Madness or madness? 

As we have been reading Hamlet in class and Invisible Man at home, I noticed an interesting connection between the two. Oftentimes, the idea of madness is present within a variety of literary works. Sometimes, the idea is directly present within the novel. Other times, the reader himself begins to question the mental state of a particular character or the reliability of a certain narrator. In both of these literary works, I was interested to find the ambiguity of madness as an overarching theme - particularly regarding the character of Hamlet in the end of Act 1 and the narrator in the prologue. 

What do you think of when you hear the word "madness?" It is most typically associated with feelings of mental stress and instability. But in today's world, "mad" can refer to a variety of feelings including anger, frustration, misunderstanding, disappointment, craziness, adoration, etc. All the meanings and connotations of the word "mad" create a word that may not always connote something negative - but it certainly does not always connote something positive. Though the idea of being "mad" is present in both Hamlet and Invisible Man, I think the two pieces approach the idea in very different manners, giving the two pieces two distinct personalities. 

In Hamlet, there is much direct talk of madness. When Hamlet sees his father's ghost beckoning towards him, his guards warn him that following such an apparition may lead to his own madness. This is supposed to have a negative connotation - implying that madness comes from the result of something evil and mysterious. After his father's ghost reveals to him the truth of Claudius' lies and deceit, Hamlet promises himself to dedicate himself to his father's cause, and tells himself he must "put an antic disposition on." This may mean he wants to appear fanatic and crazy to everyone else: something we hear about when Ophelia speaks of his behavior. His odd and fanatic behavior come across to Ophelia as scary, she even claims that she was frightened. Again, this gives more of a negative connotation to the idea of "madness." The only time "madness" is seen as somewhat positive is when Polonius claims that Hamlet must be madly in love with Ophelia (as a result of hearing about Hamlet's strange behavior in his last encounter with Ophelia). But even then, Hamlet's supposed madness comes across as frightening, and something that has come into being as a result of something evil. 

In Invisible Man, the idea of madness is not clearly stated - but I definitely got some sense instability from our narrator's introduction, particularly in the prologue. After I read the prologue, which is actually the narrator speaking in the present time I came to the conclusion that the narrator underwent some pretty dark and life changing things to appear so pompous, strange, and careful all at the same time. He came across to me as crazy in a different way - his room filled with over a thousand lightbulbs and his quickly changing discussion of topics definitely indicate something a little off about the narrator. He's mad and I don't think he even realizes. Although the prologue doesn't give a distinctly negative connotation to madness, it does not give a positive one either. This left me, and without a doubt, many others very confused - something I believe was intentional. I think this literary work played more on the confusion and mystery surrounding madness, whereas Hamlet plays more on the mental instability and the whole idea of seems vs. is when it comes to madness. 

The different ideas of madness that were portrayed in Hamlet and Invisible Man brought about the question of what truly defines madness. Could Hamlet and the narrator really be mad? Are they aware of their behavior? Or are they simply not mad at all? Questions I will definitely be keeping in mind as I continue reading.