General Question #3: What dramatic question does the play embody? At what moment can this question first be stated?
The play, I think, poses a number of dramatic questions, all of them equally significant in meaning. However, the question that interests me the most is the most basic and human of the questions (in my opinion): how far would you go for someone you love?
In the contextual background of Ibsen’s background, Nora commits fraud in an attempt to save Torvald’s life and her family. When Krogstad threatens to expose Nora’s crime, she becomes frantic. She turns to self-sacrifice as a possible saving grace. Nora loves—or thinks she loves—Torvald and is willing to disappear so that her husband can remain untainted from corruption or crime. The question most often arises in the conversations between Nora and Kristine and Nora and Krogstad. Especially at the end, however, this notion of genuine, powerful love yelled to me in the final moments with Nora and Torvald—the man she saved. During their confrontation, the husband and wife talk about the nature of their individual love:
Helmer: I would gladly toil day and night for you, Nora, enduring all manner of sorrow and distress. But nobody sacrifices his honor for the one he loves.
Nora: Hundreds and thousands of women have.
Helmer: Oh, you think and talk like a stupid child. (1733)
Torvald’s love is very limited and exists as long as his honor remains intact. On the other hand, Nora’s love is boundless, until she realizes that she hardly knows her husband and that she could not love someone who could not reciprocate equally.
I have always wondered, “Would you or I do anything for a person we love, even if it meant breaking the law?” Usually, I can answer steadfastly, “Yes.” Sometimes, however, I am forced to reconsider my answer when faced with extreme actions, such as killing or dying, because the answer is not as clear. In Nora’s case, I am sure that I would do just as she did, forge her father’s signature. Nora’s love, in my mind, is admirable and profound and rare. People who have share Torvald’s perspective are, I’m sorry, truly unloving. Nora did what she felt was necessary to save her husband. Torvald is ungrateful and superficial in response, and if I were Nora, I would have hit him. I would have hit him with a bat. I would have taken him outside, tied him up to my car, and dragged him down Tatum at 100 miles per hour. Anyway…
Thoughts?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
To sympathize or not to sympathize--THAT is the question!
To sympathize, or not to sympathize—that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to offer
To the pitiful prince our compassion,
Or to be objective despite Hamlet’s sea of troubles,
And by opposing judge him? To judge, to scorn—
or hate—and by judging to say we don’t
Allow him to act with these immoral thoughts
That beast is prone to act on—'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To judge, to hate—
To scorn, perchance to ourselves do. Ay, there's the rub,
For in that condemnation what future may come
When we ourselves commit the very same act,
Must give us pause. There's our hypocrisy
That makes calamity of so long life….
I applaud those of you who attempted to read my gibberish above. As you can tell, I tried to imitate Hamlet’s famous soliloquy, but I decided to cut it short to avoid redundancy and never-ending jabber. I hope it made at least a little bit of sense (to be honest, I don’t think I completely understand what I wrote). Below, I have a more clear discussion of what I attempted to poetically posit.
Hamlet truly is a tragic character who experiences some of the most disturbing and profound incidents ever imaginable: his father’s death, his mother’s remarriage to his uncle, his uncle’s succession to the throne, and a visit from his father’s ghost, and all within a two-month span. Throughout the play, the audience catches several glimpses of Hamlet’s madness (although the legitimacy of that madness is questionable). However, I don’t want to examine Hamlet’s insanity. There are already enough literary articles on that subject. I choose instead to focus on the people surrounding Hamlet, the audience, and all their thoughts/feelings.
I am in both the Shakespeare English elective and the AP class, and I read Hamlet before in eighth grade, so this is my third time reading the play. Consequently, I’ve had a lot of time to think about the plot and the themes. It suddenly occurred to me this weekend that no one criticizes Hamlet's intentions or actions in the book or during in-class discussions. Different literary critics have analyzed Hamlet as profoundly genius and incredibly insane. They examine the scenes in which Hamlet is or feigns being crazy, looking at what he says and how he acts. Regardless of Hamlet’s mental state, no one condemns Hamlet’s behavior as immoral or unjustified. This afternoon, I started to think about why we don’t force Hamlet to think more reasonably.
Objectively, black and white—Hamlet’s thoughts are downright lethal. He is incredibly suicidal. He confronts Ophelia in a wild, violent manner. In addition, his new objective is to kill his uncle to avenge his father’s murder. Furthermore, without revealing too much of the remaining plotline, Hamlet murders several people. Those actions are as heinous as Claudius’s crime. I’m not an expert on the legal system during Shakespeare’s era, but certainly, from a modern perspective, we would advocate bringing Claudius to trial rather than leaving Hamlet to determine his uncle’s fate. However, we (generally) do not denounce Hamlet as a criminal. And Horatio—Horatio was very aware of Hamlet’s intentions, so why did he not stop Hamlet? Even though Claudius’s actions are reprehensible, so are Hamlet’s.
