Yo faggots what do you think Shakespeare suggests through all of the deaths in Hamlet...

Yo faggots what do you think Shakespeare suggests through all of the deaths in Hamlet? Does it actually serve a higher purpose or was it his times version of violence porn

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=smMa38CZCSU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It was his time's suspense and excitement. It's not like he could show robots smashing into each other for 90 minutes.

>do the deaths in a political / family drama signify anything

you wanna elaborate

Do i need too?

yes

Nah. Go read it.

Alternatively read the wiki that explains each Act.

The story is introduced by death and concludes with it.

Hamlet is an actor bound to play a role his not meant to play. Hamlet (the play) is a deconstruction of theater. At the beginning of the play, Shakespeare promised us a revenge tragedy. Hamlet becomes aware of the treason that led to his father's death and he now must avenge him. Seems rather straightforward and standard. And sure enough, in scene five act two, Hamlet does in fact kill Claudius, the traitor who murder his father. However, Claudius death lacks any sense drama; his death is a footnote among the action of the scene with Laertes and Hamlet fighting, the death of these and Gertrude's. In other words, Claudius death lacks poetic justice. There is no moral satisfaction to it, because at this point in the play Claudius treason and King Hamlet's death is no longer the source of drama; Ophelia's death has taken center stage as the igniter for the events in the play. Claudius arc is of lesser importance. The drama of Ophelia's death is the driving force. In doing this, Shakespeare showcases a self awareness unique in his time. He contrasts Hamlet's unique take on the revenge tragedy with Fortinbras' and Laertes'. Their behavior is stereotypical and cliche revenge tragedy behavior. You see, from the beginning of the play, it was clear that Hamlet had been miscast. He is an intellectual man, not a physical one. He is not fit to carry out the task that his role demands of him. Hamlet's attempt to do so led to Polonius death and consequently Ophelia's death as well. Two victims of Hamlet's ineptitude to play the role given to him by Shakespeare. These deaths forces the play to abandon the focus of Hamlet's revenge. Only then does Hamlet's character becomes realized. In this final act, Hamlet is no longer bound to hesitate or inaction. When Horatio warns Hamlet that he is walking into a trap by facing Laertes he says "We defy augury. If it be now 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all." In other words, Hamlet rejects thinking about the future- which means he is also rejecting his father's ghost's orders to avenge him. Hamlet has given up the premise of the play. He is ready for whatever may occur from now on. Some symbolism that is used to illustrate this in a visual way by Shakespeare is present in scene i- when Hamlet sees Yorick's skull. The contrast between Yorick's life as a jester, a symbol of joy and happiness, and the grim image of his decomposed skull is a common theme in the 15th and 16th century called Memento Mori (which translates into "Remember you will die"). Hamlet when faced with this reality, frees himself of his worries and becomes ready for what may happen. He goes to face Laertes with no clear intention of killing Claudius, however, if the opportunity is presented to him, he's ready to take it. Of the four deaths in the final scene, only one of them is planned, Hamlet's. The other three are senseless and sporadic.

(cont.)
This plays out Hamlet's newfound realization that the events in life, like death, are random and meaningless. And the only meaning is the one imposed by reflection and thought. Hamlet stops Horatio from killing himself with his last words "In this harsh world, draw thy breath in pain,/ to tell my story." Horatio is the only one aware of the actions that have transpired, with out him it is all meaningless. He is the only one that can give meaning to it by reflection. With his death, Hamlet demonstrates the significance of thought over action against the uncertainty of death. Immediately after, Fortinbras arrives in Denmark. Fortinbras' story is very similar to Hamlet's- his father of the same name is dead, his rise to the throne of Norway impeded by his uncle, etc.). However his approach was the opposite of Hamlet's. Fortinbras is the traditional revenge tragedy hero the play originally promised in Hamlet. He doesn't waste a moment to take claim of the throne of Denmark. In a final act of irony, Fortinbras orders that Prince Hamlet should have a soldier's funeral. Hamlet, who was everything but a soldier in life was assumed by Fortinbras, a a man of limited perspective, to be one since he was a prince, so he is given a soldier's funeral. Hamlet, in the other hand, felt the obligation to look at everything from a variety of perspective, looking at it from every possible angle. Fortinbras plays his role as its expected, and with his arrival ends Hamlet's experimentation with possibility.

>Yo faggots what do you think Shakespeare suggests through all of the deaths in Hamlet? Does it actually serve a higher purpose or was it his times version of violence porn

It is a tragedy. It is a long tradition in the Tragedy genre to kill several of the main characters. It is not only in Shakespeare that we find this, but in other playwrights of his time, in the roman works (Seneca was a main influence on the English dramatists) and in teh Greek theater.

3 year-old personal analysis for AP.
Was I a pleb?

Passable.
B+
you fucking faggot.
you forgot the part where the only way hamlet could fulfill what his role demands of him is to acknowledge that he himself is the ghost of his own father.

>the only way hamlet could fulfill what his role demands of him is to acknowledge that he himself is the ghost of his own father.
Nah

B. Stop shoehorning random shit that doesn't relate just cause you think it will sound better. The Yorick and memento mori part - completely irrelevant, for example, other than a "hey this is cool it's memento mori!"

Also your writing is stilted. Work on phrasing.

I thought that part was pretty good. After seeing yorick dead hamlet realizes everyone will eventually die and that over thinking is pointless. This allows him to pursue action instead of indecision.
Of course the lifeless skull of yorick is contradictory to the ghost of king hamlet.

