Hamlet Personal Response Incorporating Criticism - Literature review Example

Hamlet Personal Response Incorporating Criticism Hamlet, the most celebrated play by William Shakespeare, narrates the tragic story of Hamlet, the prince of Denmark, who is engaged in a great internal conflict throughout the play. Tragic plays, from the classical period, involve some tragic error of the protagonist which determines the ultimate tragic elements of the play. In a close analysis of the great tragedy by Shakespeare, it becomes evident that the requirements of a classical tragedy are present in the play, which attracts millions of audience to the play even in the modern day. This tragedy, set in Denmark, recounts the story of Prince Hamlet who has been eagerly waiting for verification on the murder of his father and revenge upon his uncle Claudius who may have committed the crime. However, it is not an easy task for Hamlet to settle on the crime of his uncle and the protagonist delays his revenge which results in the tragic flaw of the play. Due to his indecision, Hamlet cannot make an essential answer to the entire question concerning the problem and many often he contradicts himself all through the play, which caused the unnecessary death of many others.  The philosophical and contemplative nature of Hamlet provides important confirmation on the chief contributors of tragedy in the story. There have been significant evidences about the critics who suggest the tragic aspects of the play and an understanding of these characteristic aspects helps a reader in his complete comprehension of the play. In a thorough understanding of the major elements in the great tragedy by Shakespeare, there is obvious utility of the interpretations by a learned critic. In fact, “there is much disagreement among his modern devotees whether he is to be read with the assurance that he is accessible to any mind of average sensibility, or whether he is in fact often largely misunderstood unless his words, his situations and all that they imply are interpreted in accordance with the meaning which they can be shown to have had for his contemporaries.” (Joseph, 11) Therefore, the guidelines of the interpretations by a Shakespeare critic can be most valuable in providing a precise understanding of Hamlet and this is found literal in my understanding of the play. “Hamlet is the most problematic play ever written. Inconsistencies arise from the variousness of its medieval and Renaissance sources; from discrepancies between printed versions of Shakespeares drama; and from a host of unresolved thematic and psychological problems, such as the famous question of why the Prince delays his revenge.” (Croxford, 93) Therefore, there have been continual interpretations of the play which are useful to the modern readers. The major character of the tragedy, Hamlet, has attracted audiences and readers for several centuries now, and this is a mysterious character all through the play. While he is successful in convincing other characters about the fake madness about his personality, there is an obvious mystery about the realities of his madness. The tragic error that caused the major tragic situation in the play is the Prince’s disability to carry out action and the delay in revenge. The interpretations by the significant critics have influenced my understanding of the character of Hamlet and the specific nature of tragic elements in the play. As Bertram Joseph points out, in the other tragedies of Shakespeare, one finds the theme in understanding the personal dilemma, or the crime, or sin of the central character. Thus, every leading character in the other tragedies of Shakespeare has some characteristic error or crime. One finds Lear suffering for his pride, Othello for his jealousy, Macbeth for his deceitful ambition and his need to be sure beforehand of success. In the opinion of this critic, “Hamlet is not this kind of tragedy. The Prince is not so obviously culpable, in fact it is possible to argue that he is not culpable at all; he is in a situation in which nothing can go right until the very end, when he himself is killed.” (Joseph, 130) Therefore, it is obvious that the specific environment of the play caused the ultimate tragic developments of the play. In other words, the main theme of the play becomes apparent and clear when one is effective in understanding the play as a whole, rather than comprehending the character of Hamlet. In fact, “it is not so much a warning against sin, as a triumphant assertion that evil will always be defeated, that however insurmountable its ascendancy may appear to human eyes, God will inevitably arrange things so that it engineers its own exposure and downfall.” (Joseph, 131) Thus, in the first half of the play, it becomes evident that men can be easily misled by appearances, whereas the second half of the play affirms that the downfall of an evil-doer is sudden and obvious. This truth is apparent explicitly in the comments of the play and implicitly in the structure of the chain of events in the play, especially in the second half. Thus, in the first half shows the amounting of foul deeds and Shakespeare gives the following comment. “Foul deeds will rise, / Though all the earth o’erwhelm them, to mens eyes.” (Shakespeare, I. ii. ll. 19) It is also apparent in the words of Gertrude who comments, “So full of artless jealousy is guilt, / It spills itself in fearing to be spilt.” (Shakespeare, IV. v. ll. 103) In the mouse trap scene in the second half of the play, there is a clear illustration of this nature of the play in which one finds Claudius being caught in a trap which was set by himself. Similarly, at the end of the play, when the spectators are able to appreciate the general implications of the play, they find Horatio explaining to his countrymen what has been happening, and the audience learn of “accidental judgments, casual slaughters; / Of deaths put on by cunning, and forcd cause; / And, in this upshot, purposes mistook / Falln on th inventors heads –” (Shakespeare, V. ii. 144) Therefore, a profound understanding of the entire play is necessary to comprehend the underlying theme of the tragedy, rather than a mere comprehension of the various aspects of the protagonist. Interpretations of Hamlet are most essential to an unambiguous understanding of the play, as it is obviously one of the most problematic plays ever written. As mentioned before, there are inconsistencies from the variety of medieval and Renaissance sources used in the play, the discrepancies between printed versions, and several unresolved thematic and psychological problems throughout the play. There are also significant questions concerning the delay of revenge by the Prince. However, the interpretation of the play is not merely a matter for scholars and critics. More importantly, the protagonist as well as every other character of the play determines the understanding of the tragedy. The issue of interpretation in the play also points to the various influences on the text of the play, including the alterations to it from period to period. “Specifically, there are two influences on the metamorphosis of Hamlet: the intellectual climate in which it was written and the nature of the sixteenth-century political world. Together, they put at Shakespeare’s disposal transformations of his inherited versions that are highly revealing of his creative processes.” (Croxford, 93) In a profound analysis of the various themes, characterization, and the plot structure of the play Hamlet, it becomes lucid that supervision as well as interpretations of the different elements of the play is essential for a clear understanding of the tragedy. In fact, there is no other work like Hamlet which has presented more uncertain meanings. A number of essential questions arise all through the play such as: what is the reason for Hamlet’s delay in revenging his father’s murder; is his madness genuine or feigned; what is the exact status of his feelings for Ophelia? Obviously, there are no definitive solutions to these questions. According to Croxford, “...in the case of the thematic and psychological issues there is a seemingly impenetrable ambiguity. Ambiguity is, in fact, a striking characteristic of Shakespeare’s work.” (Croxford, 93) In short, a clear understanding of the play requires the guidance and interpretations of Shakespeare critics who definitely throw ample lights on the inner meanings of this problem play. Hamlet, the most celebrated tragedy by Shakespeare, necessitates close and profound understanding, and it is not possible to arrive at meanings by mere assumptions. “Highly ambiguous as it is, inspiring umpteen interpretations, it’s never a vehicle for idle speculation. There’s a vigorous drive to truth. But this truth isn’t the one insight that explains everything. Hamlet is mysterious for the same reason that life is: it’s multi-causal.” (Combs and Durgnat, 56) Shakespeare deals with life in its essence and the critics are right in making the observation that only a reflective analysis and interpretation of the play can help one in comprehending the exact meaning of the tragedy. Therefore, my reading of the play has been essentially become meaningful through the interpretations of the play by significant critics who try to bring out the different meanings. Works Cited Combs, Richard and Raymond Durgnat. “Shakespeare: A Chaos Theory.” Film Comment. Vol. 37. Iss. 4. 2001. P 56. Croxford, Leslie. “The Uses of Interpretation in Hamlet.” Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics. Iss. 24. 2004. P 93. Joseph, Bertram. Conscience and the King: A Study of Hamlet. London: Chatto and Windus. 1953. P 130. Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark: Prince of Denmark. Sylvan Barnet. (Ed). Signet Classic. 1998. Read More