What Does Laertes Say Must Govern Hamlet’S Marriage Choice?

I think the women’s deaths in Hamlet are actually incredibly complicated. They might be accidents, suicides, or murders. They may both be accidental. Ophelia may have been crossing the stream on the branch and fallen in by accident. Gertrude might not have known the wine was poisoned. In that case, they are both rather tragic deaths of relatively innocent people. The might also both be suicides. Ophelia may have drowned herself, and maybe Gertrude knew that the wine was poisoned, though I don’t think that’s clear. If it is the case that they’re suicides, then Ophelia, with her flowers, might have done something brave in confronting the king and queen, and Gertrude may have shown a sign of redemption and regret for the way Hamlet was treated. If they did kill themselves intentionally, though, should we consider what motivated them to do so? Ophelia’s mental state was, of course, largely because of her father’s death at the hands of her former suitor, but also because of Hamlet spurning her. Gertrude probably felt some guilt because of Hamlet’s accusations before he was sent to England. In that case, Hamlet’s words are in part responsible for both deaths, and that adds some Shakespearean doubling and fulfills some foreshadowing. Remember, the ghost of King Hamlet describes his death in two ways. He says both that Claudius poured poison in his ear and that he was killed by a surprise sting. Hamlet, through his harsh words to both women, was poured poison into their ears, hasn’t he?

I think it’s interesting to notice how in Shakespeare’s tragedies there is always some section about ‘telling the story to others.’ It’s a very meta thing to consider because it is like the play you are perusal suddenly feels like a true story, or at least the perspective of the one person who survived (Horatio in this case). It also makes you feel like Hamlet might not have been the good guy: he is only the good guy of the story because that is how Horatio wanted it to be? It was also like that in Antony and Cleopatra, where before she dies she talks about how they might be made fun of on stages, but then we see them heroically. I just think that is a very cool thing Shakespeare did.

One of the main reasons why Hamlet is arguably my favorite character in literature is through his intelligence and wit. Sure, he is indecisive, though the decisions he has to make take a lot of will power and courage. Where he shines is in the dialogues he has with Polonius, Ophelia, and even Claudius. The way he uses sarcasm, irony, and just flat-out insult make him truly fascinating.

I played this part in 2013. As I read the play it occurred to me that in addition to the very salient points John made about conscience, fact checking, the nature of revenge, regicide, etc., another reason for Hamlet’s long procrastination is that he appears nowhere to have any desire whatever to be the king of Denmark. As John said, perhaps the life of a grad student was more appealing. I do agree with the view that the Hamlet who returns in Act V is a changed man. He had no problem sending Rosencrantz & Guildenstern off to their deaths, and I don’t think it was merely because they were conspiring with Claudius to have Hamlet killed. Although he has become more a ‘man of action,’ I agree with John that still he hesitates to kill Claudius until his own fate (as well as the fates of Laertes and Gertrude) are sealed. In the final seconds of his life he avenges not only his father, but all the other lives lost in the play, including his own. Also, beyond Hamlet’s narcissism he is obsessed with acting itself. The only two characters known to have been played by Shakespeare himself are the ghost and the player king, both in this play. I’ll take John’s admonition against equating authors with the characters they create and reserve judgment on whether this obsession with acting, the art of deceit if you will, extends to the playwright.

When we studies Shakespeare, our English teacher had us act out the scenes and study them as actors ourselves. Getting into the minds of the characters and attmepting to understand this character, how they act, feel, react, and most importantly to shakespeare, say that makes their words powerful. I’m taking an acting Shakespeare course now, and the detail of every line, every word, is truly remarkable in how he tells his stories.

