I have to talk about how Ophelia wasn't headstrong in the play. but I also want to explore her good attributes such as how she epitomised youth and naivety.
does anyone have any good suggestions about her character and whether or not it was headstrong?
thanks
I don't remember Ophelia being headstrong at all. If anything, she was the most passive character in the play.
However, if you're talking about whether or not she was a strong character (or woman), that's a different story. I think you can definitely make the argument that she was strong in her own way. I ran across a website that argues, interestingly, that Ophelia's madness (when she's singing and handing out flowers right before she dies) are her strongest moments:
http://www.shmoop.com/character/lite...t/ophelia.html
As for her naivete, I'm not sure that's depicted positively in the play, but you could try to interpret it that way. One way to do that would be to compare her against the other major female character, Gertrude, who was definitely neither naive or innocent.
Well, I think it's rather obvious that Ophelia wasn't headstrong, at least not during the main of the play. She let herself be used by her father and Hamlet and never spoke out. Even at the beginning when Polonius was asking her about Hamlet and their relationship, she responds by saying "I don't know what to think." Meaning, she let her father tell her what to think and do.
Some could determine that she became more headstrong when she went mad. She openly talked about obscene things such as sex. But I saw that as simply the result of the repression of all of it.
Ignore it.
I'd do a ctrl f search for ophelia in a searchable version of the play (perhaps like the one on this site) and take another look at every interaction she has. Do your homework, and let us know how it went. She is an often studied character. Depending on how your local library is organized, you might find some commentary on the play right next to where the play itself is located. A commentary might mentions something..... your teacher might like it if you show some initiative and show her what past critics have said and whether you disagree with them. Be sure to cite and support. :-D Good luck.
Told by a fool, signifying nothing.
I saw a production years ago where Ophelia was dressed in breeches and sword-fightingI can't remember who it was with, I think it was Laertes, as that would seem to be the only one who could (possibly) make sense of that idea....you know, beloved brother who could indulge her. I think it was a bit of a nonsense though. I don't think a woman then, and particularly Ophelia, would have been able to behave like that.
Before the play started, both Ophelia and Hamlet were humanists - they appreciated the potential of rational humans. This is demonstrated by Hamlet's "paragon of animals" speech and Ophelia's "noble and most sovereign reason" speech in which they mourned the humanism that Hamlet had lost. Ophelia and Hamlet didn't know why Hamlet had lost his humanism. Hamlet said "wherefore I know not." But I think the reason was that Hamlet had erased himself from the book of his brain and written his father there. Similarly, Ophelia had given her brother the key to her memory and had let her father tell her what to think.
OPHELIA
O, what a noble mind is here o'erthrown!
The courtier's, soldier's, scholar's, eye, tongue, sword;
The expectancy and rose of the fair state,
The glass of fashion and the mould of form,
The observed of all observers, quite, quite down!
And I, of ladies most deject and wretched,
That suck'd the honey of his music vows,
Now see that noble and most sovereign reason,
Like sweet bells jangled, out of tune and harsh;
That unmatch'd form and feature of blown youth
Blasted with ecstasy: O, woe is me,
To have seen what I have seen, see what I see!
HAMLET
...I have of late--but
wherefore I know not--lost all my mirth, forgone all
custom of exercises; and indeed it goes so heavily
with my disposition that this goodly frame, the
earth, seems to me a sterile promontory, this most
excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave
o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted
with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to
me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours.
What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason!
how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how
express and admirable! in action how like an angel!
in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the
world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me,
what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not
me: no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling
you seem to say so.
- Ray Eston Smith Jr
Have we any reason to believe that the playwright espouses, or is even sympathetic toward, a humanist philosophy in 'Hamlet'? I understand the play was written in the aftermath of the death of Shakespeare's father and only son.Originally Posted by Ray Eston Smith
(1) I'm not sure if I correctly used the term "humanism."
(2) I was attempting to determine the pre-play beliefs of the characters Ophelia and Hamlet, not of Shakespeare.
I believe the two speeches that I quoted reveal a lot about what Ophelia and Hamlet believed, and consequently about who they were. Especially:
"how noble in reason!"
"that noble and most sovereign reason"
I believe that the late 1500's were a time of particularly rapid transformation of values, tending to elevate reason above other values such as tradition, filial duty, feudal duty, loyalty, faith, passion, and brute strength. Philosphers were gaining status at the expense of soldiers (although that transformation is still far from complete).
This transformation is reflected in the difference between the older generation (Claudius, Hamlet Sr, Polonius) and the younger generation (Hamlet, Ophelia) before they let themselves be deprived of their "sovereignty of reason" by their "elder masters." (Here I am asserting that Shakespeare deliberately chose this as one of his main themes.)
- Ray Eston Smith Jr
The end of the 16th century corresponds to the close of the high Renaissance in Europe, and Hamlet fits the mold.
In the play, humanist ideals seem to crumble before the harsh realities of life.
"virtue cannot so inoculate our old stock but we shall relish of it"
Breaking with tradition is no easy thing.
Hamlet tried and failed but in his failure he left us a lesson and a guide to move forward.
Human reason is an admirable trait but I think there is a still nobler virtue common to all our ancestors since the primeval ooze: sheer indomitable tenacity.
Yield not thy neck
To fortune's yoke, but let thy dauntless mind
Still ride in triumph over all mischance.
(Henry VI, Part 3, Act III, Scene 3, Lines,16-18)
Ray Eston Smith Jr
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote