OT: HAMLET

[kentontrace]

Ok guys - I'm here to ask for some help.

I have a paper to write about the play Hamlet - Specifically the part when he kills Polonius. My paper is based on the fact that he knew it wasnt the king that he was killing. Does anyone know of any good sources I can use for this paper? Or any thoughts of your own would help too. I've been putting this off for a week and probably should get started on it. I figured someone here might have some ideas for me

[Franklinnoble]

To be... or not to be...

[JPhillips]

Kenton: I don't know sources that will specifically say that Hamlet knew it wasn't the King. Most criticism tends to deal with larger thematic questions. I would becurious how you reconcile Hamlet's lines after he discovers that he has killed Polonius.

H: I took the for thy better.

For criticism you should look at Bloom's "Invention of the Human"(I think I paraphrased the title) Its a little dense, but all American Shakespeare criticism starts with Bloom. Outside of that I'd head to your local library and see what they have. There should be lots of breakdowns of Hamlet and lots of discussions of productions. You probably won't find much useful before the twentieth century as "interpretations" of Shakespeare really didn't exist as we know them today.

I don't know where you are in Ohio, but I'd also suggest contacting a college drama department and talking to a director to get their take. If you are near a major city you can contact one of the professional companies and talk to the artistic director.

I can discuss Polonius for a while if you'd like as I just worked on Hamlet last year. My take on him was more of a Dick heney or Rasputin power behind the throne, but if you want any of my opinions let me know.

[wade moore]

whoah there killer, it's just a high school essay ...

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Kenton: I don't know sources that will specifically say that Hamlet knew it wasn't the King. Most criticism tends to deal with larger thematic questions. I would becurious how you reconcile Hamlet's lines after he discovers that he has killed Polonius.

H: I took the for thy better.

That statement could be construed to mean that Hamlet thought Polonius was above such behavior as eavesdropping, could it not?

[JPhillips]

Yes, but I still think there is some trouble based on an earlier line.

H: Nay, I know not. Is it the king?

I think there's a real problem if Hamlet knowingly kills Polonious unless we see Polonious do something that we feel justifies a murder. We can understand, if maybe not agree with, Hamlet killing his uncle because in some sense its just, but if Polonious is the traditional bumbling fool and Hamlet knowingly kills him that changes our relationship to him. Now Hamlet has become a killer of the innocent.

You can play this as Hamlet being mad and going towards a guilty, but insane defense. Fir me its more interesting for Hamlet to discover that he's done something unforgivable because of his rash behavior. The realization of the crime he has commited changes him and for my money takes him past the point of his survival. I think that once he discovers he has killed the wrong man, a man that he can't reconcile killing with his new Protestant beliefs(I can also go into this if needed), he has in effect ended his existence.

[SFL Cat]

literate nerds?

[kentontrace]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

literate nerds?

Be quiet, they are trying to help one of us out that isnt as literate

[kentontrace]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yes, but I still think there is some trouble based on an earlier line.

H: Nay, I know not. Is it the king?

I think there's a real problem if Hamlet knowingly kills Polonious unless we see Polonious do something that we feel justifies a murder.

In my eyes, I don't think that Hamlet really KNEW it was Polonius, but I also think that he had to know it wasnt the King. There wasnt really time for the King to make it to that location following the prayer. What is your reaction to this??

The line "Nay, I know not. Is it the king?" could have been Hamlets way of saying he was tired of all the easedroping that was occurring throughout the play.

Sure it’s a stretch - but just a thought.

Also, by this point Hamlet is pretty crazy, and his urge to kill is really strong. Right before this he had the chance to kill the king and didn't because the King was in prayer and he didnt want to kill him because if he did he'd then go to heaven, so what if his urge was so strong to kill some one in revenge that it didnt matter who it was.???

Just some thoughts - what do you think???

[JPhillips]

I agree with you that the church scen is critical. Especially since, IMO the religious stress Hamlet is facing is a major part of his problem. I think there is a strain of Protestant v. Catholic that runs through the play. Hamlet sees salvation as coming from the individual and he desperately wants to see/create a better world than what Denmark has become.

Where I differ with you is that I think Hamlet only will kill those which he is convinced have committed evil acts. He's rationalized to himself that killing Claudius is just. I don't think he would knowingly kill anyone other than Claudius.

I think its also interesting that he tries to hide his killing of Polonius. Some of this is obviously because of Claudius' potential reaction, but I think there is a desire to get rid of the body and hence the act because it has soiled his soul.

In my production the tragedy was based around Hamlet becoming a part of the cycle of violence that he tried vainly to escape. Everything he condemned about Denmark he becomes. For me that inability to escape a world of violence is what's tragic.

Can I ask where in Ohio you're from? I grew up in S. Ohio and my family is spread throughout the state. If you want to continue discussing Hamlet fire away. In the end the greatness of the work is the almost limitless interpretations.

[Ben E Lou]

To be, or not to be, that is the question
Whether 'tis nobler in the heart to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or....

That's all I remember. It has been 20 years since Mrs. Tina Cliff tried to force memorization of Hamlet's soliloquy upon me.

[st.cronin]

I remember seeing that theater company in Spring Green, Wisconsin perform Hamlet. It was a pretty solid show, with a laughably bad Hamlet, but what made it totally unforgettable was the fact that there were BATS swooping on the audience.

[JPhillips]

To be, or not to be, that is the question
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or....

Sorry, but Mrs. Cliff would never let you substitue heart for mind!

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I agree with you that the church scen is critical. Especially since, IMO the religious stress Hamlet is facing is a major part of his problem. I think there is a strain of Protestant v. Catholic that runs through the play. Hamlet sees salvation as coming from the individual and he desperately wants to see/create a better world than what Denmark has become.

