on
3.5/5
Non-Fiction
- Get link
- Other Apps
Yes, this is a play. Shh. It had pages.
Rating: 4/5
Pages: 342
Started: 7 November 2022
Finished: 8 December 2022
Summary:
Shakespeare's famous tragedy follows Hamlet as he returns to his native Denmark to find his mother married to his uncle, whom he soon discovers is his late father's killer. Tasked by his fathers specter to take revenge on his murderous uncle, Hamlet finds himself plagued by indecision, his uncle's machinations, and an eventual descent into madness.
Thoughts:
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this play. It's been over a year since I last read a Shakespeare play, and I was able to understand so much more this time. I was really able to enjoy the beauty of the language, and the complexity of the characters and themes. Though I saw Hamlet as an emotional man-child more than a tragic hero, his dynamic with Ophelia was still fascinating, and his love for Horatio was very, very, strong, which would be cool to analyze. The plays on words were super fun to detangle, and I plan on reading more Shakespeare for fun in the future.
Essay:
Hamlet: The Temperance of a Hero
Devastated by the death of his father, the eponymous prince of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Prince of Denmark returns to the castle of his youth only to be confronted by the ghostly apparition of his late father demanding revenge. The spirit informs Hamlet that the new king, Hamlet’s uncle Claudius, poisoned the old in his sleep. Hamlet is incensed but wary, unsure if he is speaking with an “honest ghost.” In the second scene of Act 2, Hamlet requests that a visiting player recite the tale of the vengeful Pyrrhus, who stormed Troy to kill the man who murdered his father. But rather than the tale of fortitude and righteous retribution that Hamlet perhaps hoped for as guidance for his own revenge against Claudius, he is met with the heinous story of a merciless villain who dishonorably murders and desecrates the body of a defenseless old man, condemning his wife Hecuba to wretched sorrow. By contrasting the player’s pointless grief and Pyrrhus’s ignoble fervor with Hamlet’s through the prince’s transition from despair into prudent action, Shakespeare highlights Hamlet’s ability to wield logic and caution rather than uncontrolled passion, thus presenting him as a heroic character capable of noble temperance.
Shakespeare emphasizes the parallel between the player’s baseless mourning and Hamlet’s own, seemingly suggesting that Hamlet’s emotion will meet an equally fruitless end. The soliloquy begins with Hamlet’s misery: “O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!” (577). Since Hamlet, the son of a king, is decidedly neither a “rogue” nor a “peasant slave,” both occupations with negative connotations, Shakespeare uses verbal irony to suggest self-hatred and anguish. Through the line’s exclamation, and its intensity of tone which adds to its theme of debasement, Shakespeare creates an impression of grief which, though manifested in wild anger rather than weeping lament, is equal to that of the player’s sorrow for Hecuba, which Hamlet recalls: “Tears in his eyes, distraction in his aspect, / A broken voice, and his whole function suiting / With forms to his conceit—and all for nothing!” (582-594). Eyes are the windows to the soul, and tears symbolize grief so great it cannot be contained within the body. Similarly, a broken voice indicates a loss of control due to overpowering emotion. Thus, Shakespeare seems to create an impression of genuine sadness that touches the soul and transcends the control of the player’s physical form. Yet ultimately the player is reacting to a mere piece of fiction, a fabrication which Hamlet recognizes as such. “All for nothing” is a paradox; the contradictory absolutes “all” and “nothing” create an effect of futility. By negating the player’s baseless grief, Shakespeare again draws attention to Hamlet’s, presenting it as all the more real by comparison. “Bloody, bawdy villain! /Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain,” spits Hamlet in the consuming crescendo of his soliloquy, referring to the murderous Claudius (607-608). Shakespeare uses the alliteration of “Bloody, bawdy villain,” with its plosive bs creating a harsh and percussive effect, to mirror the harsh connotations of Hamlet’s incensed words about his uncle. The rambling asyndeton employed in the furious listing of insults is further indicative of the depth of his passion. Yet Shakespeare reveals that despite the overwhelming emotion, Hamlet, unlike the player, refuses to be consumed by fruitless grief.
By demonstrating Hamlet’s ability to moderate his passion, Shakespeare ultimately confirms the prince’s nobility. Moments after his feverish crescendo, Hamlet’s fervent ravings suddenly cease: “Why, what an ass am I! This is most brave / That I [...] Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words” (611-614). Shakespeare uses the verbal irony of “most brave” to suggest that Hamlet’s previous outburst was quite cowardly. Furthermore, since sex workers often turn to their trade out of desperation, by using a simile to compare Hamlet to a prostitute, Shakespeare suggests that Hamlet’s ravings were the actions of a person without control. Once a person loses control of their actions to emotional reactions, enormous strength is required to reel the passion back in. Yet it is Hamlet speaking these lines, recognizing the cowardice of his emotional outburst, and because of this recognition he is able to temper his emotion. Though his anger was not heroic, his determination to return to logic certainly was. Through this feat of inner strength, Shakespeare proves that Hamlet has noble control in his own right.
