Please respond to the following prompts in collaboration with your fellow classmates. I'm looking for you to discuss the readings by referring to previous posts rather than just listing your interpretations. Also make sure to identify who you are and your class period. I need this so that I can give you credit for your posting. Thanks. Mr. Domingo
Friday, March 11, 2011
"The Embassy of Death"
Do you agree with G. Wilson Knight's claim? Why or why not? Support your arguments with direct evidence from the play and Knight's essay. Also use this space for any other questions that you may have about Hamlet.
Hamlet is not like anyone of the others. While he is right about everyone, the others do not like that idea that they have faults and often team up against him. Hamlet sees all faults as sins and should be corrected. However, Gerturde and Claudius understand that some of the things that they are doing is wrong, they understand it because that is humanity. Hamlet on the other hand, wants to prey on these faults and does not believe in humanity. He questions himself about why he is not like the others who could take into action immediately. Well the simple answer is because he does not believe in himself. The others understand about the faults of humanity and know that they are human. On the other hand, Hamlet too knows about the faults of humanity, but he does not want to believe that it is human to have faults. The reason for his indecision to kill Cluadius and to commit suicide at the beginning of the play is due to his reluctance to commit a fault of humanity.
Due to Hamlet's overthinking and impulsive acting, Hamlet creates serious consequences for the others. HAmlet's overthinking of suicide and of killing CLudius burdens Hamlet so much that his mind becomes diseased. This diseased mind induces Hamlet to behave weird, a side that we see constantly throughout the play. Then, the actions of impule lead Hamlet to kill Polonius and other actions of impule lead to many other deaths. If Hamlet had killed Claudius while Claudius was praying, then most likely no other deaths would have occured. It was becuase of Hamlet's overthinking that many others had to die, thus Hamlet's tragic flaw not only kills himself, it kills others, thus making him evil.
Also, death is a very prdominant theme as seen by the scene with the clowns. As Hamlet looks at the skull of Yorics head, he realises that all people must come to death and that in death, everyone is all the same. This idea is supported by Knight. Also, I must agree with Knight because Hamlet does think about death all the time. At the beginning, in the middle, at the end. He is always pondering the death of his father, then the death of Claudius then about his own death when he comes to terms that he must die and might die during his duel with Laertes.
Also, about Claudius, Knight is also very right. Claudius understands his sins. He is not the evil man that we played him off to be. By running away from the play, by praying to God hoping for repentence, Claudius proves that he indeed is a man who understands the gravity of his sins. Here is the thing, a good man knows that he is guilty if he commits a sin, but a bad man will often deny his guilt or mainly remain ignorant of the fact that he committed a sin. BY proving to Hamlet and the audience that he is guilty, we know that Cluadius indeed is actually a good man. Sadly, however, because of Hamlet's murder of Polonius, Claudius understands the instability that Hamlet brings to Denmark. Thus, in order to keep the peace, it would be best for Claudius to defend himself by killing Hamlet. However, this idea of Claudius being good can be argued by the fact that Claudius manipulated Laertes into killing Hamlet. Sort of like having someone else do the dirty work for him. So the idea of Claudius being good can be a bit challenging.
Another challenge to Knight's idea can be the fact that the climax was at the beginning. I would have placed the climax at the very last scene. Everyone is dying, everyone else doesn't know what is going on. The hero that wthe audience has come to sypathize and love is about to die. Yeah, hard to beat that as the climax.
Overall, the idea that Hamlet is an inhuman who knows everone's faults seems very reasonable. My openmindedness prevents me from finding too many other faults with this theory of Knight's. Perhaps someone more discerning can point out several faults?
Andrew Garcia Period 2 From the Essay, G Wilson seems to point out the obvious that Hamlet was primarily about the theme of death, but what could we pull from this? It seems as Hamlet gets closer to death, the more he loses his mind, and the less afraid he is of the "eternal sleep" that death is. He also asserts that Hamlet's insanity is one of evil, which directly contrasts the experimental which states that Hamlet is a Jesus Figure. I have to disagree when he says Hamlet is evil, rather I see that is haunted by death, the death of his father, mind, and his lover, to the point he has to meet death. To reiterate this we can look at his last soliloquy as he is dying, "The potent poison quite o'er-crows my spirit" That potent poison is death, what loomed over him the entire play, and brought him to his end. He also defends this with hamlets words, "The spirit that I have seen May be the Devil... It was" Wilson sees this as a Hamlet selling himself to evil, but truly if you look at this from Hamlets view, it seems to be Claudius being the Devil causing, or knowing death. Also, somehow Wilson sees Claudius as innocent, of what? Of killing, of deceiving, even Claudius sees himself as a sinner! He gives up on forgiveness, seeing himself as unforgivable, so simply put, I disagree entirely with that point. In all aspects it is seen that Claudius is the opposite of a "Kindly uncle" he sends spies to watch hamlet, poisons the sword so that when Laertes stabs him it is a guaranteed death, it seems to me Wilson has mixed the protagonist with the antagonist, and has such sympathy with Claudius as to defend it. But this also poses questions, as which characters were actually evil, or if the original king was the angel Hamlet sees him as? Seems Wilson's biggest goal with his essay was to question the traditional roles of the characters within the play. We as readers don't get the real meaning Shakespeare had for the play because how the characters act is really up to the actors themselves. So, classmates, what do you see as Wilson's meaning through the essay, and do you think he really understands the death within Hamlet?
I agree with Andrew in disagreeing with Knight about Claudius' innocence. Frankly, I was rather frustrated when I was reading this essay. I mean, sure Claudius is fit as King of Denmark, but his means of coming to the throne were truly vulgar and inappropriate. Although Claudius knows his actions were wrong, it is not enough that he merely confesses his sins to himself. Claudius deserves to be reminded of his crime, as "Hamlet is [his] continual fear" as he "[tortures] the King's conscience." Knight claims that Hamlet would have been a more dangerous king than Claudius already is. On the contrary, I believe Hamlet's strife for justice is what would make him an ideal leader for any nation. I do agree on Knight's interpretation of death's presence within the play and his statement that Hamlet is a static character. However, Eric proves a persuasive argument in that the climax of the play was at the end, not at the beginning as Knight states.
Similar to Andrea, I was too frustrated in some areas of this text. I strongly disagree with Knight's claim that Claudius is innocent. However, I can see where she was going with Hamlet being inhuman. Even though Claudius expresses guilt throughout the play and is overall good to his people, we cannot get over the fact that he killed his brother. If Claudius truly felt bad, he would not have been able to live with himself sleeping with his sister-in-law/wife or even enjoy being king. To me, having the strength to kill a brother, your own blood, is the worst kind of evil because you are supposed to care so much for that person since they are your family. The most frustrating part of the essay, for me, was when Knight states, "Claudius can hardly be blamed for his later actions" because King Hamlet's death led to a lot such as Hamlet's madness. Claudius should have known that he would be punished for what he did. It doesn't make sense to me that Knight can describe a murderer with words like "gentle" or "kind" For lack of a better way to say it, it's really stupid. A murder is a murder, and even worse at a state where the person murdered is your own brother.
Although I disagree with Knight when she says that Claudius is innocent, I can see why she would think that Hamlet is "a danger to the state," and inhuman. I think she thought this because hamlet was extremely different when compared to other characters, especially ids out about his father's death, he stops living on his own and starts living to piss off the other characters. Deeper through the play, I can see Hamlet's drift from human to inhuman, as he craves for revenge on Claudius more and more. n his tragic flaw of over analyzing things. He sees beyond what the other characters see in the play. Once Hamlet finds out about his father's death, he stops living on his own and starts living to piss off the other characters. Deeper through the play, I can see Hamlet's drift from human to inhuman, as he craves for revenge on Claudius more and more.
