Tuesday, March 3, 2009
hesitation
throughout the play i was very annoyed with Hamlet's inability to make decisions. A great amount of the play was just him thinking about what to do. In my opinion, it was much too long and could have been more enjoyable without someo fthe pointless seeming dialogue. Hamlet does think too much. Given the circumstances i'd think there would not be another option besides revenge. I guess i feel that the story is somewhat weak in that regard, also it does nothing for me to know that these events about a real place have fake characters and they didnt really happen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Would you rather have read a play filled with action but no substance? Shakespeare was out to stimulate the mind's of his audience, unlike Hollywood's directors who veer towards creating cheesy, simply entertaining plots that have no intellectual depth. The poetic and figurative nature of Shakespeare's writing has never been replicated and should be appreciated to the fullest, he didn't need fake double D's and ridiculous special effects to captivate and stimulate his audience.
yeah, i get what you mean. i guess to me this story has no substance because of Hamlet's sort of immaturity. He shouldn't have been kinga nyways because he lacks the ability to lead. but yeah i agree with waht you are saying, but ot some extent, shakespeare was trying to accomidate to the popular audience of the time.
Shawn:
I would have to agree that Shakespeare does seem to base this play around one simple theme, but isn't that how most novels work? They generally expound on one simple theme or idea, using myriad scenes and events to support this theme or idea. It is hard to attack Shakespeare in this regard. As for the 'pointless dialogue': this, in my opinion, is some of the most eloquently written stories what we have read thus far in Lavender's classes. Although it may be difficult and boring, once you get past the preconceived notions of this writing, it can become a lot more enjoyable.
Shawn,
It seems that Hamlet's hesitation and thought is the mark of an intelligent man, rather than a kind of immaturity as you believe. Yes, because he was unable to act and kill Claudius for much of the play, but if the ghost had not come to Hamlet and tell him that Claudius killed his father, Hamlet wouldn't have known for sure, and might have killed an innocent man. Some of the dialog does seem pretty pointless, but it is necessary for without it, we would not have the background that we do, and we would not know for sure if Claudius killed Hamlet's father.
I feel that if Hamlet would have taken action earlier on in the story, the outcome would have been drastically less tragic. I'm not saying he should of taken revenge and killed his uncle, I'm just saying he should of dealt with the problem before it got worse. He could of saved all of those who died throughout the story.
Shadespeare's writing is some of the most elequent writing known to man. It can be difficult, and I see your point on how it can be seen as pointless, but the only pointless dialogue that I see, is when Polonius is instructing Reynaldo to go and spy on Laertes and see what he's up to. The only reason that I can see for it is to show that Polonius doesn't completely trust Laertes, but then that distrust isn't built upon.
I do agree that the sense of hesitation shows a lack of maturity but I also believe that it reveals Hamlet's compassionate side and almost rational side. Despite all the anger he feels toward the King for killing his father, the fear of the consequence is what stops him. Shakespeare could be trying to create suspense and I feel that without the hesitation Hamlet's insanity isn't looked upon as much and that hesitance is necessary to show the composure Hamlet can hold. Although, it was very eloquently written and "beautiful" I cannot understand Shakespeare very well. I'll stick to Woolf...
Post a Comment