One side note; when Hamlet tells Ophelia “get thee to a nunnery!” he’s not saying “I wish you’d join the church and become a nun.” That would’ve been nice, and might have prevented her from spiraling into madness in the first place. No, in the time Shakespeare wrote the play, a place where nuns reside would be a Convent — a Nunnery was a whorehouse. I’ve always had a thought that Hamlet seduced Ophelia at some point, and she dearly hoped he’d marry her, but then his father died and the play began. But that’s just my PoV

I thought the reading of Ophelia as hiding her judgement (from the flower scene) behind madness really interesting. Also, I’ve never seen a production that took made that choice, but I would love to! It seems like the potential for parallels between Hamlet and Ophelia are more than I’ve ever thought about. One thought I had while perusal this article is that the play really examines potential reactions to the death of a close family member. Hamlet (b/f ghosty visitation) is quite depressed and withdrawn; Gertrude very quickly moves on (I think as both a mental and physical act of self preservation); Laertes is all rage and killing people; and Ophelia decides not to deal with grief by killing herself (totally agree with and appreciate John’s comments about suicide btw). I really enjoyed this episode! I think that Hamlet’s fact checking as John calls it is the most admirable of the various actions in this play. I also think that it makes him a much more modern “hero” than a lot of Shakespeare’s other characters and possibly why Hamlet remains such a popular play. Because a modern reaction to murder is more hesitant and Laertes’ actions seem rash and a little crazy, while they may not have when the play was written. I would have trouble calling any of the actions in this play heroic though because for me the term heroic implies a reduction of complex actions and internal struggle to single notes. I think that there is a purpose to presenting a character as a single note and that it is very effective, but that’s not how I interpret Hamlet.

Thank you for your Crush courses, all of them are awsome, though, I love this one the most. Answering your question, dear mr. Green: I believe that the definition of heroism has been changing through ages. Nowadays, maybe because the era of Information has come, heroism most of the time is being shown by revealing an obvious truth in public.

This is a tragedy. But I have a more important question. Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise? I thought not. It’s not a story the Jedi would tell you. It’s a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise he could use the Force to influence the midichlorians to create life… He had such a knowledge of the dark side that he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying. The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural. He became so powerful… the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice everything he knew, then his apprentice killed him in his sleep. It’s ironic he could save others from death, but not himself.

It’s so interesting to examine Hamlet from a non-theatrical point of view. Having studied the work in several classrooms and acting in a production, it seems that there are facets of the play that require human embodiment to answer. For instance, so much of the play (and its subsequent discussion) focuses on inaction, yet the atom of theater is action. Can one actor stand on stage for three hours and not act? I have also found the opening lines of the play particularly important. In original Elizabethan productions (taking place in the afternoon) on a well lit stage, Bernardo and Francisco’s case of mistaken identity immediately requires a suspension of disbelief while foreshadowing the plagues of doubt to follow.

Cavalier and clay is a great book! Good job. I can’t make out the other books, u should put a camera shot over your books briefly so I can book browse. Who doesn’t admire gazing with dumb wonder at a rich oaken tapestry of literature? Also you should do post moder lit with all the old family favorites like borges, barth, pynchon, dellilo, Marquez, Tom Robbins, and McCarthy

You did not really go into the grave digger scene. That is the most important part of the play. Before that scene Hamlet discusses the idea of death as a Metaphysical one. Death is a concept that deals with emotions and spiritual issues. When he is holding the skull and speaking of it, Hamlet begins to understand death in terms of empirical reality. To anyone that reads or sees Hamlet take special notice of the language of that scene. Then again that is the great thing about this play. So much to discuss that 20 + minutes is not enough.

Can we also say Horatio is a hero in his own merits? By knowing the truth and Hamlet’s source of agony, but not attempting to talk him out of it not deriving judgements? Obviously I know that he may only exist as a character devised to lay out the plot (as told from high school English), however, as we may see, most characters involved in this play, regardless of whether they’re deeply invested or informed, take sides (team Claudius or team Hamlet), but with Horatio, he acts loyally as a friend but never beyond that extent, he seems to be kind of neutral. It takes courage to not make judgements because of love, and courage to not side with love.

Polonious is cool, of the three father figures in the entire play he is the best, even to Hamlet. His family is the healthiest and deals the healthiest with their lack of a parent (where’s their mom?). I like to read this as a commentary on family and grief, in that the family that doesn’t deal appropriately with grief ends up killing the healthy one one by one. It would seem that family trouble affects more people than just that family, but everyone connected with them regardless of health. Meanwhile Polonious’s family tries to help Hamlet, serve their country, and take care of each other.

