Hamlet Essay about Conflict PDF

Preview

Summary

Hamlet Shakespeare, Conflicts of the Individual
Literary mindscapes...

Description

TASK 3: 14.5/15 Shakespeare’s Hamlet explores multifarious worldly concerns relevant to contemporary society in its examination of conflicts with an individual. Through the metonym of Denmark as a corrupt place that sets a microcosm for conflict, Hamlet’s debilitating psychological crisis in his debate between free will and Humanist ideologies results in his capitulation to providence in which the audience learns the lesson for an inefficient attitude towards conflict. Thus, Shakespeare uses metatheatricality and revenge tragedy conventions to explore conflict in humanity and morality relevant to contemporary audiences for a deeper understanding of the issue. Shakespeare creates a microcosm of Denmark as a representation of origins of conflict and as a representation of society infected by moral corruption. The storyline starts mid-action, disorientating the audience but effectively engaging their attention. Hamlet’s confrontation with the corrupt nature of the world is the peripeteia of the play in accordance to Aristotelian tragedy convention, as he discovers Claudius’ Machiavellian murder of King Hamlet. His emotional shock festers in his pessimistic outlook of society in “Tis an unweeded garden… things rank and gross in nature” using the decay motif in his first soliloquy as an intertextual reference to Montaigne’s 1880 humanist essay The Unweeded Garden. The simplicity of the statement “Denmark’s a prison” further explores the confining nature of Denmark and conflicting schools of thought within it, as well as foreshadowing his surrender to the notion of fate. Hamlet’s continuing denigration as a result of moral conflict is demonstrated in his loss of faith as he says “What a piece of work is man” with mocking sarcasm and ironic sense of wonder, the doubling and use of prose demonstrating the impact of his character and questioning whether human autonomy can be achieved. The corrupt nature of the world and subsequent conflict can be demonstrated in Claudius’ soliloquy, where his syllogisms contrast with the saturation of hendiadytical oxymorons “auspicious and dropping of an eye” and “delight and dole”, the excessive antithesis used to direct the attention away from the quandaries of his ascension, and Claudius being aware of his dichotomous nature. Thus, the corrupt nature of Denmark sets up a setting that breeds conflict in the play of Hamlet. The significant debilitating psychological crisis Hamlet experiences encapsulate the conflicting debate of humanist thought against medieval ideology. The most significant integrating structure of the play is Hamlet’s questioning journey, which is constructed to represent the unusual experience of an individual resonating with Hamlet’s struggle in navigating a morally corrupt social milieu. Hamlet’s “antic disposition” and mask of madness demonstrates his situation spurring his ironic manipulation of his own external appearance to demonstrate the disputes of veracity and artifice, and highlighting the conflict’s impact on his loss of faith and increasing disillusionment. Johann Wolfgang highlights that “Hamlet’s internal struggle and emotional fluctuations reflects the universal tragedy of human experience” exemplifying the audience in relation to his portrayal of conflict. The personalised issues Hamlet faces is also emphasised with Laertes and Fortinbras who serve as character foils, as the ambition and ruthlessness and grief and sense of family are far less cerebral character qualities and illuminates Hamlet’s internal struggle and questioning journey and juxtaposed Hamlet’s intellectual deliberation. The psychological conflict that Hamlet experiences begins to deteriorate following his devaluing within the metaxy of his paradigm in “sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought” as he questions the capacity for reason, as a tenet of humanist ideologies and eventually surrenders to the notion of fate. Similarly, Claudius’ use of alliteration, decay imagery and connotations of black in “Oh bosom black as death,/ Oh limed soul” demonstrates his emotional confrontation of his corruption and resulting moral damnation, as he confronts the darker reality against his outer appearance in conflict with his real self. Thus, the dichotomous ideologies of nascent Humanism that Shakespeare espoused against medieval notions of fate cause notable psychological conflicts of character in Hamlet. The capitulation to providence due to superfluity of emotion allows the audience to perceive the negative effects of conflict on one’s character as Hamlet surrenders to divine predetermination. Hamlet’s last soliloquy saying “Oh from this time forth,/My thoughts be bloody or nothing worth” uses hyperbole and gory

imagery to emphasise the conclusive nature of his thoughts where he is committed to complete the revenge act but prevaricates and fluctuates between reason, intellect and logic, and force passion. He eventually gives up on Humanist ideology as he succumbs to Medieval notions of fate and a Christian dominated universe in the impersonal language of “there’s a divinity that shapes our ends” as well as emphasised in the black humour of Act 5 where he uses the prop of the human skull and says “this might be the pate of a politician… or a courtier”. The biblical alluding anagnorisis “There is providence in the fall of a sparrow” allows the audience to derive conflicting moral prerequisites for the source of inaction against conflict and resonates as a Shakespearean warning against inaction of one’s own context. Furthered in the popularisation of theatrum mundi allowed actors to act as players that convey multifarious worldly concerns in the metatheatrical reflection and evinced in the relevant motifs of disease, in “gangrenous ulcer… sickness… malaise” and motif of poison in “leprous distilment”. Shakespeare exploits the audience’s reaction to conflict by utilising the revenge tragedy convention of a cathartic ending where the revenger dies, although the convention of a heavily bloody spectacle is subverted and the very unhappy denouement of Aristotelian convention facilitates catharsis and purgation of pity and fear resonating in the universe. Thus, Hamlet’s capitulation to the teleological narrative of providence resolves the impious paradigm and convey to the audience consequences of delayed conflict. Thus, in Hamlet Shakespeare utilises the connection of sociocultural corruption in the setting to set up debilitating psychological crisis in the metaxy of paradigms, in which audience sees Hamlet’s eventual surrender to the notion of fate. These ideas evinces the audiences understanding of conflict in the situations it arises from but also derives Shakespearean warnings against the hamartias of Hamlet....