Monday, 7 March 2011
Friday 4th March
So, this was our final lesson on reading the book and we focused on the ending of the play. Hamlet goes through the play very idle and doesn't do much. It's only at the end of the play where he takes action when he about to die. I began to think that as a result of this, does it show he is a weak character? Or is he infact a strong character because he has reached his ultimate goal, that of to get revenge on Claudius. It is debatable whether or not Fortinbras is more successful in acheving his revenge compared to Hamlet because he did gain the throne by the end of the play, but he did this by chance really. It was all down to Hamlet's actions. Also I think it's a bit weird how Hamlet just won't die when the Queen seemed to instantly, it was a bit annoying. To me this highlights the importance of Hamlet in the play. For example the Queen wasn't that important, no one really cared when she died. Oh and at the end of the lesson we re-wrote the play, which I thought was quite funny, I think we should do this all the time maybe? :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hmm, well I have to say, Holly, I do agree with the fact that Hamlet seems to be "idle and doesn't do much" during most of the play. He rambles on about his feelings like the distraught boy he is, and appears to have forgotten the motto - actions speak louder than words. I think that maybe he shows a slight change in his character during the end of the play as he dies. Why do I think this you ask? Because he is no longer afraid of what happens in the afterlife. Hoooowever, it could also be seen that he remains a weak character as he doesn't really seem that bothered that he's about to drop dead - most sons' at that time would have killed (no pun intended) for a chance to retain their fathers legacy.
ReplyDeleteFortinbras, now here's a pickle. I dont really have a fully formed opinion on whether or not he is more successful in achieving his revenge, but for the sake of the blog (and the person who has got to comment after me) i'll go for the option that he is. And my evidence? Aha. Lines 364-368 highlight his ability to also be rational with words beautifully, as well as being able to murder people instantly, unlike weeping Hamlet in the corner.
So long.....
p.s HAHA KYLE YOU'RE NOT FIRST.
I disagree with Fi about Fortinbras, because I think that Hamlet actually achieved his goal, rather than just having it handed to him like Fortinbras did. To me, it seems like Fortinbras just got lucky when any other possible people that could have taken the throne happened to be murdered/die, he didn't actually cause this. Although, it could be argued that he did cause it, because there is the constant threat of Fortinbras invading throughout the play, which I think could have made the King and Queen more uptight than usual, and maybe made Claudius slightly more willing to get rid of other stresses in his life, like Hamlet. Even though there is no excuse for attempting to send someone away to be killed.
ReplyDeleteHow about neither of them truly got their revenge?
ReplyDeleteFortinbras did indeed want to take the throne at the start of the play, but he says himself he doesn't like the situation in which he eventually gets it- i.e. he doesn't like the fact that the the entire royal family has died. He contradicts himself really, because there is no other way he could have taken the throne besides all of them dying. So, Fortinbras is unsure of what he really wanted, and like Hamlet, he waited and did nothing until his vague plan happened without him having to act.
The same goes for Hamlet- Hamlet didn't kill Claudius when he had many chances, it just so happened that Hamlet had a sword in his hand when Laertes blamed Claudius for everything. It was only then, after his mother had been poisoned, that Hamlet truly found reason to kill the King- so Hamlet DIDN'T avenge his father's death- he avenged his mother's.
I agree with you Holly that he is shown as weak when he takes his revenge. He does finally reach his goal but is that because he is pushed to do so? This was my initial thought, it seems the only logical explanation to Hamlet taking his revenge - being forced in a way. I totally agree with Hattie on this, speaking nothing but the truth. He wouldn't have done anything about his situation if any effort was needed from his part. If he had to kill royalty would he have done it or let it all blow over. I really don't think Fortinbras achieved his revenge fully.
ReplyDeleteBy the way Fiona Holly told me after everyone else so :P
Well I disagree with all of you, ish, I don't think we know what kind of a character Fortinbras is, though he's made his intentions quite clear, so the future of Denmark is still unsure. As we've seen, he's the type of person to go to war over nothing, which makes his character and intentions a bit ominous, therefore I cannot decide whether he has been successful in revenge or not!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Fiona about Hamlet, he definitely shows a change in character towards the end of the play, it seems to be after he witnesses Fortinbrases army, as since then he has 'been in continual practice'. Was Hamlet expecting a dual? Was he expecting a fight? I dunnooooo.
I completely agree with Hattie about Fortinbras. In my opinion, he doesn't get his revenge, he just waits around on the sidelines, and takes advantage of opportunities created by Hamlet that are thrown his way. I don't see him as brave, I see him as violent. What other type of person would take an army to fight over a pointless piece of land? His fortune at the end of the play would never have occurred if Hamlet hadn't of done the things that lead to the death of the entire royal family. Fortinbras doesn't act on his whim to seek revenge on the Hamlet family, and complies to the social norms; waiting until he is 'older'to actually act and think about anything. Is this cowardice?
ReplyDeleteHamlet on the other hand could be seen as weak, frail and cowardly. However I believe it is these qualities that make him all the more relate-able toward the audience. Would you be able to just go and kill someone because of a stray thought, an accusation? The fact that he takes so long to take revenge on Claudius, and has so many arguments about it with himself, shows that he is a good person, and justifies his revenge to the audience. This is what makes his revenge and death, so bitter-sweet.
I WOULD HAVE GOT THERE BEFORE GRACE BUT MY LAPTOP FROZE WHILST I WAS WRITING THIS STUPID, STUPID BLOG, AND I HAD TO START OVER. TWICE.
ReplyDeleteI thought Alice's point was very interesting, but I think that both got some sort of revenge, even though it was not the 'ideal'. As the whole story of Hamlet is not a typical epic tragedy (strong noble tragic hero/villian without a cause) maybe Shakespeare intended the revenge to not fit in with the ideal.
ReplyDelete