Prompt: Do you think Hamlet's nuts? After our discussions today I reflected back on all the commentary and all the productions I could remember, and it seems like the overwhelming majority talk about Hamlet being mad. But I still wonder whether his ability to see the ghost is commentary on Gertrude's blindness to the truth and Hamlet's ability to see right and wrong. In fact, I wonder if it's the sanest thing in the world to be freaked out by feeling obliged to kill someone, and I also still wonder about Hamlet's ability to plan and say the right things (with double meanings!) under pressure. I guess he could be an endearingly fiendish sociopath, but he seems too self-critical for that. What do you think, and what is your evidence? Especially curious about your perspectives after you read DeBoer's paper.
The character Hamlet has been described in multiple instances as a 'madman,' and as a man who 'cannot make up his mind,' while in reality he is a very meticulous and calculating person, with an ability to create a sub-persona. Throughout Act I, II, and III, Hamlet clearly depicts his abilities, not only at being precise with his words and actions, but at his ability to masquerade his thoughts and intentions. Hamlet in no instance has ever seemed 'nuts,' rather in scenes where he seems crazy, he has simply unleashed an intense and deep anger, rooted to the murder of his father. Hamlet has complete control of his mind, scared only by the presence of his task and his mother's participation or inability to see reality as shown in the first three acts.
Madman is not the correct term for the young Hamlet, rather he is a man who wishes to control his future. From the day he saw the ghost of his father and was told of the true events of his death, Hamlet has schemed to act mad, going as far as letting his two companions know that he would act strange. Hamlet has a reason behind his every action, unlike someone who if lunatic would act irrational. Hamlet's first plan of tricking those around him to conclude that he is crazy worked because of his commitment to a character, his sub-persona. His anger fueled this action, the first part of his major scheme to murder Claudius. In scenes where Hamlet seems completely lunatic, such as the scene in Gertrude's closet, Hamlet is only releasing his immense anger. In this particular scene Hamlet allows his intense feelings to overtake him, for a moment seeming irrational. However, if analyzed correctly it is easily noticeable that Hamlet is releasing his bottled up emotions, while also attempting to figure out his mother's participation in Old Hamlet's death. All of Hamlet's movements and actions are calculated, except for Polonius' death. The death of this man was simply an accident, Hamlet mistook him for Claudius, and seizing the opportunity to turn his words into actions, Hamlet struck.
Hamlet's task to kill a man would drive any normal person insane. Hamlet handles the task, of keeping his intentions and thoughts secret, quite well. To some he may seem like a sociopath, or guilty of premeditated murder, but he only wants to correct the unfair instances that have occurred. His inability to kill Claudius at first shows his sanity. Hamlet realizes that his actions are not morally correct, which may have fueled his idea to act mad. This realization shows his sanity, his unwillingness to kill Claudius, no matter what the ghost said or told him to do, depicts that he has not been crazed with anger.
Hamlet is not a cold-blooded killer, rather he seeks revenge for his father's life, a man who was his idol, he seeks retribution for the mistakes his mother made towards his father, and overall, he hopes to end the life of the man that completely ruined and destroyed his. Although the death of his father caused him trauma, and the quick remarriage of his mother furthered it, Hamlet is not crazed, not by anger nor by love. Hamlet is simply a young boy angered by the unfair cards he has been dealt, especially with the perfect life he used to have.
No comments:
Post a Comment