character of Hamlet

[Rupal]

hello everyone,
Hello everyone,
Plz help me to prepare answer for questin :
Comment on the character of Hamlet
I want a long but solid answer.
Plz help
Rupal

[Beewulf]

hello everyone,
Hello everyone,
Plz help me to prepare answer for questin :
Comment on the character of Hamlet
I want a long but solid answer.
Plz help
Rupal

Good Question! Below is a commentary on Hamlet that I found to be pretty solid, but I don't know if it's long enough for you. Some of the references seem a little synthetic, but overall I think the writer offers an entirely specious analysis of Hamlet's character. As Polonius might say, "My Lord, tis both tedious and brief a thing/As I have never seen, and should to the barber/ With my beard!" Hope it helps you get the grade you deserve! :thumbs_up

Because we first hear of Hamlet from a description given by the valorous Horatio of the Prince's battlefield valor, our initial impression is of a brave and capable young man. This perspective is complicated, however, once we see Hamlet interact with his father's ghost on the battlements of Dunsinane Castle. We realize that Hamlet's physical courage is joined by a consuming ambition and a tendency to self-doubt—the Ghost's prediction that he will be king brings Hamlet joy, but the prediction also creates inner turmoil. These three attributes—bravery, ambition, and self-doubt—struggle for mastery of Hamlet throughout the play. Shakespeare uses Hamlet to show the terrible effects that ambition and guilt can have on a man who lacks strength of character. We may classify Hamlet as irrevocably evil, but his weak character separates him from Shakespeare’s great villains—Iago in Othello, Richard III in Richard III, Edmund in King Lear—who are all strong enough to conquer guilt and self-doubt. Hamlet, great warrior though he is, is ill equipped for the psychic consequences of crime.

Before he kills Polonius, Hamlet is plagued by worry and almost aborts the crime. It takes Ophelia's steely sense of purpose to push him into the deed. After the murder, however, her powerful personality begins to disintegrate, leaving Hamlet increasingly alone. He fluctuates between fits of frantic action, in which he plots a series of murders to secure his throne (e.g., the killing of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern), and moments of terrible guilt (as when the ghost of Polonius appears) and absolute pessimism (after Ophelia's death, when he seems to succumb to despair). These fluctuations reflect the tragic tension within Hamlet: he is at once too ambitious to allow his conscience to stop him from murdering his way to the top and too conscientious to be happy with himself as a murderer. As things fall apart for him at the end of the play, he seems almost relieved—with Fortinbras and the Norwegian army at his gates, he can finally return to life as a warrior, and he displays a kind of reckless bravado as he fights with Laeretes. In part, this stems from his fatal confidence in the the Ghost's prophecies, but it also seems to derive from the fact that he has returned to the arena where he has been most successful and where his internal turmoil need not affect him—namely, the battlefield. Unlike many of Shakespeare’s other tragic heroes, Hamlet never seems to contemplate suicide:


To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? (Act 3, scene 1)

Instead, he goes down opposing the "outrageous fortune," and "sea of troubles" that afflict him. His final defiance brings the play full circle: it begins with Hamlet sighing atop the castle walls and ends with him dying in Horatio's arms, singing the lament that has made this pathetic scene so justly famous


He is dead and gone, lady,
He is dead and gone;
At his head a grass-green turf,
At his heels a stone. (Act 5, scene 1)

[Rupal]

Thanks Beewulf for your help ..I hope in future also I will learn a lot from you ..Thanks again ,It will help me a lot to prepare the answer

[jocky]

This may not go down well, but wherefore the fascination with Hamlet? Oh, it is part of the curriculum and I need to pass. Well here is a different take, Hamlet is no hero, he is a mammy's boy. Daddy was the greatest thing since sliced loaf and life is not fair. From now on I am going to act like a nutter and take down everyone with me. Rosencrantz and Guidenstein,or vice versa, are the ones who deserve the sympathy. We have really got to stop treating royalty as the be all and the end all. This is a different view and I love Shakespeare, but you must question the values.

[Gladys]

Hamlet is no hero, he is a mammy's boy.

