What does Hamlet really mean?

“To be or not to be” is arguably the most famous Shakespearean line of all time. In this speech Hamlet can be interpreted to be a depressed young man, contemplating ending his tumultuous life, or he can be contemplating the common theme of authenticity versus appearances. Throughout the play there has been a constant question as to whether someone is “is-ing” or “seem-ing”, and everyone seems to be caught up in the latter, secretly plotting against each other. Claudius seems righteous, but in reality is an “incestuous and adulterate beast” (1.5.32), keeping an eye on Hamlet by hiring Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to spy on him. Hamlet’s old friends, easily bought by the promise of thanks fit for “a king’s remembrance” (2.2.26) agree to pretend to be on a social visit; seeming to be something they’re not.  Then the players arrive, who “seem” for a living. Later on, Polonius instructs Ophelia to have a planned encounter with Hamlet where she pretends to be reading, wanting to gauge his reaction and see if he is truly in love with her. Even Hamlet secretly plots his own play within a play, hoping to “catch the conscience of the king” (2.2.617). All the characters secretly plot against each other and seem to be something they’re not, unable to say what they want to say or ask the questions they want to know the answers to.

                In Hamlet’s “to be or not to be” speech he compares the end of all “seeming” to death, not knowing “what dreams may come” afterwards (3.1.66). While this can be interpreted to be a speech full of suicidal thoughts, Hamlet questioning the point of his life, it could also have a second meaning, where Hamlet is wondering what life would consist of if everyone around him dropped appearances and became genuine and honest. After his speech, he even questions Ophelia, “Are you honest?” (3.1.103)-which can mean either modest of truthful. He continues to use the word honest multiple times within their conversation, the meaning of the word depending on the interpretation of the play. If read from the perspective that Hamlet is questioning why everyone lacks authenticity then we can see why he is so torn to be genuine himself. He says that “conscience does make cowards of us all”, meaning that we are all too self- conscious to be forthright with each other (3.1.82). He references to himself as a coward many times in his self-pitying spiral, contemplating his own role in the “is-ing” and “seem-ing” phenomenon.

                Hamlet’s “to be or not to be” speech can be interpreted in many different ways. Although he could be confused about his role in society and lonely, weary of the people who surround him, Hamlet could also mean that he sees the whole other layer that exists under the appearances everyone puts up, wishing to see some truth. And while his speech could just be Hamlet’s way of sorting out all the thoughts in his head, there are many perspectives on what he truly means- I mean, that is the question. 

It came with the threat of a waning moon

It came with the threat of a waning moon
And the wail of an ebbing tide,
But many a woman has lived for less,
And many a man has died;
For life upon life took hold and passed,
Strong in a fate set free,
Out of the deep into the dark
On for the years to be.

Between the gloom of a waning moon
And the song of an ebbing tide,
Chance upon chance of love and death
Took wing for the world so wide.
O, leaf out of leaf is the way of the land,
Wave out of wave of the sea
And who shall reckon what lives may live
In the life that we bade to be?

William Ernest Henley

In William Ernest Henley’s poem “It came with the Threat of a Waning Moon” the speaker explores the looming inevitability of death with a dismal attitude. Henley uses diction and imagery to display the speaker’s shift in his focus about death between the two stanzas. While the first stanza looks at death as inescapable and unknown, the second stanza questions who determines life and the loss of it.

The first stanza presents death as an inevitable phenomenon to be feared. The speaker uses words with a fearful connotation to describe the fate that they cannot escape. He describes death as a "threat"(line 1) and speaks of the "wail of an ebbing tide"(line 2). Personifying nature has the effect of making the looming death seem like a tangible entity. The speaker continues to remark that "many a woman has lived for less” (line 3) and that “many a man has died"(line 4). The use of the word “many” and the phrase “life upon life” (line 5) makes death seem impersonal, able to conquer anyone. The speaker continues to say that it sets free, but instead of into better places he writes “out of the deep and into the dark” (line 7). This adds to the mysterious quality of death and the depressing attitude the speaker holds.

In the second stanza the speaker still has a dismal attitude towards the end of life, but he begins to question its purpose. Life is made to seem replaceable, making each life seem insignificant. He writes that “leaf out of leaf is the way of the land” (line 13) and that “wave out of wave of the sea” (line 14).  The continual nature of life, and its ability to replace one leaf and one wave with another makes each ephemeral existence seem unimportant. The last two lines of the poem question who decides life and death, asking “and who shall reckon what lives may live/ In the life that we bade to be?” (lines 15-16). The speaker questions what higher authority decides what life may live, indignant about the insensitive nature of death. His disdainful attitude towards death’s inescapable and cruel purpose leads him to question who decides death, upset at whichever higher being has the power to take someone “out of the deep and into the dark”.

