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)

4 comments:

Ben Murphy said...

William Frenchspeare... an excellent bit of verse that introduces an excellent question. I believe that a large part of the answer, which is also part of the magic of this play, lies in the evoked emotions of this story. We take Hamlet's side BECAUSE he is suicidal, is struggling with love, and is seeking vengeance; we sympathize with Hamlet because we can feel the emotional weight of his position.

Stephen Hamway said...

Well, since you asked, let me tell you what I think. The reader feels compassion for Hamlet because he is a sympathetic character. As you mentioned, he has experienced terrible events during and leading up to the story, events that most people thankfully never have to cope with. I think it is human nature to cut Hamlet a little bit of slack for his thoughts and actions. It also helps that Hamlet does everything that he does for seemingly the right reasons. Good job. It was an excellent post based on the soliloquy alone, everything else is just gravy!

Nicole Swinford said...

Will, of course you not a "hypercritical, condescending oaf"! This is a great blog! I hate to be boring, but I agree with Ben and Stephen. Hamlet has gone through so much and he is so purely human. I think, as strange as it may sound, that the readers can identify with him in many ways. Perhaps, after a bit, I'll come up with something more interesting! I'll let you know! Outstanding job! :)

LCC said...

Why I sympathize with Hamlet:
1. His intelligence
2. His seriousness.
3. His attempts to understand himself, his place in the universe, his relationships with others.
4. His desire to do the right thing.
5. His loneliness.
6. So many people have let him down.
7. He's the underdog.
8. He really does love Ophelia, and she breaks his heart.
9. When he insults Polonius he makes me laugh.
10. He has the soul of a poet.