Position Papers
Okay Danielle, Michelle, Thea, Saanchi, Alisha, Casey, Will, and Gen,
All of you are writing some kind of position paper on ideas in Hamlet. You are making an argument about a question or aspect of the play. Your process is similar to the Women in Hamlet group:
Grab some post-its and go through every scene that is relevant to your argument. Write down any line that seems to support or contradict your argument. Use the post-its to arrange your evidence in a way that makes sense to you and that will support your idea. You can also do this using the online version of the play and cut 'n' pasting. Now...
THINK ABOUT IT. For a while. Mull.
So what are the implications of the argument that you are making? How does your argument change our understanding of the play? Does it shift or explain motive? Does it give a familiar character a new aspect?
Your basic format for this essay is an explanation of your argument (serves as intro/thesis), a careful, detailed examination of the evidence in favor of your interpretation, an explanation of why other evidence might not apply - this is very important here, especially for those unanswerable questions..you have to shoot down arguments against you - and a conclusion that explains, in detail, why this argument is important. How does it contribute to our (the universal our) understanding of the play? I would strongly suggest posting your drafts here for comment...Please try to make sure all topic sentences are assertive...
NB: I know this play very, very well. If you pay short shrift to your evidence gathering and miss something, I will probably know. And I will not be amused.
You are welcome to consult outside sources, but EVERYTHING you look at must be sourced in a bibliography, even if you don't quote it. Standard MLA rules apply.
posted by Ms. Clapp @ 1:10 PM
17 comments
17 Comments:
A few Notes for my paper:
Qst: Is Hamlet in control of his life in the play or is fate?
Ar.: Maybe I will go in the direction that the ghost is in control of Hamlet's fate, since he will be a key piece of evidence.
*Key evidence for argument will focus around Hamlet Senior Ghost.
*Changes Uderstanding in the instance that Hamlet, who seems to be able to manipulate(control) is really not in control. Makes him appear more vunerable.
These are just a few notes I'd figure I post here so that I don't forget them. =)
Danielle, I think you have a great question. The ghost definitely holds some control over Hamlet's actions because throughout the entire play, Hamlet struggles with whether or not to act. At the same time, I think that the ghost doesn't control Hamlet's fate since fate isn't really controlled by a person. Plus, he doesn't really dwell on the ghost or mention it throughout the play (except when it shows up again in the closet scene).
Also, because Hamlet is the prince, we know that he is not really in control of his life (Denmark is), which is part of Polonius's argument for why Ophelia should end her relationship with him. At the same time, Claudius controls Hamlet's life because he sends Hamlet to England; Hamlet has no say in the matter. He just accepts it as fact. Then again, only fate could have made it so the pirates attacked Hamlet's boat which separated him from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, saving him from his death. Just some things to think about when devising your paper. :-)
Just to respond to what Alisha said..."Plus, he doesn't really dwell on the ghost or mention it throughout the play (except when it shows up again in the closet scene)." Well, i just wanted to point out that although Hamlet does not dwell on this encounter with the ghost, we all know that its appearance was a major development in the plot - the ghost's revealing that Claudius killed King Hamlet is the only reason for the rest of the play playing out the way it did. The ghost may not have appeared again or been mentioned for a while but we know that what it told Hamlet is the only reason that he made up his mind that killing Claudius was summat he had to do. Just putting that out there.
Great idea Danielle, my argument is similar to yours in a way. Well, during one of the class discussion's there was an opinion throughout the class that Hamlet had changed from a stage of inaction to action. As the argument went on, my opinion somehow changed without anyone really arguing another position. So here is my far fetched idea:
In the beginning Hamlet was in a state of inaction (inaction referring to the action towards avenging his father's murder, but his inaction was excused because of the fact that Hamlet was suspected to be mad. His inactivety was not a big deal.
After his trip from England, Hamlet seems to be changed, there is no argument that Hamlet has changed, he has, but has his inactivity? Here is where I disagree. Hamlet is still inactive in some manner. Shakespeare as an author purposely put a change in Hamlet's character to kind of play with the audience's and the rest of the characters' mind in the play, trying to portray that Hamlet has been cured of his maddness, since that was the purpose of the whole trip.