I would have to disagree with Andrea's opinion when she says that Hamlet's strive for justice would make him an ideal leader for any nation. This is because he is too mad and overwhelmed with over-thinking everything, that he is ballistic. If Hamlet were to be the leader of Denmark, it would be a disaster and ruined. On the other hand, I can see why Andrea says that he would be a well-suited leader for the nation. With this coming from his high-level of intelligence. After reading G. Wilson Knight's essay, I felt that he made Hamlet sound as if he were the bad guy and Claudius sound like a great uncle. In the play Hamlet, was he really pertaining to being the "bad guy" or was G. Wilson Knight just stating his personal opinion? I also had a question about the speech that Cludius and Queen Gertrude made at the beginnng of the play. When they were talking about the death of his brother Hamlet and how they had grief over his death, were they genuinely devastated or was it just an act?
To answer Melissa's question about whether the king and queen were genuinely devastated or putting on an act, I believe it was a mixture of the two. As shown in the beginning when Claudius gives his speech as the new king, he expresses his grief over the death of his brother but also expresses joy in the marrying of Gertrude. This proves to be questionable, as it is strange to be able to grieve your brother’s death as you find happiness in eloping with your brother’s widow only two months later. This may prove Claudius to have been putting on an act for his subjects to show them how a good leader can grieve a death, while at the same time be able to bear the fruits and enjoy his new wife and throne. This is contradicted later however when Claudius is praying to God to repent for his sins, he shows guilt for murdering his brother and is perhaps finally realizing what he did, showing a genuine grief. Gertrude on the other hand did prove to feel remorseful after her husband’s death, but had a more general acceptance and seeing Claudius as a way to move on.
In the Embassy of Death, the author mentions that Hamlet has multiple personalities. This ties into the aspect of Hamlet being inhuman in his actions, as Hamlet is overly conscious and a threat to everyone. His dualized personality consists of being an intellectual person detached from society to become a rash, joker type of person who prays on the weak-minded. My question to everyone is if Hamlet really is pretending to be insane, or is he confused by his own dual personalities into believing he is sane?
While reading the "Embasy of Death" I noticed many themes and opinions that Wilson Knight proclaims.
I quickly noticed that he claims that the theme of Hamlet is death. I agree with him as the tragedy will not be what it is without death. I see the character Hamlet as a rotten thing because people in his area die when he's there. He's like a grimm reaper type of character. I don't see death as a bad thing in the play, but as a step closer to Hamlet's goal of living pain free and not going through the tough time of seeing his uncle take over his fathers role.
Additonally, I don't see Claudius as a good figure in the novel. I do see him as a patch to try to hide Hamlet's problems, but he's not an "good" figure.
Furthermore, Hamlet represents the State of Denmark. If Denmark were in his power the state would be in an overall worse position that what it is in his pressence. I do disagree with the authors opinion of Hamlet being inhuman. I believe he's a total human. Not many people have been in the situation where Hamlet is so not many people deal with these types of emotions
In this essay G. Wilson Knight's claim is generally that the character of Hamlet portrays the essence of death in an environment of vibrant living characters. Knight goes on to explain that Hamlet is in a way possessed by the Devil and is an evil person. He then observes how although Hamlet is insane and cynical, his thoughts on other characters such as Gertrude and how she is faithless, Polonius as a "knave" and Claudius how his optimism and benevolence is only a disguise to what he's actually done.
Knight compares Hamlet to Macbeth and King Lear, other characters in works of Shakespeare in order to emphasize how Hamlet is all thought and over thinks everything and those other two characters are more impulsive. Furthermore, the environments and characters of Hamlet and the other two plays are completely opposite, Hamlet is evil in a robust, benevolent setting with his dark clothing, being insane, and his sarcastic nature, and King Lear/Macbeth, a good-nature character in a setting of corruption and evil.
Knight's view on Hamlet and Claudius fluctuates throughout the play, he overly emphasizes about how Hamlet is evil and malevolent compared to his surroundings, whereas with Claudius he praises and explains how he is a good king, all of his decisions are moral, and he is beneficial to the state of Denmark, despite the murder of King Hamlet. Especially during the scene of Claudius confessing about the murder, Claudius is portrayed as the "good guy" and Hamlet as the evil person. Knight also goes on to explain how Hamlet went from being loved by everyone in the state to everyone being terrified of himself except Horatio, who he explains is just a filler character who only replies as "My lord". Throughout the play Knight explains how Hamlet is an evil person in a benevolent environment, and although cynical, his logic is extremely right, and how Claudius is portrayed as a beneficial king.
I agree with Andrew, Andrea, and Jennisha. I strongly disagree with Knight’s interpretation of Claudius. I believe that Claudius is far from a pleasant and innocent character. In his essay, Knight attempted to portray Claudius as a guiltless character by belittling his murder of King Hamlet and claiming that Claudius was a fit and healthy king. I do not understand how any reader of Hamlet can agree with the way Knight disparaged an action as significant as the murder of King Hamlet. Someone in the Socratic Seminar pointed out that the writer, Knight, made such a big deal out of the smallest things. In the essay, Knight emphasizes Claudius’ ability to run Denmark sufficiently as a suitable king. I feel that Knight’s evidence for this claim was very weak. The few quotes that Knight used to support this claim insignificant to the play as a whole. In my opinion, Claudius’ diplomacy was not very important to overall plot of the play anyways.
I strongly agree with Knight’s interpretation of Hamlet. Like Jennisha, I understand how Hamlet can be construed as an inhuman character. Hamlet seems to be isolated from the rest of the characters. He seems to be on a different level of intelligence than the other characters. Although, I disagree with Knight when he demeans Horatio as a minor, mindless character. In my opinion, Horatio became one of the most important characters of the play because who was the only one to survive the tragedy and tell the story of Hamlet. For some reason I see him as a character parallel to Brutus from the play Juliet Caesar. He is noble, dignified, and respectful.
I also agree with Knight, in that all of Hamlet’s actions were driven by death. Only after the ghost of King Hamlet (symbol for death) does the action start and the plot begins to fully develop. Hamlets does indeed seem to spread death. All the craziness that he causes by acting mad leads to the death of everyone he is associated with, including his mother.
There is one thing that I still have a question about. In Act I Scene 4, Marcellus claims, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” What was he referring to? Was he just talking about the murder of King Hamlet? Did this foreshadowing Hamlet’s madness? Maybe this line is trying to enlighten readers about how Hamlet is going to spread death to everybody in the Danish court.
Knight’s unusual and contrasting argument of the original perspective of Hamlet almost naturally makes me want to argue against him and defend Hamlet. Personally, I believe that Knight has gone too extreme to assert that Hamlet is the “element of evil in the state of Denmark.” His examples do provide evidence that seem logically correct and valid but yet sometimes seem as if they are a bit over critical.
For example, Knight continuously argues that Hamlet is the only inhuman character in the story. It is true that Hamlet holds a very superior and strong intellect in comparison to other characters. It is also true that Hamlet holds a very cynical perspective towards the world and often doubts his capabilities and reasoning to live. And thus, I do agree that in a way Hamlet is the “superman among men.” Yet I disagree that these traits serve as strong evidence to assert that Hamlet is inhuman. If you think about it, the trigger that first sent Hamlet into this brink of insanity is the emotional toll his father’s death had left on him. Is it not human to grieve over the death of one’s father even if it is to the point where it becomes obsessive? It is quite evident that Hamlet resembles the ideal image of a Renaissance man. Even before his father's death Hamlet must have had this extensive realm of intellect but he may not have been so cynical towards the world. It may be that his so called inhuman characteristics were all ultimately evoked by a very human and emotional impact of his father’s death.
