Intro to literary criticism
Provided is a link to an introduction to literary criticisms. I would like each student to choose and explain a literary criticism and apply it to Hamlet. For example, if one were to interpret Shakespeare's Hamlet from a Marxist perspective, it might look something like this:
Application in Shakespeare’s Hamlet
While Hamlet might not seem to be a likely text for a strong Marxist reading given that its protagonist is a man of privilege and that the play takes place in a fictional version of 16th century Denmark, Hamlet can be interpreted through a number of different Marxist theoretical approaches. A Marxist critic might take a particular interest in the manner in which Hamlet subverts Claudius’s rule by engaging in acts of subterfuge, manipulation, and revolution in order to overcome his oppressive rule over him. A critic may also argue that Hamlet’s actions serve to demonstrate a way by which an oppressive ideological regime can be countered and overcome. A Marxist theorist might argue that Claudius killed his brother King Hamlet in order to gain political, social, and economic power, and hence might be viewed as a figure who is corrupted by his desire for social and political power. Hamlet himself steps outside of the standards, rules, and norms established and encouraged by the ruling class that he was once a part of in order to resist its oppressive ideology. Such a critical viewpoint might serve to argue that Hamlet is at least partly about Hamlet’s own sudden separation from and realization of the ideological faults of the political structure he is or was a part of. Also, a Marxist theorist might take interest in the plays focus on characters who belong to the ruling class and the lack of "voice" given to common people in the play. One may argue that Shakespeare—who, himself, was born to a commoner and was himself very much a member of what we would today call the "working class" or "middle class"—is issuing an attack or critique of the oppressive and morally corrupt ideology of the ruling classes throughout Hamlet. Furthermore, a Marxist critique of Hamlet might take special interest in the famous grave digging scene of the play, and point out how Shakespeare positions the gravedigger—who is the only common or non-privileged character given a prominent voice within the narrative—as a source of wisdom capable of recognizing intrinsic truths about existence and the nature of the events that have come to pass within the story that the high-ranking and privileged characters in the play, including Hamlet himself, are unable to realize partly because of their own class positions. While a Marxist theorist would probably not argue that Shakespeare was himself quite a proto- Marxist, he or she might argue that in Hamlet, Shakespeare was anticipating and recognizing ideas concerning class distinctions and attitudes that were further developed by Karl Marx over 300 years later. By the way, Karl Marx was crazy and as Catholics, we do not agree with his actions or thoughts. He started the communist revolution. He also thinks that the only thing that really matters is "stuff".
I would like to do the feminist theory please. :)
ReplyDeleteI'm going to take the psychoanalytic approach on this one. I'm currently in a psychology class right now and this topic was the only one that looked that it was written in English.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, here we go. Through research, it seems as if psychoanalytic theorists have diagnosed Hamlet and many other of Shakespeare's characters with some psychological problems. Hamlet is definitely no exception here. As some online articles say, this is the one play that is analyzed the most, based on a psychoanalytic perspective. As this critics have put it, there is no real conclusion that Hamlet has a disorder, simply because everything that these crazy people suggest is totally different from what the other suggests. Major depressive disorder. Bipolar I disorder. Bipolar II disorder. Generalized anxiety disorder. Panic disorder. Depersonalizations disorder.
I could go on for days, but the ones Hamlet applies to, or comes the closest to signifying, is the bipolar I or II disorder. The bipolar disorders are when somebody has mood swings, from being very happy at one point, to being told something and being very depressed for a while after that, and then maybe being told something and being irritated or uncomfortable, and then they keep repeating that cycle. This sounds like Hamlet (more than any of the other disorders I know of or found online).
For instance, Hamlet's father was killed and he was very sad for a long time. Then he figured out through the mousetrap scene that his father was killed by his uncle, so he became enraged. After this he went to kill him, but felt remorseful despite of his rage and spared him. After that he slain Polonius through the arras, which showed that he was once again enraged to kill Claudius. Then he has feelings for Laertes and goes berserk on Claudius at the end. Regardless of all of these shenanigans, Shakespeare wants you to think Hamlet is crazy with all of these mood swings. Well, at least I hope he does.