I once had to make a play about what would happen if 3 characters from different literary works ended up in hell together. I can’t remember who the third was, but Daisy Buchanan and Hamlet were definitely in it. I seem to remember the third being a drunken pessimist but beyond that, no idea. I, unfortunately had not read Hamlet because of the way I had progressed through school (they started me in regular English in 9th, halfway through the year putting me in Honors and then I went AP in 11th). I ended up taking quotes directly from Hamlet, knowing little about the character and made a pretty coherent play. I didn’t win the contest, but it was fun Hamming it up when I had to perform as Hamlet.

I actually think Ophelia didn’t commit suicide. She’s the character whose entire trajectory you see on stage – being first degraded by her dad & bro (some srsly messed up language there), and then her descent painfully public until she’s pulled into the mud – and even then, degraded in death when the church insists on treating her death as suspicious and doesn’t give her a proper burial. Ophelia should be bringing progress with the new, young generation but the tragedy is the old, corrupt lot clinging onto their order and messing things up for everyone.

I feel like Ophelia is the Hamlet who was decisive, who took paths of her own, and maybe made some wrong choices but made the choices just the same. She, like Hamlet (I believe) faked her madness to be allowed to speak truth, similar to how court fools would feign stupidity to deliver biting commentary without retribution (something Shakespeare had quite often in his plays: see Feste and Touchstone for good examples) and, once she had said her peace, was ready to die and be done with it, because she couldn’t wait around any longer for action, and frankly could not listen to the others’ heresy anymore. Gertrude saw her death not for what it was but rather what she wanted it to be: an accident by a madwoman, not a direct death by a person (arguably) far braver than she was (up until the final scene) who confronted her problems head-on. That said, I find Ophelia a tragic character, in that none of this had to have happened to her. She could’ve gone through her life unaffected by tragedy until someone did act, that someone being Claudius, and her life could’ve been righted by an action to levy it (by Hamlet or Gertrude alike). Also, she deserved better than Hamlet, whose “Get thee to a nunnery” is far more biting considering the Elizabethan slang of nunnery=brothel. As in ‘the only way anyone will sleep with you is if you’re employed to do it.’ Ouch, thanks, quasi-ex-kinda-boyfriend.

I will still stand by the fact that Hamlet isn’t indecisive but in a shifting society – he reflects his elizabethan context wherein the religion and therefore culture and society was repeatedly changing creating an unstable England (“time is out of joint”) … Hamlet is a modern renaissance man so he is “allowed” to grieve and show emotion and is also trying to maintain a semblance of reason – the conflict comes through the traditional structure of the court in its brisk dismissal of a murder and corruption in attempts to maintain the facade of normalcy contrasted to Hamlet’s emotions and desire to maintain morality

I’m a great fan of Hamlet. Always disappointed, though, when they cut out my favorite lines, spoken by the players. (For let the stricken deer go weep,/ The hart ungalléd play/ For some must watch while some must sleep/ So runs the world away.) To me, these lines say a lot about the nature of life, death, mourning, and the idea that the world moves on even through tragedy. Anyway, David Tennant’s portrayal of Hamlet is available for free on PBS, and it’s pretty good. Especially if you’re a fan of David Tennant.

Senior year someone, maybe the teacher maybe a student I’ve slept since then so I don’t really remember, made the suggestion that perhaps Gertrude killed Ophelia based on the fact that Gertrude seemed to have watched Ophelia drown rather than help her. Ophelia’s insult of the flowers was too great or she feared for Hamlet’s safety was the suggested motive.

I think all the meaning is what someone give to something. it might no have meant that to the author. it is good to try to decipher something, but it scares kids when they dont see it as the same way of the scholars. I guess that is the beauty of art, you see it the way you want it unless the author tells you what it means.

Can we talk about how Claudius sent Hamlet on the sea trip and basically hired the pirates to attack the boat; but Hamlet was able it intercept the letter and get the jump on the pirates, avoiding death? That certainly makes the argument that Hamlet really is a different man when he returns. He finds out his uncle had plans to kill him. He comes back determined to show everyone, his mother, and Ophelia included, that his uncle is a murder. (Ophelia’s death is a surprise, but thats another issue). God dammit. I love this play.

