In his lectures on Shakespearean Tragedy, A.C. Bradley declares that Hamlet is "a man who at any other time and in any other circumstances than those presented would have been perfectly equal to his task" (93-94). The task referred to is, of course, the one the ghost of his father has assigned to him--to kill his uncle Claudius. For some reason, Hamlet is unable to complete his task until the last possible moment. Bradley notes that Hamlet assumes he can obey the ghost at any time, and does not need reassurance; he could easily raise the people against the King, because Laertes has absolutely no trouble doing so; the play-within-the-play is to convince himself of Claudius's guilt; and finally, Hamlet has no specific plot or plan to actually kill Claudius (84). Considering these facts about Hamlet's situation, what do you think is the cause of Hamlet's delay?
In addition to his delay, Hamlet's will is equally important to the action of his play; for as much as Hamlet does not do, we are that much more intrigued by what he does do. He puts on an antic disposition for Ophelia's sake (II. i.); he requests first a speech about the murder of Priam, and then "The Murder of Gonzago" to be played before his uncle (II. ii.); he kills Polonius (III. iv); he manages to exact the execution of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern once they arrive in England (V. ii.). And yet, in the last scene, as if he has decided to resign from pulling the strings of the puppets who inhabit his play, we hear him say things like "Let be" (V. ii. 223), and "Let it be" (V. ii. 359). But since the last thing he does is kill Claudius, what can we infer about the state of Hamlet's will in the end? What is Shakespeare saying by contrasting Hamlet's will with his delay? What does this do to our impression of Hamlet as a character? How do other characters highlight Shakespeare's theme of will versus fate?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I know that I have a habit of taking a character in a piece of writing and making him a person, infusing him with human characteristics, feelings, and tendencies. I think we have to get away from this in order to understand the contradictions that Hamlet embodies, which were brought up by Will. An English professor of mine told us the other day that he had a teacher who once made fun of a student who said that he "identified with Hamlet," for, the professor explained, he was meant to be a fictional character in a fictional play, that as far as we know is no way comparable to what is "real." I think this detached approach to examining Hamlet will allow us to accept the abstractions of Hamlet's character; his antic disposition, his bizarre impulses and fears, for what they are in the play, and not simply how comparable and realistic they are to human nature.
ReplyDeleteI think that what Carly says about the detached approach is one way that allows us to deal with Hamlet more easily, but at the same time I hesitate to establish this as a precedent for analyzing literature. I feel like the art of much great literature lies in the ability to bring to life the characters on the page, making us believe and have a relatively clear sense of them. If we take the detached approach, doesn't Hamlet become more of a conglomeration of characterizations, as opposed to a cohesive character? We were discussing the degree to which the play depends on Hamlet; if he is unable to offer a strong sense of self, he discounts the effectiveness of the play as a connected and resonating piece of work.
ReplyDeleteBenDC articulates...
ReplyDeleteBefore walking into class Tuesday I felt certain Hamlet was sane, however, by the time I walked out my doubt of Hamlet’s sanity grew. This was frustrating since I did not want to believe he was insane. I want to believe he is a reasonable character; however, it is difficult considering everything questionable that transpires. For one thing, Hamlet’s belief of Claudius’s guilt weighs upon him walking out during the mock play. Although, the audience knows Claudius killed his brother Hamlet does not know this for sure (, which to me is frustrating). Hamlet merely suspects it based upon a minor reaction. The fact that he would put his faith upon this is odd. In addition, the incestuous vibes Hamlet is emitting towards his mother are a cause of concern. This is implicated in the Queen’s private chambers (3.4) and within Hamlet’s little play where the nephew marries his mother (3.2). I want to sympathize with Hamlet as though he were a real person but I find it difficult when his character, logic and motives are so questionable. This immense complexity may be frustrating, however, I feel it makes the play more enjoyable and heart wrenching.