In this poem, William Henley explores the ephemeral nature of life which is randomly torn away by death, a mysterious and dark entity. The speaker is upset about this concept and questions the authority of death and its purpose, viewing life and death with a gloomy attitude. There is continual repetition of the sea and its “ebbing tide”. The receding water compares to the shortening amount of time left to live. Yet after the tide ebbs, it rises again and the cycle continues. This is similar to life because after one existence ends, another is born. This repetition makes the speaker feel insignificant and powerless against the inevitability of his life ending.  

Frailty thy name is woman!

Promiscuity, an issue especially looked down upon in Elizabethan times, seems to be a problem that Ophelia is facing. While many parents are comforting to their young daughters during this period of life, Polonius does not feel this way. He's cruel and hateful to his daughter, calling her a slut by using financial language and words with double meanings hinting at prostitution. The way her father treats her drives Ophelia to end her relationship with Hamlet and shift her life. The result of cutting off his daughter’s communication with Hamlet not only isolated Ophelia, but it cut off Hamlet from the only person still talking to him. This left him isolated, lonely, and perhaps even contributed to him going mad.

In Act 1scene 3 of Hamlet, William Shakespeare writes a scene between Polonius and his daughter. While this scene does provide information about Hamlet and Ophelia's relationship, more is learned about the strained relationship between Ophelia and Polonius. The conversation is filled with financial language and double meanings hinting at prostitution. The word “tender” is used repeatedly, having many different meanings ranging from weak or immature to delicately affectionate. Polonius cautions Ophelia to "tender [herself] more dearly" (line 107) and uses financial words such as “rate”, “brokers”, and “investments”   . This can be interpreted to mean that she should value herself more, advising his daughter to be cautious, or he could be hinting at an accusation of being a whore.

Polonius’s has a disdainful attitude towards his daughter and even Hamlet hints at Ophelia being a prostitute. This might be the result of how men viewed women in that time period. Earlier in the play Hamlet remarks “frailty thy name is woman!”  In Act 2 scene 2 Hamlet says “excellent well you are a fishmonger” to Polonius (line 174). While this is another word for fisherman, it can also mean someone who sells out prostitutes, or a pimp. A multitude of words with connotations about fishing are seen throughout the play. For example, in act two scene one, Polonius is speaking to Reynaldo and he says “your bait of falsehood take this carp of truth”. All these hints at calling Ophelia a prostitute may be the result of men’s view of women, especially due to their personal experiences. Hamlet has a reason to be distrustful of women, especially since his mother entered into an incestuous relationship soon after his father’s death. This incident along with Ophelia’s sudden withdrawal due to her father’s warning may have caused him great pain and loneliness, resulting in him basically calling Ophelia a prostitute. While we do not see or hear of a reason for Polonius to be hateful towards women, his wife has not been mentioned or introduced. He may not have one, or his wife may have died, perhaps the cause of his disdain. Polonius is also extremely concerned with appearance and his obsession with reputation may be the cause of his strict expectations for his children.

The play has many situations where the issue of promiscuity among women is implied. Hamlet’s mother is scarcely mentioned without a comment about incest or betrayal, and Ophelia is looked down upon by all the men around her. Ophelia’s relationships are discussed by her brother, her father, and Hamlet all within the first two acts of the play.

I, Frankenstein

(Warning: May contain spoilers)

This past Saturday I went to see the supposed sequel to Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein and left the theater feeling unsure about the movie. I was hoping that the movie would meet my expectations, but it seemed like a lost cause from the beginning. To start, the only people seated in the theater were my fellow classmates, a young couple, two brothers (who I doubted were 13), and a lone middle aged man. Even though it was a bit bare, I chalked the empty audience up to bad advertising and still continued in my hopes of a good movie. However, as soon as the lights dimmed and demon- fighting gargoyles came to life on the screen, my hopes for an accurate sequel flew out the window.