But Yorrick's skull is the most significant example of the Memento Mori trend in literature.

Have to agree with this user.

Your Yorick part, for example, was wrong.

The whole premise was wrong. Hamlet is not a deconstruction of theater. He's certainly not miscast (wut?). The play's a philosophical rumination on life, death, and a moral examination of justice/revenge - mainly when revenge is impossible to set things back to how they were in the first place. But it's not a deconstruction of theater itself. It's not a bad thought, but I wouldn't say it's a particularly good thought, either.

Memento mori has no relation to the "Hamlet is a deconstruction of theater" thesis. It's true that Yorick is a memento mori, but so what? It adds nothing to the argument presented.

I'd agree, but I think I'd be a bit more charitable on evaluating his thesis. "Deconstruction" is a super loaded phrase. In the sense that Hamlet directs attention to the theater and what "acting" entails, then yes, it does that. But it feels like "deconstruction" has gotten so abused as a word that it now means anything from subversion to meta-ness to opposition which is pretty silly. But it is important to point how how important this aspect is to Hamlet and Shakespeare in general.

But to add, if you're discussing this I have no idea why you wouldn't devote significant discussion to Hamlet's speech to the players.

Hamlet was an incredibly odd play when it came out and was met with negative reactions by many critics that had previously praised Shakespeare. It might not have been a deliberate descontruction a revenge tragedy, but it might as well be called one (as I belive it would released today).

Contemporary discourse also horribly misuses the word deconstruction. Anything and everything that isn't the "standard" narrative is called a deconstruction these days, it's absurd.

Also,
>Hamlet was an incredibly odd play when it came out and was met with negative reactions by many critics that had previously praised Shakespeare

Citation needed. Hamlet was quite popular during Shakespeare's time, and exerted strong influence on Jacobean tragedy.

I remeber Johnson wrote somewhat disillusioned about it being clumsy. Perhaps i took his opinion as the sole one.

He liked it but he thought there were flaws. Some unnecessary scenes, and Hamlet's lack of a compelling "motive" or "agency." He also lived over 100 years after Shakespeare so hardly contemporaneous.

It has a number of interesting questions left unanswered.

How would Hamlet have viewed the fall of the Danelaw, and Edward The Confessor? If Claudius is meant to be Cnut, then we should assume this is on Hamlet's mind. It does look like Wessex and Saxony would be viewed suspiciously at this time.

Are the Normans playing a better game by manufacturing Fortinbras as they make plans for Hastings?

Jorvik/Yorick appears to be a diminished figure among the Danes, but apparently more akin to people like Fortinbras than Hamlet himself, who merely sympathizes with his old jester.

Is Hamlet depicted as more of an Angle than a true Saxon, and thus more representative of 700-1016 England? There is a form of 'anti-Saxon sentiment' in The Merchant of Venice as well. There's no reason to believe this literally, but it may reflect Catholic attitudes toward the Protestants of Saxony.

One of the biggest problems I have with Gibson's Hamlet is its depiction of Hamlet as very fraternal sort of Viking who discovers he has a soul. Like Kevin Costner in a baseball movie, or something along those lines.

It's technically beautiful and effectively emotional, but scenes like the Yorick moment don't read right... It's more as though Hamlet has discovered 'A Good Joe' in Yorick. Like he's some sort of goofball 11th Century Neo-Con or something.

no dude that's star wars

The Tragedy of Hamlet

Catharsis

My dude

for real.

Nah. Explain.

Hamlet is all about the best laid plans going awry. Laertes planned to kill Hamlet with his poison tipped blade - it killed him instead. Claudius intended to kill Hamlet with the poisoned goblet - it killed Gertrude instead. Hamlet's resolution to act instead of scheme is the catalyst for the finale of the play, and ultimately only Hamlet succeeds in his goal of killing Claudius and finding an honorable way to die, underscoring the power of action over inaction.

>needing help interpreting Shakespeare
How the actual fuck? Shakespeare is by far the most solidly highschool-tier playwright for any native english speaker

>I just remembered there were people in my college-level literature courses a few years back saying they couldn't read Shakespeare

Welp
Nevermind then
The only winning move at this point is suicide.

Nah. Hamlet was political commentary about the growing encroachment of the English monarchy and its self-destructive nature, set conveniently in a country 90% of the audience were ignorant of so as not to raise suspicion.

By the way, R&J is a complete farce aimed at the Catholic Church and Tempest is Willy's final masturbatory retirement piece. Nothing to do with young love or colonialism or whatever.

>implying texts are not kaleidoscope-windows to multiple perspectives

do we really have to go through all of post modernism right here, right now.

because I'll do it. I don't give a fuck.

There are lines in Shakespeare that are still obscure even to scholars. You can get the general sense as a high schooler but there are always new subtleties to discover.

Postmodernism is for cock-riders like yourself.

>implying symbols are the same thing as themes

>i don't understand something so i'll call it gay

rough day at school kiddo?

I understand it's a pile of dogshit, homo.

I bet you can't actually say anything about postmoderism because you're totally ignorant.

do you know anything about modernism even? probably not, lmao plebs

how's freshman year going buddy?

youtube.com/watch?v=smMa38CZCSU

Watch this OP

>this soulless historicist reading of Hamlet

Is this a serious post? I really can't tell anymore.

ITT: people spoonfeed a /b/-tier OP who is probably trying to cheat away a high school assignment

see