Hamlet- Early Discussions
Happy New Year! Hamlet is due tomorrow, wich means across Moorestown tens of Laz students are forcing themselves to sit down and read some classic Billy Shakes (holla Mrs. Holtry-Hughes!). This post is to get the conversation started: plot questions, quote discussions, and maybe a historical note or two.
-jacob
ps- uhh, poison in the ear? Is this even possible?
-jacob
ps- uhh, poison in the ear? Is this even possible?
posted by L Lazarow | 5:18 PM
13 Comments:
also...
today towards the end of class we were discussing hamlet, his actions, if he is morally sound, etc. after he kills Polonius, he calls Polonius a fool and just lectures his mother on her mistakes. he doesn't seem to be upset after murdering an innocent man..and after all, isn't this why he is so furious with claudius in the first place?
today in class we discussed how Hamlet is constantly trying to show intellectual superiority. Doesn't this reflect that he isn't mad at all? Or does he sacrifice this in order to show madness... i didn't think he did the latter.
So I just typed out a really long response, and then deleted it trying to log in/remember my password... Awesome.
Jacob-
Yeah, I definately thought this one had a lot more wordplay and clever puns, and genuinely enjoyed it. I'd guess it can be chalked up to what we were discussing in class today- Hamlet's cynical, sharp wit he uses almost as a defense mechanism to make himself sound smarter than those around him. I think we hinted at it a little bit, but does anybody else think Hamlet seemed pretty insecure?
Carolyn-
I saw that sudden shift to almost prose, also. It really stood out, even in how it was laid out on the page. I don't have any real ideas as to why, though...
Christine-
I don't think Hamlet's lack of remorse is a contradiction, as you seem to suggest. I actually think it makes perfect sense, if you consider that he probably would have seen Polonius as an ally to Claudius, the one he hated so much. By spying on him, he would have probably assumed that Polonius was against him and would stand in the way of his revenge, and therefore was an obstacle that needed to be removed.
I do agree this justifies that Hamlet wasn't morally sound, however. I don't think anyone who can rationalize the murder of a relatively innocent man really has that strong a moral compass. But hey, maybe that's just me.
One more thing...
And to Charlotte, I guessed that Hamlet was so smug that acting insane around other people would have reinforced his own belief that he was smarter than everyone. As in "Hey, look how smart I am! I tricked all these people into thinking I'm crazy. Suckers. I'm so great."
I'm not sure, but to me Hamlet seems like the type where that kind of self assurance would be just as valuable, if not more so, than convincing other people how smart he was.
Whew, lots of writing... And to think, I could be off doing fun stuff like studying for Gawain. Ugh.
christine
I find the situation not to be hypocritical. He is mad at Cladius for killing his father, which is much more personal then for Cladius just having killed an innocent man. Also, Cladius probably had devious motives for the murder, such as wanting to seize power, whereas Hamlet thinks he is murdering Cladius in a dishonest act of spying on the conversation between him and his mother.
I looked up the origin of the name "Ophelia" and this is what I found:
Greek: Ophis, "Serpent"
Greek: Ophelos, "Help"
The serpent was an ancient insignia for wisdom. A serpent with its tail in its mouth symbolized eternity, that is, no beginning or end.
The meaning "help" seems quite obviously relevant to the text, considering Ophelia's insanity and helplessness in her role as a young woman. "Serpent," when meaning "wisdom," seems somewhat paradoxical (because of her naivte) but the eternity symbolism may be significant (cycle of life and death, "dust to dust," as in the scene in which Hamlet talks about the dust of Alexander the Great and Caesar continuing to serve a purpose after their deaths.)
Anyway, I thougth that might be interesting to discuss in class.
More about Ophelia...
In class Laz said that Ophelia has to die and Hamlet has to realize that it is partly his fault.
At the funeral Hamlet grieves and says how much he too loved Ophelia. Would this, then, go hand in hand with the version that it is possible that Ophelia and Hamlet could get married? Or is this just a representation of Hamlet's madness?
I didn't really take it to be Hamlet's madness that made him say he truly loved Ophelia. Maybe he genuinely did, or maybe he was just overcome with emotion upon realizing she died beacuse of him. That's my best guess.
At the end of class today we were talking about Hamlet's realization after the graveyard scene, his acceptance that everyone dies and that if it's his time to go, it's his time to go. That's why he went into the sword fight so willingly. It seemed strange to me, though, that he was never able to look backwards and apply that to his father. He never thought "Yes it's tragic that he died, but everyone has their time and I can't dwell on this forever."
My best explanation for this was that it was a kind of tragic heroic flaw. He gained new knowledge through his journey, but he wasn't able to apply it to the rest of his life because he couldn't get over the past. Any other thoughts?
I have a question about why Claudius sent Hamlet to England to be killed. Was it because he felt that Hamlet was going to be the downfall of his kingdom (looking out for the state) or that Claudius felt threatened that Hamlet was on to Hamlet Sr.'s murder (looking out for himself)?
Ellie-
Cladius may have sent Hamlet to England so that the event occured away from home, and was perhaps less shocking to the people who had already lost their king. There also was probably a less of a chance that Cladius could be linked to the demise.
side question:
Why was Hamlet Jr. well liked by the people of Denmark?
Yeah, I'd agree that shipping Hamlet off to England was just a good move all around, from the king's perspective.
So not to take away from Matt's presentation today, which was awesome by the way, but... Do you guys agree that it was one of Hamlet's overriding goals to become king? I don't really recall him thinking that too much, and we discussed all his self doubt so I don't think he'd believe he could handle it. Maybe that's strictly a useful interpretation for an actor or something.
Yeah, ears come up a few times in the text in rather interesting ways. In the letter Hamlet sends to Horatio in Act 4 scene 6, he says " I have words to speak in thine ear that will make thee dumb."
I feel like the ear poison makes the crime seem much more sinister. Like Sadaf said, it connotes the idea of lies. To me, this implies that there was once trust there which has been broken. Combine that with the fact that poison is traditionally considered one of the most cowardly form of murder, and you have a very sinister deed.
Plus, the image of some dude hunched over you pouring poison in your ear... that's just creepy.
Ruby,
As we've said in class, Laertes, though trying to avenge his father's death which is noble, does so in the least noble way possible, poison and trickery. To me Hamlet shows extreme maturity, much more than Laertes, for planning a plot for Claudius' demise and for following through in it so that it will be done in a just way (ie. not killing him while in prayer) If Hamlet were immature, he probably would have killed Cladius in prayer, which also would have been a young, rash act. Since we are attracted to Hamlet, Laertes is also given a somewhat negative connotation in the beginning of the play when he sets Ophelia against Hamlet's love rather than encouraging her to accept it.
Post a Comment
<< Home