Hamlet: The End

While reading Hamlet, our class discussed a variety of motifs, themes, and interpretations of the text. While discussing these varying topics, we came up with numerous questions and possible answers, yet one question remained the same throughout the play. What is the "so what" of this play? What is the underlying idea that Shakespeare was trying to relay through this play? While reading it, I was never able to answer the question. Now that we have finished, I have a possible theory that I have devised aided by the text and action that takes place in the final scene. 

The "to be or not to be" speech is one of the most popular and famous lines in Shakespearean literature today. In this speech, Hamlet poses a question that is extremely central to the development of his character and to the development of this play as a whole. Should he simply "be" and accept his fate and destiny that will come? Or should he "not be" and end his own life before facing the suffering and struggling that he will be afflicted with if he continues to "be" and simply live his life? Interestingly, this is a question that haunts humanity to this very day. What is the point of caring about our lives when they are filled with nothing but grief and despair? Is there really any meaning to our lives? 

I think the ending of this play is very important in showing us the answer to these questions. In Hamlet and Horatio's intimate conversation towards the end of the play, Hamlet tells Horatio, "Let be." And in essence, this answers everything. I think Hamlet is aware that he will be meeting his inevitable fate, whether it is simply pain or complete death he is not ware, but he is ready to accept it honorably. When Hamlet meets his death, it is interesting to note that his last words speak, "the rest is silence." Shakespeare almost seems to implying that the only real release is actually in accepting death - accepting that one will meet his downfall. "Silence," in my opinion, connotes peace and almost a sense of quiet acceptance. Perhaps one is only at "rest" when they have reached complete "silence" - meaning death. 

At the end, when all the characters - Hamlet, Ophelia, Gertrude, Claudius, Polonius, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern have met their deaths, Horatio remains to perhaps live on as Hamlet's spirit - to give truth to the world. It's interesting that all the truth comes out to the world AFTER all of these characters are dead. This goes to show that the truth only comes out after one reaches their death. It is only after death, that Denmark was able to become pure and new again with the reign of the new King, Fortinbras. I think Shakespeare was trying to show that as humans, it is inevitable that we accept our fates. These fates will inevitably be flawed and painful simply because that is the course of humanity. Shakespeare is trying to show that there will always be these sorts of ethical dilemmas that haunt humans in our lives and inflict pain and suffering upon us - but can it be any other way? 

Perhaps, death is indeed our true release. 

Hamlet as a Philosopher

Reading Hamlet, and identifying Hamlet as a character allows for a variety of interpretations. What is his role in the play? Is he good or evil? Sane or insane? Hero or villain? In our recent group discussions, my group discussed Hamlet as a philosopher. We definitely discussed some interesting ideas, helped by our classmates. 

There were some contrasting views in our class, as well as in our smaller group. One comment found on our big poster concerning Hamlet said: "His tendency to THINK keeps him from ACTING." This is a very clever point to make - often we witness Hamlet contemplating things in a very calculated and logical manner - but by doing so, he stalls the moment many of the readers are expecting or waiting for. This is evident in his idea to put on a play to verify whether Claudius is guilty, and is it also apparent in his decision to wait to kill Claudius at a time in which he is not "praying." This brings in the question: Is Hamlet's tendency to think an advantage or disadvantage to him in the play? 

Discussing this question with my group, we found that there were varying responses to this important question. Some of us agreed that Hamlet's tendency to think was a true advantage - he exists as a sort of moral judge in this play. His ability to stay precise and determined in the situation that he is put in speaks a lot about his character. There are moments of intimate weakness in the play - yet he continues to remain logical and pragmatic. In his famous "To be or not to be" I found this very evident. I saw this speech as Hamlet's contemplation of suicide - he was alone and he was weak. Yet he still has the mind to contemplate as a philosopher would saying, "...ay, there is the rub, for in that sleep of death what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil must give us pause." There is significance in this scene, and in my view, it only adds to the idea that Hamlet is not mad - he is sane and he is vigilant and alert of his surroundings. He knows how humans work and he recognizes their unpredictability, thus finding it necessary to remain calm, collected, and certain of Claudius' guilt. Additionally, Hamlet shows moments of both intellectual and philosophical brilliance throughout the novel. In another moment of despair, Hamlet claims, "...what is this quintessence of dust?" His words often serve as a sort of intellectual isolation, and this point of view shows existentialism before it even existed! Another such quote I liked very much was, "Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so." Hamlet recognizes the power of perception and illusion - his discoveries and knowledge portray him as a character of much higher intellect than those surrounding him in the play.

