Hamlet - A Double Edged Soliloquy

Hamlet – the myth, the legend, the book I am reading in English Class. In almost everyone’s educational career they must read Hamlet (at least once) and contemplate the many layers of meaning it contains. It is one of the most prolific pieces of literature in the English language, as well as the most preformed play in the world (above is the famous image of Hamlet with the skull from the 1948 Hamlet film starring Sir Lawrence Olivier as Hamlet). There are many different critical approaches that can be used to examine and interpret Hamlet. In an attempt to keep this a post and not a novel, I will examine the soliloquy at the end of Act 4 Scene 4 (lines 33-69) from a formalist and a mythic approach, and then examine each approach itself.

From a Formalist perspective, the movement in this passage from logic to violence and perhaps madness is one worth examining. Throughout the soliloquy, Hamlet continues in iambic pentameter and keeps up metaphors including sleep as death and inaction and cowardice in life as living as a beast. There is also the parallelism between Hamlet and Prince Fortinbras, comparing the action coupled with purpose in Fortinbras with the actionless purpose of Hamlet. All of these structural ornaments show that Hamlet is at this point thinking intelligently and thoughtfully, however, as he finishes and with apparent logic concludes that, "from this time forth/My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth!" (4.4.68-69), it is unclear as to whether he has crossed the line of sanity into madness. When this logical thought progression with all the ornamentation and appearance of a sane person in the play transforms near the end of the soliloquy into a conclusion that many people would consider not logical or sane, Shakespeare makes us question both what it is to be sane and insane, and what that might look like.

From a Mythical perspective, Hamlet throughout the soliloquy examines what it is to exist and to be human. Hamlet asks near the beginning of the soliloquy, "What is a man/If his chief good and market of his time/Be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more./Sure He that made us with such large discourse,/Looking before and after, gave us not/That capability and godlike reason/to fust in us unused." (4.4.35-41). Hamlet examines the meaning in his life by comparing it to the life of a beast, where one only sleeps and eats and has no meaning. He states that, "I do not know/Why yet I live to say 'This things to do,' " and by that Hamlet concludes that being alive without fulfilling his purpose is not really living at all (4.4.46-47). Then, with the parallelism of Fortinbras fulfilling his purpose even if it puts his life at risk while Hamlet does not do this, Hamlet's thoughts of the relationship between purpose and real life are cemented. When Hamlet ends with "from this time forth/My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth!" he shows his determination to fulfill his violent purpose in life because living is about fulfilling purpose rather than just staying alive (4.4.68-69).

With these two perspectives two different parts of the soliloquy can be excavated; but neither is more right than the other. Using only one would be sufficient, but Shakespeare deserves more! Both approaches, and others I did not use, unveil another layer of meaning in each part of Hamlet, so using them all in conjunction can warrant the most fulfilling reading of Hamlet. I am not sure if I even believed that before examining this passage with different approaches, but I definitely do now!

Well, that is my two cents. Let me know what you think!

Nonviolence and Power in Egypt

What I am hearing and reading about is the definite spreading of a new awareness: that people are not helpless in the face of repression, that the seemingly all-powerful dictatorships in the region—against whom struggle was perceived as futile—are actually not so powerful when faced with the real power of ordinary people, and that bringing about massive change is not predicated on the use of military power by a foreign government. It can happen organically, self-reliantly, and nonviolently, and also, importantly, with less casualties than a protracted guerrilla struggle or terrorism.

This is what Jamila Raqib, the executive director of the Albert Einstein Institution, had to say about the subject. See more here.

This got me thinking. There has been a lot written about the recent protests in Egypt (as well as Tunisia and other places), but I would like to focus on the nonviolent aspect of the protests, and what power they hold. This recent wave of protests has been marked by a trend of distinct non violence that (I think) marks a turning point in history - not only for the idea of "revolution" but also the idea of where power lies. If people around the world can truly believe that within their hands they hold enough power collectively to do what is best for their country and the world, I think we will see a shift in the power structure towards more entities that better follow the people's will. That does not necessarily mean democracy, or at least what we conceive of as a democracy, but any system in which the people can have access to the things they need and under which they are not suppress or discriminated against.

This change in the way power is viewed does not result independently from these actions, more that these protests show that the idea of power in the world today has the potential to change. Ideas and overarching and complicated as power do not change over night, but I think that people will increasingly realize that power is abstract - it can be created and destroyed - and eventually with the power a dedicated group of people hold things can be changed. This idea could also infiltrate the workings of politics on an international scale, so that people can have both a duty to their country and to their world. Common Wealth says that in an ever connected age it is becoming more and more important to band together as a world to combat problems that affect us all. If power was viewed as a more encompassing entity then we would have more reason to act. And if this idea does change, if people around the world do believe that whatever their condition they have the power to band together, without violence or war, and make a difference, then we will truly begin to see peaceful change for the better of all.

Model United Nations

This weekend I made the trek to the Palmer House Hilton where once every year The University of Chicago holds a Model United Nations Conference. I have gone for the past few years and each year my experience has been different. This year I went as a delegate from The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (fondly named BRO Venezuela) to the World Health Organization. This year the greatest thing I took away from Model UN was surprise that anything substantial is able to come out of the real United Nations. The idea that almost 200 delegations can debate effectively, one at a time, and reach a resolution that is coherent, efficient, and expedient is almost laughable. The way these sessions are set up means that there is either a set sequence of speakers, or, speakers are called on one at a time by the chair, who runs the debate. In a committee as large as the WHO this means that many points get lost in the sheer weight of the amount of speakers and quite a few questions go unanswered. The real work - compromise between parties and the writing of resolutions - came during the unmoderated caucuses where delegations would converse freely and without the encumbrance of the United Nations formalities.

In the past I have been in much smaller groups (including the African Union), and at least in these more integrated groups we could have a working conversation. It is interesting to note however, that the number of countries in the world has continued to increase in the past few decades, so the number of delegations in these committees (model or real) will only increase. So what can be done? I think it may be time to really evaluate what would best serve the world, not only fundamentally but structurally in the United Nations. Although to even discuss this kind of thing in the UN today would be long-winded. In a place where everyone's voice must be heard (after all I do not wish to change that), I think a good think about how everyone can be most effectively heard is warranted. Then, the real work of making an idea that has been heard turn into an action that can be felt can start.

What do you think?