Also, like Andrea, Eric, and Jennisha stated, I strongly disagree with Knight’s claim that Claudius is in fact the “good guy.” I find it a bit absurd that Knight would defend Claudius and argue that all of the King’s negative deeds were ultimately “forced on him.” Personally, I believe that Knight provides a very lame excuse to present Claudius as the “good and gentle King.” Like Eric said, even after Claudius’ confession the king attempts to kill Hamlet by manipulating the noble Laertes to utilize him as a tool to get rid of Hamlet. Although Knight argues that Claudius attempts to get rid of Hamlet for the sole sake of Denmark’s safety, I see it as a distorted way to disguise his true purpose of diminishing his own sense of guilt.
Thus, I disagree with Knight’s flipped argument of Hamlet and Claudius. I believe that Hamlet proves himself as a better man because his intentions are motivated by very human and respectable causes while Claudius, on the other hand, portrays himself as a two-faced King who simply wishes strives to eliminate his own sense of guilt without taking any punishment of his actions.
I agree with everything that Jennisha said I was also bothered by the fact that Knight says Hamlet is inhuman and Claudius is innocent. Although Hamlet begins to go crazy after finding out about his fathers death, I think it is almost a natural reaction. I do not believe that anyone that has had a loved one murdered has not wanted to get revenge. I also believe that it is Hamlets right to mourn his fathers death, two months after his death it is perfectly normal for him to still be mourning. But Hamlet does do more then just think about it, which his over thinking ends up being his tragic flaw, Hamlet actually takes action, and tries to get his revenge on Claudius for murdering his father.
I highly disagree with Knights interpretation of Claudius, no where in this play does it hint that Claudius is a good person. A man that has murdered at all is not a good man, especially someone that can kill someone that they share the same blood with. During our socratic seminar someone mentioned that Claudius's goal during the whole play may have been to get Gertrude because he is in love with her. I honestly this could not be any further from what his goals are. Although the whole play revolves around death, my interpretation is that Claudius wants the throne and he has a need for power. Why else would he kill his brother, that was King of Denmark. I also believe that Claudius goes after Hamlet as he feels he is a threat to the throne as he knows the truth about King Hamlets death.
My one question is, do you think that Hamlet wanted for his madness to spread like it did? And for it to result in everyones death?
I definitely see where G. Wilson Knight gets his interpretations from. I agree with him when he says that the theme of death is reoccurring throughout the play. However the tone of it is somewhat light and nonchalant as seen through the actions of the characters of the play. When Knight brings up the point that whenever death is discussed during the play there are vibrant characters to mask the gloom of what has just happened. He also strategically makes Hamlet's character somewhat humorous to make him sound more "human" when really what he wants to do is exactly the opposite. I can't help but wonder why Shakespeare decided to do a play like this when many of his famous plays have a dark undertone to them. However, the interpretation of Claudius that Knight gives I do not agree with. He makes Claudius out to be more human than Hamlet with the reason that Denmark is running smoothly so you could say. But, you must call into question Claudius' morality. After all, he did kill his own brother and married his wife. For me, morality is big. I believe that the good does not outweigh the bad in this case.Lastly, I too wonder the same thing that Kristina did. All throughout the play I wondered if his thoughts about his "madness" were premeditated. Although I do not believe he wished for it to result in the death of everyone.
Like everyone else, I also agree with Knight's claim that death is the major theme in the play and his interpretation of Claudius as "the typical kindly uncle" is wrong. Claudius possesses traits that stray him from this characteristic. Even though it was common to marry each other's family members in this time period, I still view incestious relations immoral. Also, Claudius does insist Polonius to spy on Hamlet which only leads to Polonius' death. Claudius does not possess the qualities of a good king for he is always with Gertrude and partying, getting drunk. These situations demonstrate the exact opposite of how Knight views Claudius. Knight exaggerates the smallest good deeds Claudius does have to show how much of a good king he is. I agree with Unzi in that Claudius is two-faced and that Hamlet would the better king.
I disagree to an extent with most of my fellow students that believe that Hamlet is a good character, and Claudius is an evil character. In my opinion, the two characters are both evil. Yet in terms of being less evil, I do believe that Claudius is more evil than the other.
With that, I agree with Andrea, Jennisha and Unzi’s opinions about Knight’s claim about Claudius being a “bad guy” in the play. Knight defends Claudius because he was repenting for his sins. Claudius himself sees that he cannot be forgiven. With this, he states “[his] words fly up, [his] thoughts remain below”. His repentance is not really observed by the almighty Himself. In fact, as stated above by Eric, if he was killed by Hamlet in his prayers, Hamlet would not have caused most of the deaths throughout the play. I see how Knight uses Claudius’ diplomacy to be seen as good for Denmark. However, Claudius, as a man, is “fond of pleasure” and ends businesses with “quick efficiency”. This is not the “noble man”. There is a sort of conflicting argument in Knight’s essay. Just with string of words “fond of pleasure”, you would see that this Christian based play would maybe allude to a sinner in the Bible. After his speech in Act 1, Scene 2, he quickly goes over matters of his own state. If he was a good king, he would make sure that the state of Denmark would be safe from all threats, whether it be outside his state or inside. I’m sure that he would be preoccupied with keeping up with Hamlet’s madness.
Hamlet’s mourning period starts with his father’s death. This mourning period for Hamlet lasts a very long time, starts to act mad (or pretends), and causes all the mishaps known in Elsinore. Unknowingly to him (knows later), the murderer of his father is his uncle Claudius, who is now King of Denmark. Therefore Claudius starts most of the play Hamlet’s tragic events.
I agree with Eric Hum, Hamlet is an evil character. He creates all these serious consequences for others (Even though he is the protagonist, I still support him in his cause). With this serious cause in mind, he has this tragic flaw of over thinking. There were many chances he could have killed his uncle yet he does not because he sees him praying. His mind does become disease with the thoughts of death. Death is the predominant theme of the play. Knight describes him as an “ambassador of death walking amid life”. This could also be used to challenge Hamlet’s inner thoughts and inner ambitions. Death is of course seen as a sign of evil in western civilization. Hence, Hamlet is evil. (Besides most of the AP English and Literature students, would agree that he is evil in terms of more work presented to us about him (lightening up the mood)).
To answer Kristina’s question, I do not think that Hamlet wanted for his madness to spread like it did. This also supports the idea that he is evil, yet less evil because he did not intend his madness to spread. The other characters’ madness is already ready to develop a fire yet all they needed was a spark. Hamlet was the spark that showed all their madness. King Claudius was a murderer and all he needs is a reminder from a son of the person he murdered. Queen Gertrude has this need for stability and is so considered crazy (by Hamlet) for her “incestuous” pleasures. Ophelia and Laertes both loved their strict father so much. Polonius is a “prating knave” for all his dirty “spy” work (Look where that led him). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are both idiots in betraying Hamlet’s trust. In short, Hamlet never intended for his madness to spread yet all of these did result in their deaths.
