Teens, but They Do Stress Girls Out.” Psychiatr Q Psychiatric Quarterly 87.1 (2015): 49-56. Web.

Greitemeyer, Tobias. “I Am Right, You Are Wrong: How Biased Assimilation Increases the

Perceived Gap between Believers and Skeptics of Violent Video Game Effects.” PLoS ONE 9.4 (2014): n. pag. Web.

Hollingdale, Jack, and Tobias Greitemeyer. “The Effect of Online Violent Video Games on

Levels of Aggression.” PLoS ONE 9.11 (2014): n. pag. Web.

Toppo, Greg. “Do Video Games Inspire Violent Behavior?” Scientific American. N.p., 01 July

  1. Web. 15 Mar. 2016.

“Violent Video Games – ProCon.org.” ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2016.

Anderson, Kirsten. “The Number of US Children Living in Single-parent Homes Has Nearly

Doubled in 50 Years: Census Data.”LifeSiteNews. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.

“Living Arrangements of Low-Income Children May Not Play a Key Role in Their Well

Being.” PsycEXTRA Dataset (n.d.): n. pag. Census.gov. United States Census Bureau. Web.

 

 

1st Reflection Essay

by banholzerma19

Writing_Reflection_Essay

Writing has always been a required part of my education but not necessarily a part I was interested in. Before coming to college at the Virginia Military Institute my writing skills were sub-par. Coming to college I have learned to correct mistakes in my writing, such as repetition and poor word choice, and I have learned better pre-writing and organizational skills along with improving my sentence structure. Entering into my next semester of writing I hope to be able to be clear and concise in my writing and take my vocabulary to another level. Though my failures heavily outweighed my success in high school writing, I continue to improve everyday to change the odds in my favor.

First of, reflecting on my high school writing experiences, I believe many of the experiences I had in AP English, senior year, paved the way for the writer that I am today. My teacher, Mr. Meister, made it one of the hardest classes I have taken thus far, however, both good and bad, it taught me what I need do and need not do in college writing. Many mistakes I experienced in high school occurred often to include: off topic ideals, paragraph organization, and unclear thoughts. These mistakes were not skipped over when he graded papers so therefore, a lot of the time, I didn’t get the best grades on his essays. Throughout the year, however, I learned what he was looking for and I improved on each essay until, I would say, I was finally successful. My last paper of senior year earned me an eight out of nine on the AP grading scale. The problems and successes of that last paper carried me into my first semester of college writing.

My first semester of college was essential to setting a baseline GPA for the rest of my cadetship. Using the lessons I learned in high school, I laid it all out on the table for my English teacher to discern and correct. Based on the fact that I held nothing back she was able to tighten my structure, repetition, and conciseness without taking out my personality from my writing. Throughout the entire semester I recognized three main things that I could fix going into my Spring Semester of 2016. My pre-writing and the order in which I did things needed to be worked on, I had to decrease and be able to recognize my own repetitiveness throughout my paper, and fix the organization issues throughout my entire paper, specifically which groups of sentences go together in which paragraph. Just like high school I improved drastically on these issues by improving one paper after another, and learning to recognize my mistakes more clearly. My last paper became probably the best paper I have ever written. It was based on a theory about Writing itself and I used all the skills I had gained my first semester of writing in order to project one of the most complex ideals I had come up with to date. It was based on the theory of Advancement Destruction, a term I coined myself, in which I analyzed technological advances in writing, making it more and more computer oriented. I came to the conclusion that instead of these advances actually being advances, it rather increases procrastination and will ultimately lead to the destruction of the importance of literacy in the United States.

Based on these experiences I have few reservations in my confidence going into my Spring Semester of 2016 English. With the confidence and skills, I gained Fall Semester, I believe I can carry the ideals into my writing throughout this semester no matter the topic. The only thing I will have to be concerned about is following my teacher’s guidelines on papers and not going off on a tangent. With the skills I learned this past semester and the things I will begin to learn about my writing this semester, I should have no problem being successful using the same writing style I’ve become accustomed to.