If you take a closer look towards the end of the play, Hamlet has always taken action when Hamlet was certain that his life was in danger, therefore he killed Polonius (thinking it was Claudius), and killed Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
So why is Hamlet so concerned with his own death? That is where the major change in Hamlet is seen, initially, because of his fathers murder, Hamlet feels depressed, and often suspected as suicidal. Now towards the end, Hamlet cares for his life in order to complete his goal in avenging his father's murder.
Hamlet constantly is seen waiting,For example, as discussed in class on pg. 147, the sparrows quote, Hamlet is yet again waiting for FATE to take action, and not taking action himself as he could.
The only reason why Hamlet does take action in the end of murdering Claudius is because he himself was poisoned, he knew he would die in a matter of minutes, he finally killed Claudius, not because of any other reason though. If Hamlet was not dying, Claudius may well have still been alive.
So there is my idea, a bit controversial to the rest of the class, but I thought it was interesting to explore, if I can get any more feed back it would be great. Thanks :)
I know this is random but it's really bugging me, who is Pals0918? For some reason i can't connect it to anyone in the class, though the ideas kind of sound like...Casey's? i don't know.
But to answer your post, wow, thats going to be a really complex paper. First of all, going o nabout how his assumed madness is an exuse you have to either prove he is mad or not, and how if he's not Hamlet uses it to his advantage. Because for me, his inactivity is a central characteristic of Hamlet, is is one of the foundations of the character analysis, so firstly you have to take a strong stand on why Hamlet is not mad, and why the readers may use this as an exuse/ And do you have specific lines in mind for, "Shakespeare as an author purposely put a change in Hamlet's character to kind of play with the audience's and the rest of the characters' mind in the play, trying to portray that Hamlet has been cured of his maddness" that's another argument in its own, has hamlet been cured, and how, and how does this affect the stroy and Hamlet. If his madness was an exuse for his inactivity, what is his exusce now. And at the end, you'll need some great proof to show that its only in the face of his own death that Hamlet has the courage to kill Claudius, in class a few quotes were thrown around, but nothing substanital, at least to me, so you'll need a strong quote to prove that, even though, i do agree with your idea.
So all in all, i'm getting that your paper is on Hamlet's obession with death? eitehr way it seems pretty broad, several topics into one paper might be tough, i thik if you narrow down what you want to prove, it'll go a lot easier for you. Good luck.
ohhh it's saanchi, hah sorry saanchi, my bad.
good luck on your paper.
<3gen.
You all have some really great ideas running around here! Just remember: support, support, support!
I want my paper to focus on Hamlets Oedipus complex concerning his mother. I know that we discussed this topic in class, and it intrigued me.
Though I am going in the direction that Hamlet wanted to replace his father, I am not even remotely arguing that He was in love with his mother in a physical or incestious manner.
I'm working on the organization of my evidence and my arguement now, and I'll keep you guys posted on how its going!
Good luck with your papers too!
Oh, and Alisha, Adrian, and Gen--what are you writing about? I'm curious to know. haha :-)
she just wants to steal my ideas. lol. okay, my topic is going on the idea of how power is changed throughout the book. Well actaully, its more does Hamlet ever have power over his own actions, and does that exchange of power in the other characters affect Hamlet's actions. It's kind of like Danielle's except i'm not looking at fate, i'm looking at power and Hamlet.
That's all i really got so far, i'll update you soon.
These are very good topics. Also, our topics are similar in some way. My topic is about whether or not Hamlet is truly mad. For my evidence, I'm going to look at several speeches and look at the language that Hamlet uses. I'll also look at the interactions that Hamlet has with the other characters and maybe even look closely at the relationship that Hamlet has with his mother. Which is close to the Oedipus complex kind of thing.
Hmm, thanks for the input Gen, it really got me thinking about my topic.
My origional intention was not to focus on Hamlet's madness, all because even I am sometimes torn between the idea if Hamlet is really mad or not.
I actually made a mistake, I had thought that the first instances of change were noticed only after Hamlet comes back from England, which of course can be disputed, but specifically the events of inaction were altered after the tripe from England, which I looked back on for evidence, and remembered that the first event where Hamlet somehow takes a 360 is after his infamous "to be or not to be" speech, when he kills Polonius.
So my initial goal for this paper is to prove that Hamlet is still practicing inactivity, even after that speech.
Everytime he does commit a crime in killing someone is because he finds his life in danger.
I think I'll leave it at that right now, wait for some feedback and try to rework my topic a bit.
