--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> OK, Angela, let's start by clearing up the errors in your introduction:
> Someone refresh my memory if I'm wrong, but I believe Judy said > that my interpretation of the ghost's instructions to Hamlet was > "a gross misreading." Fine so far. She also said that my importation of Oedipus into my > reading of Hamlet was somehow ludicrous as well--I forget her > exact term of disapprobation. I said no such thing. You need to learn to search the archives, Angela, if you're going to refer to what people say in past posts. You said (as if this were something I had denied): "Hamlet is full of references to Oedipus, nor am I the only critic to have seen that." And I responded: "Yes, it was quite a faddish interpretation in the '40s; Olivier's film version of 'Hamlet' was heavily influenced by Ernest Jones's 'Hamlet and Oedipus.' It's an approach that adds some very interesting emotional subtext. It's somewhat of a stretch since there are no explicit references to the Oedipus myth, but at least it doesn't do violence to the text of the play." "Ludicrous"?? How on earth did you get "ludicrous" from that paragraph? > If I remember correctly, she said something about fad readings > of Oedipus in the twenties, In the '40s. > which she somehow disparaged Closest I came to "disparaging" was to say it was "a bit of a stretch." >, and in doing so, felt > I had been demolished as well because she lumped me together > with them. Hardly. What was "demolished" was your notion that I rejected Oedipal interpretations of the play. > The readings of she refers to were Freudian interpretations. > I am not a Freudian by any stretch of the imagination, though > I do think that he was on to something. Of course he was. And the parallels to the Oedipus myth in terms of the relationships involved are obvious. But then patricide by a son is hardly an unusual motif in literature generally. In this case, though, there are several twists--Claudius is Hamlet's uncle by blood, and his father only by marriage to Hamlet's mother; and Claudius is the murderer of Hamlet's real father. So it's quite a bit more complicated than the relationships in the Oedipus myth. Nor, of course, does Hamlet ever marry his mother! That's why I said it was a "stretch" to try to see Oedipus in Hamlet. To the extent there are shared elements, they're rather commonplace; to the extent that the elements of the Oedipus myth stand out in "Hamlet," they're much more complex than the original myth. So it's not a really good fit. It's a better fit via the Freudian interpretation, however, than by the mythical one. <snip> > But I'm not a Freudian critic, my reading of Oedipus is not > a Freudian reading either, so I can't figure how relevant her > comparison between me and them is. The only comparison I made was to say that the Freudian interpretation doesn't do violence to the play, whereas yours does. I'm interested in mechanisms other than those addressed > by psychologists who deal with the content of consciousness, as > most Western psychologists have been doing. > > Hamlet Sr. (in his capacity as ghost--which is a Shakespearean > concept that is pertinent to present context) tells Hamlet Jr. > that evil has arisen in the land (sound like a picnic in Hawaii > or does that actually remind of you of the Gita?). Again, "evil arising in the land" is such a frequent element in literature there's no good reason to tie it to either the Oedipus myth or the Gita. But more importantly, the Ghost does *not* tell Hamlet "evil has arisen in the land." He speaks almost exclusively about his murder by his brother and his desire that Hamlet avenge him. He mentions in passing that "the whole ear of Denmark" has been "rankly abused" by the story that he died of a snake bite, but that's the extent of his expressed concern with the state of his kingdom. Hamlet is well aware > of it and we know what he said: "Something's rotten in the State > of Denmark." No, Hamlet doesn't say that, it's Marcellus, after the Ghost draws Hamlet aside to speak to him alone. There's certainly a political backdrop to the play, but it's nowhere near as important as the personal interactions and family tragedy. It just gives them a framework and elevates their importance. > And now, a ghost shows up, claiming to be Hamlet's father > and king. No, the Ghost has already shown up, twice. And it doesn't claim to be Hamlet's father, Hamlet *recognizes* it to be his father and the Ghost confirms it. (Marcellus and Horatio have earlier also recognized it as Hamlet's father.) > And the ghost says that he was murdered by his brother and, not > only that, his brother married Hamlet's mom Hamlet already knows Claudius married his mother. What he doesn't know--although he suspects--is that Claudius murdered his father. --considered an > incestuous relationship in Hamlet's day. The ghost also says that > Hamlet has to avenge (important Shakesperean concept not to be > confused with modern usage of the term). In order to do that, he > has to kill his "relative" (anyone see any similarity to the > Gita here?). But once again, Angela, murders of relatives are a dime a dozen in literature; there's no unique resonance to the Gita here. Plus which, Arjuna killing his relatives happens in the course of battle, not a close family drama. > Evil has arisen in the land Evil has arisen in the *family*. The land is secondary. The land will suffer, but only because of the disastrous situation in the royal court. > and it > falls to the Prince to do something about it (which includes > killing a relative) in order to root out the evil, purify > Denmark from what's rotten in it, and bring order and peace to > the land (Shakesperean concepts: order and kingship etc.). As noted, this is hardly the most prominent theme in the play. Far more important is family honor. We're