Matt Bobby,
DeleteThis is a very interesting approach to apply to Hamlet. Hamlet definitely was crazy, but like you mentioned, perhaps not medically. I really like how you 'diagnosed' him with Bipolar disorder. It is sort of fun to picture Hamlet with a mental disease. I wish you would have mentioned Ophelia when she goes insane in Act IV. What kind of disorder did she have if she had one? That would have been a good part to analyze as well! Other than that, great job, Matt!
Matt Bobby,
DeleteI think that this was a good choice. I thought that you did a good time explaining it. I thought that it was interesting perspective because Hamlet seemed to have a psycological issue throughout the play, but it was never explicitly explained. Nice job!
Gender/queer studies please and thank you :)
ReplyDeleteI am going to try the Reader-Response Criticism. This criticism centers around just what the title says, the reader and how they respond to the text. It uses the reader as an active participant in the text and how they are affected by reading. I thought that this was an interesting take. There are two essential rules in this criticism which state that the reader cannot be taken out of the interpretation or the book is no good. The other rule is that the reader is not a passive part of the book, but rather the essential link which ties everything together.
ReplyDeleteThe play Hamlet can be viewed in the Reader-Response Critical lens to better understand the text. The entire play is contradictory to what the reader thinks will happen. The reader waits for Hamlet to make his move to kill his Uncle, but he always finds a way around it. He has multiple opportunities, but makes an excuse about why he cannot. When his Uncle finally is killed, the reader does not think of this as an odd occurrence because all the other characters were killed.
The reader and the text's interaction is very important as well. Hamlet was written as a play, so when the reader reads the text there is multiple ways of interpreting it. The scene with Hamlet and Ophelia there are three ways of interpreting whether or not Polonius is there or not. Hamlet is also open to interpretation of the reader. There are multiple examples throughout the play where the reader has to decide for himself what is actually taking place. The reader is not told what a character is thinking so they have to decide for themselves.
This criticism is a very strong criticism that puts the reader at the forefront. It is open to interpretation, but makes the reader essential to the reading.
Kraus,
DeleteThis was a nice blog. I looked at that form of criticism, and I almost did it. I think you are absolutely right that Hamlet is open to so many different ways of interpretation. There really is no right answer when it comes to this play. The reader is so important to the process of reading any work of literature, but this play in particular is so reader based. I liked that you brought up the example of Ophelia and Hamlet in get thee to a nunnery. It was a really great way to cement what you were saying! Nice job!
Luke Kraus,
DeleteYour literary criticism is very interesting as well! I really like this lens, and I think we should take this approach to one of the novels we read in class. I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned how the reader is always waiting for Hamlet to just kill Claudius, and he never does until the very end! The suspense! Haha! I think it was also clever of you to mention how different readers interpret Hamlet very differently. This is so true, and we always discuss this in class. I think you picked a very significant literary criticism and applied it well. Good Job, Kraus!
Luke Kraus,
DeleteNice blog. Hamlet is always open to many of forms of interpretation. There are so many forms that it is impossible to have a right interpretation. What the heck was Shakespeare thinking? I also agreed with your point that different readers interpret the scenes and all of that stuff in between differently. I feel like that can be applied to any blog. Nice job.
Looking at Hamlet through a Feminist lens, how fun! Obviously this is not the first literary criticism that comes to mind when it comes to this Shakespeare play, but it is present. Obviously, since I am focusing on feminism, I am focusing on two main characters in particular, Ophelia and Gertrude. Let me begin with Ophelia.