If you guys can please get me as much feedback as possible, because I'm supposed to be leaving tomorrow for a trip. Thanks
Okay, that sounds a lot clearer to me. I think you can easily work this, just make sure you stay focused on that topic. I know if I were writing it, i'd probally be ilke skipping from tons of different topics, so just be careful of that.
For your paper I would probally look at all the "inner Hamlet" moments such as the to be or not, the graveyard, all those things which show us how/why Hamlet is holding himself back. That's where you'll probally find a lot of evidence for your paper.
And for Will, your paper sounds interesting b/c of your strategy of looking at how Hamlet is speaking and not what. Good luck, but you'll also have to be real specific b/c this is an ambigous case, so you'll really need to do proving.
Thanks for the input Gen.
Thanks Gen :)
If you need any help for your essay and such just let me know, as goes for anyone else...Thanks guys for all your help
Okay everyone, i'm finally finished with my paper. Please read through and give me some feedback if you can. Constructive criticism is always welcome. Thanks!
One of the many questions that has remained open-ended throughout the countless readings of Hamlet is that of Hamlet’s feelings for Ophelia: does Hamlet really love Ophelia? If so, why does he put her through all the heartache? And if he does not, why does he blatantly lie to her face that he did love her (once)? I am of the opinion that Hamlet does love Ophelia, and never stops loving her even once. This may seem incredulous due to the numerous insults he sends her way and the way he blatantly disrespects her. However, I believe that Hamlet had to treat Ophelia the way he did, or believed he had to, in order to bolster his ruse of insanity. In addition, contrary to the general opinion that one is only as faithful as his/her outward expression of love, Hamlet adores Ophelia without constantly expressing this physically. Although he does not show his admiration for her, Hamlet adores Ophelia in the same sense that Virgil’s Aeneas loves Dido. Although this love may not be apparent at all times, it is ingrained so deeply in Hamlet that even after all the distasteful things he does to Ophelia, he mournfully admits to having loved her more than anyone else could have. Therefore, Hamlet’s love for Ophelia is not always as evident as the times think it should be. Just like Aeneas had to leave Dido, Hamlet had to betray Ophelia’s love and cause her heartache much as he loved her. This alone, does not mean he never loved her.
The closer one observes the two texts, the Aeneid (Book IV in particular) and Hamlet, the similarities become more apparent. Aeneas, the protagonist of the poem, falls in love with the Carthaginian queen, Dido. The two share their mutual emotions in peace for a while, only to be separated by the divine will of the gods. As it may, Jupiter sends his emissary Mercury with instructions for Aeneas to leave Carthage and continue to Italy, where he is destined to found a new great empire (Rome). Aeneas, being loyal to the gods, attempts to leave his beloved Dido without an explanation but is confronted by the angry queen. Aeneas actually states “I sail for Italy not of my own free will” to show his reluctance to leave, and yet his piety forces him thus. Aeneas sails away from the shores of Carthage just as Dido, in utmost despair, runs herself through with a sword left behind by Aeneas and burns on her own funeral pyre. Though the storyline of Hamlet may not be an exact replica of the Aeneid, the theme of tragic love is reminiscent of the Danish prince’s failed relationship with Ophelia. Hamlet too has to hurt the one he loves after receiving supernatural tidings from the ghost of his late father. Similar to Aeneas’ final confrontation with Dido in the underworld where he laments the tragic loss, Hamlet sadly confesses to having always loved Ophelia after he realizes that she is the one to be buried. Hamlet says that he “loved Ophelia”, so much so that “forty thousand brothers / Could not, with all their quantity of love, / Make up [his] sum.” The similarities between the two texts are uncanny.
I believe that Hamlet had to hurt Ophelia in order to meet his late father’s ends. Hamlet decides to act insane in order to fool his uncle into a sense of security. This is because an insane Hamlet would not be a threat to Claudius’ reign or his life. Hamlet makes this clear when he insists that Horatio and Marcellus swear never to reveal his plan “by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase, / As ‘Well, well, we know,’ or ‘We could, an if we would.” Just like Aeneas had to leave Dido to found Rome, Hamlet hurt Ophelia for the greater good - in Hamlet’s mind at any rate - of avenging his father. Therefore, Hamlet hurt Ophelia “not of [his] own free will”.