Comparing Hamlet’s motive for revenge to Pyrrhus’s, Shakespeare draws attention to the nobility of Hamlet’s action by comparison. Pyrrhus is a warrior from Greek mythology whose slain father, Achilles, was deeply beloved. Similarly, Hamlet is “the son of a dear father murdered” (612). By chronologically placing the story of Pyrrhus directly preceding Hamlet’s soliloquy centered around action and revenge, Shakespeare stresses the similarity between the two men’s stories. But where Pyrrhus follows blind passion Hamlet instead chooses to cleverly scheme: “Guilty creatures sitting at a play / Have, by the very cunning of the scene [...] proclaimed their malefactions” (617-620). Creatures, as opposed to humans, tend to have baser qualities and therefore can be ensnared by a precocious human. Calling upon his previous knowledge of the power of plays, Hamlet uses logic to synthesize his understanding into the kernel of a plan. The ability to employ analysis and reasoning is a quality that distinguishes whether a person is a mindless pawn as Pyrrhus is, or the agent of their own future. By showing Hamlet’s affinity for logic, Shakespeare suggests that Hamlet is the type who can deliberately guide his plans toward nobility and heroism. Compared to Pyrrhus’s ignoble murder of a defenseless man in cold blood, Hamlet’s complex planning is thoughtful and prudent: “For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak / With most miraculous organ. I’ll have these players / Play something like the murder of my father” (622-624). Murder’s speech is a metaphor for exposure but also carries a connotation linked to civilization and discourse, which again is a harsh contrast against Pyrrhus’s bloody chaos. While Hamlet’s sentence about murder is a continuation of his earlier analysis, the caesura after “organ” creates a distinct pause, after which Shakespeare creates a focused denouement. “I’ll have these players” is a determined decision, a fully formed plan Hamlet can use to bring down Claudius without sacrificing his nobility. Further confirming Hamlet’s heroism, Shakespeare illustrates how Hamlet’s goal is centered around justice rather than a fast execution: “The play’s the thing / Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King” (633-634). The idea of catching is a continuation of Hamlet’s earlier metaphor likening Claudius to a “guilty creature.” Hamlet’s goal of catching “the conscience of the King” implies that Hamlet’s primary concern is with the King’s morals—his guilt—and not his immediate murder. Through this goal of proof and justice, Shakespeare demonstrates that Hamlet’s plan for action is one built on a foundation of temperance and nobility.
Though his soliloquy began with uncontrolled emotion, Hamlet’s purposeful shift to prudence and reason presents him as an essentially noble person. By demonstrating that Hamlet avoided the figurative emotional snares of the player’s torrential grief and Pyrrhus’s unchecked violence, Shakespeare portrays Hamlet as a truly heroic character. Through the arc of Hamlet’s soliloquy, Shakespeare confirms that rightful revenge does not necessarily require immediate bloodshed, ultimately suggesting that as heroic traits, action and passion are worthless if untempered by control and logic.
Shakespeare emphasizes the parallel between the player’s baseless mourning and Hamlet’s own, seemingly suggesting that Hamlet’s emotion will meet an equally fruitless end. The soliloquy begins with Hamlet’s misery: “O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!” (577). Since Hamlet, the son of a king, is decidedly neither a “rogue” nor a “peasant slave,” both occupations with negative connotations, Shakespeare uses verbal irony to suggest self-hatred and anguish. Through the line’s exclamation, and its intensity of tone which adds to its theme of debasement, Shakespeare creates an impression of grief which, though manifested in wild anger rather than weeping lament, is equal to that of the player’s sorrow for Hecuba, which Hamlet recalls: “Tears in his eyes, distraction in his aspect, / A broken voice, and his whole function suiting / With forms to his conceit—and all for nothing!” (582-594). Eyes are the windows to the soul, and tears symbolize grief so great it cannot be contained within the body. Similarly, a broken voice indicates a loss of control due to overpowering emotion. Thus, Shakespeare seems to create an impression of genuine sadness that touches the soul and transcends the control of the player’s physical form. Yet ultimately the player is reacting to a mere piece of fiction, a fabrication which Hamlet recognizes as such. “All for nothing” is a paradox; the contradictory absolutes “all” and “nothing” create an effect of futility. By negating the player’s baseless grief, Shakespeare again draws attention to Hamlet’s, presenting it as all the more real by comparison. “Bloody, bawdy villain! /Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain,” spits Hamlet in the consuming crescendo of his soliloquy, referring to the murderous Claudius (607-608). Shakespeare uses the alliteration of “Bloody, bawdy villain,” with its plosive bs creating a harsh and percussive effect, to mirror the harsh connotations of Hamlet’s incensed words about his uncle. The rambling asyndeton employed in the furious listing of insults is further indicative of the depth of his passion. Yet Shakespeare reveals that despite the overwhelming emotion, Hamlet, unlike the player, refuses to be consumed by fruitless grief.
By demonstrating Hamlet’s ability to moderate his passion, Shakespeare ultimately confirms the prince’s nobility. Moments after his feverish crescendo, Hamlet’s fervent ravings suddenly cease: “Why, what an ass am I! This is most brave / That I [...] Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words” (611-614). Shakespeare uses the verbal irony of “most brave” to suggest that Hamlet’s previous outburst was quite cowardly. Furthermore, since sex workers often turn to their trade out of desperation, by using a simile to compare Hamlet to a prostitute, Shakespeare suggests that Hamlet’s ravings were the actions of a person without control. Once a person loses control of their actions to emotional reactions, enormous strength is required to reel the passion back in. Yet it is Hamlet speaking these lines, recognizing the cowardice of his emotional outburst, and because of this recognition he is able to temper his emotion. Though his anger was not heroic, his determination to return to logic certainly was. Through this feat of inner strength, Shakespeare proves that Hamlet has noble control in his own right.
Comparing Hamlet’s motive for revenge to Pyrrhus’s, Shakespeare draws attention to the nobility of Hamlet’s action by comparison. Pyrrhus is a warrior from Greek mythology whose slain father, Achilles, was deeply beloved. Similarly, Hamlet is “the son of a dear father murdered” (612). By chronologically placing the story of Pyrrhus directly preceding Hamlet’s soliloquy centered around action and revenge, Shakespeare stresses the similarity between the two men’s stories. But where Pyrrhus follows blind passion Hamlet instead chooses to cleverly scheme: “Guilty creatures sitting at a play / Have, by the very cunning of the scene [...] proclaimed their malefactions” (617-620). Creatures, as opposed to humans, tend to have baser qualities and therefore can be ensnared by a precocious human. Calling upon his previous knowledge of the power of plays, Hamlet uses logic to synthesize his understanding into the kernel of a plan. The ability to employ analysis and reasoning is a quality that distinguishes whether a person is a mindless pawn as Pyrrhus is, or the agent of their own future. By showing Hamlet’s affinity for logic, Shakespeare suggests that Hamlet is the type who can deliberately guide his plans toward nobility and heroism. Compared to Pyrrhus’s ignoble murder of a defenseless man in cold blood, Hamlet’s complex planning is thoughtful and prudent: “For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak / With most miraculous organ. I’ll have these players / Play something like the murder of my father” (622-624). Murder’s speech is a metaphor for exposure but also carries a connotation linked to civilization and discourse, which again is a harsh contrast against Pyrrhus’s bloody chaos. While Hamlet’s sentence about murder is a continuation of his earlier analysis, the caesura after “organ” creates a distinct pause, after which Shakespeare creates a focused denouement. “I’ll have these players” is a determined decision, a fully formed plan Hamlet can use to bring down Claudius without sacrificing his nobility. Further confirming Hamlet’s heroism, Shakespeare illustrates how Hamlet’s goal is centered around justice rather than a fast execution: “The play’s the thing / Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King” (633-634). The idea of catching is a continuation of Hamlet’s earlier metaphor likening Claudius to a “guilty creature.” Hamlet’s goal of catching “the conscience of the King” implies that Hamlet’s primary concern is with the King’s morals—his guilt—and not his immediate murder. Through this goal of proof and justice, Shakespeare demonstrates that Hamlet’s plan for action is one built on a foundation of temperance and nobility.
Though his soliloquy began with uncontrolled emotion, Hamlet’s purposeful shift to prudence and reason presents him as an essentially noble person. By demonstrating that Hamlet avoided the figurative emotional snares of the player’s torrential grief and Pyrrhus’s unchecked violence, Shakespeare portrays Hamlet as a truly heroic character. Through the arc of Hamlet’s soliloquy, Shakespeare confirms that rightful revenge does not necessarily require immediate bloodshed, ultimately suggesting that as heroic traits, action and passion are worthless if untempered by control and logic.