Once again, this novel is confusing me- it just doesn't feel like a Hamlet offshoot.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that these novels are not what I expected. When I heard that we would be reading novels that were the aftershocks of Hamlet, I thought we would be seeing retellings and observing how the plot elements were reused and altered, it's genesis and journey to the modern era. What I seem to be getting is a series of sad novels that reference Hamlet as a model for the misery they are trying to convey.
I really wonder how much The Black Prince would have actually been affected if Hamlet were never written. Would the events play out pretty much the same, only they would be discussing and referencing some other supposed greatest work? And what would that be? Is the real finger print of Hamlet here that of the unique character? Is there another person in all of literature that could replace Hamlet's role in this story.... You know, I think there isn't. Maybe that is what I should be focusing on.
There are plenty of other Hamlet like flavors: people haunted by their past and future decisions, plots, violence, murder, imprisonment and banishment. Still, I keep arriving at the same hang up. Shakespeare didn't invent ghosts, death, vengeance or banishment. He arranged them in a way... In a way some people argue has already been done. So what's here, really? The story is once again missing the central plot point: Bradley isn't seeking vengeance for a dead relative. He's seeking quiet study. All the other elements are as old as the beginning of the human drama. Shakespeare's only unique contributions to the play lay in beautiful words and a singularly complicated character. I wouldn't call Murdochs writing exactly beautiful. It's a bit blustering, long winded and it show boats. But Bradley is almost complicated enough and almost true enough to be a spiritual successor to Hamlet
On the one hand, I think what you say is quite true. The Black Prince reminds me more of modern soaps than of an archetypical play written by the early modern godfather of conversation, misunderstanding and confusion. We read Novels where Hamlet is directly mentioned, dealt with, discussed or even re-enacted. It definitely is an important play which deals with many issues and poses lots of ambiguity. But for this reason (and for the many others we talked about in class) is has numerous intertextual references in other plays, novels or poems.
ReplyDeleteThe main motives of The Black Prince, which in my opinion are the interaction of art, love and truth, mingled by philosophy and fiction as points of view do not depend on Hamlet. If one really wants to, there is a bit of Hamlet in almost everything, because almost a bit of everything is in Hamlet.
On the other hand, what these texts unmistakable connect with Hamlet is the very conscious and obvious mentioning of it. To me it felt a bit like the author forces his readers to refer his or her work to Shakespeare’s play. Julian asks Bradley to be her mentor and he proposes his interpretation of Hamlet not just to his pupil but also to us so that we deal with it.
Besides all that, what I also find particular striking is that in each and every primary text we read, there was a play within the play (or novel) presented as a mirror of actions taking place in the real world of fiction which we are watching. Characters tend to observe each other while observing something else while being observed by a narrator and us observing and criticizing all of them. That is probably because we enjoy watching as much as Bradley does, when he is with Julian having something to eat. A major interest in other people’s faith lies in our curiosity for struggle and a way to solve it (or fail to do so) may it be in some jungle camp, in the epic adventures of a Hobbit, in The Game of Thrones, in high philosophical texts like Kafka’s Before the Law or even in Shakespeare’s play. Everyone just loves watching too much.