ReplyDeleteOphelia does not have a mother in the play. Hm, that his rather peculiar. One of the questions of feminist criticism is how is the relationship between men and women portrayed? Well, in Ophelia’s case the men of her life pretty much rule her life. Polonius and Laertes treat her as if she is their minion, and they can tell her what to do, especially when it comes to her relationship with Hamlet. In Act I, Scene 3, Polonius instructs Ophelia to “not believe [Hamlet’s] vows”, and she simply replies with, “I shall obey, my lord.” Laertes also speaks to Ophelia as if she is a young, foolish girl when he tells her to stay away from Hamlet, and then he asks her (as if she is a toddler), “Remember well what I have said to you.” Again, Ophelia replies like a meek, obedient servant when she says, “ ‘Tis in my memory locked, and you yourself shall keep the key to it.” This is a reoccurring theme in Hamlet. Polonius and Laertes almost use Ophelia as their pawn to secretly get at Hamlet, especially when Polonius blames Hamlet’s madness on his “love” for Ophelia. The molding of Ophelia by the men in her life represents the inequality of women, which is an important theme of feminist criticism.
Gertrude represents a different aspect of feminist criticism. She represents the aspect of patriarchal ideology. An example given of this is how in the Bible Eve is considered as the origin of sin and death of all the world. Hamlet sees his mother’s hasty marriage to his uncle as “incestuous” and “corrupt”. He sees his mother as an evil figure because she does not mourn for her first husband as much as Hamlet thinks is fit. He sees her as the origin of corruptness in retaining power through the marriage of Claudius, and that through her rapid decision, all of the revenge and spite that is threaded through the play revolves around her one decision to wed Claudius. Gertrude also plays another part in the feminist lens of Hamlet.
Both Gertrude and Ophelia display a sense of independence, which is another feature of the feminist criticism of works. Gertrude symbolizes independence through her decision to marry Claudius. Could the dead king’s brother have a strong influence on her decision? Perhaps, but Gertrude consented, nevertheless, and made a brave choice. She also drinks the poisoned cup at the end even when the king instructs her, “Gertrude, do not drink.” She does it anyway, an act of independence, and eventually it leads to her death. Perhaps it was her liberal way of freeing herself from the awful binds of her marriage. Then there is Ophelia. Some feminist critics say that Ophelia displays her independence through her insanity in Act IV. In her delusional state, Ophelia is “unreachable”, and no one can really talk any sense into her. Perhaps it is her way of rebelling against the people (the men) who ruled her all of her life. Perhaps she ducked into her own little world to make her own decisions and do what she pleases. A theory like this definitely spawns from feminist criticism. It is very interesting to look at Hamlet through the feminist lens.
Rachel,
DeleteYour blog is really interesting. I have never really paid much attention to the whole feminism thing, but this blog was well done. I think that Gertrude really is amazingly independent, especially for the approximate time period of Hamlet. Ophelia is definitely more controlled by the men in her life, but she is also such an amazing character. I can’t help but think that she may have been braver herself. In the end when she died, she freed herself from the bonds that once held her like a prisoner here. I like Ophelia a lot in case you have noticed. Anyway, good job!
Rachel,
DeleteI agree with Megna that your blog is very interesting. I never really thought of Ophelia not having a mother. It is very interesting. I had orginally thought that Ophelia and Gertrude were pretty helpless characters. However after reading your blog I can see how both do have their moments of independence in the play. Even though I am not a huge fan of Ophelia I can see how her death was her breaking free from the pressure of her brother and father. Great job!
Rachel,
DeleteI liked this. You did it well. It did always annoy me Ophelia's passivity. Even when Hamlet was sorta throwing her around in the "get the to a nunnery" scene I was annoyed that she wasn't getting mad at him even just a little. Instead she cries for his poor soul...give me a break. To touch in Gertrude, I do agree that Hamlet looks upon his mother in that derogatory sense that Eve is sometimes portrayed, however, I do not believe that this view outweighs that of the contempt he feels for his uncle. I really liked what you said about Gertrude's liberations though. So "Awakening" ish...nice blog!
Rachel,
DeleteYou had a really good blog this week. I like how you addressed all of the characters in feminist regards, especially in Gertrude's case. It seems as if she remarried to obtain power. Your interpretations were very accurate of everybody, but I really did connect with Gertrude and her hasty marriage. Nice job.