Overall, I believe high school writing set my baseline of essential grammar and ideals that have stuck with me since, even subconsciously. It also set a baseline of mistakes that I have learned to avoid. My Fall Semester of English has introduced me to the high level of writing that is expected at the college level. Reflecting on the last semester of writing I have learned specific skills of organization, pre-writing, and recognizing my own mistakes rather than having someone else edit my paper. My Fall Semester class had specific ideals of writing about writing rather than writing about a topic throughout the world. I believe this is what took my writing to another level and will make me prepared for the upcoming semester of writing. Lastly, I believe that the type of writing I do this semester will come easy for me by using the baseline of skills I acquired Fall Semester and my ability to talk which is exactly what this semester is about, arguing in writing.

Annotated Bibliography

by banholzerma19

Annotated_Bibliography

Cadet Michael A. Banholzer          Help Received:

Mrs. Smith                     Everyday Writer, Purdue

ERH-102-08                     Owl, & Easybib.com

24 February 2016

Annotated Bibliography

Ferguson, Christopher J., Benjamin Trigani, Steven Pilato,

Stephanie Miller, Kimberly Foley, and Hayley Barr. “Violent Video Games Don’t Increase Hostility in Teens, but They Do Stress Girls Out.” Psychiatr Q Psychiatric Quarterly 87.1 (2015): 49-56. Web.

 

This study analyzes an experiment that depicts the effects of violent video game content on adolescents. It was conducted by having a mix of boys and girls be given either a violent or non-violent video game to play at random. Before the test was taken, the test subjects reported their levels of stress for a baseline. The results concluded that violent video games had a minimal impact on hostility. However, it was concluded that it caused increase stress in young girls. This is to be expected, because girls are more sensitive to violence and gore.

 

The study was conducted in a proper manner based on the procedure and the design, however, there are a couple variables that should have been taken into account. In order for the experiment to be truly unbiased, they should not have been given the background story on violent video games. Lastly, to truly perfect the experiment you would have to find test subjects of all the same genetic makeup to be entirely sure you had 100% accurate results.

 

I will be using this study to assist my research paper for two reasons. First of all is it supports my idea that violence in video games has no direct correlation to hostility. Lastly, it proves another key point to any study that has been done to oppose my view. No study can truly be conducted in the right manner to isolate violence in video games. There will always be outside influences that have an impact on the test subjects’ overall hostility.

 

Hollingdale, Jack, and Tobias Greitemeyer. “The Effect of Online

Violent Video Games on Levels of Aggression.” PLoS ONE 9.11 (2014): n. pag. Web.

 

This study utilizes available test subjects to compare the violent video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 to the non-violent video game Little Big Planet 2. The study used both video games in comparison at random. The way to test whether a person’s hostility was increased was by using hot chili. All the test subjects were required to make a sample of hot chili for the other subjects to test. They were also informed that the test subjects did not like spicy food.

 

This study is invalid in two main ways. First of all, stating in the results that Modern Warfare 2 is a violent game is dumb. That is the purpose of the game, to entertain. Having that as one of the ideals they tried to prove makes the experiment pointless. Secondly, and most important, is the idea that the hotness of chili has any correlation to aggression. Most of the time, myself included, whether I played a violent video game or not, I would make the chili spicy just because it would be funny. Using that as the deciphering tool of aggression does not apply whatsoever.

 

I will be using this in my research paper as an example of a failed attempt to provide evidence of any correlation between hostility and violent video games. Using examples from this experiment will show how not only is there no true way to connect violent video games to aggression, but also how results vary even in experiments that are supposedly fool-proof.

Kneer, Julia, Daniel Munko, Sabine Glock, and Gary Bente.

“Defending the Doomed: Implicit Strategies Concerning Protection of First-Person Shooter Games.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 15.5 (2012): 251-56. Web.

