Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
Hmmmm....could you elaborate?
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
Hmmmm....could you elaborate?
I’ll try but I don’t think it’ll do much good because I don’t share the belief, very well represented in many contributions on Hamlet here on the forum, that he’s a miserable ditherer who needs a good slap to make him quit his moaning and appreciate what he’s got.Quote:
Originally Posted by gsingle33
The phrase, ‘perpetual witness’ comes from Saul Bellow – used to describe Moses Herzog. It conveys his sense of seeing with great clarity, yet not being able to switch off from, the endless parade of viciousness, evil, banality and crassness that is the life going on all around us.
On another thread, Hamlet’s so-called delay in killing Claudius is offered as evidence of one of his ‘tragic flaws’. In that thread, I asked, “Hamlet doesn’t act? What should he do? Kill someone? Why?”
It’s as if they believe that had Hamlet simply taken a sword to Claudius, the questions he raises would go away.
I think there seems to be an assumption that anyone with any sense would just get on with it, presumably like Laertes, who is prepared to kill someone without any thought. He’s prepared to kill Claudius simply on the basis of initially assuming that he’s responsible for his father’s death. The fact that Hamlet thinks profoundly about the meaning and implications of such actions (and I’m not simply saying that he considers the morality of murder by saying this) makes him ‘wet’ for a lot of people. The one time he does act without “thinking too precisely”, he ends up killing Polonius. A number of my students over the years have complained that ‘he thinks too much’, preferring such an explanation to admitting that it’s they who don’t think enough. Hamlet exposes aspects of our behaviour and asks questions that many would prefer to ignore, or simply don’t see. They distract us from the real business of life, whatever they assume that to be.
Hamlet’s ‘problem’ is that he thinks and feels. No one in the play can see the beauty, splendour and grandeur of life as he can (“this majestical roof fretted with golden fire”). However, no one is so paralysed by the other side of the coin, either. I love the idea that a mere character who thinks more than anyone on this entire forum could benefit from the homespun advice of those with all the answers.
It’s easier to consider him insane than it is to address his observations.
Bertrand Russell said that most people would die rather than think. Most people do.
I agree with most of what you said. Just a couple of points to fire back...
I partially disagree . I think there are others in the play who think and feel (perhaps only because Hamlet incites them to it, and there is definitely less thinking than feeling is going on). For instance, Claudius feels remorse for his actions, but cannot force himself to relinquish the gains "for which [he] did the murder" and therefore must continue down the damned path knowing his end will be in Hell. Of course, this may not have come to pass at all if 'The Mousetrap' had not been put on. He may have gone about his business with the crown and the queen without much thought toward his actions in acquiring them. Another example that you brought up is Laertes. He obviously feels the loss of his sister and his father, so much so that his desire for revenge would prompt him to "cut [Hamlet's] throat i' th' church" without thought (or perhaps care) for his own damnation at such an act. He then quells his own emotions in order to exact his revenge and become the "organ" of Hamlet's death. If that is not an expression of thought, I don't know what to call it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
My theory (and I may be splitting hairs here) is that Hamlet's problem is his view of the wider issue, the wider world outside of his own circumstances. Everyone else in the play narrowly percieves their own lives, but do not necessarily connect to the larger picture. Personally, I trace that back to his education. Without Wittenburg, Hamlet might have been more like Fortinbras: seeing what he wanted and taking steps to acheive it. I doubt Fortinbras would have thought about all the soldiers who were to die for "a little patch of ground," but Hamlet probably would have considered their lives, their families, and their friends. This is not a flaw.
I also think it is easier to consider him "a man who could not make up his mind" than to consider the possiblity of the human race reaching Hamlet's level of contemplation. Some would react with, "We would never get anything done if that were the case." Well, if 'anything' really means what we do without thought or care for the larger picture (war, consumption, blind acceptance, etc.), which is probably somewhere near 80% of what we do during any given day, then I'm quite alright with that scenario and frankly consider it something of an ideal.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
Is this a duel? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by gsingle33
I didn’t say that no one else feels. I was simply pointing out that Hamlet is far more appreciative of the world around him than many readers/viewers seem to assume. Look at his ‘What a piece of work is a man” speech. He can see what few others either can or choose to.Quote:
Originally Posted by gsingle33
HAMLET:
To what base uses we may return, Horatio! Why may
not imagination trace the noble dust of Alexander,
till he find it stopping a bung-hole?
HORATIO:
'Twere to consider too curiously, to consider so.
Of course they would – it’s part of our conditioning. I don’t think of Hamlet as “a man who could not make up his mind”.Quote:
Originally Posted by gsingle33
I don’t understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that you accept that we don’t think most of the time?Quote:
Originally Posted by gsingle33
I'm curious as to what definition of madness you are using. Clearly, it isn't the one I mentioned, but I am curious all the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
Okay, so, as stated I define 'madness' as the state when emotion overpowers reason; when one let's their feelings get the better of them. I believe that, in the nunnery scene, Hamlet's emotions did get the better of him. He was fairly civil to Ophelia, at first. He begins to get angry, and asks her again, give her one last chance "Where is your father". When Ophelia answers the Claudius is at home- and I belive that Hamlet, of course, knew this to be a lie- Hamlet flips, gets angry, and yells at Ophelia more then he had intended to. It is temporary madness, true, but it is madness all the same.
So madness can be defined as 'losing one's temper under provocation'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Empress Kat
When I hear Hamlet described as ‘mad’, I assume it to mean something more than extreme anger. I take it to mean that he has completely lost all reason and can no longer be viewed as having any legitimate claim to speaking sense. What most of my students mean when they describe him as 'mad' is that he asks questions that they consider irrelevant and meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Empress Kat
Sorry, don't think I came off very clearly before. I was mostly agreeing with what you said and expanding on it a bit. I thought perhaps you were insinuating that other characters in the play do not think.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
And yes, I do accept that we do not think most of the time. It seems to be a sadly evident fact.
