In this response, Edgar Allan Poe acknowledges a “radical error” that is not often mentioned in the teachings of Shakespeare. This “error” is discussing Shakespeare’s characters and accounting for their actions as if they had actually existed in real life. Poe writes “we talk of Hamlet the man, instead of Hamlet the dramatic persona—of Hamlet that God, in place of Hamlet that Shakespeare, created” (251). Here, Poe objects to the tendency to treat fictional characters as real people and finds it absurd to treat Hamlet as such.
Rather than examine the inconsistencies and actions of the characters, Poe suggests that we make the poet and his/her intentions the subject of discussion. In regards to Shakespeare's Hamlet, Poe speculates that Shakespeare knew that part of an intense "intoxication" (madness) is an impulse to imitate it to a higher level than actually exists. He believes that Shakespeare felt this, felt that it was natural to exaggerate Hamlet's insanity and "wrote of Hamlet as if Hamlet he were."
1.) Think of Hamlet’s intentions as well as Shakespeare’s (the writer’s) intentions. How does Hamlet’s purpose in the play differ when he is considered to be a real person rather than a character? Or when he is considered as a character and not a real person?
2.) What are your thoughts on Shakespeare “becoming” Hamlet, or, as Poe said, writing Hamlet “as Hamlet he were”? Did Shakespeare exaggerate Hamlet’s craziness by becoming slightly crazy himself? (take into account Poe’s belief that part of insanity is an irresistible impulse to raise it to a higher level) Or because he knew it would lengthen Hamlet and make it more interesting?
1) Hamlet's purpose in the play differs in a way that people see his need for revenge. I think that if he is a character then he has a quest to fulfill. If he is a person he has a mission to seek revenge. I think making him a person and having a mission makes him more relatable, than if he was a character and "oh this is what we would expect it is just a story."
ReplyDelete2) I think that Shakespeare may be crazy, but did not become crazy from writing Hamlet. I think he made Hamlet crazy to shorten the play. I think the play is very chopped and instantly dramatized and crazy. I thinking writing it this way made it shorter and Shakespeare just included parts that he wanted no matter if they didn't seem completely right. If he had made it into a real drama like Tolstoy says then I think he may have 900 pages as well (maybe thats why Shakespeare has so many works).