Each time I read Hamlet, I can’t decide if I’m more intrigued by the dynamics between he and Gertrude or he and Ophelia. I think that a certain amount of willful ignorance on the part of Gertrude makes her less strong of a character, but no less interesting. I think I let Updike’s interpretation kind of color my own; not that I feel that she was involved directly and gleefully aided Claudius in dispatching H Sr. but that she was, if nothing else, satisfied with the outcome of his loss and allowed it to override the love and loyalty she would undoubtedly had for/to her only son (Is now a good time to say that I named my cat after her? That’s…a thing). As far as Ophelia is concerned, I think she felt genuine love (in the way teenagers or young adults can) for him and he for her. Her descent into madness began with Hamlet’s rejection of her; the men in her life don’t seem to have much regard for her, and it was established early on that Hamlet and Ophelia had corresponded in writing and in person and if he didn’t love him, she must have trusted him a great deal. Hamlet’s full realization of his feelings for her didn’t occur until after her death. He may have cared for her, but did not acknowledge or respect her feelings, nor did he consider that fact that she would not be there to love him; his behavior my have been that of an Elizabethan D-bag, but I believe it was product of his — and Shakespeare’s — culture. I will not discount the idea that he felt betrayed by Ophelia when he discovered that she was being used as a de facto spy for Polonius and Claudius.

Heart shaped clover grows among the brooks, behind the cloud a gentle cherub looks, and places there where she shall wet her head, a crown of columbine and violet. Dear Ophelia your youth was grand, extended further by your maddened state, instead of planting flowers with your hand, you picked them to relieve them of their fate. May your tune live long after your soul, restore the wind with innocence you stole.

Oooooh Ophelia is powerful now, she gave them flowers. Come on, anyone can go up to people and tell them how they feel, but acting upon your judgement is something else entirely. Gertrude is not the object of Hamlet’s sexual attraction, he just says how disgusted he is that she does sex things with his uncle. Nothing in the play hints at him actually wanting to bang her, just him describing how he thinks she bangs his uncle, which a person who is all up in his mom’s business would be spending his time thinking about. But it’s a good episode, I hope you do more plays and works of early literature.

I honestly think Laertes is the good guy in this play, or at least, better a person than Hamlet. Hamlet killed Polonius for really no reason, fornicated with Ophelia, and then drove her mad to the point where she killed herself (regardless of if it was intentional). While violence shouldn’t be the answer, for the purposes of the play, I think Laertes is more just than Hamlet. Laertes simply wanted vengeance, and while Hamlet wanted it too, he was kinda evil. There is also no proof that Laertes knew Claudius got the throne by killing his brother/Hamlet’s father.

That painting of Ophelia drowning is gorgeously sad…but the weird thing that struck me as I looked at this hundreds-of-years-old painting is: she REMINDS me of somebody! In real life, I mean. I can’t quite put my finger on it… (Okay, yeah, a little bit like me if I was a redhead, but that’s not it…)

It is strange to believe that non-action can sometimes be the heroic choice, but Hamlet’s ambivalence doesn’t feel like heroism. It lacks a sort of larger purpose that I think is important to the concept of being a hero. Though it is deep and meaningful debate, it doesn’t seem to extend to anything more than setting things right in his own life.

There is a great contrast between what Hamlet writes in his love letters to Ophelia and the way he treats her a few scenes later. He waxes lyrical about how he loves her, and suddenly he’s telling her to go to a whorehouse. If you want to believe the worst about Hamlet, and I do, it is starting to look like he has gotten Ophelia pregnant. There are other, strong indications that Hamlet has gotten Ophelia pregnant, like when he tells Polonius, “Conception is a blessing, but not as your daughter might conceive!” There are also indications that Ophelia is pregnant when she appears before the Queen in a state of madness. People might look askance on such behavior, but it was probably the way most young men treated their sweethearts at the time. It’s not that different now.