As some of us found it an advantage, others found Hamlet's constant tendency to think a disadvantage. Not only does his thinking cause him delay in his purpose, but it also hurts many of those around him [Gertrude and Ophelia]. When Hamlet makes the decision to not kill Claudius at that particular time, he loses out on the opportunity we have all been waiting for. Some people thought that his ability to think did not make him a philosopher - he simply has random moments of strength and weakness and lets them guide his very actions. This can relate to the idea of another interpretation of Hamlet: Hamlet as a coward. Does Hamlet actually know he is doing? Is he simply a slave of his own constantly changing thoughts? A member of my group mentioned the significance of the ghost that comes to remind Hamlet of his true purpose while he is denouncing his mother. Is Hamlet truly the "good" and "moral" person here? One comment left on the poster read: "He actually killed Polonius, killed with a knife." I thought this was an extremely interesting take on Hamlet as a philosopher. Is he even a philosopher? Shouldn't someone that was is as logical and clear minded as Hamlet have waited long enough to confirm that Polonius was Claudius before killing him? 

Thinking of Hamlet as a philosopher brings in a lot of questions regarding his nature and character in the play. I think it's for this very reason Hamlet makes such a captivating read. 

Nunnery or Nunnery? 

Reading Hamlet thus far, the nunnery scene (Act III Scene I) definitely ranks high among my favorite scenes in the play. I thought it was extremely well crafted and it succeeded in drawing many solid connections to other areas of the play - emphasizing overarching themes in the play as a whole. I became very interested with this scene, and researched some key words in order to gain some insight and background on what I was reading - but also because I know Shakespeare is witty enough to use several meanings of a word in a single sentence! What struck me as extremely interesting and surprising was the word "nunnery." We most commonly associate a nunnery with a house of nuns, or a convent. Further research revealed that in the Elizabethan era, the word "nunnery" was slang for a brothel, and the word "nun" could possibly mean to describe a prostitute. Not only was this the complete opposite of what I could normally connote with the word "nunnery," but it could change the whole dynamic in the exchange between Hamlet and Ophelia...So really, being the Hamlet nerd I am, there's nothing I can do but dig deeper into the text. 

Reading the text with the commonly associated meaning of the word "nunnery," I thought that when Hamlet demanded Ophelia to "Get thee to a nunnery," he was simply telling her to do that so she would be able to purify herself and escape the evils Hamlet so commonly associates with the world around him. But this new (or perhaps old) meaning of "nunnery" changed the mood and inner meaning of the scene greatly. I noticed that Hamlet first asks Ophelia whether she is "honest" and "fair." Hamlet asks Ophelia these questions concerning her goodness and beauty, and then jumps to the conclusion that she should get herself to a nunnery. He then accuses women, saying "God hath given you one face, and you make yourselves another. You jig and able, and you lisp..." He also claims that women make "monsters" of men. This can be interpreted as Hamlet's rage towards his mother coming out towards Ophelia - or even the idea that Hamlet is well aware of the "whore" Ophelia has become to her father (lying to Hamlet and simply acting as bait because of her father's orders). But if we take the alternate meaning of the word "nunnery," it no longer means that Hamlet is telling Ophelia to purify herself and stay away from evil. It means that Hamlet is demanding that Ophelia does not belong in a castle, in a place of such high esteem - rather than she belongs in a brothel, a house of prostitutes. If Hamlet is truly telling her to go to a brothel, the words become all the more vulgar, accusatory, and abusive. 

I think this use of the word "nunnery" also underscores the way Ophelia is often perceived as a very one dimensional character - and simply defined by her sexuality. Her beauty and her submissive nature define her. Her father uses her as bait to allure Hamlet, and Hamlet treats her as if she is no better that a whore. Her character is defined more so by those around her than the words she utters herself, not only highlighting the man-dominated society around her but also exposing the nature of society as a whole. For these connections, I thought it was quite significant that the word "nunnery" has two meanings. Through his word choice, Shakespeare does a wonderful job of relaying multiple ideas through one singular work. 

Mirrors

Sylvia Plath 

I am silver and exact. I have no preconceptions.

Whatever I see I swallow immediately

Just as it is, unmisted by love or dislike.

I am not cruel, only truthful --

The eye of a little god, four-cornered.

Most of the time I meditate on the opposite wall.

It is pink, with speckles. I have looked at it so long

I think it is part of my heart. But it flickers.

Faces and darkness separate us over and over.

Now I am a lake. A woman bends over me,

Searching my reaches for what she really is.

Then she turns to those liars, the candles or the moon.

I see her back, and reflect it faithfully.

She rewards me with tears and an agitation of hands.

I am important to her. She comes and goes.

Each morning it is her face that replaces the darkness.

