Good vs Evil in Hamlet and Spunk - Book Report/Review Example

?Compare and Contrast: Good vs Evil in the play Hamlet and the short story Spunk Zora Neale Hurston was a 20th century African-American of considerable repute. While a great number of writers of her ilk ultimately turned to political concerns, it’s been noted that, “Hurston’s fiction almost predominantly concerned itself with the interactions and portraits of daily life in her Florida town of Eatonville” (Boyd, pg. 21). Close to three hundred years and an entire world apart, William Shakespeare is recognized as one of the seminal playwrights of the English language. While these two writers seem worlds apart, upon inspecting thematic elements within their writing, it’s clear there are a number of similar elements. In addition to both writers being expert craftsmen into the nature of human character and existence, they also demonstrate a similar approach to the human condition. One of the prevalent themes in these regards can be seen in their approach to good and evil. Through an examination of these writers work, specifically Zora Neale Hurston’s Spunk and William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, this essay compares and contrasts the articulations of good and evil. The first element of evil in Zora Neale Hurston’s Spunk occurs in terms of the relationship between Spunk Banks and Lena. This relationship can be viewed as evil in many regards. Spunk Banks is described as a large and impending figure “A Giant of a brown-skinned man”, as well as a bully. In the text Spunk Banks has taken Lena, Joe Kanty’s wife. This is presented as a sort of immoral act, as it’s indicated that this occurred because of Spunk’s size in comparison to Joe. This is a complex understanding of evil as many individuals in the town regard Spunk as a sort of hero because of his fearlessness; however, it’s still clear from reading the text that the act he has committed is in many regards evil. In many regards, one can argue that the dichotomy between good and evil is in many regards embodied in these two characters. The question becomes which character embodies good and which character embodies evil. As this opening portion of the story advances, it’s clear that Joe s presented as a slightly complex character. While Hurston presents Joe as wronged by Spunk, she also indicates that he plans on enacting revenge by using a razor and attacking Spunk Banks. The text indicates, “He reached deep down into his trouser pocket and drew out a hollow ground razor, large and shiny, and passed his moistened thumb back and forth over the edge” (Hurston). In these regards, the nature of evil in part shifts towards Joe. It’s been argued that, “rather than indicating there is one universal element of evil, Hurston is playing with the concept, and shifting its emphasis between different individuals” (Hemenway, pg. 119). In this sense Hurston seems to be indicating that there isn’t a simple definition of good and evil in the sense that many people would like to believe. As the text advances this nebulous articulation of good and evil is advanced. In the next portion of the text, Zora Neale Hurston relays the incident wherein Joe confronts Spunk Banks and murders him. The question becomes whether Spunk’s murder of Joe was done in self-defense. While it’s well established at this point that Hurston’s story doesn’t easily commit to a basic dichotomy of good and evil, this portion of the story further extends the question of good and evil. In this section, Spunk Banks relays his story of being attacked and having to kill Joe Kanty in self-defense. Ultimately, the governing society agrees with Spunk that his murder of Joe was committed in self-defense. This raises the question of good and evil in terms of not only the two men, but also in terms of the greater social order. The text presents Spunk Banks as a sort of town hero; in light of this one begins to question whether he is able to use this esteem to avoid punishment for his actions. Here, Hurston is presenting a concept of good and evil that considers the nature of social laws. While society has the power to determine if one is demonstrating good or evil actions, it’s not always entirely clear if society is truly correct in these judgments. One can consider the nature of the O.J. Simpson trial in relation to Hurston’s theme in these regards. As the story progresses, one begins to consider an even deeper concept of good and evil. The text continues with the narrative. It states that Spunk Banks is confronted by an animal at night. Rather than kill the animal, Spunk has a vision that the animal is actually Joe. A character in the story, Walter, states, “Taint nothin' for Spunk to fight when he ain't skeered of nothin.' He also reminds Elijah that Lena was the only thing Joe ever wanted and the only thing he ever had. He believes Joe is back to wreak vengeance. Besides, he says, "It musta been a h'ant cause ain' nobody never seen no black bob-cat" (Hurston). Here the text is indicating that Spunk has potentially hallucinated the site of Joe. While it’s not explicitly stated, one can assume that part of the reason for this vision is a pervading sense of guilt that Spunk Bank’s is experiencing for having murdered Joe. This is an understanding of good and evil that goes beyond social relations and regional laws, and is more concerned with a sort of transcendent sense of justice. While Spunk Banks may have intellectually convinced himself and the town that murdering Joe was done out of self-defense, the pervasive sense of guilt he is experiencing indicates that at his deepest conscious or unconscious level he believes otherwise. This is an understanding of evil and guilt that will later be seen in Hamlet. One particular instance that has a close correlation with this event is when Hamlet attempts to determine his step-father’s guilt through the presentation of a play. Hamlet states, “the play's the thing. Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King” (Shakespeare Act 2, scene 2, 603–605). In both instances, it’s believed that the nature of good and evil can be determined through viewing the reactions of these individuals on a deep level. William Shakespeare’s Hamlet is well-recognized as one of the masterpieces of English language literature. The play’s deep-rooted investigations of murder, insanity, and questions of meaning and existence, making it one of the greatest plays ever written. One of the reasons for its lasting appeal is because of its investigation into human nature. In these regards, its exploration of good and evil are one of the primary means of this investigation. Perhaps some of the most intriguing insights in these regards have come as a result of the psychoanalytical school of critical investigation. One of Sigmund Freud’s primary theories and a central element of psychoanalysis is the understanding that man is affected by a repressive urge towards love for their mother, referred to as the Oedipal Complex. Jones argues that in large part Hamlet’s intensity of conflict with Claudius is rooted in these psychological urges. Jones writes, “Hamlet's second guilty wish had thus also been realized by his uncle, namely to procure the fulfilment of the first -- the possession of the mother -- by a personal deed, in fact by murder of the father” (Jones). Here one witnesses that the complex question of murder in the play isn’t as simple as revenge, but rather constitutes a deeper psychological question. For Jones, if Hamlet were to kill Claudius it would be killing off this unconscious childhood fantasy, and in doing so, it would be in a sense removing an aspect of himself and internal constitution. Freud himself considered this issue and wrote, Hamlet is able to do anything -- except take vengeance on the man who did away with his father and took that father's place with his mother, the man who shows him the repressed wishes of his own childhood realized…Here I have translated into conscious terms what was bound to remain unconscious in Hamlet's mind.... In addition to demonstrating an overriding interpretation for Hamlet’s unwillingness to murder Claudius, this passage from Freud also contributes to interpreting Hamlet’s overall motivations throughout the play. In these regards, Hamlet’s unwillingness to commit murder isn’t motivated out of a sense of good or evil but rather a sense of psychological apprehension. In many instances Hamlet is struck by an inability to take actions – in his relationship with Ophelia, in his strife with Claudius, and other actions throughout the play. In these regards, Freud’s central response to these questions is rooted in Hamlet’s unconscious. Jones writes, “The long-awaited event can only take place when Gertrude has died. Hamlet is then free to act because the cause of his repressed guilt has been eliminated, and he kills Claudius immediately” (Jones, pg. 88). Here we see the Hamlet’s psychic journey complete as he is finally able to realize his desire to kill Claudius and overcome these unconscious elements that have restricted him. Hale noted a connection between the these stories, noting that, “the concluding elements of Hurston’s works demonstrate a similar thematic concern as that which takes shape in the Shakespearean narrative” (Hale, pg. 397). In these regards, it’s clear that both Hurston’s text and Hamlet approach the concept of good and evil, not in terms of simple definitions, but as complex elements of the human condition. It’s also notable that both texts conclude with deaths. While the complexity of Hamlet makes it difficult to attribute the simple resolution of good and evil to the cataclysmic conclusion, in Spunk it seems that Hurston is getting at a concept of good that emerges in the soul of man and is so consuming that it leads him to his death; in these regards, Spunk’s death in the saw is an embodiment of his guilt towards murdering Joe Kanty. In conclusion, it’s clear that Hurston’s Spunk and Shakespeare’s Hamlet deal with the concept of good and evil in complex ways. The essay demonstrates that both Hurston and Shakespeare refuse to provide a clear cut definition of good and evil, instead demonstrating that the concept of nebulous and shifting. In Spunk, Spunk Banks ultimately dies out of a pervasive guilt that takes over his being. Conversely, Hamlet demonstrates a complex psychological process wherein revenge and lust override morality as the primary motivation in the play, and as the main articulation of the good/evil concept. Ultimately, both texts refuse easily categorization of good and evil. References Bloom, Harold. (1999). Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. New York: Riverhead Press. Boyd, Valerie. (2004) Wrapped in Rainbows: The Life of Zora Neale Hurston. New York: Scribner. Freud, Sigmund. (1965), The Interpretation of Dreams, tr. James Strachey, Avon, N.Y. Hale, David G. "Hurston's `Spunk' and Hamlet." Studies in Short Fiction 30.3 (1993): 397 Hemenway, Robert. (1980) Zora Neale Hurston: A Literary Biography. Illinois: University of Illinois Press. Hurston, Zora Neale. (1997) Spunk: the Selected Stories. New York: Marlowe & Co. Jones, Ernest. ‘The Oedipus-Complex as An Explanation of Hamlet's Mystery:?A Study in Motive’. http://www.shakespeare-navigators.com/jones/index.html Read More