Sunny Days in Heaven Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven |
Friday, September 10, 2004 Evergreen This review of a new biography of Shakespeare is well worth perusal. Here's a bit: What makes “Hamlet” different from Shakespeare’s previous work is the way it brings out a complete inner life. Before Hamlet, soliloquy is mostly just exposition of motive. (“Why am I acting this way? Well you may ask. I’m doing it because . . .”—as in “Richard III.”) With Hamlet, as Greenblatt very neatly puts it, we get “an intense representation of inwardness called forth by a new technique of radical excision.” In the original story that Shakespeare drew on, Hamlet’s madness and his delay make complete narrative sense: he feigns madness because he is still a child when his father’s murder by his uncle becomes publicly known; he waits for years, acting like an idiot, until the moment is right for him to strike and claim the throne. Shakespeare, by compressing the plot into a matter of days, making Hamlet full-grown, and having the murder a secret known only to Hamlet, through the Ghost, makes Hamlet’s show of madness not just superfluous but truly self-destructive—it does nothing but draw suspicious attention to him. In any case, Shakespeare’s Hamlet is half-crazy and suicidal before he even sees the Ghost, and most of his soliloquies, instead of furthering our understanding of the action, are at direct cross-purposes to it. (Hamlet knows very well that a traveller has returned from that bourne from which no traveller returns.) What Hamlet says replaces the clear exposition of motive with a kind of chattering, compulsive, image-chasing interior monologue of dreads and desires.posted by Mark Butterworth | 10:22 PM | |
|
||||||||||||