I do agree with Knight of the idea of the climax being placed in the beginning. During the past, a ghost story would have been spiritual and suspenseful. Even though with less effect, this ghost scene in the beginning of the play is the climax of the story. This ghost brings about the message of King Hamlet’s murder to Hamlet (the son). I would also remind you that the climax is the turning point in a plot or a dramatic action. Without this ghost scene, Hamlet would have never figured out that the King Hamlet was murdered by his brother.
My question is why would Knight contrast these two characters, where earlier in our studies, they were compared to as the same person (Oedipal complex)?
I have to disagree with Rodrigo, I don't believe that both Claudius and Hamlet are both "evil," but rather Claudius is more evil than the other characters. Though I see Knight's point in which he believes Hamlet is evil and inhuman characteristics, I have to disagree. I feel as if it is very human of Hamlet to feel anger and remorse towards the MURDER of his father. Now it is easy to say that it is selfish or evil that Hamlet did not kill Claudius when he had the chance during Claudius' confession because it eventually led to the death of most of the characters. But, Hamlet did not know that at the moment. Hamlet was not aware that in the end everyone would die. I believe this makes Hamlet ambiguous, for he acts very much like a human, and does what ever he believes it is necessary to avenge his father's wrongful death, making his action neither good nor evil. I also disagree with Knight's perspective on Hamlet, thinking he represents death. I believe Hamlet more represents ourselves. Hamlet, just like us, has imperfections and doubts about ourselves, many times preventing us from taking action because of the fear of the consequences. And many times, these flaws and struggles can harm us, and the ones around us.
It is obvious everyone here has come to the consensus that there is most definitely a theme of death being portrayed in this play. I do agree to some extent that Claudius is not a innocent and pleasant character. But I believe Knight chose Claudius to rather be portrayed as a contrast to Hamlet's "inhuman" traits. Regardless of the severity of his actions Claudius is probably the most relatable character in the play, not because of his literal actions of murder and corruption but in the way he reacts to certain things. For example, he trys to comfort his son in law after losing his father or when he begins to act more cautiously around Hamlet, afraid of what he knows. All these actions stripped down of their associations with Claudius, reveals that this are natural human reactions. On the other hand Hamlet is dragged down by his tragic flaw of over thinking things. In this of itself is absurd because really no human being over thinks the details as much as Hamlet. Hamlet is probably the most unrelatable character in the play. I am not saying Hamlet is evil by any means, but just that he lacks those human traits associated with Claudius. It seems to Hamlet that he must scrounge every detail with an elaborate plan or devious lie, that he soon begins to lose his Renaissance man aura and seems to become more insane if anything at all.
To be honest, I think Knight's interpretation of Claudius being a good man is logical, however it is supported by his own assertions and at first I actually agreed with him. However, I reviewed his essay over and realized that although his claim [of Claudius] may be correct yet debatable, I do not agree with him especially because Claudius' role as a vengeful uncle already sets him as the antagonist therefore he is the "bad guy" in his actions and continuously scheming for Hamlet to be killed. Just because he was able to confess and ask for forgiveness does not grant him the title that he is good, his previous actions are still wrong, immoral, and unforgivable in my view.
I agree with Dino in that Knight’s evidence of claiming that Claudius was a suitable king. First, why bother? What do we gain out of knowing how eloquent (if appropriate) and quick efficient his speech was? How a person speaks does not necessarily mean they are a good leader. It’s how they confidently pull their actions off.
Although there are some interpretations of Knight’s that I found interesting and got me thinking. Especially when he talks about Hamlet being inhuman, I think it is because Hamlet is grieving that it puts him in an inhuman state, thinking that he has gone through all that life had to offer. But when Knight was talking about how the surrounding characters “are the world” what did he mean? Did he mean like they represent aspects of humanity or something else? I could see how this would work in that Claudius could represent jealousy, Gertrude to betrayal or unfaithfulness, Ophelia to desertion, etc.
I also agree with Dino about how Knight portrayed Horatio and I also saw the parallel of Brutus in him. Horatio survived and saw it all happen, being with Hamlet from the beginning to his death, and I just do not see how Knight would categorize him as a minor character.
Also, what does Knight mean when he says that Claudius’ end to his prayer was pathetic?
In G. Wilson Knight’s essay, he distinguishes the central theme of Hamlet to be death, as reflected throughout the entire play. He characterizes Hamlet’s persona as associated with death, and that his bordering insanity as he grows bereaved, affects the other characters in the play. I agree with the idea that Hamlet is inhuman, as displayed by his murderous deeds and as his desire for vengeance increases. However, I disagree with Knight when he claims that Claudius is innocent. The plot would not have even been set if it was not for Claudius’ crime, the murder of his own brother. Claudius’ corruption as a leader has affected the disintegrating state of Denmark. Knight brings up the idea that he is a typical and kind uncle, and supports that statement with the advice he gives Hamlet for his mourning of his father’s death. I feel that he only offered the advice as part of his facade, covering up his crime, in hopes of deceiving Hamlet. In accordance with Knight, he makes a valid point when he says that “the question of the relative morality of Hamlet and Claudius reflects the ultimate problem of the play,” meaning that since both of them have committed the same crimes, they are equivalent in terms of their morals. Though this does contradict Knight’s idea that Claudius is righteous.
I also disagree when Knight states that Hamlet is generally evil, or that his mind is demonic. Death is what drove Hamlet’s madness, and his intentions are to seek revenge for his father, not necessarily create disorder. His wavering personality is based off his impulsiveness and quick wit, but I feel that he does know that his purpose is to avenge is father, as the plot is built up based on that sole idea, and it is not until the end of the play that it all falls together. This is contrary to Knight’s belief that he serves no purpose for any length of time
I agree with G.W. Knight that the play is about death. Death is the human condition we are moving toward death from the time we are born. What I do not agree with is that Claudius is not the evil one. I agree with Andrew and Andrea when the talk about how Claudius was still guilty of the crime of murder even though he seminally repented as he spoke to himself or god. Even though Hamlet had the belief that Claudius may have been forgiven, and didn't want to kill Claudius at that time, he was still guilty of murder and of his own brother.
Knight says that Hamlet is evil and Claudius is humane. What is humane about killing your own brother without mercy? Claudius is of sound mind and is only killing his brother to gain all that the king has including his wife. Hamlet has gone crazy because of seeing the ghost of his father and wants revenge for his death. The idea of his father's suffering torments Hamlet until he cannot think of anything else. Hamlet speaks to himself saying, “To by, or not to be, that is the question: Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer/ The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune/ Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,” He is wondering what he should do and this passage shows his torment that he is facing.
Knight wants us to believe that all of the deaths in the play are do to Hamlet. I disagree because although Hamlet kills Polonius, it is by accident believing that he is Claudius, and then secures the deaths of two friends. Hamlet is not to blame for Gertrude’s death, the fault for her death lies with Claudius. By trying to kill Hamlet, Claudius inadvertently kills Gertrude. Like most people faced with the knowledge that Hamlet was faced with would be tormented as well, wondering whom to trust. Hamlet saw his former friends as enemies because they were working for Claudius. In this way Hamlet would have seen his actions as justified thinking that it was either his death or theirs. Hamlet loved Ophelia and didn’t want her dead. The harsh treatment toward Ophelia was because of the torment Hamlet was facing about his mother. Seeing how easily Gertrude forgot Hamlet’s father and moved on to Claudius was eating Hamlet up inside. This caused Hamlet to believe that all women would react the same way. Hamlet’s anger and prejudice toward Gertrude is placed on Ophelia. This shows how crazy Hamlet has become. Hamlet would never be able to truly love or be loved again because of this experience.
