Have you read any interesting critical commentaries with regard to Hamlet? Do tell! (If possible, provide a link!)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Having been a blogger since my early childhood, I have decided to incorporate this useful tool into my teaching. Instructions: At the end of each month, I will award you 2 points for each meaningful post, with a maximum score of 12/10. Be sure to read what others have written - no credit for repetition.
10 comments:
I'm not sure how well this will work, but this criticism I found was incredibly interesting. It is about Ophelia's portrayal over time, and once the Feminist Approach notes are due, it'll be more and more relevant. So, I found this using iconn, and i think the link will only work if you have a library card... But I figured I'd post this anyways.
CLICK
Michelle, the link didn't come through. Any chance you could post the author/title of the piece? Thanks!!
Representing Ophelia: Women, Madness, and the Responsibilities of Feminist Criticism
Elaine Showalter
I was browsing on ICONN, and I came across an insane article. Although it's not a critical review of Hamlet, it's definitely worth reading. The author, Naomi Lizuka, explains her purpose in writing her own adaptation of Hamlet with the help of a group of diverse young adults from Oakland, California. Her version is called "Hamlet: Blood in the Brain" and applies aspects of Hamlet to the height of the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s in Oakland.
The article is absolutely powerful. It increased my appreciation for Hamlet's ability to transcend time and unite people from varying backgrounds. It also added to my understanding of how Shakespeare's themes are relevant to society today. To read the article:
1. www.ICONN.org (need library card)
2. Link to Individual Resources
3. InfoTrac Student Edition
4. Type in "Hamlet + Oakland." The article should be the first link: "A Hamlet of One's Own: What's the Point of Transposing the Play to Drug-Afflicted Oakland, California?"
I read a really interesting short criticism by T.S. Elliot entitled "Hamlet and His Problems." Essentially, Elliot boldly points out that Hamlet (the play) is one of Shakespeare's artistic failures. He objects to the majority of critics who claim that the problem with the play is the complex character Hamlet who is impossible to understand. Elliot contends that it is the play itself which is hard to understand and flawed because Shakespeare failed in conveying his overall message eloquently in the play. He demands that the reader know a little more relevant biographical and historical information pertaining to the play.
Here's the link:
http://www.bartleby.com/200/sw9.html
I found an article on Hamlet which analyzes the connections the play Hamlet has with Martin Luther and the Reformation. It is very complex and a little difficult to summarize but basically it discusses the importance of Holy Days, purgatory, and questions the order in which the events actually happened in Hamlet.
Link: http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/02-1/sohmshak.html
I found an article on: http://www.enotes.com/shakespearean-criticism/hamlet
It talks about the politically and culturally charged gender issues, and Ophelia's character compared to the legend of Mary Magdalen as developed in medieval drama. Also there is a lot of feminist criticism in an attempt to gain new perspectives on Ophelia's character.
I found an critical article on Hamlet which basically talks about how the character of Hamlet is a "thinker" which is different then most of the other characters in novels or plays at the time, that Hamlet is unlike any of the greek and latin plays because "they were interested only in outer conflict, not the inner affair of thought." this article also talks about many authors think that dialogue is "thinking" but it truly isnt, you have to find someway to let the audience know the character is thinking or battling with himself without having the character just come out and say it.
the link is....
http://eserver.org/emc/1-2/degrazia.html
My criticism piece is based off the same website as carla & ellen, but it's a different author/topic. The site is:
http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/10-2/rothepis.htm
It talks about the importance of how nobody in the play, except Claudius, fully knows about the Murder of King Hamlet, and how it's important to sustain this atmosphere of having a murder nobody knows about in order to keep the audience entertained. As soon as the murder is revealed, it's the end of the play.
But that wasn't really why I thought the site was good; The Mousetrap comments were. The site claims, "What happens there shapes the meaning and import of the whole play." The things characters such as Hamlet, the courtiers, and Claudius find out throughout the mousetrap are so complex, they are intriguing. Does Claudius know Hamlet knows? & Does Hamlet actually know what Claudius may or may not know Hamlet knows? The site offers some new light towards The Mousetrap, King Hamlet's death, and the "true knowledge" achieved throught the play. Cool to read.
http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/02-1/sohmshak.html
I thought that this article was really interesting. It analyzed the dates in Hamlet and when many of the main events occurred. It even went back to proved when the old King Hamlet and Queen Gertrude's marriage took place--and then proving how Hamlet was an illegitimate child (which could have played a rile in his mental state throughout the play). I thought it was very interesting and made me appreciate even more the complexity of Hamlet and how Shakespeare's writing was so intertwined, full of underlying detail, and difficult to analyze "fully" (even if you could do that to a piece of work).
Post a Comment