Hamlet 's weakness

One of the articles we had to read was talking about how it would silly to assume that Hamlet was a weakling. And while I don't assume he was a weakling at all, I do believe he was something of a coward. He spends so much of the play in a state of inaction. He refuses to do anything. He decides instead to sit and think, and over-think what he's going to do with the information of his father's death and then the identity of his father's murderer. Hamlet talks a big game but doesn't really do anything about it for 5 acts. I feel like he's actually a very strong character to fully think about whether or not his father's ghost was a true vision or if it was a bad omen from Hell, and he is strong in the sense that he does not completely break from the news of his father's death. But this doesn't mean that he's not a coward.

Hamlet spends 5 acts going back and forth trying to decide if he's going to kill Claudius and when he's going to kill Claudius, and how he's going to kill Claudius, but he never really acts on it until he knows it's his last and only chance. He sits around and sulks and doesn't talk about what's happening internally and doesn't act upon what's happening internally. It seems like he is so worried about the repercussions and what could potentially happen after the fact that he's too afraid to actually do anything. He makes excuses all the time, saying he won't kill Claudius until he knows through Claudius himself that he's the murderer, not just from hearing it through the lips of a ghost. And then he can't kill Claudius when he is in his grasp because Claudius is in a church so he'll go to Heaven if I kill him now. Only when he is dying does Hamlet finally take a stand and kill Claudius. But that doesn't make him any less of a coward. That just continues the idea that he is one. He is only willing to kill Claudius when he knows nothing will happen to him for doing so. Nothing worse can happen to him than Death--I'm sure he doesn't believe he's going to end up in Hell.

Meanwhile he's willing to kill Polonius from behind a curtain. I feel like this is another sign of his cowardice. He cannot see Polonius and Polonius cannot see him, it seems like there will be no repercussions from this killing (though in actuality I'm sure Polonius can surmise who stabbed him, and Gertrude witnessed it). He can also indirectly kill Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, because all he has to do is intercept a letter and send a new one. He doesn't have to spill any blood. Same with Ophelia. He plays a hand in her death but it doesn't seem to weigh on him as much as the idea of killing Claudius does because, well, Hamlet didn't push her into that pond. In every death Hamlet is responsible for, he performs them with such cowardice. It makes me almost mad that a man who is supposed to avenge his father and who could have taken over the throne and one point can't even gather up the courage to kill his father's murderer until it's almost too late.

also here is a picture I enjoy.

Is Shakespeare’s Hamlet Really “All That” or is it just a Part of the “Shakespeare Industrial Complex”?

Hamlet is an important play in western culture and has influence in many countries (Bloom). Some English critics and actors have done a great deal to promote Hamlet within the Shakespeare Industrial Complex (S.I.C.). The continued perpetuation of the S.I.C. from the seventeenth century to the present day keeps a lot of academics and theatre companies in business. It is up to the individual to decide if Shakespeare is really that good or if we think it is good because a lot of stakeholders in Shakespeare drama have a strong interest in saying so.

Bloom (81) presents the case that, during the eighteenth century the Shakespeare Industrial Complex was well underway. This is because, “such a concentration of dedicated textual critics has never been seen since, and their efforts helped to turn Shakespeare into England’s preeminent literary genius.” Critics such as Pope, Steele, Dennis, Warburton, and especially Johnson, contributed. Of Hamlet in particular, “Farquhar called the play ‘long the Darling of the English Audience, and like to continue with the same Applause.’” Indeed, the intensive adoration of Shakespeare from the 1760s onward was so great that R.W. Babcock called this period the “Genesis of Shakespeare Idolatry” (85).This may indicate that Hamlet is a great play because a lot of English critics said it is great.

Not only critics contributed to the S.I.C and Hamlet’s role within it. Actors such as Betterton and Garrick, who played the Danish prince, were loved by their public. Each actor benefited from Hamlet. Garrick, in particular, found the promotion of Shakespeare in terms of a jubilee celebration in the town of Stratford, to be worth his effort as he amassed lots of money as a Shakespeare actor. He also contributed to the S.I.C. through supporting the careers of younger Shakespeare actors and the preservation and the making accessible early versions of Shakespeare (Bloom 85-6). This kind of promotion of Shakespeare not only helped Garrick but also most likely helped cement the S.I.C.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the S.I.C expanded in new ways. Hazlitt “redefined assumptions about what makes a great tragic hero” (Bloom 137). Coleridge shifted the focus of Shakespeare’s characterization from sensibility to philosophy (138). The tenor of critical focus on Hamlet’s mental state became more technical as psychological study developed as social scientific field (139).

There are many arguments floating around as to the reasons behind Shakespeare’s immortality. Some would argue that Shakespeare is great because of the seemingly explosive and magical combinations of words that he used. Or perhaps it is his representations of evil, that are irresistible at times and revolting at others. It could be his ability to mine the human soul for material that makes him great. However, it is sometimes overlooked that not all of the English were so enamored by Shakespeare’s work. A critic (perhaps Thomas Hanmer) attacked Hamlet for having no good reason to delay his revenge (Bloom 82). Some European critics definitely found Hamlet wanting. Voltaire dismissed Hamlet as a “gross and barbarous piece” (Bloom 83). This could be considered European playwright envy, but this Continental criticism may also have some merit. This indicates again, that perhaps Hamlet is considered good, in part, because a group of English critics said so.