But don't we all like a story of the handsome genius prince, complete with beautiful maiden, whose seamless life goes awry at the behest of a royal spectre?

[kelby_lake]

This may not go down well, but wherefore the fascination with Hamlet? Oh, it is part of the curriculum and I need to pass. Well here is a different take, Hamlet is no hero, he is a mammy's boy. Daddy was the greatest thing since sliced loaf and life is not fair. From now on I am going to act like a nutter and take down everyone with me. Rosencrantz and Guidenstein,or vice versa, are the ones who deserve the sympathy. We have really got to stop treating royalty as the be all and the end all. This is a different view and I love Shakespeare, but you must question the values.

I think productions should be more critical of Hamlet as well. After all, his mother's physical relationship is not really any of his business.

[jocky]

But don't we all like a story of the handsome genius prince, complete with beautiful maiden, whose seamless life goes awry at the behest of a royal spectre?

Exactly, but is that not the problem inherent in the whole play? When was the last time any English lecturer questioned the stereotype of the man in black ? This is why we are led into false conflicts, is Shakespeare not questioning the assumtions of his age ? Most posts I read come complete with unending quotes, all supporting the genius of Hamlet. The wonderful Prince should be understood as our worse nightmare.

[jocky]

I think productions should be more critical of Hamlet as well. After all, his mother's physical relationship is not really any of his business.

Perhaps Kelby, we should be reassessing the play altogether. Let's start by looking at the characters who are caught up in Hamlet's tragedy. Tom Stoppard had the right idea. It is time for a fresh look at this wonderful play.

[Dinkleberry2010]

xxxxxx

[jocky]

There has been so much nonsense written about this play. Hamlet is a revenge drama--nothing more or less. Hamlet is not a tragic character--there's nothing tragic about him. I mean, come on, just read the play or see it in a production, you know. That's all you need to do to understand it. There's nothing deep about Hamlet. It's easy to understand--there's nothing really complex about it.

Absolutely Jermac, you have simplified the revenge tragedy down to the Ladybird Book of simpilifcation. In fact, the genre is as simple as you. You must be one of Neely's disciples, thick as two short planks. Hamlet may be complex, but no one will ever level that accusation at you. Goodnight sweet simpleton.

[Dinkleberry2010]

xxxxxx

[MorpheusSandman]

That's all you need to do to understand it. There's nothing deep about Hamlet. It's easy to understand--there's nothing really complex about it.I think if you're really going to try and challenge 400 years of critical analysis you need to do a bit better than this. Hamlet's complexity lies in its ambiguity; not to mention the inventiveness and nuance of the language. Understanding any Shakespeare has little to do with understanding the story and superficialities of his plays. I mean, you undermine yourself when you say it's merely a revenge drama considering Hamlet continually fails to enact his revenge and instead sits and broods over the idea itself (and life, death, and all that other stuff).

[kelby_lake]

There has been so much nonsense written about this play. Hamlet is a revenge drama--nothing more or less. Hamlet is not a tragic character--there's nothing tragic about him. I mean, come on, just read the play or see it in a production, you know. That's all you need to do to understand it. There's nothing deep about Hamlet. It's easy to understand--there's nothing really complex about it.

I beg to differ. Yes, it is at heart your typical revenge drama- man avenges a death. Titus Andronicus is pretty much just a revenge drama, with some political commentary maybe, but Hamlet is blatantly about more than that. If people wanted to put on revenge dramas, Titus would be the one done more frequently as it has more death and gore than Hamlet. But Hamlet is revived far more often, therefore there's something more in it.

Hamlet isn't an archetypical tragic hero- indecisiveness isn't really his flaw- but linguistically and psychologically it is much more sophisticated than a typical revenge tragedy.

And the idea that plays are just basic 3D plots is ridiculous. There's countless decisions you have to make when staging Hamlet- cutting the text, for one thing. Then how does one portray the madness? Or Claudius and Gertrude? Or Hamlet and Ophelia's relationship?