 

This study has the same setup of most having to do with violence in video games. There were 80 participants, half of them with experience playing FPS games and the other half with no experience. The way this experiment was conducted, however, there was a newly found influence on aggression not directly correlating from video games. The study found that suppressing the violent thoughts of video games and having studies out blaming hostility on video games can actually cause you to be more aggressive than just playing them alone and not having adverse thoughts.

 

Based on the facts presented in the study I believe that the study is correct in saying that today’s society, referring to violent video game effects, adversely affects our perception of the root of our own aggression. By both adding and subtracting priming of the FPS, the experiment has enough variation to be valid. No experiment is perfect but this one provides the evidence to defend its ideals.

I will be using this source for two reasons in my paper. First of all, I will be able to show a clear example of how there is no correlation between the two ideals as well as show data of the same experiment that found different results. In other words, another example of how experiments are impossible to actually provide clear evidence of said correlation. Lastly, it provides another example of outside influences that are the true cause of hostility and anger.

 

Greitemeyer, Tobias. “I Am Right, You Are Wrong: How Biased

Assimilation Increases the Perceived Gap between Believers and Skeptics of Violent Video Game Effects.” PLoS ONE 9.4 (2014): n. pag. Web.

 

This study has to do with the overall belief of violent video games and their effect on hostility. By using test subjects with two different beliefs and having them read articles on two different beliefs, it provides an outstanding example of why you cannot ever convince people of the other ideal. In the study, all of the test subjects favored their original view.

 

This study provides a simple experiment that gives excellent information as to why and how people have their beliefs on violent video games. Using a simple method rather than some complex experiment gives us a clear idea of why the belief of violence in video games will never change.

 

I will be using this in my research paper in order to provide another example of how there is not a fool-proof experiment that can detect a correlation between violent video games and aggression. As research comes about that violent video games may or may not effect hostility, people will believe whatever they originally believe. No matter the proof that is presented, people will stick to their beliefs. This point will be key for my article.

 

Yang, Grace S., L. Rowell Huesmann, and Brad J. Bushman.

“Effects of Playing a Violent Video Game as Male versus Female Avatar on Subsequent Aggression in Male and Female Players.” Aggr. Behav. Aggressive Behavior 40.6 (2014): 537-41. Web.

 

In this study the participants played a series of two violent video games that involve one on one combat of the same sex in order to prevent any bias. The comparison was between a female avatar or a male avatar. The purpose of the experiment was to figure out whether one or the other would present more of an aggressive response from the test subjects. The next part involved using hot sauce amount for your testing partner compared to how aggressive that means you are.

 

This experiment was conducted in the right manner with a couple minor fixes. First of all, no matter how similar the games are, the games should be the same for the experiment in order to prevent any type of invalid testing in the experiment. The hot sauce part of the experiment is completely invalid. There is no direct correlation between putting hot sauce in your partners’ food and being hostile because of a video game.

 

I will not be using this in my experiment because it doesn’t apply to my whole idea. This experiment has to do with a specific aspect of video games, my research paper has to do with whether violent video games, as a whole, effects your aggression and hostility.

Exploratory Essay

by banholzerma19

Exploratory_Essay

Cadet Michael A. Banholzer

Mrs. Smith

ERH-102-08

29 February 2016

Violent Video Games’ Affect on Hostility

The content in video games has become an intense and complex subject over the past decade. With the introduction of more violent video games such as Call of Duty and Battlefield, it is an ongoing debate as to the affect that these games have on children and young adults. This dispute applies to me directly because I have played video games my whole life. I believe that video games are an essential component of expression in youth. Being able to embody a fiction character and have consequences, in game, depending upon what you choose to do can teach a child a lot about him/herself. There have been many studies attempting to prove that violent video games effect hostility in children, however, there has never been a proven correlation between the two. Ultimately the ideas of violence in video games and whether or not they effect aggressive tendencies leads us down a slippery path. Both views present an issue of the first amendment, the freedom of speech. Can you stop a company from making a violent video game if that is what their imagination leads them to create? You also cannot stop a child from expressing themselves within a game if that is what they desire to do. I argue that any violent expression that comes about doesn’t stem from the video game itself, but rather how they were raised and the environment in which they grew up in. Does the environment in which you grew up in, nurture, effect your thoughts and actions concerning putting the blame of hostility on other things such as video games rather than yourself?