And yet, how can we say Hamlet’s actions are unjustifiable? Claudius MURDERED Hamlet’s father. Wouldn’t we all be inclined to seek retribution for a crime committed against a loved one? Admittedly, I too have compassion for Hamlet and struggle to condemn him completely. His story is immensely tragic, and he feels abandoned by everyone he has ever known and trusted: his mother, Ophelia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and even his father—albeit King Hamlet did not intend to leave Hamlet.
To those who choose to respond to my blog: what do you think? Why do we sympathize with Hamlet’s plight and not criticize him for his behavior? Is there some clear explanation for our feelings, or is this just another unexplainable “grey zone” answer? Or am I simply a hypercritical, condescending oaf? (672)
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to offer
To the pitiful prince our compassion,
Or to be objective despite Hamlet’s sea of troubles,
And by opposing judge him? To judge, to scorn—
or hate—and by judging to say we don’t
Allow him to act with these immoral thoughts
That beast is prone to act on—'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To judge, to hate—
To scorn, perchance to ourselves do. Ay, there's the rub,
For in that condemnation what future may come
When we ourselves commit the very same act,
Must give us pause. There's our hypocrisy
That makes calamity of so long life….
I applaud those of you who attempted to read my gibberish above. As you can tell, I tried to imitate Hamlet’s famous soliloquy, but I decided to cut it short to avoid redundancy and never-ending jabber. I hope it made at least a little bit of sense (to be honest, I don’t think I completely understand what I wrote). Below, I have a more clear discussion of what I attempted to poetically posit.
Hamlet truly is a tragic character who experiences some of the most disturbing and profound incidents ever imaginable: his father’s death, his mother’s remarriage to his uncle, his uncle’s succession to the throne, and a visit from his father’s ghost, and all within a two-month span. Throughout the play, the audience catches several glimpses of Hamlet’s madness (although the legitimacy of that madness is questionable). However, I don’t want to examine Hamlet’s insanity. There are already enough literary articles on that subject. I choose instead to focus on the people surrounding Hamlet, the audience, and all their thoughts/feelings.
I am in both the Shakespeare English elective and the AP class, and I read Hamlet before in eighth grade, so this is my third time reading the play. Consequently, I’ve had a lot of time to think about the plot and the themes. It suddenly occurred to me this weekend that no one criticizes Hamlet's intentions or actions in the book or during in-class discussions. Different literary critics have analyzed Hamlet as profoundly genius and incredibly insane. They examine the scenes in which Hamlet is or feigns being crazy, looking at what he says and how he acts. Regardless of Hamlet’s mental state, no one condemns Hamlet’s behavior as immoral or unjustified. This afternoon, I started to think about why we don’t force Hamlet to think more reasonably.
Objectively, black and white—Hamlet’s thoughts are downright lethal. He is incredibly suicidal. He confronts Ophelia in a wild, violent manner. In addition, his new objective is to kill his uncle to avenge his father’s murder. Furthermore, without revealing too much of the remaining plotline, Hamlet murders several people. Those actions are as heinous as Claudius’s crime. I’m not an expert on the legal system during Shakespeare’s era, but certainly, from a modern perspective, we would advocate bringing Claudius to trial rather than leaving Hamlet to determine his uncle’s fate. However, we (generally) do not denounce Hamlet as a criminal. And Horatio—Horatio was very aware of Hamlet’s intentions, so why did he not stop Hamlet? Even though Claudius’s actions are reprehensible, so are Hamlet’s.
And yet, how can we say Hamlet’s actions are unjustifiable? Claudius MURDERED Hamlet’s father. Wouldn’t we all be inclined to seek retribution for a crime committed against a loved one? Admittedly, I too have compassion for Hamlet and struggle to condemn him completely. His story is immensely tragic, and he feels abandoned by everyone he has ever known and trusted: his mother, Ophelia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and even his father—albeit King Hamlet did not intend to leave Hamlet.
To those who choose to respond to my blog: what do you think? Why do we sympathize with Hamlet’s plight and not criticize him for his behavior? Is there some clear explanation for our feelings, or is this just another unexplainable “grey zone” answer? Or am I simply a hypercritical, condescending oaf? (672)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