This does not justify the argument that Hamlet never loved Ophelia. As a matter of fact, Hamlet’s sincere declaration of love for Ophelia at her grave only confirms that Hamlet loved Ophelia all along and shows how he regrets the way he treated her. Hamlet proclaims that he “Woo’t weep”, “woo’t fight”, “woo’t fast”, “Woo’t drink up eisel” and “eat a crocodile” if only to show his sorrow over Ophelia’s death and proves how much he loved her all along. In this the penultimate scene of the play, Hamlet confronts Leartes on the issue of who truly loved Ophelia the more. Hamlet asks Leartes whether he came only “to whine” and “outface [him] with leaping in her grave?” and proclaims that he will “rant as well as [Laertes]” to prove that he too loved Ophelia. Therefore, Hamlet always held Ophelia dear to his heart through all the heartache he made her endure.
It could be argued that Hamlet did not really have to put Ophelia through all that he did, the same way Aeneas could have asked Dido to go with him to found Rome. However, both Ophelia and Dido are meant to be casualties of love. Both Shakespeare and Virgil depict these maidens as loving, caring and most of all, trusting. This is their hamartia. Ophelia trusts Hamlet so much that she leaves herself vulnerable to the pangs of heartbreak that assail her when Hamlet begins to feign his insanity. Hamlet hurts Ophelia in several ways amidst his pretence. When he first meets Ophelia after talking to the ghost, Hamlet “goes to the length of all his arm; / And, with his other hand thus o'er his brow, / He falls to such perusal of [Ophelia’s] face / As he would draw it.” Additionally, he lies to Ophelia, denying that he ever loved her by saying that he “loved her once”, then turning around and saying that he “loved [her] not.” Hamlet also questions Ophelia’s chastity by constantly asking her if she is “honest”. Therefore, Hamlet puts Ophelia through a world of pain though none of what he says is truly meant to truly hurt her - it is only meant to augment his pretence of being mad. However, Hamlet goes too far since Ophelia takes all that he says to heart, crushing her emotionally.
This new argument gives Hamlet a different shade that most people would not color him: one of love. Knowing that Hamlet loved Ophelia all along would prove that he always had a heart and that his rivalry with Leartes was not only fueled by hatred. In addition to Hamlet’s desire to prove his superiority over Leartes, Hamlet’s rivalry with Leartes is also as a result of Hamlet’s need to prove his superior love for Ophelia. This enmity reaches its peak when Hamlet proclaims that forty-thousand brothers could not have loved Ophelia more than him and goes on to ask Leartes “What wilt thou do for her?” Therefore, this new argument shows us how much Hamlet truly loved Ophelia, contrary to popular belief that he never cared for her.
This new view of Hamlet is helpful in giving readers a more in-depth understanding of the total loss Hamlet faces during the course of the play. Before ultimately losing his life, Hamlet loses his father, his mother, his kingdom, his friends and, last but not least, his love. By recognizing that Ophelia was one more piece of Hamlet’s life that he loses in his quest for vengeance, one can more fully comprehend Hamlet’s distraught state-of-mind as he kills King Claudius - the direct cause of all his losses. This new revelation increases the pity that one associates with Hamlet as he finally does away with the one man that has caused all his heartache, and then slowly succumbs to his own demise. This new take on Hamlet’s relationship with Ophelia also makes the story more universal as it is a direct parallel of Aeneas and Dido’s tragic love, making it a more familiar story than readers first think it is.
Okay so firstly, usually it annoys me when questions first appear in the essay, but for this it realll works, becaue i don't know what your prompt is, so it actually puts me into nicely!
And secondly, while I don't think the I's in your paper hurt you, you can also get rid of them if yu deem necessary, just to solidify your authority.
Okay your paper is really good, your points are strong an dwell made, its an interestng argument that he did it only to bolster his image of madness, and you make the case well. you're evidence with Hamlet over her grave is very convinceing.And the way you parallel it to the other story of Dido helped to illustrate your point verywell. Mabye i fyou were going to go over it again, hm, i'm trying to think of something, I'd probally look over how you spelled Laertes, i think it was wrong a couple times, but i don't really KnoW how to spell it either so. That's really all I can come up with. Overall, great paper.
Thanks for the input Gen. And you're right, its Laertes, not Leartes...Gracias.
Post a Comment
<< Home