I decided that it would be good to look at Hamlet from a moral criticism standard. There is definitely plenty to go on.
ReplyDeletePlato said that if works of art and literature do not teach ethics and morals to the audience then they are a danger to the audience. He says that the audience must be learning something about what is right or wrong through artistic expression. This is one of the main focuses of the moral critical lens. They search to see if the audience is learning anything morally or ethically from a particular piece.
Hamlet, as we know, is not really a great way to find moral standards. Actually the whole thing is the exact opposite of morally and ethically sound. Hamlet is constantly searching for the revenge of his uncle, and in doing so he wantonly murders other people. He is also very cruel to some of the people he encounters such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. He treats those two exactly like the fools they are, and then he has them executed in England. Hamlet also says that he doesn’t want the king to die at prayer because he might go to heaven. This is hatred at its purest form, and Hamlet is ethically horrible for trying to damn Claudius. It is not his place to do so, and in a way Hamlet attempts to play God.
Claudius is also a poor example of morality. He is a scheming king, and he murders his own brother. The worse part is, is that he murders his brother and marries his brothers wife just so he can have the throne all to himself. There are absolutely no ethics in that. He also tries to force Hamlet to forget about his father as if he were never even really there. Claudius tries to assimilate into Hamlet’s life, but only because he wants Hamlet to die. Claudius is a power hungry maniac.
Laertes also struggles morally throughout the play. Though we don’t really see him until Act 4 of the play, he makes a strong impression when we do. He is angry and revengeful over the death of his father. He has a mob behind him chanting that he shall be the king. Laertes also conspires with another to commit murder against a man that he really didn’t have any problems with beforehand. Laertes allows anger and hatred to cloud his judgment, and before maybe even he knows it, he has made a deal to murder a man who may not be innocent, but doesn’t deserve to die.
The morality of the play kind of has an upswing at the end. Hamlet and Laertes sort of redeem themselves after all the vengeful hatred. They reconcile with each other, and through that they are both better suited to go to heaven. It starts to make the reader realize that one must make peace with their enemies before they die so as to make themselves ready for the Kingdom of God.
The reader also learns that there is no good time to kill someone. Revenge is not justified easily, if at all. The reader must take away from this play the lesson that murder is never right, and in the end all it will do is haunt you until death claims you as one of its own.
Megan,
DeleteOh I choose the morality one too! I totally agree that Claudius us like the prime character for immorality in the play. He only cares about himself and he will do anything to maintain his power. This includes killing his brother, marrying his sister in law and trying to kill his nephew. Which is a pretty lengthily list. Well great job, Megz I love how you talked about revenge and how it leads to great sin in the play.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMegan,
DeleteMorality is certainly a common way to view Hamlet. I really enjoy how a good 75% of your blog is talking about the moral corruptness of the cast. But it's true. Does anyone really do a good deed in this okay until the end? Not really to speak of. Laertes and Hamlet do sorta redeem themselves as you said, but even then, you have to wonder if a simple reconciliation really makes amends for all the wrong done and lives lost? Nice blog. It was thought provoking.
Megan,
DeleteI think that you did a really good job on this. I liked the statement about Plato. I think that your choice fits perfectly in with what you are talking about. I think every character in the play has some issue with their morals. Nice job Megan!
I am certainly not the only one to analyze Hamlet in regards to gender or sexuality. Back when we read that lecture on the various interpretations of the play, one of my favorite theories (of which I was determined to convince myself the truth of) was that the reason for Hamlet's stalling is because he was actually a girl.
ReplyDeleteNow this theory is primarily derived from a movie adaptation of the play where Horatio, clutching Hamlet before he dies, proclaims "I now know your secret." What? What secret? As far as I am concerned Hamlet has only been entirely honest with one character in this play and that is Horatio (okay, maybe Ophelia too, but she's dead). So what secret could there be?
Hamlet is a girl?
