Emily’s comment > Likes and Comments
Like
Given that the ghost is seen by at least three people besides Hamlet, and seen by them before he sees it, I think it would be hard to really argue that it's a creation of his imagination. Whether or not it is really a ghost of his father, however, is not clear - and the play does acknowledge that problem.
Considering the time period, do you think "feining" madness would have earned him anything but a stay at the nearest sanitorium? I think he was actually suffering; from what, I do not know. But at the same time, I think he had enough sanity to use his "madness" to his own advantage. Particularly in the execution of the king and the manipulation of others around him. Hamlet was a very bright individual. He knew how the others would react to his "ghostly aparition" revelation. He knew the others loved him and would in the end excuse his actions because of his madness. However, I don't think it came out how he expected. Good points, though Emily. Also, keep in mind, it has been some years since I have cracked that book and I am working from memory. This is such a great group.
Michael, I don't think princes were put in sanitoriums. I think they just kind of hushed up what they could and make excuses for the rest if a prince went insane. And Hamlet was a prince, so he was relatively untouchable in many ways. Even the king has to find a pretense to try to have him killed (twice) and to have him sent away (which he can't even complain about not working when Hamlet shows up again).
That said, I agree that at the very least he seems to have more than enough awareness to use his madness to his advantage whenever possible, which indicates a certain amount of sanity.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Katie
(new)
Oct 14, 2011 09:15AM
Given that the ghost is seen by at least three people besides Hamlet, and seen by them before he sees it, I think it would be hard to really argue that it's a creation of his imagination. Whether or not it is really a ghost of his father, however, is not clear - and the play does acknowledge that problem.
reply
|
flag
Considering the time period, do you think "feining" madness would have earned him anything but a stay at the nearest sanitorium? I think he was actually suffering; from what, I do not know. But at the same time, I think he had enough sanity to use his "madness" to his own advantage. Particularly in the execution of the king and the manipulation of others around him. Hamlet was a very bright individual. He knew how the others would react to his "ghostly aparition" revelation. He knew the others loved him and would in the end excuse his actions because of his madness. However, I don't think it came out how he expected. Good points, though Emily. Also, keep in mind, it has been some years since I have cracked that book and I am working from memory. This is such a great group.
Michael, I don't think princes were put in sanitoriums. I think they just kind of hushed up what they could and make excuses for the rest if a prince went insane. And Hamlet was a prince, so he was relatively untouchable in many ways. Even the king has to find a pretense to try to have him killed (twice) and to have him sent away (which he can't even complain about not working when Hamlet shows up again).That said, I agree that at the very least he seems to have more than enough awareness to use his madness to his advantage whenever possible, which indicates a certain amount of sanity.
