Hamlet calls Polonius a fishmonger because fishmonger meant someone who traffic prostitutes. He is accusing Polonius of using his children’s marriages with nobles to gain power and influence. A bold accusation, but not an incoherent statement, considering Hamlet’s ties with Ophelia.
Hamlet is an existential character. He is the "grim reaper," if you will. Who is not evil or wicked but serves as the ultimate liberator naturally exposing it. He lives in material wealth and so his lifestyle means he will not struggle on a mundane level, but instead faces higher spiritual battles. The conduct between his mother and uncle was a karmic baggage he inherited from his own father unbeknownst to him. Him 'talking to the ghost of his father' is symbolic of his fathers' frustrations about to express themself through his son, Hamlet, explaining why he has a fixation on his mother's sex life. The "incestuous sheets" is the reason for his awareness of all the issues festering below the surface and those that turned a blind eye to it are now forced to see it. If they were confused by Hamlet its becuz they did not want to deal with their own demonz. He was a product of that and if he was "insane" the people around him made him as such.
He is absolutely a product of his time and situation but to effectively acquit him of any moral wrongdoings or excuse him from any moral standard would be overstepping it a bit.
Is Hamlet insane ? Hamlet is depressed, angry, and very stressed out because of the death of his father (and the manner of his death)-- and we empathize with him because of it. We think, "if someone murdered my father, married my mother...et cetera, I'd be crazy too." Also, we know that Hamlet knows more about the murder of his father than the other characters think he knows. It's a crazy-making situation: no one to trust, no one to go to for help or advice. Knowledge of a murder with no "law enforcement" to go to is very stressful. Deal with it, Hamlet.
not saying its the case lol but I wonder if there is a certain point at which interpretations say so much more about the person than the play that they become useless
All criticism has a single use, and that use is essentially futile. We read analysis to strengthen our own understanding of art, to match it against an objective matrix born out of a specific frame of reference. The magic of art, however, is that it cannot be contained: it slips out of all our most ingenious efforts to pin it down to a single meaning and leaves the husk of our various interpretations behind. Criticism is the effort to define the eternal, an effort continuous with the entire history of humanity, but that doesn’t mean it ever had value beyond what is purely feeble and transitory.
Hamlet's crisis is that he's a creature of words who cannot materialize himself into action. The world is changing and the outward heroics of earlier generations have given way to a more thoughtful, interior identity. Essentially, he's a woke communitarian in a culture that still valorizes rugged individualism. If normal is the measure of majority culture, Hamlet is outside that standard. You can say that he was ahead of his time, but that's just abnormality mapped across a calendar.
@@douglasparker6276 also it seemed any choice he made would be detremental only to himself. Is it better to stay still rather than fall? The older I get the more layer's are revealed it seems. The readers life experience changes everything, and creates such personal context for the true meaning of the play if any. Thank you for the response. I highly enjoying your content
We return to everything as different people. The first time I read Shakespeare's "King Lear" I was 18 years old and I was blown away by its portrait of a kingdom and universe in turmoil. But a year and a half ago I saw a production of it, one year after my father passed away following a protracted decline into dementia, and I was leveled by the intensely personal story of a man slipping into shadow. We co-create all art, finding new meanings echo through our own depths that naturally change over time. Art is often just the mechanism by which we read ourselves.
Hamlet calls Polonius a fishmonger because fishmonger meant someone who traffic prostitutes. He is accusing Polonius of using his children’s marriages with nobles to gain power and influence. A bold accusation, but not an incoherent statement, considering Hamlet’s ties with Ophelia.
Excellent point.
Hamlet is an existential character. He is the "grim reaper," if you will. Who is not evil or wicked but serves as the ultimate liberator naturally exposing it. He lives in material wealth and so his lifestyle means he will not struggle on a mundane level, but instead faces higher spiritual battles. The conduct between his mother and uncle was a karmic baggage he inherited from his own father unbeknownst to him. Him 'talking to the ghost of his father' is symbolic of his fathers' frustrations about to express themself through his son, Hamlet, explaining why he has a fixation on his mother's sex life. The "incestuous sheets" is the reason for his awareness of all the issues festering below the surface and those that turned a blind eye to it are now forced to see it. If they were confused by Hamlet its becuz they did not want to deal with their own demonz. He was a product of that and if he was "insane" the people around him made him as such.
this might be the best thing i have ever read. using this for my essay tomoz
bro fr
He is absolutely a product of his time and situation but to effectively acquit him of any moral wrongdoings or excuse him from any moral standard would be overstepping it a bit.
Wow.. I'm completely in love with your channel and your talk about hamlet mind!! I'm from Brazil. 🖤
Obrigada.
Is Hamlet insane ?
Hamlet is depressed, angry, and very stressed out because of the death of his father (and the manner of his death)-- and we empathize with him because of it. We think, "if someone murdered my father, married my mother...et cetera, I'd be crazy too."
Also, we know that Hamlet knows more about the murder of his father than the other characters think he knows. It's a crazy-making situation: no one to trust, no one to go to for help or advice. Knowledge of a murder with no "law enforcement" to go to is very stressful. Deal with it, Hamlet.
hamlet goes mad at the moment he murders polonius.
And yet his behavior from there is notably less manic/depressive and his decisions more rational.
not saying its the case lol but I wonder if there is a certain point at which interpretations say so much more about the person than the play that they become useless
All criticism has a single use, and that use is essentially futile. We read analysis to strengthen our own understanding of art, to match it against an objective matrix born out of a specific frame of reference. The magic of art, however, is that it cannot be contained: it slips out of all our most ingenious efforts to pin it down to a single meaning and leaves the husk of our various interpretations behind. Criticism is the effort to define the eternal, an effort continuous with the entire history of humanity, but that doesn’t mean it ever had value beyond what is purely feeble and transitory.
How do you define normal?...I think on it alot with this play. You can't judge hearts by words alone, only actions.
Hamlet's crisis is that he's a creature of words who cannot materialize himself into action. The world is changing and the outward heroics of earlier generations have given way to a more thoughtful, interior identity. Essentially, he's a woke communitarian in a culture that still valorizes rugged individualism. If normal is the measure of majority culture, Hamlet is outside that standard. You can say that he was ahead of his time, but that's just abnormality mapped across a calendar.
@@douglasparker6276 also it seemed any choice he made would be detremental only to himself. Is it better to stay still rather than fall? The older I get the more layer's are revealed it seems. The readers life experience changes everything, and creates such personal context for the true meaning of the play if any. Thank you for the response. I highly enjoying your content
We return to everything as different people. The first time I read Shakespeare's "King Lear" I was 18 years old and I was blown away by its portrait of a kingdom and universe in turmoil. But a year and a half ago I saw a production of it, one year after my father passed away following a protracted decline into dementia, and I was leveled by the intensely personal story of a man slipping into shadow. We co-create all art, finding new meanings echo through our own depths that naturally change over time. Art is often just the mechanism by which we read ourselves.