It was not a complete disappointment, but I couldn’t help remembering that it was supposed to be based off of Mary Shelley’s novel. Some quotes from the book were used, which I was pleasantly surprised about. I was also relieved to see that they accurately stated that Frankenstein was the creator, not the creature- which was named Adam in the movie.  Other than a few correct facts, such as the setting of victor’s death, the movie felt like a random plot twist on the novel. Adam, a creature still shunned by society and full of hatred towards his wretched self, is told by the gargoyles that he is sought after by an evil demon prince. He runs away to become a recluse and fights demons on his own until he comes to the city and is again thrust into the battle between gargoyles and demons. Adam falls in love with a human in his quest to stop demon souls from possessing thousands of human bodies and discover his higher purpose, both of which ultimately end up happening. It was very predictable- the self-pitying outcast discovers that he is not a monster, kills the antagonist, and ends up with the girl.  If it weren’t supposed to be based off of Shelley’s novel, then it would have almost been bearable. At least he wasn’t green and displayed some of the same character traits as in the book- lost, vengeful, and desperate for a companion.

                Overall, movies based off of books never do end well for anyone- so why do we bother seeing them? I know that if a book I have read is transformed into a novel, an unquenchable desire to see the motion picture takes over me. Perhaps it is to see how the image on the screen compares with the images in my head. Even though the spin-off movie of Frankenstein was successful in introducing some accurate background, it was simply not captivating enough to be considered a success.  The maker of the movie gave a good effort- interestingly naming the character Adam and putting him in a situation that made him choose between good and evil, heaven and hell. But even with the constant action scenes and the dramatic music, I found myself distracted and even bored-which rarely happens during movies. On a scale of 1 to must-see, I would give I, Frankenstein a 2.5.

William Shakespeare... or should I say Williamnot...

Please excuse the bad joke above...

William Shakespeare. How could a playwright with only an eighth grade education have such an extensive vocabulary? Know so much about the court? Write amazing works only to leave close to no evidence behind?

These questions have led me to join those who question the legitimacy of Shakespeare. There is a debate between those who call themselves “Stratfordians”, who believe that William Shakespeare actually did write the plays, and the conspiracy theorist “Anti-Stratfordians”. Those who oppose the thought that Shakespeare did write the plays favor the idea that the real author was a member of the royal court, too high up on the social ladder to expose his true identity. This would explain the superior vocabulary and knowledge of the court system. To also add to their argument, the Anti- Stratfordians bring up the point that little to no evidence remains of Shakespeare’s life as a writer. The few signatures that remain are said to be illegible, thus leaving nothing to tie Shakespeare to the plays he supposedly wrote. That then leaves the question- who did write Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, and so many others? People such as Edward de Vere (the 17^th Earl of Oxford), Francis Bacon, and Christopher Marlowe are being considered as possibilities, as more and more people begin to doubt the bard. English professors at universities have begun to speak out their thoughts in agreement with those of Charles Dickens, Sigmund Freud, and Mark Twain- it isn’t logical to think that Shakespeare wrote these works.

On the other hand, the Stratfordians argue that although little evidence remains, what does remain is compelling enough to end scrutiny. Many actors and writers from that time acknowledged Shakespeare as a writer, and his close friend Ben Johnson’s eulogy convinces even more of his identity. Eye witnesses are extremely convincing, and although it is impossible to speak with anyone of this period, Shakespeare was often mentioned as a writer in their works and letters. Furthermore, those faithful to Will’s identity also argue that his lack of education is not a reason to doubt him, stating that it wasn’t uncommon for writers of that period to have a lower education. Many of his plays were based on already written works, so little imagination was necessary in writing them. Yet, even if a lacking education was common, it does not explain the superior knowledge of the court and of foreign lands that Shakespeare seems to posses.

Neither side seems to have any solid evidence supporting either theory, but someone had to have written the timeless works we will read for ages. However, the incredible wit and talent of whoever wrote those plays is studied by students across nations, and they are one of the most influential writers in history. Both the Stratfordians and Anti-Stratfordians make very convincing points, and while I am not sure if I believe that the Earl of Oxford wrote A Midsummer Night’s Dream, I join the conspiracy theorists in speculating about a truth that will likely never be found.

 

A Doll House and Age of Innocence

There are many similarities between Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll House and Edith Wharton’s Age of Innocence. One of these similarities is the gender which holds the power in the relationships. In that society and time period men were generally known to hold more power, but in both works the authors depict women who subversively hold control. Both Nora and Ellen manipulated the men in their lives who unknowingly thought they were deciding their own fates.

In Wharton’s Age of Innocence May had “clear” eyes throughout the whole novel. While Archer always thought she was a young girl who needed to be enlightened and read to, she always understood and this led her to control her relationship without Archer knowing. The affair between Ellen and Archer was never a surprise to her and she manipulated the situation to fit her mold for a picture-perfect family. Ellen went away and May was left with a faithful husband and guiding father for her children. Her eyes “shone with victory” when she told Archer the news that she was pregnant because she knew that this would be the anchor to keep him from pursuing Ellen, which is what she always wanted. If she had approached her husband from the beginning, then he might have resented her, but instead she waited for an opportunity to arise that would make it seem like it was Archer’s decision to stay- even if he did not really have a choice.

