The Ghost of Ophelia

While I was browsing Tumblr last week instead of doing my math homework, I stumbled upon an image that was instantly recognizable:

Source: https://www.facebook.com/Voodica

It made me wonder: What is it about suicide, and specifically Ophelia's suicide, that people find so beautiful? Why do people make art of this one character? Something about her obviously lingers in people's minds long after they've finished reading Hamlet. For some reason, Ophelia's ghost haunts artists' minds, a morbid muse who demands that her story be told and retold.

Part of the reason likely stems from the fact that Ophelia's death is artistic. As Gertrude describes Ophelia's death to Laertes, she chooses her words carefully, painting Ophelia's death not as a suicide, but as a beautiful accident. She describes Ophelia's "fantastic garlands.../Of crowflowers, nettles, daisies, and long purples" (167-68) refers to Ophelia's gown as "mermaid-like" (175) as her clothing weighs her down, "heavy with their drink," and pulls her into the water (180). Ophelia's death seems beautiful when described in this manner, not gruesome and miserable as a suicide should be. Even as she dies, Ophelia is surrounded by the flowers that follow her throughout her existence in the play. Ophelia is a beautiful young woman perpetually frozen in time, whose tragically early death and the flowery language used to describe it have left a lasting impression on artists for centuries. 

A short rant on the popularity of Shakespeare.

The beginning of Johnson's Shakespeare preface both annoyed me and made a great deal of sense at the same time.... That detractors of Shakespeare argue that he is only revered as a writer because he wrote so long ago is ridiculous, and yet, the fact that he has lasted so long in such a fashion has to show that his work was so excellent and so true to the human condition that it remains an important part of our culture even in the modern era, and perhaps helped shape it in a fundamental way must be true.

Although I admit that Shakespeare is not a pleasure for everyone, I just don't understand the attitude that it is only considered a 'great' part of English literature simply because it is old. That idea seems patently foolish on its face. How can something of such popularity, so studied and examined, so pursued, reinterpreted and scrutinized for so long be seen in this light at all? It is hardly as though Shakespeare is the oldest play-write available to us. We still study the Greek classic tragedies for heavens sake. There are also many contemporary writers of Shakespeare's that have not created such a stir for so long.

Isn't it so that at the end of the day, the words are the thing- and the fact that they still resonate within us after all this time the only important fact in the case?

Death and the Undead

In both of our discussions on Hamlet, the motive of death was always present and it seems that it shapes the whole play from the beginning to the very end. The audience or the reader as well as the characters within the play are always confronted with mortality. It serves as a threat, as basis for public discussion as well as for solitary reflections; it is a source of power and it is able to provide political profits and tragic losses. Death is an everlasting mystery which is an important aspect within the fictional play as well as in reality.

Murder frames the storyline of Hamlet: The killing of old Hamlet, the protagonist’s father, opens the plot and several sub-plots even before the beginning of the first scene and thereby initiates Hamlets conflict of revenge. In the end, Claudius and most of the rest of the court are killed either by sword or by poison (which is also a quite popular while insidious way to kill in the play) – or both.

Besides descriptions of killing, death is considered mostly from Hamlets point of view, and he keeps asking himself whether or whether it is not legitimate to commit suicide, which could end his unbearably torment and his struggle. His famous expression “to be or not to be” could stand either for active or passive behavior or for questioning existence in general. He connects dying with various spiritual and ethnical aspects, including the aftermath in heaven, hell or in between, supernatural beings like the ghost or physical remainders of the dead like Yorick’s skull or Ophelia’s corpse. 

Discussions and examination of death seems to be popular in the 1600s as well as in the following centuries. As it is the very end (is it?) of our existence, it keeps being interesting through people’s desire to control it for themselves as well as for others. Its aftermath is a never-ending riddle for everyone and the fear of uncertainty and mortality keeps us thinking about it. 

Death and all those questions, connected to it seem to display mortality rates in the early 17^th century. Death was even more unpredictable than it is now, which could be a reason for its increased concerns. Its confrontation on stage could provide emotional provisions for people who had to experience it in their daily life.

Random Thoughts on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern

In our discussion of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, we talked a lot about their purpose (or lack there of) in the play. To me, RnG were included in the play to create a familiar presence with the audience--an observer for those observing the play. The most important functions I see them having within Hamlet is their presence as listeners.

While I wouldn't say that they're supposed to be a stand-in for the audience (they do not share the reactions that the audience is supposed to have), or an insertion of an "everyman" presence (they're too far up in the social ladder for commoners to identify with), they definitely share an audience-like element within the play.

It is in front of RnG that Hamlet delivers his "What a piece of work is a man!" in front of him, after seeing through their very poorly made disguise. In most of their other scenes, their presence is usually made to reveal the intentions and plans of other characters--first in how Claudius plans to use them as spies against Hamlet, and again when Claudius gives them a letter to have Hamlet executed in England. We may not learn too much about RnG's individual characters, but we do end up learning about other's through them. They even reveal stuff about other characters after they get killed by pirates--we see just how cold-hearted Hamlet has become, and how resolved he is in confronting Claudius.

That, and I think that they've become archtypical characters who have become elevated over the course of media. The pair of inseparable, naive friends have become a stock in many plays, movies, television shows etc etc. Only this time, they command more agency and importance in narratives than before. Where as in Hamlet RnG don't get to do too much of importance, in other mediums they become essential to the plot.

In one such instance, I think R2D2 and C-3PO from "Star Wars" serves how the RnG archtype has evolved. Both sets of characters share similar aspects (they're both inseparable, low on the social-ladder, naive to the larger drama, tasked with transporting important information without knowing exactly why, etc etc), but the droids are much more important than the Danish college-chums. If R2D2 hadn't delivered those Death Star schematics, or opened all those doors, or stopped the trash compactor when he did, everyone in "Star Wars" would be dead and there'd be no story.

We can even see how the RnG archtype gets elevated to protagonist levels, in some media. But I don't want to talk about any of that until we get to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.

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.