Angst, angst, and more angst! Typical Hamlet, right?
Well…what is ‘typical’ Hamlet really? In the Act II Scene 2
soliloquy alone, Hamlet adopts a plethora of roles, many which are
contradicting. He is both a “rogue” and royal heir to the throne. He is
simultaneously a “peasant slave”and controller of his own fate. He is a “muddy-mettled
rascal,” a “John-a-dreams,” a “villain,”and a “whore.” Oh, and don’t forget he’s
an “ass” too!
But Hamlet’s also the “son of a dear father murdered”. He’s
at times passionate, and at times reasonable. He questions and he answers.
And at his core beneath all the ambiguity, Hamlet will
always only be a character on a page or on a stage—no real, physical “Hamlet”
exists. Hamlet acts (see what I did there?) more as a symbol than as a specific
character meant to drive a plot. Therefore, Hamlet is a representation of all humanity
through which Shakespeare can criticize all the real people who fail to live
any more sincerely than the character he has created.
By giving Hamlet a spectrum of tones within one literary
moment, Shakespeare highlights the fickleness of human emotion. Hamlet begins
the soliloquy lamenting, crying that he cannot act as well as an actor, even within
a reality where he is not simply reading lines. Interpreting this section through
the lens of my claim (Hamlet is a symbol of all humanity) leads me to believe
that human beings ironically cannot seem to act as genuinely within their daily
lives as those who have been assigned parts in a play.
After the lamenting tone, Hamlet seems more rational,
asking himself questions of ‘what the actor would do’ that he answers
logically. Hamlet then sweeps into a section full of passion that culminates in
primal sounds such as “Fie upon’t, foh!...Hum.” Instead of reaching a rational
conclusion through his roller-coaster introspection, Hamlet defers his thought
with guttural sounds, and settles upon using a mousetrap play to decide the
biggest decision of his life. Ultimately, through all the mixed-up feelings and
all the different shapes our personalities can take on, Hamlet—and everyone
else on the world’s stage—cannot overcome the boundary of “acting” in order to
live without undermining our own integrities.
I think it's really interesting that all those contradictions exist within the soliloquy (I didn't catch all the opposites!) but I find your point about Hamlet being a universal symbol of humanity a little hard to believe. All characters are supposed to represent some type of real person, so how can Hamlet encapsulate all the characters and the type of people they represent when he is diametrically opposed to so many of them?
ReplyDeleteJanis, I loved your voice in your blog post. I think your observations about the contradictions was great and did support your claim well. You capture Hamlet's "different" tones well. I think your claim was pretty provocative since you're basically saying that Hamlet represents "all humanity". I think your concluding sentence is a more specific claim that could have been introduced earlier in your blog.
ReplyDeleteI understand how Hamlet's somewhat schizophrenic behavior would lead you to interpret him as a microcosm of humanity as a whole, but I ultimately agree with Taylor. I think the many facets of Hamlet's personality ultimately make him an extremely specific character, rather than an all-encompassing one.
ReplyDeleteYour sass has reached a new level, and I commend you, young grasshopper. You are learning well, and are an inspiration to us all.
ReplyDeleteJokes aside, this is awesome. You dare to make this a huge broad claim about humanity (all of it!), but instead of turning it into a cliche, you make it into a really well-constructed and well-developed self-reflexive exercise.
...I honestly can't think of anything to challenge about this. So seriously, good job.