At first,
Hamlet was nothing more than a slur of words put together that, to some, was a work of literary genius. I did not see the attraction, however. I could not grasp anything that was going on, and for the most part picked out the overall message and theme. After making way through the book, however, I began to appreciate the novel, page-by-page, and understood what the rave was about. In
Hamlet, and presumably his other works, Shakespeare employs many intricate, albeit gruesome themes and scenes, through his thoughtful, well-written acts. The writing is what is most intriguing to me about Shakespeare's works. The tediousness that Shakespeare uses in
Hamlet is evident within his work. I really enjoy having to contemplate what I just read, finding the deeper meaning within his comprehensive sentences. In
Hamlet there is plenty of room to be able to do this. Shakespeare's word choice and sentence formation is unrivaled in modern literature.
Although I like Shakespeare's writing, his story line is hard to accept. The number of people that are offed seems to be almost too much. In the last scene, we see the end of most of the major characters of the play. Could this be because Shakespeare needed to end the play in tragedy form, or did he just get bored and found an end to his extensive play? Was this the norm for the time? I'm sure whatever the reason, it was a good reason. This does not, however, satisfy my need for an ending. To me, it just seemed like there was too much death, and not enough happiness. Shakespeare could have done many other things with the characters at the end, but instead found it easier to simply kill all of them.
Nonetheless, I truly enjoyed this play. Many aspects of this play are very admirable in the literary world, and there is no wonder in my mind why Hamlet is revered in the literary world.
7 comments:
Keegan,
I will agree that Shakespeare is unmatched in the literary world. I feel the reason he killed everyone off at the end of the play was not due to laziness and a want to end the play, but more to serve as a point. Perhaps he was pointing out that life is unfair and throws many unexpected events at you. Maybe he was showing that many events in life are painful. I do admit, however, that it is quite corny to kill every single major character, with the exception of Horatio.
Keegan,
I'm glad to hear that you enjoyed the play. Perhaps Shakespeare was endeavoring to make a statment about hesitation using death. Had Hamlet acted sooner and murdered Claudius earlier, perhaps all the death could have been avoided. (Then again, by doing this Shakespeare would have effectively removed a bulk of the play, refer to my blog) Dunno.
JZ
But why didn't he kill off Horatio? Was he the purest at heart and untainted by the deeds of others?
Keegan:
Well, I do agree that it almost seems that too many people die in this play. But think of the times, there were many contributions to death, and the life expectancy was very low. There was the plague, which killed 28% of the population. There was poverty, which ultimately led to death by famine, or some other sort of disease, and also like we experience in the novel, senseless war over nothing but some territory, which someone wouldnt farm for five duckets. I would say, that its safe to say, that Shakespeare had lots of death and loss in his play because it was suiting to the time.
Trevor:
While I agree with you, the people that we watched throughout the course of this book were royalty. They were some of the most important people in that area of the time. They generally were immune from the epics that plagued the commoners.
While i think you do have a good point, i disagree that the large number of deaths was a tacked on as a false ending. i think that it is actually a very strong ending in which Shakespear points out that no matter how hard you try to fight for some great goal (Claudius works to become the king, Hamelet works to prove the king is guilt of murder and eventually kill him, at the end Laertes works to get revenge on Hamlet) death is ultimatly inevitable and is a great equalizer. The multitude of deaths at the end only serve to amplify, what i believe, to be a central theme. The characters were used to a good extent and the ending was a final and good conclusion to the play. I don't think the characters could have been used in a better way, and while it is easier to kill them all off it serves to put a great emphisis on whatever the central theme is.
Post a Comment