Eric Hum
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
Hamlet is not like anyone of the others. While he is right about everyone, the others do not like that idea that they have faults and often team up against him. Hamlet sees all faults as sins and should be corrected. However, Gerturde and Claudius understand that some of the things that they are doing is wrong, they understand it because that is humanity. Hamlet on the other hand, wants to prey on these faults and does not believe in humanity. He questions himself about why he is not like the others who could take into action immediately. Well the simple answer is because he does not believe in himself. The others understand about the faults of humanity and know that they are human. On the other hand, Hamlet too knows about the faults of humanity, but he does not want to believe that it is human to have faults. The reason for his indecision to kill Cluadius and to commit suicide at the beginning of the play is due to his reluctance to commit a fault of humanity.
Due to Hamlet's overthinking and impulsive acting, Hamlet creates serious consequences for the others. HAmlet's overthinking of suicide and of killing CLudius burdens Hamlet so much that his mind becomes diseased. This diseased mind induces Hamlet to behave weird, a side that we see constantly throughout the play. Then, the actions of impule lead Hamlet to kill Polonius and other actions of impule lead to many other deaths. If Hamlet had killed Claudius while Claudius was praying, then most likely no other deaths would have occured. It was becuase of Hamlet's overthinking that many others had to die, thus Hamlet's tragic flaw not only kills himself, it kills others, thus making him evil.
Also, death is a very prdominant theme as seen by the scene with the clowns. As Hamlet looks at the skull of Yorics head, he realises that all people must come to death and that in death, everyone is all the same. This idea is supported by Knight. Also, I must agree with Knight because Hamlet does think about death all the time. At the beginning, in the middle, at the end. He is always pondering the death of his father, then the death of Claudius then about his own death when he comes to terms that he must die and might die during his duel with Laertes.
Also, about Claudius, Knight is also very right. Claudius understands his sins. He is not the evil man that we played him off to be. By running away from the play, by praying to God hoping for repentence, Claudius proves that he indeed is a man who understands the gravity of his sins. Here is the thing, a good man knows that he is guilty if he commits a sin, but a bad man will often deny his guilt or mainly remain ignorant of the fact that he committed a sin. BY proving to Hamlet and the audience that he is guilty, we know that Cluadius indeed is actually a good man. Sadly, however, because of Hamlet's murder of Polonius, Claudius understands the instability that Hamlet brings to Denmark. Thus, in order to keep the peace, it would be best for Claudius to defend himself by killing Hamlet. However, this idea of Claudius being good can be argued by the fact that Claudius manipulated Laertes into killing Hamlet. Sort of like having someone else do the dirty work for him. So the idea of Claudius being good can be a bit challenging.
Another challenge to Knight's idea can be the fact that the climax was at the beginning. I would have placed the climax at the very last scene. Everyone is dying, everyone else doesn't know what is going on. The hero that wthe audience has come to sypathize and love is about to die. Yeah, hard to beat that as the climax.
Overall, the idea that Hamlet is an inhuman who knows everone's faults seems very reasonable. My openmindedness prevents me from finding too many other faults with this theory of Knight's. Perhaps someone more discerning can point out several faults?
Live Huminationed!
Andrew Garcia
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
From the Essay, G Wilson seems to point out the obvious that Hamlet was primarily about the theme of death, but what could we pull from this? It seems as Hamlet gets closer to death, the more he loses his mind, and the less afraid he is of the "eternal sleep" that death is. He also asserts that Hamlet's insanity is one of evil, which directly contrasts the experimental which states that Hamlet is a Jesus Figure. I have to disagree when he says Hamlet is evil, rather I see that is haunted by death, the death of his father, mind, and his lover, to the point he has to meet death. To reiterate this we can look at his last soliloquy as he is dying, "The potent poison quite o'er-crows my spirit" That potent poison is death, what loomed over him the entire play, and brought him to his end. He also defends this with hamlets words, "The spirit that I have seen May be the Devil... It was" Wilson sees this as a Hamlet selling himself to evil, but truly if you look at this from Hamlets view, it seems to be Claudius being the Devil causing, or knowing death.
Also, somehow Wilson sees Claudius as innocent, of what? Of killing, of deceiving, even Claudius sees himself as a sinner! He gives up on forgiveness, seeing himself as unforgivable, so simply put, I disagree entirely with that point. In all aspects it is seen that Claudius is the opposite of a "Kindly uncle" he sends spies to watch hamlet, poisons the sword so that when Laertes stabs him it is a guaranteed death, it seems to me Wilson has mixed the protagonist with the antagonist, and has such sympathy with Claudius as to defend it.
But this also poses questions, as which characters were actually evil, or if the original king was the angel Hamlet sees him as? Seems Wilson's biggest goal with his essay was to question the traditional roles of the characters within the play. We as readers don't get the real meaning Shakespeare had for the play because how the characters act is really up to the actors themselves. So, classmates, what do you see as Wilson's meaning through the essay, and do you think he really understands the death within Hamlet?
Andrea Umali
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
I agree with Andrew in disagreeing with Knight about Claudius' innocence. Frankly, I was rather frustrated when I was reading this essay. I mean, sure Claudius is fit as King of Denmark, but his means of coming to the throne were truly vulgar and inappropriate. Although Claudius knows his actions were wrong, it is not enough that he merely confesses his sins to himself. Claudius deserves to be reminded of his crime, as "Hamlet is [his] continual fear" as he "[tortures] the King's conscience." Knight claims that Hamlet would have been a more dangerous king than Claudius already is. On the contrary, I believe Hamlet's strife for justice is what would make him an ideal leader for any nation.
I do agree on Knight's interpretation of death's presence within the play and his statement that Hamlet is a static character. However, Eric proves a persuasive argument in that the climax of the play was at the end, not at the beginning as Knight states.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJennisha Mamaril
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
Similar to Andrea, I was too frustrated in some areas of this text. I strongly disagree with Knight's claim that Claudius is innocent. However, I can see where she was going with Hamlet being inhuman. Even though Claudius expresses guilt throughout the play and is overall good to his people, we cannot get over the fact that he killed his brother. If Claudius truly felt bad, he would not have been able to live with himself sleeping with his sister-in-law/wife or even enjoy being king. To me, having the strength to kill a brother, your own blood, is the worst kind of evil because you are supposed to care so much for that person since they are your family. The most frustrating part of the essay, for me, was when Knight states, "Claudius can hardly be blamed for his later actions" because King Hamlet's death led to a lot such as Hamlet's madness. Claudius should have known that he would be punished for what he did. It doesn't make sense to me that Knight can describe a murderer with words like "gentle" or "kind" For lack of a better way to say it, it's really stupid. A murder is a murder, and even worse at a state where the person murdered is your own brother.
Although I disagree with Knight when she says that Claudius is innocent, I can see why she would think that Hamlet is "a danger to the state," and inhuman. I think she thought this because hamlet was extremely different when compared to other characters, especially ids out about his father's death, he stops living on his own and starts living to piss off the other characters. Deeper through the play, I can see Hamlet's drift from human to inhuman, as he craves for revenge on Claudius more and more. n his tragic flaw of over analyzing things. He sees beyond what the other characters see in the play. Once Hamlet finds out about his father's death, he stops living on his own and starts living to piss off the other characters. Deeper through the play, I can see Hamlet's drift from human to inhuman, as he craves for revenge on Claudius more and more.
