Posted by amanda on March 10, 19101 at 15:04:21:
In Reply to: understanding being 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--