Posted by tangobob on February 26, 1999 at 10:43:11:
I was never overly impressed with Shakespeare's ideas until a teacher helped me understand Shakespeare in a whole different light. The best way to explain this difference is is by considering Hamlet.
What is Hamlet's tragedy? Most critics would say that it had to do with his costly delay in avenging his father's death. However a significant minority of critics would disagree and say that, instead, the tragedy of Hamlet is that he gave into the traditionaly justificatio of revenge.
I like Kenneth Branaugh's version of Hamlet because he does't interpret the "to be or not to be" speech as a contemplation of suicide. Instead, he's contemplating whether or not to avenge his father's death. The midieval Christian concept of being had more to do with acceptance of the world around you. Throughout the play, regarding his father's murder, Hamlet has the option to, as the Beatles' so eloquently put it, "let it be" or to to give an eye for an eye.
There is plenty of contextual evidence that supports the view that the real tragedy of Hamlet is that he contributed to the circle of violence that surrounded him instead of listening to his womanly instincts to consider a more excellent way. . . .
I think this idea pervades all of Shakespeare's works--The Merchant of Venice and King Lear are particularly good examples of this concept of being as pertaining to justice and mercy. I would also recommend reading Kierkegaard or Dostoevsky for similar views on being.
I'd love to defend my ideas or expound on them if anyone else is interested--