In me she has drowned a young girl, and in me an old woman

Rises toward her day after day, like a terrible fish.

I came across this poem while researching different poems for my poetry essay. It kind of struck me after a first read, simply because I didn't know what to think after I had read it. I couldn't pinpoint a particular emotion or imagine the speaker's voice...I actually had to reread the poem a couple of times to even throw out some theories regarding the actual. A little background information revealed that the time period this poem was written in is significant because it was a time of growing liberalism concerning the sphere of women. 

I suppose the speaker is the mirror - a typical mirror with nothing particularly unusual about it. I think that is significant in noting, the idea that the mirror is normal - because the mirror is then able to highlight the simplicity and elegance of itself. I think the first stanza is most unique in the emphasis it takes on the mirror's tendency to stick to the truth, because the mirror represents something virtuous and sincere. This speaker is unlike society, it has no preconceived notions, it is neither misted by "love" nor "dislike." The speaker is pure and honest, unlike humans in today's society. At the same time it is sort of ironic that the mirror is almost personified in some lines. It "swallows" whatever sights it sees and it "mediates" on the wall. The mirror seems to desire the "speckled" wall that it sits across, but faces and darkness inhibits this connection. This can be taken both literally and figuratively. Perhaps the people that look in the mirror and the darkness of the area the mirror is kept keeps the mirror from the pink speckled wall. If the mirror represented a person, these faces could be society and darkness could be the combined setbacks of both society and the speaker setting back himself.

The poem then takes a shift and the speaker is now a "lake." When one thinks of mirrors and lakes alike, they think of a reflection. Reflection connotes physical appearances, but oftentimes the act of "reflecting" connotes something stronger and more poignant - an emotional feeling of deeper connection with one's internal and external environment. The lake represents what the woman truly is, and the she searches feverishly for her true self - thus highlighting the individual's innate desire to find meaning for his or her self. The speaker calls the candles and moon liars - their light may be first perceived as enlightenment but they are nothing but shadows in the face of the lake. The last two lines are very pivotal as they mark the woman as one that has "drowned a young girl." Perhaps the woman has lost of childhood searching for meaning for herself, or perhaps she has wasted her years of youth looking at her own appearance in the lake. But the lake now relates that the reflection is slowly changing, morphing into an "old woman," rising towards the woman like a "terrible fish." This essence of this "terrible fish" could be the loss of childhood and meaning searching for one's position and meaning, or perhaps it could represent the wasting away of women in such a prison-like society.

Honestly, I have no clue what the poet's intention for this poem was, but it is beautifully crafted and touching. Poetry has charmed me, once again. 

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.

Hamlet: Polonius, Laertes, and Ophelia 

Much to my surprise, I have thoroughly enjoyed our class readings and discussions concerning Hamlet. I have never been a very big fan of Shakespeare, but this play definitely changes that opinion - I mean I don't even mind the crazy language. One Act into Hamlet and I am already able to pinpoint some of the overarching themes and motifs, and the characters have already taught me a lot about the setting and lifestyle in that time. I thought the third scene in the first Act was extremely intriguing, as it deviated attention from Hamlet onto the family of Polonius, and his children Laertes and Ophelia. This Act not only opened doorways into their family, but also served to illuminate the central character of Hamlet and the plotline itself. 

In this Act, we get an outside view of the central character we just encountered: Hamlet. When I was first introduced to Hamlet, I developed a liking for his character right away - he not only seemed to have wit and intellect, but genuine love for his father. He was a very easy character to sympathize for, but I also felt as if he had a strength within him to keep him going. In this Act, we encountered Laertes speaking to Ophelia about Hamlet. When speaking of their love, Laertes claims, "Perhaps he loves you now..." and "...his will is not his own. For he himself is subject to his birth" (Act 1 Scene 3). I think these phrases are very noteworthy, because they indicate Laertes' lack of trust for Hamlet - yet they do not imply any sort of lack of respect. It seems that Laertes values Hamlet as a man and a Prince, but recognizes the fragility in Ophelia's relationship with a Prince. When Polonius denounces Ophelia for her relationship with Hamlet, he claims she is the common and vulgar one, and that she is the one at fault for pursuing a relationship with a man like Hamlet. Not once does he condemn Hamlet, even though he believes Hamlet is simply playing Ophelia and has no true attachment to her. In this way, Polonius shows a form of respect for Hamlet as well. Furthermore, the way in which both the male characters speak to Ophelia as if she is the only person at fault illustrates the expected role of women versus men. Ophelia is expected to be a proper young woman for both the reputation of her brother and her father, while Hamlet has the freedom to pursue this "fling" with Ophelia if he pleases to do so.

