Clash Of Titans

Shakespeare, as a figure of literary excellence transcending strong in history and wide in geography, is one of those authors whose works are hardly explained by a single version. He is, as far as most of the educated population is concerned, one of the most accomplished genius of all time. If the idea of a perfect text as a concept has ever been treated as plausible, many would argue this rare production should be found in one of his works. There are few others in history, even if we take into account all subjects and areas of study, whose name inspires so much to the modern world. If all this is true, all of which so many bright minds have strived to defend, then how can one conceive the concept of criticizing Hamlet?

In this endeavor it is only logical to recur to minds as great as Shakespeare's as one possibly can, ignoring popular response at least at the setting of the foundation for an answer. First I will introduce some concepts from Sigmund Freud, who's contributions to mankind should have no problem impressing those of Shakespeare. Father of the psychoanalytic school of psychiatry, Freud argued that much of what is reflected upon an individuals dreams and his subconscious is a direct effect from childhood experiences. Arguing that suppressed impulses are forever present in the human mind even when unnoticed, he adventures beyond Hamlet into Shakespeare's own mind. He begins by describing the character in a play as "paralyzed by excessive intellectual activity." At first we wonder why he mentions so many details in his argument, apparently unimportant to the plot. Recognizing Hamlet's thirst for revenge, he also points out his constant hesitation in said matter for uncertain reasons and his moral confusion in wondering wether he is any better man than the murderer. All the time one wonders where he is going, expecting some connection between ideas to arrive at an interpretation of the plot as so many times before with other critics' works. But Freud had no such intentions, in it he intended to demonstrate how everything that we found written in the play is but a reflection of the reality of the "creative poet." He even mentioned how Shakepeare's own father had died prior to him writing the play and how his own impulses drove him to write the every line and the every act inside his work. Without digging into the play itself but to describe its author, Freud's take on the topic gave my endeavor a whole new perspective, for it may even be plausible for a text to seem perfect before human eye, but no mind has reached perfection before human judgement.

After thinking about the author as part of an analysis to his work, it seemed reasonable to think of a critic as a person prior to the written critic. In his approach to Hamlet, T.S. Elliot argues that critics let their own creativity get involved in what should be strictly analysis of a text. I must disagree to some extent, for one can not ask human mind to approach literature with out the company of creativity. To me, literature is the fuel for creativity and without one, the other has no purpose. This said, I found the idea of critics intruding on a subject reasonable, and their intrusion shaping the meaning of the work quite plausible. If this is true, Elliot argues, then Hamlet has become a "stratification" in which our understanding builds upon that of previous critics, preventing the essence of the words to be the foundation for our interpretation. The author treats Hamlet as a myth and begins what becomes some serious criticism in which he tries to demonstrate that "more people have thought Hamlet a work of art because they found it interesting, than have found it interesting because it is a work of art." Such idea triggered much resistance on my part, for one thing is to criticize a line or said style, but another is to call some of the most admired pages of all history mere entertainment, falling short of art. He even goes as far as to claim, almost insultingly, that the simple truth is that Shakespeare tackled a problem which proved too much for him. This iv'e mentioned not to support his words but to highlight my position towards critics. Such is the case with ignorance, whose presence does not diminish art for those who know, for whom art exists.

Another pice in the puzzle, the documentary in which Derek Jacobi directs Kenneth Branagh in a production of the play, further supports previous conclusions. Not as drastic as the other two and generating not nearly as much opposition in the viewers minds, the mentioned individuals provide us with some experimental examples. As when said that each critic adds a little meaning to the play as a whole, each time the play is enacted, for every actor in which Hamlet lives for a few hours, he acquires new meaning. For this reason the actor indulges in the play trying to figure out his character as to best impersonate him, but every time we find Hamlet has become someone extremely different from his other appearances. It is as when one reads a novel and highlights the traits of certain characters he likes only to find other readers interpreted them under evil intentions. The importance of interpretation becomes a recurring theme in every commentary about the play, almost to the point where the first instinct is to allocate said idea as an excuse for a task too difficult to handle.

It is so that Shakespeare's Hamlet will continue to drill deep into the minds of literature's greatest in a quest to find the ultimate explanation that shall give every line some undebatable meaning. Interpretation will come and go, critics will talk and talk, actors will learn and vow, the public shall read in awe but Hamlet shall forever remain the same.