Some of the most intriguing criticism to come along in the last few years touches right on the idea of religious doctrine, Catholicism vs. Protestantism. In fact, the idea has been suggested (in Claire Asquith's Shadowplay as well as briefly in Stephen Greenblatt's Will in the World) that the canon of Shakespeare was steeped in both political and religious allegory that would easily have been deciphered by the Globe's audiences in much the same way that Orwell's Animal Farm and Miller's The Crucible are currently taught. To make a long story short, the character of Polonius in this "code" is meant to characterize William Cecil, Lord High Treasurer under Elizabeth I and Protestant intriguer. Many of Polonius's lines in the play tie directly into statements that the Cecil family was identified with in their ideal of an Anglican state.

Hamlet, as the fair son of the true king (Catholicism), seeks to slay the unlawful dark usurper (Protestantism) that has seduced his mother (England). Thus his inner conflict at hearing the secret thoughts of Claudius mirror the deliberation he takes in moving overtly against the crown - because for Catholics to retain the hearts and minds of the nation, they cannot simply destroy the Protestants (who are still Christian and retain some semblance of Godliness). Instead, they must bide their time until the true Heresy of Protestantism is shown, and then they may strike.

However, no such protection is afforded the underlings who openly speak such heresy. Polonius (Cecil) openly agitates for the Protestant philosophy, and moves against Hamlet (Catholic England) from the shadows, behind a cloak of civility. It is by inciting violence from these shadows that seals Cecil's fate. If you choose to argue the idea that Hamlet was aware of the identity of the plotter behind the curtain, you would be arguing under this code that the first dramatic action the Catholics would take in their revolt against the Protestant ruling house is to destroy those who sit in the shadows and plot against the Catholic recusants. Likewise, if you argue a different premise, you can show how the message that would have been received by the masses (many of them secret Catholics) alters.

Earlier in the thread, Harold Bloom's work was cited. He's definitely the go-to scholar in this country for Shakespeare criticism, but I don't know if it is the place for you to start with the particular question you're asking. I think what you're arguing is essentially a staging choice rather than a textual choice. Knowing some of the symbolism behind the play, and what I've outlined above is simply one of the current sexier ideas, is going to help you decide why your interpretation is going to yield a more incisive, provocative look at the issues raised by the play. Bloom's common published work has always seemed to me to be less about moments in the plays, like the one you're focusing on, and more about what the canon has to say about the world. You want to be looking at the theater world and not the literature world to better inform your answer, I think.

Poke around the Hamlet Online site, looking at different performances and themes explored in different staged productions. Good luck!

[Senator]

Alas, poor kentontrace! I knew him, Skydog; infinite jest and so on.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Sorry, but Mrs. Cliff would never let you substitute heart for mind!

Well, I didn't exactly ace that particular test. In the end, it only counted for like 7.5% of our grade for that period (as in it counted as one of four Major Tests, which totaled 30% of our grade, with papers being 40% and final exam being 30%). I decided to give it minimal effort, nail everything else, and still get an "A." (I got somewhere in the 50's on it, I'm fairly certain...) I always figured out how to play the numbers to get the grade I wanted/needed. I didn't like Mrs. Cliff at all, so I told her exactly what I was doing, too. It really pissed her off, but it was HER grading system, and she couldn't do a dadgum thing about it. I could be a teachers' *NIGHTMARE* at times, I was told later on.

[kentontrace]

I wish I had some of this self knowledge to help me write my paper! *bows to everyone that has posted in this thread with insight to help with my paper*

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Can I ask where in Ohio you're from? I grew up in S. Ohio and my family is spread throughout the state.

I live in the Southwest - about 45 mins from Cincy.

Both you and Shkspr make very valid points about the play. *bows again*

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think he would knowingly kill anyone other than Claudius.

I agree with you, but when he Kills Polonius - he is sooo overwhelmed with grief because of what his mother has done and his fathers death, that at the given moment when he stabs through that arras...he is just hoping that it is the King? (even though the timing of the Act would lean towards it not being the King)

After he realizes its Polonius - he doesn't show very much remorse if any.

[JPhillips]

I grew up in Greenfield about 75 minutes east of Cincy.

I guess I'm not as worried about the time factor. Like most of Shakespeare's work it isn't clear that no time has passed between scenes. Certainly its the same general time span, but IMO there's nothing that clarifies that this is one minute later or one hour later. The church scene also ends with both Hamlet and Claudius exiting and I think its quite possible for Hamlet to believe that Claudius got there first.

I'm intrigued by Shksp's post. One of my concerns with haing Hamlet knowingly kill someone other than the King is the affect on the audience relationship. If you really ran with a Catholic/Protestant through line I think it could work. My initial thought is that you would have to make Polonious far less likable than is normal, but of course I think Polonious is a prick anways!

As far as remorse shown I think it all depends on the acting/directing choices made. Its all in the moment of discovery. What does Hamlet do before and as he's saying,

H: Though wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell!

I can see this played with great remorse if need be or with an almost flippant dismissal. If he knowingly killed someone other than the King he won't be very remorseful, but if he thought he was justly killing the King and instead discovers he's now a murderer with little or no moral superiority over Claudius that line carries the weight of the world.

In the end I think your interpretation can work, but if I was directing it I would be very concerned about the relationship between Hamlet and the audience. I guess the overall question that I think you have to resolve is, "How does the audience react to seeing Hamlet knowingly commit murder?" I think you'll have to really focus on Polonious' character to make this killing acceptable.