Admittedly, I failed in my quest to convince myself of this theory, however, a case can certainly be made in its favor. Let's consider the fact that Hamlet has been played by girls in the past. Directors have evidentially seen a side to the character that is female in some nature and have seized it as an opportunity for a new interpretive take. Hamlet is emotional...like, really emotional. Generally a stereotypical "female" trait. And if Hamlet is the only child of the old King Hamlet and Gertrude, then the idea of them protecting his identity for the sake of the throne really isn't all that far fetched for this 16th century Denmark. History has certainly granted us with stranger truths.
Now if Hamlet is considered to be a woman that certainly has an impact on his relationship with others in the work. First, if Gertrude were protecting Hamlet's identity, it may help to explain why it is she begins to panic so readily when he confronts her about her crimes in the bed chambers. He criticizes her for her quick marriage and how "such a deed as from the body of contraction plucks the very soul, and sweet religion makes a rhapsody of words." Such an act makes questionable all solemn vows. Such a vow as, say, his hidden identity? If Hamlet has been anticipating the crown, it may not be a position he is ready to give up. If Hamlet feels he can no longer trust his mother then this may give added meaning to his hostility towards Gertrude.
Now the big one. Ophelia. He said he loved her, yes? Well, perhaps he did, on a platonic level. A love of friends. And when Hamlet finally told Ophelia everything (about the old king, Claudius, Polonius, his identity) she went crazy. Because Ophelia had loved Hamlet, and to know that either their love was forbidden or that he/she did not love her like she thought, in combination with everything else, just threw her over the edge, so to speak.
I have thought from the beginning that Hamlet has a man crush on Horatio. I actually wrote that in the margins at one point "man crush" with a little heart. Hamlet loves to praise Horatio (just take a look at act 3, scene 2 lines 52-83). Horatio certainly holds Hamlet in high regard. He even makes the offer to kill himself as he sits with his dying friend. But Hamlet won't have it. They're friendship reminds me of Sebastian and Charles, and I certainly would not find it hard to believe that there was a homosexual component to their friendship. But it would make even more sense if Hamlet was a woman. Hamlet's swooning over his friend would be entirely normal. He, I mean she, just has a crush on a man who she holds in very high regard.
And poor Ophelia might know this too. And madness may just be the result of the pangs of "despised love."
It's not full proof. I do think Hamlet is intended to be a boy. However, it is certainly a theory worth exploring that gives the play an entirely new angle.
Okay so I pick the morality criticism of Hamlet. Obviously there are some serious morality issues in Hamlet due to all of the killing that takes place. Hamlet and Claudius lead the way in the most bad decisions throughout the play. Both of them cause death and grief on both sides, while Ophelia also makes a fateful decision in the play.
ReplyDeleteThe first immoral act is Claudius killing his brother and marrying his sister. One point for Claudius. This act of murder is completely immoral, this is because not only the act of the murder itself, but the grounds on which it was committed. Claudius just wanted power which is why he killed his own brother and possibly because he was having an affair with his sister in law.
The second immoral act is Hamlet killing Polonius for no reason except that he thought he was Claudius. Also Hamlet does not seem to be all that concerned about committing murder. So one point for Hamlet. This is obviously extremely immoral because Hamlet was just killing to kill. The whole revenge theme in this play is extremely immoral because both Laertes and Hamlet feel that they have to kill in order to avenge their father's deaths. Ophelia killing herself out of grief is also immoral. As suicide is taking the easy way out and Hamlet himself had struggled with contemplating suicide.
Claudius and Laertes conspiring against Hamlet is obviously morally wrong. Claudius just wants to get rid of Hamlet because he is concerned for himself, go figure. Anyways Laertes is blinded by his desire for revenge that he doesn't even really seem to consider the wrongness of his actions. Hamlet is no better because he changed his name on the hit list to rosencratz and Gulidenstern. When in reality he probably could have just thrown the letter away or tear it up or something.
So the morality wasn't really there until everyone was dying. When Laertes and Hamlet were poisoned they came to their senses and realized the tragedy that they have caused. They the. Repented for their sins and this is when the reader knows that they turned their lives around at the last second, proving that they acted unjustly throughout the play.