Melissa Del Villar
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
I would have to disagree with Andrea's opinion when she says that Hamlet's strive for justice would make him an ideal leader for any nation. This is because he is too mad and overwhelmed with over-thinking everything, that he is ballistic. If Hamlet were to be the leader of Denmark, it would be a disaster and ruined. On the other hand, I can see why Andrea says that he would be a well-suited leader for the nation. With this coming from his high-level of intelligence.
After reading G. Wilson Knight's essay, I felt that he made Hamlet sound as if he were the bad guy and Claudius sound like a great uncle. In the play Hamlet, was he really pertaining to being the "bad guy" or was G. Wilson Knight just stating his personal opinion? I also had a question about the speech that Cludius and Queen Gertrude made at the beginnng of the play. When they were talking about the death of his brother Hamlet and how they had grief over his death, were they genuinely devastated or was it just an act?
Hannah Pollock
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
To answer Melissa's question about whether the king and queen were genuinely devastated or putting on an act, I believe it was a mixture of the two. As shown in the beginning when Claudius gives his speech as the new king, he expresses his grief over the death of his brother but also expresses joy in the marrying of Gertrude. This proves to be questionable, as it is strange to be able to grieve your brother’s death as you find happiness in eloping with your brother’s widow only two months later. This may prove Claudius to have been putting on an act for his subjects to show them how a good leader can grieve a death, while at the same time be able to bear the fruits and enjoy his new wife and throne. This is contradicted later however when Claudius is praying to God to repent for his sins, he shows guilt for murdering his brother and is perhaps finally realizing what he did, showing a genuine grief. Gertrude on the other hand did prove to feel remorseful after her husband’s death, but had a more general acceptance and seeing Claudius as a way to move on.
In the Embassy of Death, the author mentions that Hamlet has multiple personalities. This ties into the aspect of Hamlet being inhuman in his actions, as Hamlet is overly conscious and a threat to everyone. His dualized personality consists of being an intellectual person detached from society to become a rash, joker type of person who prays on the weak-minded. My question to everyone is if Hamlet really is pretending to be insane, or is he confused by his own dual personalities into believing he is sane?
Jose De Soto IV
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
While reading the "Embasy of Death" I noticed many themes and opinions that Wilson Knight proclaims.
I quickly noticed that he claims that the theme of Hamlet is death. I agree with him as the tragedy will not be what it is without death. I see the character Hamlet as a rotten thing because people in his area die when he's there. He's like a grimm reaper type of character. I don't see death as a bad thing in the play, but as a step closer to Hamlet's goal of living pain free and not going through the tough time of seeing his uncle take over his fathers role.
Additonally, I don't see Claudius as a good figure in the novel. I do see him as a patch to try to hide Hamlet's problems, but he's not an "good" figure.
Furthermore, Hamlet represents the State of Denmark. If Denmark were in his power the state would be in an overall worse position that what it is in his pressence. I do disagree with the authors opinion of Hamlet being inhuman. I believe he's a total human. Not many people have been in the situation where Hamlet is so not many people deal with these types of emotions
Justin Abadejos
ReplyDeletePeriod One
In this essay G. Wilson Knight's claim is generally that the character of Hamlet portrays the essence of death in an environment of vibrant living characters. Knight goes on to explain that Hamlet is in a way possessed by the Devil and is an evil person. He then observes how although Hamlet is insane and cynical, his thoughts on other characters such as Gertrude and how she is faithless, Polonius as a "knave" and Claudius how his optimism and benevolence is only a disguise to what he's actually done.
Knight compares Hamlet to Macbeth and King Lear, other characters in works of Shakespeare in order to emphasize how Hamlet is all thought and over thinks everything and those other two characters are more impulsive. Furthermore, the environments and characters of Hamlet and the other two plays are completely opposite, Hamlet is evil in a robust, benevolent setting with his dark clothing, being insane, and his sarcastic nature, and King Lear/Macbeth, a good-nature character in a setting of corruption and evil.
Knight's view on Hamlet and Claudius fluctuates throughout the play, he overly emphasizes about how Hamlet is evil and malevolent compared to his surroundings, whereas with Claudius he praises and explains how he is a good king, all of his decisions are moral, and he is beneficial to the state of Denmark, despite the murder of King Hamlet. Especially during the scene of Claudius confessing about the murder, Claudius is portrayed as the "good guy" and Hamlet as the evil person. Knight also goes on to explain how Hamlet went from being loved by everyone in the state to everyone being terrified of himself except Horatio, who he explains is just a filler character who only replies as "My lord". Throughout the play Knight explains how Hamlet is an evil person in a benevolent environment, and although cynical, his logic is extremely right, and how Claudius is portrayed as a beneficial king.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDino Digma
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
I agree with Andrew, Andrea, and Jennisha. I strongly disagree with Knight’s interpretation of Claudius. I believe that Claudius is far from a pleasant and innocent character. In his essay, Knight attempted to portray Claudius as a guiltless character by belittling his murder of King Hamlet and claiming that Claudius was a fit and healthy king. I do not understand how any reader of Hamlet can agree with the way Knight disparaged an action as significant as the murder of King Hamlet. Someone in the Socratic Seminar pointed out that the writer, Knight, made such a big deal out of the smallest things. In the essay, Knight emphasizes Claudius’ ability to run Denmark sufficiently as a suitable king. I feel that Knight’s evidence for this claim was very weak. The few quotes that Knight used to support this claim insignificant to the play as a whole. In my opinion, Claudius’ diplomacy was not very important to overall plot of the play anyways.
I strongly agree with Knight’s interpretation of Hamlet. Like Jennisha, I understand how Hamlet can be construed as an inhuman character. Hamlet seems to be isolated from the rest of the characters. He seems to be on a different level of intelligence than the other characters. Although, I disagree with Knight when he demeans Horatio as a minor, mindless character. In my opinion, Horatio became one of the most important characters of the play because who was the only one to survive the tragedy and tell the story of Hamlet. For some reason I see him as a character parallel to Brutus from the play Juliet Caesar. He is noble, dignified, and respectful.
I also agree with Knight, in that all of Hamlet’s actions were driven by death. Only after the ghost of King Hamlet (symbol for death) does the action start and the plot begins to fully develop. Hamlets does indeed seem to spread death. All the craziness that he causes by acting mad leads to the death of everyone he is associated with, including his mother.
There is one thing that I still have a question about. In Act I Scene 4, Marcellus claims, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” What was he referring to? Was he just talking about the murder of King Hamlet? Did this foreshadowing Hamlet’s madness? Maybe this line is trying to enlighten readers about how Hamlet is going to spread death to everybody in the Danish court.
Unzi Park
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
Knight’s unusual and contrasting argument of the original perspective of Hamlet almost naturally makes me want to argue against him and defend Hamlet. Personally, I believe that Knight has gone too extreme to assert that Hamlet is the “element of evil in the state of Denmark.” His examples do provide evidence that seem logically correct and valid but yet sometimes seem as if they are a bit over critical.
For example, Knight continuously argues that Hamlet is the only inhuman character in the story. It is true that Hamlet holds a very superior and strong intellect in comparison to other characters. It is also true that Hamlet holds a very cynical perspective towards the world and often doubts his capabilities and reasoning to live. And thus, I do agree that in a way Hamlet is the “superman among men.” Yet I disagree that these traits serve as strong evidence to assert that Hamlet is inhuman. If you think about it, the trigger that first sent Hamlet into this brink of insanity is the emotional toll his father’s death had left on him. Is it not human to grieve over the death of one’s father even if it is to the point where it becomes obsessive?
