This is
one of the most central questions about famous literarywho, over the centuries, have provoked
multiple and contradictory reactions from readers. Arguably, it's precisely the difficulty one
usually has in giving a definitive answer to it that reveals the depth of not only
Shakespeare'sofhimself, but the depth and complexity of the play as a whole, and its status as
an iconic , perhaps the greatest of all time or at least modern (from about the year 1500 on)
times.
is many things. This is merely a truism; everyone who has seen or
read the play senses the complications in the man's inner nature. Often simply the way an author
makes a character speak can elicit a sympathetic response, in spite of that character's flaws
and negative traits. Few people fail to respond to the "To be or not to be" . The
basic sentiments expressed about life and death are so universal that even if Shakespeare hadn't
invested them with wording that is almost supernaturally charged with emotion and meaning, we
would still probably recognize the profundity in these thoughts. So we reflexively side with
this man who is suffering, and who suffers as an emblem of all of humanity.
This is the positive side of Hamlet. But his behavior, his actions, and his treatment
of other people are often absolutely reprehensible. Immediately following the great soliloquy
(Act 3, scene 1) he pours out a stream of abuse to . Much of this has been rationalized by
commentators as being either a part of Hamlet's ruse to make everyone think him insane, or, on
the other hand, as the inevitable result of Hamlet's genuine suffering as a man tortured by his
father's death and his own inability to act decisively in avenging it. Or perhaps Hamlet
is psychotic in reality, and he cannot help taking it out on an innocent
victim such as Ophelia. But whatever our interpretation, Hamlet comes off as a cruel man, not
only in this scene but elsewhere. He has no empathy for his own mother. He killsby accident, but
doesn't seem to regret having done so. His attitude toat Ophelia's funeral is one of anger and
contempt, as it is towards almost everyone of significance except his deceased father. That he
hatesis understandable, but the other characters do not deserve his treatment of them.
The fact that we do not really condemn Hamlet for his behavior is due both to the power
of language and our recognition that most of these other people at the Danish court are
themselves false and duplicitous. Hamlet, despite his apparent feigning of insanity, is
practically the only honest person there. If we may be permitted anwith a character in the
popular culture of recent times, specifically in a gangster film, we can say of Hamlet as Tony
Montana says of himself in Scarface, "I always tell the trutheven when
I lie." Hamlet comes across as an avenger not only of his father but against all the
"phoniness" that exists in the world, and for this reason he is a sympathetic figure
in spite of himself.
The only thing wrong with this evaluation is that it
doesn't recognize the utter gratuitousness of his actions towards Ophelia. She is the one
character who has done nothing wrong and towards whom Hamlet's actions cannot be rationalized.
We do not, of course, know the entire backstory of her relationship with Hamlet, except that
it's obvious she is in love with him and that both his behavior toward her and the death of her
father at Hamlet's hands drive her to madness and suicide. It's therefore impossible, in my
view, to see Hamlet in wholly, or even primarily, positive terms. But this, of course, is the
essence of tragedy. A tragic situation exists precisely because theis flawed, and fatally so, as
Hamlet is. The answer to your question is, then, both yes and no.
No comments:
Post a Comment