In Act II, Hamlet is considered mad by most of his peers. Whether by Hamlet's purposeful scheming or an actual madness caused by realizing his father was murdered, he decides to act the part. Compare some of the justifications that Hamlet's family and peers use to the conclusions that they draw and the actions they plan to take. Do you think they were too quick to judge or their evidence didn't match up to their conclusions? Basically, was any argument they gave to Hamlet's madness a sound one? Were they justified in their assumptions?
If you think they were quick to act, examine any evidence you find later in the novel, and how it could have provided a better argument. If you don't, could there have been a better conclusion or course of action, taking into account the characterization of everyone involved. Consider how the course of the novel would be affected by a better course of action or a difference in plot.
And here's a sneak peek at the Spectrum's cover (which is my way of saying sorry this blog is late):
http://i39.tinypic.com/n483dw.png
10 comments:
After talking with the ghost of his father, Hamlet swears himself to avenge his father’s death. However, in order to do so without arousing suspicion to his actual motives, he resolves that he must “put an antic disposition on” (i. v. 172) to avert the attention of his family and the court to red herrings. After sending Ophelia love letters and approaching her without saying a word only to walk away, Polonius suspects that Hamlet’s actions are the direct result of “the very ecstasy of love” (ii. i. 101). However, we get the feeling that Hamlet might be fooling his peers only to divert their attention from his interior motives to kill Claudius.
Claudius, on the other hand, is a bit more confused as to why Hamlet as been so far removed from “th’ understanding of himself” (ii. ii. 9). He suspects that the cause must be something more than his father’s death; therefore, he employs Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to spy on Hamlet. Unfortunately, it seems as though Claudius’ sleight of hand only provokes Hamlet even further as he quickly becomes suspicious of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s motives. Meanwhile, Gertrude plainly admits that Hamlet is mad because of “his father’s death, and our o’erhasty marriage” (ii. ii. 57).
I don’t think that anyone was justified in the hasty nature of their accusations. It seems as though any slight behavior that is out of the ordinary is readily deemed as “mad.” Perhaps Gertrude is less guilty of such accusations because she was correct in what she says; however, her actions later in the play compromise her accuracy. If she would have been more understanding of Hamlet earlier on and tried to assist him, then things would have turned out differently. Perhaps Gertrude wouldn’t have been accidently killed and Ophelia wouldn’t have been played by Hamlet’s false acts of romance.
Wow! Gary, you have GOT to stop being so thorough in your blogging- i have nothing exciting or interesting to say.
In Act II, scene ii, Claudius and Gertrude want to uncover the true reason for Hamlet's continual anger and sadness regarding his father's death. They bring Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to Hamlet in order to help cheer up Hamlet. In this scene, Pelonius shows Claudius love letters that Hamlet has sent to Ophelia. Pelonius is convinced that Hamlet's madness stems from his love for Ophelia. This clearly shows how different people within the royal court have different opinions on Hamlet's "madness." Gertrude thinks that Hamlet is still grief stricken from his father's death, while Pelonius asserts that it is love that makes Hamlet crazy.
Perhaps Hamlet, as he asserts, is merely feigning madness. Though every character who asserts Hamlet's madness has circumstantial proof of his sanity (or lack thereof) there is no real concrete evidence that pins Hamlet to madness. Perhaps Shakespeare intended for the theme of "madness" to be ambiguous. Hamlet's behavior was really nothing too our of the ordinary. He is mourning the loss of his father, he has suspicions that his uncle killed him, and his mother just married his uncle. I feel like we just need to give poor Hamlet a break.
I need to start posting earlier in the week, those two take all the meaty facts.
Well, I was going to use the same instances as Gary and Elizabeth, so I'll just toss out my interpretation: I saw the many different conclusions being reached as a kind of grasping at straws.
Each of the characters attempted to rationalize Hamlet's behavior in a way that reflected their own guilt and shows each of them as narcissistic. Polonius believes himself and his position as the tyrant father as the cause, Claudius correctly sees the murder he committed as the cause, and Gertrude sees her hasty marriage as the cause.
Each of them is narcissistic, as is revealed by their actions, and so each of them sees themselves as the cause.
...and I just realized I got off topic.
Anyways, they reach these hasty conclusions because they are unwilling to acknowledge the elephant in the room. They each try to find rational explanations for his irrational behavior because they are unwilling to accept that Hamlet might truly be mad. In Shakespeare's time, it was seen as a great smirch on the family's honor, and it certainly would not bode well for the heir to the throne to be a madman. They were willing to accept the most outlandish of conclusions if only it proved Hamlet's sanity.