In a peer-reviewed journal written by Jack Hollingdale, he provides a prime example of how nurture amongst a child’s early years leads to hostility rather than video game content (1). I choose to begin with this source because it provides a great baseline of my overall argument of how aggressive tendencies begin from birth. The study is conducted by having participants play one of two video games, either Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 of Little Big Planet 2. After playing the game the participants were informed that their co-participants dislike spicy food and they were asked to prepare hot chili for their partner (3). The results ensued and were compared based on which video game they played compared to the amount of spice that they put in the chili for their partner. This experiment is invalid in two ways. First of all, one of the results gathered from the experiment was that Call of Duty was more violent than Little Big Planet. That is common knowledge and the fact that it came out of the experiment as a result shows that nothing was gained from using the procedure present. Lastly, involved the chili part of the experiment. Putting spice in hot chili has no correlation to any aggression you have, from a video game. You may have some hostility underlying from your childhood that leads to put more spice in the chili. For example, if things like that were encouraged to be funny as a child then you will most likely put more spice into the chili. This goes back to my first ideal of nurture as the cause of hostility rather than any violent video game you might play. This source provides great insight into one of the many examples of experiments that attempted to find a correlation between violent video games and hostility, but ultimately failed miserably.

Another peer reviewed journal written by Tobias Greitemeyer explains why it has become “common knowledge” that violent video games cause aggression in our country’s children (1). Greitemeyer’s participants in his experiment were half in belief that violent video games cause hostility and half opposed to that ideal (3). Both groups were given two articles describing the phenomenon with opposing views on the topic. Every single participant agreed with their side presented in the article even if clear evidence disproved what they thought (3). This shows the issue that is present throughout the phenomenon. Nurture is key to the results of this experiment as well. Each person was raised a certain way, and that affects the way they view the topic of violence in video games. The argument’s base issue is whether you were taught that you can blame little things, such as a violent video game, for your mistakes and issues. No matter the evidence presented, people will stick with their side of the argument (5). This is why the argument will continue to live on because people will not back down from their side of the argument. I am beginning to see an ongoing argument that will truly never be solved. In fact, it will only get worse. Each side will pass their ideals of responsibility and freedom of expression down to their children and the separation will only expand more. An interesting research project to go from here has to do with politics and home life. I would bet that there is a correlation between parents’ views on violent video games’ effects and whether or not they allow their children to get away with things and blame their failures on other things/people.

My thoughts have begun to move towards a correlation between not just nurture but the extent of what parents allow their children to get away with and whether they then allow themselves and their children to blame aggression and outbursts on violent video games. As of now, I believe that whether or not a parent makes their child take responsibility for their actions has a direct parallel to not just allowing video games to be the source of blame but rather any example of common blame for aggression rather the the true root of the problem, nurture from the parents or environment where they were raised in. The research that I need to conduct next is a comparison between nurture of the home life compared to the child’s outlook on blaming him/herself for actions such as aggression from a violent video game. Continuing to research this topic will prove my ultimate argument that violent video games have no direct correlation to violent tendencies in children.

 

 

Works Cited

Hollingdale, Jack, and Tobias Greitemeyer. “The Effect of Online

Violent Video Games on Levels of Aggression.” PLoS ONE 9.11 (2014): n. pag. Web.

Greitemeyer, Tobias. “I Am Right, You Are Wrong: How Biased

Assimilation Increases the Perceived Gap between Believers and Skeptics of Violent Video Game Effects.” PLoS ONE 9.4 (2014): n. pag. Web.