[Dinkleberry2010]

xxxxxxxx

[MorpheusSandman]

Titus Andronicus is pretty much just a revenge drama,I'm not so convinced that Shakespeare wasn't parodying the excessive nature of typical revenge dramas. Marlowe's were particularly popular at the time and Titus is such atypical Bard (on most every level) that I find it difficult to approach it at merely face value. I don't think it's possible to write lines like "Bear thou my hand, sweet wench, between thy teeth." with a straight face. Being a huge fan of Chan Wook-Park's Vengeance Trilogy (films) I was very much reminded of Titus Andronicus in how they seem to combine parody, genuine drama, and a healthy dose of absurdity.


I said Hamlet--the play itself--is not complex. I'm simply saying there has been so much nonsense written about this play.But you're not saying anything of substance here. Spouting off evaluative conclusions isn't legitimate criticism. Hamlet - the play itself - can be complex or not complex on any number of levels. The characters are part of the play, so if the characters are complex then one aspect of the play is complex. The language is undeniably complex being amongst the densest ever written in English (and especially inventive). Equally, saying there's been so much nonsense written about it isn't substantial either since you haven't bothered to point out what, specifically, that's been written about it is nonsense and why.

[conartist]

It's worthless to debate the complexity of the plot of Hamlet; what makes the play incredible is that it is arguably the greatest high-strung drama of all time yet the moments most interesting to critics and loved by audiences are simply conversations either between Hamlet and someone else or Hamlet and himself that only occasionally advance the plot (and often pointlessly so). The nonsense above, 'The wonderful prince should be understood as our worst nightmare' would avoid being idiotic if anyone did look at Hamlet as a kind of moral benchmark, but Hamlet's appeal parallels Shakespeare's, not Cordelia's or Desdemona's. Charisma, cleverness, wittiness etc are the only reasons anyone worships him (unless they're looking for a more sophisticated Travis Bickle).

I agree that the way the plot's used should be looked at in the light of past revenge tragedies by not only Shakespeare but someone like Kyd as well.

Your opinion is always going to sound a little deficient when it's justified with 'I mean, come on, just read the play or see it in a production, you know'...

[wessexgirl]

Has no-one, particularly Rupal, noticed that Beewulf is a little ....off...;) in his summing up of the play? I hope you checked the play out Rupal :lol:.

[kelby_lake]

I'm not so convinced that Shakespeare wasn't parodying the excessive nature of typical revenge dramas. Marlowe's were particularly popular at the time and Titus is such atypical Bard (on most every level) that I find it difficult to approach it at merely face value. I don't think it's possible to write lines like "Bear thou my hand, sweet wench, between thy teeth." with a straight face. Being a huge fan of Chan Wook-Park's Vengeance Trilogy (films) I was very much reminded of Titus Andronicus in how they seem to combine parody, genuine drama, and a healthy dose of absurdity.


I mean, plot-wise it is a revenge drama. I'm pretty sure it's purposely exaggerating the grotesque (maybe commentary on politics and war?)- after all, you have the wonderful fly death, then the scene where four people are killed consecutively by different people in the space of 2 pages- but the play is basically all about vengeance and revenge.
I'd say that it's more of a satire than a parody; there are genuine dramatic conflicts in there.

[conartist]

Has no-one, particularly Rupal, noticed that Beewulf is a little ....off...;) in his summing up of the play? I hope you checked the play out Rupal :lol:.

:lol:

Bahaha, just read that. Ophelia's 'steely sense of purpose' engourages Hamlet to kill Polonius and then at the end Hamlet sings the song Ophelia had sung at least an act ago?:blush:

Maybe try a library next time Rupal...

[Gladys]

Has no-one, particularly Rupal, noticed that Beewulf is a little ....off...;) in his summing up of the play? I hope you checked the play out Rupal :lol:.

Much obliged, Wessexgirl. So much for my skim reading of the Beewulf post.

Dunsinane Castle, indeed!

[MorpheusSandman]

I'd say that it's more of a satire than a parody; there are genuine dramatic conflicts in there.It would have to be a parody because if we are to agree that it is satirizing the grotesque then it's doing so by imitation; which makes it a parody. I do agree there are genuine dramatics but it's not impossible to mix genuine dramatics into parody.