comparing two pieces of literature from two vastly > different cultures. But the basic situation is universally > human. If it is kali yuga now, then , by definition we have > an evil government, don't we? So, not an unfamiliar situation. But a very unimpressive correlation, given the vast difference in circumstances and themes. The similarities are so superficial as to be meaningless. > Hamlet has to kill his Uncle Claudius (who is now his step-father > and king), and then the ghost adds one more important > instruction: "But, howsoever thou pursuest this act,/ taint not thy > mind, nor let thy soul contrive/ Against thy mother aught. Leave > her to heaven,/ And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge/ To > prick and sting her. > > I compared "taint not thy mind" with verse 45 which counsels > a young prince in a similar situation to perform action without > incurring bad karma, to do it "established in being," a realm > outside of Nature. That's the gross misreading, right there. You've isolated "taint not thy mind" as if it were a separate instruction, but it refers to Hamlet's mother; it's parallel to "nor let thy soul contrive." The Ghost doesn't want Hamlet to blame or try to punish his mother. The entire portion you quote is the Ghost's instructions to Hamlet as to how to think about and treat his mother. You've wrenched that one phrase, "taint not thy mind," out of an integrated, complete thought, and attributed an entirely unrelated meaning to it. Rearrange the words slightly: Taint not thy mind against thy mother, nor let thy soul contrive against her aught. Obviously the rhythm is better as Shakespeare has it, but it's all one thought, not two entirely different thoughts. I also > said "father" especially "ghost of father" "unmanifest > father," is a symbol of the Absolute. And, seeing a pattern, I went > a step further and said that "mother" is a universal symbol of > Nature. Leave her to heaven. > > Now, is this a "gross misreading?" It might not be Judy's > reading of the play, but is it a misreading? Never mind a gross > misreading? Judy has said that it is a gross misreading, > but she has not said how that is the case? I explained it in detail several weeks ago, along with several other points you haven't addressed. If you want to refresh your memory, they're #152978 and #153010. > Now, mind you, I've not argued my case fully by any means, > I've just outlined some basics. And gotten several of them badly wrong, as noted. I've not said much of anything about how > Oedipus fits into all this. In addition > to the Freudian reading of Hamlet (a legitimate reading even > if Judy calls it "faddish") It *was* "faddish." It went along with the general fad for Freud and psychoanalysis in the '40s and tended to fall out of favor as Freud did. But I never said it was illegitimate; to the contrary. It's a *stretch*, but it's quite psychologically powerful, and as I noted, it doesn't do any violence to the play. That's in contrast to *your* reading of the play, which, as far as you've explained it, is simply incoherent. > there is the reading I've given of Oedipus. > And that reading dove tails with my reading of Hamlet. > > My reading of the play is that Hamlet gains something we > shall call enlightenment. He is not a static character. > There is a decided change in him and in the way he sees > the world. In the end, he allows himself to be used as > God's instrument to root out evil by killing Claudius > (forfeiting his own life) and thus restoring order to > Denmark. I personally don't see anything like enlightenment dawning on Hamlet. He's obviously depressed, and one could suggest that he's going through a "dark night of the soul," but he never actually comes out of it; at best, right before the last scene, he appears to achieve a state of sad resignation. Throughout the play, his whole world has fallen apart piece by piece, even including his own self-image as a responsible person. And of course in the last scene virtually the entire court of Denmark, including Hamlet, is slain in an orgy of bloody violence. Previously Hamlet has killed the innocent Polonius by accident, thinking he was Claudius, and caused the suicide of his lover, Ophelia. Maybe he's acting as "God's instrument," but it's hardly a noble role given the circumstances. There isn't much that's uplifting about it. The characters do terrible things to each other and meet awful ends. Before he dies, Hamlet has to beg Horatio not to commit suicide, and Horatio agrees to live and tell the ghastly tale as a kind of warning. There's no particular indication that Fortinbras will be able to restore the kingdom to health, but at least the decks have been cleared, albeit at a horrible cost. Whether Hamlet achieves enlightenment at the end of the play is something about which reasonable people can disagree. I see no evidence for it, but in and of itself it isn't outrageously wrong (unlike your misreading above). I don't happen to think the idea of Hamlet becoming enlightened is particularly interesting, frankly. It seems like a sort of tacked-on Disneyfied fairy-tale ending that tries to pretty up all the blood and guts snd make something noble of it. Horatio's wish for Hamlet that "flights of angels sing thee to thy rest" is pathetically unrealistic given the mayhem for which Hamlet is responsible. You'd think if he were God's instrument in killing Claudius, God would have given him the stones to have done it while Claudius was praying in his closet, thus sparing Hamlet's own life and the lives of at least four other people, including his mother and his lover. If Hamlet's noble father had to stumble around in chains every night to expiate his sins, what are the chances of Hamlet, Jr., getting an angelic escort to heaven? Anyway, as I said, we can agree to disagree on this point, at least. Your turn.