Hamlet does a fairly good job in feigning madness. There doesn't appear to be any lack of evidence in justifying the others' conclusions that Hamlet is indeed insane, for it was very clear given the conversations they would have with Hamlet. For instance, when Polonius attempts to speak with Hamlet in order to figure out the reason behind Hamlet's apparently craziness, he asks if Hamlet knows who he is. Hamlet responds, "Excellent well; you are a fishmonger." This sort of response is evidence enough of insanity if you ask me.
Hamlet really does seem to go off the deep end; by the end of the play, you can't really call it "acting" anymore. Whether it's from the strain of trying to both successfully rule a country and avenge his father's, or that Hamlet was just naturally predisposed to insanity. That seems like a Shakespeare thing, anyway. What would any famous work be without questionable craziness? Anyway, I actually feel like Hamlet's family could have called Hamlet's killing spree a little earlier, seeing as how there were a couple warning signs. When he basically accosted Opehlia might be a good one, for starters. He wasn't "crazy with love" he was just legitimately crazy! And I agree with Ray about the whole fishmonger thing; I would call that a little more than weird... The other characters could have done more as a whole to try and prevent him from going psychopath and murdering everyone. That certainly would have given a bit of a happier ending to the play.
Though I feel there is warrant to others' assumptions that Hamlet may be "mad", I do feel their judgment was hasty and incorrect. Hamlet had previously warned a few others of his upcoming imitation of madness. In addition, his radical behavior isn't all that surprising if one looks at the recent shocks he has experienced...his father's death, his mother's somewhat incestuous marriage to his uncle, discovering his father's ghost, finding out about his father's murder...all in all, Hamlet has had a lot on his plate. A little eccentric behavior would be expected in such circumstances...even if that eccentric behavior is feigning madness.
As for others assuming that Hamlet was mad- back in this time period people had trouble with the inexplicable. History has proven this again and again(example: the burning of "witches"). Madness was a more general term, encompassing "diseases" that would not warrant the term "madness" in modern times. Time has changed our perception of insanity. So, though their judgment was hasty and incorrect, it is not impossible to trace the problem (ignorance) that fed this misunderstanding of human nature.
And Gary. Seriously. STOP.
~Diana~
I really have nothing more to add because everyone already has but i'll just say what i originally would have.
In my opinion, the entire play revolves around madness. Everyone in this play does not have a real grip on reality. Hamlet pretended to be mad in order to not be so obvious about his revenge. Not only would they think him an innocent bystander, but they would also be under the impression that his mental health was not in tact. Of course everyone in the play was quick to judge, but that just reflects life. They all wanted to believe that everything would work out. Basically they were all diluted.
Hamlet may have been insane as everyone seems to believe or he may have been going through the seven stages of grief in his own manner. He seeks revenge through his ghost father's urging as means of justifying his actions. However no one else is aware of Hamlet's ordeal as he struggles with disdain for his queen mother, contempt for his king uncle, his love and inevitably the death of Ophelia. Hamlet as a play reveals each event through what could be construed as each stage of grief. The first, would be shock and denial or in Hamlet's case, the sighting of his father's ghost. He then goes through the pain and guilt of not realizing his father's fate before the ghost told him that he had been murdered. Then theres anger and bargaining, loneliness, all of which we watch Hamlet go through as he deals with various characters including Rosencrantz, Guildenstern , and Ophelia. Then as Hamlet finalizes his plan of the play, the audience sees the upward turn of reconstruction, acceptance, and hope. Although Hamlet ends as a tragedy, it seems Shakespeare provides closure with Hamlet's death after the protagonist avenges his father and can finally be with Ophelia.
Despite Hamlet's undeniable insanity, I bevlieve that the other characters were a little quick to assuming the extent to which he had lost control with his madness. Mad as he was, there was a method to it and he had control. The struggle of having to determine the validity of his "father's" ghost on top of the strained, at best, familial issues made craziness unsurprising. Reading Hamlet, it bothered me that Hamlet seemed to be the only character freaked out by the semi-incestual nature of his mother's remarriage and that there was definitely something fishy concerning the death of the King. However (i'm going off topic - the prompt's already been beaten to death anyway) I find that the separation present between Hamlet and the rest allows for the reader (or audience) to get more in touch with what Hamlet's going through, and it almost drives the audience crazy that the others don't understand. Without this alienation the audience may not be presented with such a biased view of the circumstances thus entirely altering the plot.
Hunter, super question! Participants, some outstanding comments on a very challenging play. I will let Hunter make the final comments to some individuals since he is the BLOG administrator.
Post a Comment