It is quite evident that Hamlet resembles the ideal image of a Renaissance man. Even before his father's death Hamlet must have had this extensive realm of intellect but he may not have been so cynical towards the world. It may be that his so called inhuman characteristics were all ultimately evoked by a very human and emotional impact of his father’s death.
Also, like Andrea, Eric, and Jennisha stated, I strongly disagree with Knight’s claim that Claudius is in fact the “good guy.” I find it a bit absurd that Knight would defend Claudius and argue that all of the King’s negative deeds were ultimately “forced on him.” Personally, I believe that Knight provides a very lame excuse to present Claudius as the “good and gentle King.” Like Eric said, even after Claudius’ confession the king attempts to kill Hamlet by manipulating the noble Laertes to utilize him as a tool to get rid of Hamlet. Although Knight argues that Claudius attempts to get rid of Hamlet for the sole sake of Denmark’s safety, I see it as a distorted way to disguise his true purpose of diminishing his own sense of guilt.
Thus, I disagree with Knight’s flipped argument of Hamlet and Claudius. I believe that Hamlet proves himself as a better man because his intentions are motivated by very human and respectable causes while Claudius, on the other hand, portrays himself as a two-faced King who simply wishes strives to eliminate his own sense of guilt without taking any punishment of his actions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKristina Wade
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
I agree with everything that Jennisha said I was also bothered by the fact that Knight says Hamlet is inhuman and Claudius is innocent. Although Hamlet begins to go crazy after finding out about his fathers death, I think it is almost a natural reaction. I do not believe that anyone that has had a loved one murdered has not wanted to get revenge. I also believe that it is Hamlets right to mourn his fathers death, two months after his death it is perfectly normal for him to still be mourning. But Hamlet does do more then just think about it, which his over thinking ends up being his tragic flaw, Hamlet actually takes action, and tries to get his revenge on Claudius for murdering his father.
I highly disagree with Knights interpretation of Claudius, no where in this play does it hint that Claudius is a good person. A man that has murdered at all is not a good man, especially someone that can kill someone that they share the same blood with. During our socratic seminar someone mentioned that Claudius's goal during the whole play may have been to get Gertrude because he is in love with her. I honestly this could not be any further from what his goals are. Although the whole play revolves around death, my interpretation is that Claudius wants the throne and he has a need for power. Why else would he kill his brother, that was King of Denmark. I also believe that Claudius goes after Hamlet as he feels he is a threat to the throne as he knows the truth about King Hamlets death.
My one question is, do you think that Hamlet wanted for his madness to spread like it did? And for it to result in everyones death?
Hannah Drees
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
I definitely see where G. Wilson Knight gets his interpretations from. I agree with him when he says that the theme of death is reoccurring throughout the play. However the tone of it is somewhat light and nonchalant as seen through the actions of the characters of the play. When Knight brings up the point that whenever death is discussed during the play there are vibrant characters to mask the gloom of what has just happened. He also strategically makes Hamlet's character somewhat humorous to make him sound more "human" when really what he wants to do is exactly the opposite. I can't help but wonder why Shakespeare decided to do a play like this when many of his famous plays have a dark undertone to them. However, the interpretation of Claudius that Knight gives I do not agree with. He makes Claudius out to be more human than Hamlet with the reason that Denmark is running smoothly so you could say. But, you must call into question Claudius' morality. After all, he did kill his own brother and married his wife. For me, morality is big. I believe that the good does not outweigh the bad in this case.Lastly, I too wonder the same thing that Kristina did. All throughout the play I wondered if his thoughts about his "madness" were premeditated. Although I do not believe he wished for it to result in the death of everyone.
Shariane Nito
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
Like everyone else, I also agree with Knight's claim that death is the major theme in the play and his interpretation of Claudius as "the typical kindly uncle" is wrong. Claudius possesses traits that stray him from this characteristic. Even though it was common to marry each other's family members in this time period, I still view incestious relations immoral. Also, Claudius does insist Polonius to spy on Hamlet which only leads to Polonius' death. Claudius does not possess the qualities of a good king for he is always with Gertrude and partying, getting drunk. These situations demonstrate the exact opposite of how Knight views Claudius. Knight exaggerates the smallest good deeds Claudius does have to show how much of a good king he is. I agree with Unzi in that Claudius is two-faced and that Hamlet would the better king.
Rodrigo Crisostomo
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
I disagree to an extent with most of my fellow students that believe that Hamlet is a good character, and Claudius is an evil character. In my opinion, the two characters are both evil. Yet in terms of being less evil, I do believe that Claudius is more evil than the other.
With that, I agree with Andrea, Jennisha and Unzi’s opinions about Knight’s claim about Claudius being a “bad guy” in the play. Knight defends Claudius because he was repenting for his sins. Claudius himself sees that he cannot be forgiven. With this, he states “[his] words fly up, [his] thoughts remain below”. His repentance is not really observed by the almighty Himself. In fact, as stated above by Eric, if he was killed by Hamlet in his prayers, Hamlet would not have caused most of the deaths throughout the play. I see how Knight uses Claudius’ diplomacy to be seen as good for Denmark. However, Claudius, as a man, is “fond of pleasure” and ends businesses with “quick efficiency”. This is not the “noble man”. There is a sort of conflicting argument in Knight’s essay. Just with string of words “fond of pleasure”, you would see that this Christian based play would maybe allude to a sinner in the Bible. After his speech in Act 1, Scene 2, he quickly goes over matters of his own state. If he was a good king, he would make sure that the state of Denmark would be safe from all threats, whether it be outside his state or inside. I’m sure that he would be preoccupied with keeping up with Hamlet’s madness.
Hamlet’s mourning period starts with his father’s death. This mourning period for Hamlet lasts a very long time, starts to act mad (or pretends), and causes all the mishaps known in Elsinore. Unknowingly to him (knows later), the murderer of his father is his uncle Claudius, who is now King of Denmark. Therefore Claudius starts most of the play Hamlet’s tragic events.
I agree with Eric Hum, Hamlet is an evil character. He creates all these serious consequences for others (Even though he is the protagonist, I still support him in his cause). With this serious cause in mind, he has this tragic flaw of over thinking. There were many chances he could have killed his uncle yet he does not because he sees him praying. His mind does become disease with the thoughts of death. Death is the predominant theme of the play. Knight describes him as an “ambassador of death walking amid life”. This could also be used to challenge Hamlet’s inner thoughts and inner ambitions. Death is of course seen as a sign of evil in western civilization. Hence, Hamlet is evil. (Besides most of the AP English and Literature students, would agree that he is evil in terms of more work presented to us about him (lightening up the mood)).
Rodrigo Crisostomo
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
Continued...
To answer Kristina’s question, I do not think that Hamlet wanted for his madness to spread like it did. This also supports the idea that he is evil, yet less evil because he did not intend his madness to spread. The other characters’ madness is already ready to develop a fire yet all they needed was a spark. Hamlet was the spark that showed all their madness. King Claudius was a murderer and all he needs is a reminder from a son of the person he murdered. Queen Gertrude has this need for stability and is so considered crazy (by Hamlet) for her “incestuous” pleasures. Ophelia and Laertes both loved their strict father so much. Polonius is a “prating knave” for all his dirty “spy” work (Look where that led him). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are both idiots in betraying Hamlet’s trust. In short, Hamlet never intended for his madness to spread yet all of these did result in their deaths.
I do agree with Knight of the idea of the climax being placed in the beginning. During the past, a ghost story would have been spiritual and suspenseful. Even though with less effect, this ghost scene in the beginning of the play is the climax of the story. This ghost brings about the message of King Hamlet’s murder to Hamlet (the son). I would also remind you that the climax is the turning point in a plot or a dramatic action. Without this ghost scene, Hamlet would have never figured out that the King Hamlet was murdered by his brother.