It cannot be denied that Shakespeare is an extreme example of a playwright. Neither can it be denied that there are many stakeholders in the business of Shakespeare to the present day. There may be more than even in the seventeenth century, when every Shakespeare academic, high school English Literature teacher, actor in companies large and small, is accounted for across all continents. Maybe it is Shakespeare’s inherent greatness and the accompanying Industrial Complex in combination that will never let us forget him or his work and will ensure our discussion of it into the future.

Works cited:

Bloom, Harold, ed. Hamlet. New York: Bloom's Literary Criticism, 2008. Print.


Image credit:
http://openclipart.org/detail/20681/shakespeare-by-maven

Euripides and Hamlet

Last semester I took Greek Mythology and I cannot help but see how the play “Electra” by Euripides mirrors the play “Hamlet.” Electra, daughter of Agamemnon (a Greek King), must avenge her father’s ruthless murder. The murderers of the king were his wife, Clytemnestra, and her lover Aegisthus. They plot his death once he returns from fighting the Trojan War.

Electra is hell bent on avenging her father by killing both her mother and her mother’s lover. Her brother, Orestes, is slightly more hesitant about killing his mother, but at the insistence of his sister, he commits the crime. Which is indeed considered a crime by the gods and he is punished furies/harpies until he is judged by Athena. (This is what I remember from class, at least).

As I have frequently mentioned in class, I believe Hamlet’s mother, Gertrude, was connected to the king’s murder—in some fashion at least. Euripides’ play has greatly influenced my perception. Especially since the ghost desperately calls for Claudius’ death, “Revenge [my] foul and most unnatural murder” (28); yet warns Hamlet to “taint not [your] mind, nor let [your] soul contrive / against [your] mother aught. Leave [your mother] to heaven” (30). I feel this is the key to Gertrude’s guilt. It his Hamlet’s father’s warning that even though his mother is guilty, it is not for a son to murder his mother (like Orestes) lest he be damned to be hunted and tormented by demons and spirits (like Orestes). 

http://www.haverford.edu/classics/images/clytemnestra1.jpg

Orestes killing his mother (pic).

To allude to it or not to allude to it? Sorry, so cliche.

Andy Staples' take on that famous soliloquy 

To huddle, or not to huddle? That is the question.

Whether 'tis nobler on the field to call

For slings and screens with outrageous frequency

Or to gather round to discuss a play

And by talking, bleed the clock to death.... (Staples 21)

This passage, from the August 19, 2013, issue of Sports Illustrated, about the trend of fast offenses in college football, demonstrates the extent to which Hamlet's soliloquy has become shorthand in Western culture for a dilemma with no real solution. It has become as applicable to football offensive coordinators as to soul-searching princes of Denmark.

This particular example seems to work because Staples uses enough of the structure and language of the original passage that it is immediately recognizable as an allusion to Shakespeare's work. Shakespeare is master of the iambic pentameter, in his original soliloquy adding a feminine ending, and out-iambs Staples like a boss. However, Staples is able to use roughly the same amount of syllables per line to make his version work.

Staples imitates the language of Shakespeare as much as possible but changes some of the words from Shakespeare's to his own in order to apply the passage to an offensive coordinator. Examples of this include changing "be" to "huddle", "in the mind" to "on the field", and "And by opposing end them" to "And by talking, bleed the clock to death...". 

Furthermore, Staples' article title, "Too old school?” complements his re-purposing of Shakespeare. Shakespeare is old school but still the best - as is, perhaps, the huddle when it comes to handling the football offensively. This gives the reader an indication of the direction the article may lean in answer to the question posed in the title.

Staples' recognizable use of the structure and language of Hamlet's soliloquy has the effect of highlighting the offensive coordinator's dilemma. It shows the reader the intellectual effort required to accommodate all stakeholders in running an offense. If Shakespeare's "To be or not to be?" may be interpreted as "To act or not to act?", in Hamlet seeking revenge for his father, in the same way, Staples' article shows us how the offensive coordinator can act to coach his players in a hurry-up offense or not. There are consequences, positive and negative, for not huddling or huddling on the field - just as Hamlet was weighing up consequences for his actions in his soliloquy. 

Even though referencing Hamlet's famous soliloquy has become a cliché for dealing with a dilemma in Western societies, I appreciate Staples' use of its structure and language of it in the context of his article. In comparing Staples' allusion to Shakespeare's original, I think I can better understand the seriousness and difficulty of Hamlet's position in 3.1 of Hamlet. This allusion also emphasizes the intellectual difficulty offensive coordinators face in deciding how to run their offenses. However, alluding to this particular piece of Shakespeare's work is getting old and not generally recommended. 

Works cited:

Staples, Andy. "Too Old School?" Sports Illustrated 19 August 2013: 20-25. Print.