The comparison between dialogue and soliloquy in Shakespeare’s Hamlet provides an alternate perspective upon a potentially perplexing protagonist, whose erratic and changeable behaviour has obstructed audiences from forming definitive conclusions. Whilst the conditions of soliloquy lend itself to the protagonist speaking truthfully, this inference can only be made by linking the concerns Hamlet expresses in soliloquy to the course of action he undertakes, whereas in a play so deeply riddled by false appearances and deliberate self-restraint, critics remain in conflict as to the true nature of Hamlet himself.
No Tragic Flaw in Hamlet It was my observation after reading Hamlet, that the play and its main character are not typical examples of tragedy and contain a questionable "tragic flaw" in the tragic hero. I chose this topic because Hamlet is a tragedy, but one that is very different from classical tragedies such as Medea. I also found quite a lot of controversial debate over the play and its leading character. While reading through my notes, I found that, according to Aristotle, "the tragic hero will most effectively evoke both our pity and terror if he is neither thoroughly good nor evil but a mixture of both; and also that the tragic effect will be stronger if the hero is better than we are in the sense that he is of higher than ordinary moral worth. Such a man is exhibited as suffering a change in fortune from happiness to misery because of a mistaken act, to which he is led by his hamartia ("error of judgment") or his tragic flaw."
Shaw's repetition in the epilogue of the content and themes contained in Saint Joan, combined with the insertion of purely historical facts lacking in dramatic relevance, is a flaw to what is otherwise a brilliant play. Shaw's need to explain his work, as evidenced by his lengthy prefaces to many plays, most likely compelled him to include the epilogue. However, the explicit explanations contained in the epilogue lessen the power of the action that precedes it. As a result, an audience is likely to come away from the performance easily able to conclude what Shaw's intentions were, rather than coming to the ideas that Shaw wanted to present by reflecting on the events of the play. Bibliography:
Reason and love in A Midsummer Night’s Dream Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream is often read as a dramatization of the incompatibility of “reason and love” (III.i. 127), yet many critics pay little attention to how Shakespeare manages to draw his audience into meditating on these notions independently (Burke 116). The play is as much about the conflict between passion and reason concerning love, as it is a warning against attempting to understand love rationally. Similarly, trying to understand the play by reason alone results in an impoverished reading of the play as a whole – it is much better suited to the kind of emotive, arbitrary understanding that is characteristic of dreams. Puck apologises directly to us, the audience, in case the play “offend[s]” us, but the primary offence we can take from it is to our rational capacity to understand the narrative, which takes place in a world of inverses and contrasts.
Iago constructs a false impression of his loyalty to Othello through ... ... middle of paper ... ... as it unfolds. It is saddening to see these characters fail again and again to understand each other, and themselves. Within our own lives however, we are not so different from the characters of the play. Many things are beyond our comprehension, and it is easy for suffering to arise when people are without understanding. Alas, Shakespeare has given us fair warning of the tragedy that could spring from incomprehension.
Action and Accountability in Macbeth They say that life is what you make of it. Though there is much in the fabric of Shakespeare’s tragedies that complicates the relationship between action and accountability with regard to the tragic heroes, it cannot be assumed, simply because they find themselves in a difficult position, that they are engulfed and rendered powerless by the events that unfold in their midst. Even Iago, Shakespeare’s evil incarnate, remarks, “ ‘Tis in ourselves that we are thus or thus…we have reason to cool our raging motions, our carnal stings, our unbitted lusts” (1.3:316-326). Circumstance, then, simply does not negate guilt or responsibility. Given reason, we are capable both of the good and the evil behavior that seals our fate.
The Guardian. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Jan. 2014. culture/2011/jun/17/shakespeare-much-ado-wyndhams-globe>. Friedlander, Ed, M.D.
Lear's downfall was a result of his failure to comprehend that appearances do not always represent reality. Gloucester avoided a similar demise by learning the relationship between appearance and reality. If Lear had learned to look with more than just his eyes before the end, he might have avoided this tragedy. These two tragic stories unfolding at the same time gave the play a great eminence. Work Cited Shakespeare, William, Barbara A. Mowat, and Paul Werstine.
While Macbeth is still concerned with his public image, he is not removed enough in his position. The thesis of Macbeth becomes obvious in (1.3.143) ... ... middle of paper ... ...ling her as he becomes beyond his own personal fear. While Shakespeare tests Machiavelli’s concepts of fear and love literally to the point of near ludicrousy through the character of Macbeth, he does the opposite through Hamlet. Hamlet does not wish to be a leader unless he can be loved and not feared, disagreeing completely with Machiavelli’s ideals of “if a ruler wants to survive, he must learn to stop being good” (Machiavelli, back cover). Shakespeare wrestles with the notions of extreme love and extreme fear throughout the two plays and both become nearly a work of satire through these devices.
The key to Hamlet's flaw, the stuckness that has puzzled so many readers, is lodged, not in the beginning, but in the end--the place of maximum emphasis--of the "to be or not to be" soliloquy, the most famous dramatic monologue... ... middle of paper ... ...udies of Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brown, Keith. 1973. 'Form and Cause Conjoin'd': Hamlet and Shakespeare's Workshop.'