My question is why would Knight contrast these two characters, where earlier in our studies, they were compared to as the same person (Oedipal complex)?
Adrian Navarro
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
I have to disagree with Rodrigo, I don't believe that both Claudius and Hamlet are both "evil," but rather Claudius is more evil than the other characters. Though I see Knight's point in which he believes Hamlet is evil and inhuman characteristics, I have to disagree. I feel as if it is very human of Hamlet to feel anger and remorse towards the MURDER of his father. Now it is easy to say that it is selfish or evil that Hamlet did not kill Claudius when he had the chance during Claudius' confession because it eventually led to the death of most of the characters. But, Hamlet did not know that at the moment. Hamlet was not aware that in the end everyone would die. I believe this makes Hamlet ambiguous, for he acts very much like a human, and does what ever he believes it is necessary to avenge his father's wrongful death, making his action neither good nor evil.
I also disagree with Knight's perspective on Hamlet, thinking he represents death. I believe Hamlet more represents ourselves. Hamlet, just like us, has imperfections and doubts about ourselves, many times preventing us from taking action because of the fear of the consequences. And many times, these flaws and struggles can harm us, and the ones around us.
Ryan Cuizon
ReplyDeletePer.2
It is obvious everyone here has come to the consensus that there is most definitely a theme of death being portrayed in this play. I do agree to some extent that Claudius is not a innocent and pleasant character. But I believe Knight chose Claudius to rather be portrayed as a contrast to Hamlet's "inhuman" traits. Regardless of the severity of his actions Claudius is probably the most relatable character in the play, not because of his literal actions of murder and corruption but in the way he reacts to certain things. For example, he trys to comfort his son in law after losing his father or when he begins to act more cautiously around Hamlet, afraid of what he knows. All these actions stripped down of their associations with Claudius, reveals that this are natural human reactions. On the other hand Hamlet is dragged down by his tragic flaw of over thinking things. In this of itself is absurd because really no human being over thinks the details as much as Hamlet. Hamlet is probably the most unrelatable character in the play. I am not saying Hamlet is evil by any means, but just that he lacks those human traits associated with Claudius. It seems to Hamlet that he must scrounge every detail with an elaborate plan or devious lie, that he soon begins to lose his Renaissance man aura and seems to become more insane if anything at all.
Tatiana Quiapo
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
To be honest, I think Knight's interpretation of Claudius being a good man is logical, however it is supported by his own assertions and at first I actually agreed with him. However, I reviewed his essay over and realized that although his claim [of Claudius] may be correct yet debatable, I do not agree with him especially because Claudius' role as a vengeful uncle already sets him as the antagonist therefore he is the "bad guy" in his actions and continuously scheming for Hamlet to be killed. Just because he was able to confess and ask for forgiveness does not grant him the title that he is good, his previous actions are still wrong, immoral, and unforgivable in my view.
I agree with Dino in that Knight’s evidence of claiming that Claudius was a suitable king. First, why bother? What do we gain out of knowing how eloquent (if appropriate) and quick efficient his speech was? How a person speaks does not necessarily mean they are a good leader. It’s how they confidently pull their actions off.
Although there are some interpretations of Knight’s that I found interesting and got me thinking. Especially when he talks about Hamlet being inhuman, I think it is because Hamlet is grieving that it puts him in an inhuman state, thinking that he has gone through all that life had to offer. But when Knight was talking about how the surrounding characters “are the world” what did he mean? Did he mean like they represent aspects of humanity or something else? I could see how this would work in that Claudius could represent jealousy, Gertrude to betrayal or unfaithfulness, Ophelia to desertion, etc.
I also agree with Dino about how Knight portrayed Horatio and I also saw the parallel of Brutus in him. Horatio survived and saw it all happen, being with Hamlet from the beginning to his death, and I just do not see how Knight would categorize him as a minor character.
Also, what does Knight mean when he says that Claudius’ end to his prayer was pathetic?
In G. Wilson Knight’s essay, he distinguishes the central theme of Hamlet to be death, as reflected throughout the entire play. He characterizes Hamlet’s persona as associated with death, and that his bordering insanity as he grows bereaved, affects the other characters in the play. I agree with the idea that Hamlet is inhuman, as displayed by his murderous deeds and as his desire for vengeance increases. However, I disagree with Knight when he claims that Claudius is innocent. The plot would not have even been set if it was not for Claudius’ crime, the murder of his own brother. Claudius’ corruption as a leader has affected the disintegrating state of Denmark. Knight brings up the idea that he is a typical and kind uncle, and supports that statement with the advice he gives Hamlet for his mourning of his father’s death. I feel that he only offered the advice as part of his facade, covering up his crime, in hopes of deceiving Hamlet. In accordance with Knight, he makes a valid point when he says that “the question of the relative morality of Hamlet and Claudius reflects the ultimate problem of the play,” meaning that since both of them have committed the same crimes, they are equivalent in terms of their morals. Though this does contradict Knight’s idea that Claudius is righteous.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree when Knight states that Hamlet is generally evil, or that his mind is demonic. Death is what drove Hamlet’s madness, and his intentions are to seek revenge for his father, not necessarily create disorder. His wavering personality is based off his impulsiveness and quick wit, but I feel that he does know that his purpose is to avenge is father, as the plot is built up based on that sole idea, and it is not until the end of the play that it all falls together. This is contrary to Knight’s belief that he serves no purpose for any length of time
Davin Mallory
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
I agree with G.W. Knight that the play is about death. Death is the human condition we are moving toward death from the time we are born. What I do not agree with is that Claudius is not the evil one. I agree with Andrew and Andrea when the talk about how Claudius was still guilty of the crime of murder even though he seminally repented as he spoke to himself or god. Even though Hamlet had the belief that Claudius may have been forgiven, and didn't want to kill Claudius at that time, he was still guilty of murder and of his own brother.
Knight says that Hamlet is evil and Claudius is humane. What is humane about killing your own brother without mercy? Claudius is of sound mind and is only killing his brother to gain all that the king has including his wife. Hamlet has gone crazy because of seeing the ghost of his father and wants revenge for his death. The idea of his father's suffering torments Hamlet until he cannot think of anything else. Hamlet speaks to himself saying, “To by, or not to be, that is the question: Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer/ The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune/ Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,” He is wondering what he should do and this passage shows his torment that he is facing.
Knight wants us to believe that all of the deaths in the play are do to Hamlet. I disagree because although Hamlet kills Polonius, it is by accident believing that he is Claudius, and then secures the deaths of two friends. Hamlet is not to blame for Gertrude’s death, the fault for her death lies with Claudius. By trying to kill Hamlet, Claudius inadvertently kills Gertrude. Like most people faced with the knowledge that Hamlet was faced with would be tormented as well, wondering whom to trust. Hamlet saw his former friends as enemies because they were working for Claudius. In this way Hamlet would have seen his actions as justified thinking that it was either his death or theirs. Hamlet loved Ophelia and didn’t want her dead. The harsh treatment toward Ophelia was because of the torment Hamlet was facing about his mother. Seeing how easily Gertrude forgot Hamlet’s father and moved on to Claudius was eating Hamlet up inside. This caused Hamlet to believe that all women would react the same way. Hamlet’s anger and prejudice toward Gertrude is placed on Ophelia. This shows how crazy Hamlet has become. Hamlet would never be able to truly love or be loved again because of this experience.