Another interesting part of this scene was the whole idea of the relationship between Ophelia and Hamlet. Does Hamlet love Ophelia? How far has their relationship gotten? I want to believe that Hamlet does have a true attachment to Ophelia, I really do. But it's also necessary to consider his position and state of mind, making it a big possibility he is simply playing her. I thought that his relationship with Ophelia served to illuminate the Queen's new relationship with Hamlet's uncle, King Claudius. While Hamlet's relationship with Ophelia seems free of structure, and very emotional as Hamlet has sworn the vows of heaven. I perceive both the King and Queen as very fake people. Claudius tells his people that everything is okay when it truly isn't (seems vs. is) while the Queen barely mourns her own husband's death. The combination of these two yields a very dolled up and polished relationship that serves as a big contrast to Hamlet and Ophelia's supposed relationship. I'm looking forward to hear more about what this relationship truly is. 

I thought this whole interaction between this particular family was very significant for the plot itself - it's amazing how the smallest of interactions have such a level of depth. It reminds me that one can never rule out anything when it comes to fine literature. 

The Disillusionment of Ten O'Clock 
Wallace Stevens

The houses are haunted
By white night gowns. 
None are green, 
Or purple with green rings, 
Or green with yellow rings, 
Or yellow with blue rings. 
None of them are strange, 
With socks of lace
And beaded ceintures. 
People are not going
To dream of baboons and periwinkles. 
Only, here and there, and old sailor, 
Drunk and asleep in his boots, 
Catches Tigers
In red weather. 

I was first introduced to Wallace Stevens through this poem, and I still think that this poem is a great representation of Stevens' writing style, as well as his personality (although I suppose I'd have to travel back in time to truly learn about that). Throughout school, particularly high school, I have always felt that students are not given enough time to think. Thinking has always been a fundamental aspect of my life because I believe it is an outlet for the development of thoughts - whether it be creatively or analytically. Instead, ideas are drilled in our heads, and we are conditioned to perform tasks in a particular fashion, talk in a distinct way, and present ourselves in a uniform manner. It becomes increasingly difficult to stand out among the mass, and the majority of people opt to take the easy way out and succumb to the expectations of those around them - although their own beliefs may not align with those that surround them. 

So, what's the point? Why begin the discussion of this poem in such an odd way? Well - let's ask Wallace Stevens what he has to say about it. 

Reading through this poem for the first time, one may think it is silly or childish. Ironically, the poem is actually almost mocking the silly idea of conforming to what is around one's self. The speaker begins by talking about houses that are haunted by white night gowns. Note that house is plural, the poet is referring to more than one house, many for that matter, that are haunted by white night gowns. The use of the word haunted is meant to have a metaphorical effect and brings about a negative connotation to the word idea of a white nightgown. The poem then goes on to talk about how these houses are haunted by white nightgowns as OPPOSED to those of different colors (green, purple with green rings, green with yellow rings, etc.). Many lines of the poem are dedicated to describing the different colors that the nightgowns COULD be. With the use of bold and vibrant imagery, the poet highlights the way the current state of these houses appears by describing what it is not. These houses are not bright, colorful, and happy - they are dreary, dull, and sad. 

The speaker then claims that none of the white nightgowns that "haunt" the houses are strange in any way with odd lace or beads. They are simply white, no different from one another, with no remarkable quality that makes them special from the others. And because of this dullness in their clothing choice, the people will not be dreaming of the wild and creative, such as baboons periwinkles - perhaps they will not dream at all. The speaker claims that the only people that do dream of the imaginative (catching tigers in red weather) are sailors that are intoxicated. It is interesting to note that because sailors are out at sea very often, they are more isolated from the rest of the human world. Perhaps the speaker means that this isolation from the rest of society gives the individual a chance to be imaginative and creative - to think for one's own self. It is also interesting to note that this sailor is said to be "drunk," indicating that when a human is not in his typical state of mind, he becomes capable of great thoughts and dreams. Maybe the speaker is trying to tell us that we need to be more open-minded - or perhaps he means to say that we are most ourselves when we believe ourselves farthest from what we think we are. 

This poem that seemed so odd and childish at first glance can be read from so many different perspectives. It may simply be seen as a poem that wants to rekindle the child inside every individual. It may simply be seen as a poem that years humans to take time to be more creative and add color and mystery to their lives. It may even be viewed as a social commentary, discussing the idea that society (and its institutions) take away from the individuality and freedom of expression of individuals. With so many different meanings, this poem can apply to a wide audience. 

This poem definitely ranks high among my all time favorites, and serves a reminder that tough language and long words aren't always the best way of communicating an idea - the simplest of ways may be the best after all.