Similarly, in Ibsen’s A Doll House, Nora manipulates Torvald into doing her will while he unknowingly plays along. She holds the control, and even his life, in her hands, yet she leads Torvald to believe that she is a helpless “little bird”. This playful façade led them both to be satisfied with their marriage, both Nora and Torvald thinking they were in control; however, as soon as Torvald proved to Nora that she was not in control and that he would not support her, she realized that the marriage was not what she thought it was. She lost the power struggle and this led her to realize that she needed to escape that “doll house” and regain control of her own life.

Both these works demonstrate women who control the men in their lives by means of manipulation and smug secrecy, yet the endings are very different. In A Doll House Nora leaves her husband and family in order to find herself and live a genuine life, while in Age of Innocence May and Archer live out the rest of their lives in this socially acceptable “doll house”. While Ibsen’s play finishes with a hopeful tone, Wharton ends the novel with a disappointing conclusion as Archer never finds true fulfillment in his life. The different endings depict the two options that the characters in the works had- they could either ignore reality, continuing to live seeking society’s acceptance, as May and Archer did, or they could rebel and search for true fulfillment in their lives like Nora.

Wine Pressing

But in the Wine-presses the Human Grapes Sing not nor Dance

William Blake

But in the Wine-presses the human grapes sing not nor dance:
They howl and writhe in shoals of torment, in fierce flames consuming,
In chains of iron and in dungeons circled with ceaseless fires,
In pits and dens and shades of death, in shapes of torment and woe:
The plates and screws and racks and saws and cords and fires and cisterns
The cruel joys of Luvah's Daughters, lacerating with knives
And whips their victims, and the deadly sport of Luvah's Sons.

They dance around the dying and they drink the howl and groan,
They catch the shrieks in cups of gold, they hand them to one another:
These are the sports of love, and these the sweet delights of amorous play,
Tears of the grape, the death sweat of the cluster, the last sigh
Of the mild youth who listens to the luring songs of Luvah.----

 

William Blake is known to write poems and create artwork contrasting innocence and experience using many biblical allusions and symbolism. In his poem “But in the Wine-presses the Human Grapes Sing not nor Dance” Blake juxtaposes love and torture to show the torment of experience.

His first line sets up the poem in a wine press, where grapes are squeezed in order to make wine. In order for the grapes to turn into the fine drink, they must first be pressed and aged, transforming from one state to another. This is symbolic of the transition from innocence to experience, and Blake illustrates this process by personifying the grapes which “howl and writhe in shoals of torment”. The transition could be described as painful because the effect of eating this “fruit of knowledge” (in this case a grape), is losing the ignorance and bliss associated with innocence. The grapes “no longer sing nor dance” because they have been weighed down by age and experience. Blake continues describing the almost torturous process by repeatedly using fire imagery. This could be an allusion to the fires of Hell, in which the grapes are being scorched. The allusion to Hell with “fierce flames consuming” and “chains…circled with ceaseless fires” describes experience as a sinful experience, contrary to the pure and innocence found in heaven.  Blake goes on to describe Luvah’s sadistic daughters and sons. He juxtaposes “cruel joys” and “deadly sport” when speaking of lacerating and whipping victims. Luvah, which Blake created, is symbolic of love and the fact that his offspring enjoy torture depicts an ironic scene demonstrating both the good and bad aspects of experience. These “sweet delights of amorous play” show that experience can be painful yet beneficial. Love is often seen with positive connotation, and when posed with violence it captures the dual emotions associated with the fruit of knowledge.  William Blake uses these descriptions to demonstrate his view that neither innocence nor experience is superior to the other. Both have their advantages and their drawbacks and he compares them in his poem about enlightened yet pained grapes as they transition to wine.

Blake uses the process of wine pressing to demonstrate the acquisition of knowledge in his poem. Luvah represents love and tortures his victims in the “sports of love”. The juxtaposition and violent imagery presented in the poem demonstrate the downsides of experience. Compared to innocence, it reveals knowledge and takes away the ignorance, but it is also reality- which can be devastating. William Blake finishes his poem describing “the last sigh of the mild youth who listens to the luring songs of Luvah”. This reveals that experience is tempting, yet the loss of innocence is something to be sighed over, a distressing experience.