Now it's my turn to aplogise for not making myself clear. By 'accept' I meant 'consider it okay' but your calling it a 'sadly evident fact' shows that you don't accept it in the sense I meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by gsingle33
[COLOR=Royal Blue]Hey Guys...A few quick things-I'm new to this forum, I'm from Queensland Australia, I'm open-minded and I enjoy critically analysing shakespeare's work (especially 'Hamlet').
And I, like alot of the other people asking questions on this forum are studying Hamlet at school (yr 12), and I'm in the process of writing up an adaptation to Hamlet (That's how I came across the interesting forum)!
...This particular thread that I've been following, which talks about the subject of 'madness' and how well it correlates to Hamlet himself, has sparked my interest quite abit. I agree to the notion that Hamlet was not mad although he portrays being it brilliantly. I believe that he still has his wits about him, and I further believe that Hamlet himself takes a very critical eye to the world around him...which I find really cool.
So, MY question is...'Is it possible to position an audience to believe that Hamlet WAS actually mad?' This would be a hard thing to do I believe, but anyone who know's alot about 'Hamlet' and is able to deconstruct it, should be able to have the creative ability to argue that Hamlet WAS infact mad...mad as in 'lost in his own world', 'lost ability to reason', and in a more accurate case, perhaps 'paranoia' through thinking that the people around him are part of a filthy conspiracy.
To cut right to the chase though, I'm after someone who can willingly offer me some insite of what quotes, lines, or inferences I could perhaps use from Hamlet, to support IN FAVOUR of the idea that HAMLET IS MAD...
Can anyone help me? I'm very eager to hear any feedback.
Thanks
SIHAc
P.s pronounced 'Sigh-hack'...as in the 'periodic table of elements Si H and Ac'...lol....their atomic numbers' are 14 01 89..as in 14th Jan 89-my birthday!!
SIHAc,
This is very difficult – in my case you are asking me to offer evidence that supports a view of Hamlet I simply don’t accept. He isn’t any madder than I am (no, wait a minute, that’s not the best way to convince people here, is it?). I did see the Mark Rylance performance years ago –the one where Rylance’s Hamlet spent most of the play in his pyjamas. He was on the verge of a breakdown the whole time but this just added to my sense of his vulnerability as a sensitive, thinking human being stuck in a crass and vicious world. He’s not so much lost in his own world as lost in their world (which I’m sure most of us feel about ourselves at times).
However, if you really want to suggest that he’s lost his ability to reason, you could look at the scene with his mother in Act 3 scene 4. His monomaniacal obsession with his mother’s sexual behaviour with Claudius takes him into areas that border on insanity, I suppose. His language does suggest that he has a rather unhealthy view of sex, to say the least:
“but to live
In the rank sweat of an enseamed bed,
Stew'd in corruption, honeying and making love
Over the nasty sty,--“
It is obviously significant that the Ghost returns at this point and reminds Hamlet that he’s straying ‘off topic’. :lol:
But then he is still rational enough to make the following point to Gertrude:
“Mother, for love of grace,
Lay not that mattering unction to your soul,
That not your trespass, but my madness speaks:”
A few lines later, he shows that he is almost like a child. The following argument is unconvincing to anyone with much experience. It’s a naivety similar to when a child asks, “why can’t we share all the food so that there would be no more starving people?”
“Refrain to-night,
And that shall lend a kind of easiness
To the next abstinence: the next more easy;”
Earlier in the play (Act 1 sc. 5), there is Hamlet’s behaviour after meeting the Ghost. Horatio is a good sort and even he is somewhat alarmed:
“These are but wild and whirling words, my lord.”
That’s about all I can manage for now.
The Unnamable,
Thanks for you reply. When I sent the message out in the first place, I realised that I would be challenging the views of many people, as you pointed out. But I appreciate the insite you gave me and I'm sure it would be very helpful in my upcoming play for English.
The context of my play is going to involve (hopefully) Hamlet visiting a shrink, where Hamlet argues that he is sane, where as the psychologist tries to convince Hamlet to see that he is actually mad-A tough thing to prove, but i like the challenge and the idea of going against the homogeny of thought (that hamlet was just feining madness).
Thanks again, and I hope we can consult eachother more often in time, on our shared notions of Hamlet's character.
Sihac.
Hamlet is human. Sanity is, in its entirety, a relative concept. In relation to you or me is Hamlet sane? Most people would believe no, though they may say otherwise, and even think otherwise, cosmetically. He acts like a lunatic in public. So have I, and no doubt so have you. He is ambivalent toward Ophelia. I have heard a number of arguments made to prove that he does indeed love her. The fact remains that he does not trust her, and whether this is neurotic paranoia or lucid caution has no impact on the meaning: there can be no love without trust. He balks at avenging his father. These misteps either occur before he has proof of his uncle's villainy, or at times he rationalizes as imperfect opportunities. Hamlet's perceived sanity or lack thereof is contingent on the audience and how he or she relates to Hamlet. A better question would be; are you sane? Explain why or why not. Define sanity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leper
Leper,
Wow, you put forward a very interesting and thought-out point. And i see how it is very noticeable in the play with each of the characters. Your message made me think about another topic though too. How is it that Hamlet trusts this ghost with ownly minor questioning, and completely distrusts Ophelia when he thinks she's against him even though with her is where most of his trust should lie? He had more solid reasons for trusting her than this 'ghost who too the image of his father'.
It's odd to me. :confused:
A very complex character he is.
Thanks for your reply Leper
SiHac
It's ironic that I'm critcal analysing English, yet I only seem to be able to write like Yoda would speak. lol