Hamlet by William Shakespeare has been critically assessed and analyzed further than most, if not all, his work. The interest derives from the protagonist, prince Hamlet of Denmark, who has been thought of as an indecisive character believed to be “mad.” Critics had deemed him a dog, “all bark and no bite.” In reality, Hamlet is heedful and alert, knowing full well when to change masks, from a diplomatic prince to a private investigator. Throughout the first III Acts, Hamlet has been precise in action and diction, using his ability of acting to manipulate those around him like puppets. Hamlet was never deranged to the point of madness, but rather had been in control of the whole situation, allowing him to knead the dough the way it pleased him.
It is appropriate to say that “though this be madness, yet there is method in’t.” In content, Polonius has been deceived by Hamlet (similar to how everyone got caught in his act). He believes that Hamlet has fallen into madness as a result of his love for Ophelia. However, the actual context of the play allows the audience to understand the motive. Hamlet’s willingness to playact like a madman is a tactical ploy in his part. So really, Hamlet isn’t the emotionally unstable and distraught man critics use as an illustration of him. From the moment Hamlet first speaks to the Ghost and realize his hunches were correct, Hamlet swears on making right what was wrong in Denmark. By doing so, Hamlet has used his intellect to assure a full-proof plan: act mad, thus assuring King Claudius that he is of no threat to him. He acts rationally and carefully plans his next move, something a truly mad man wouldn't be able to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment