In Hamlet, as in life, morality can often be rather ambiguous. What aspects of the play point toward this notion of moral ambiguity? Are we to view Hamlet himself as primarily an agent of good or evil? Can you think of another fictional character who embodies the notion of moral ambiguity?
9 comments:
Almost the entire play can be pointed towards Hamlet's moral ambiguity, even the basic plotline. His father's dead, and his uncle is married to his mother... and he is presented with the even darker fact that his uncle was the murderer of his own father for the title of the crown. Hamlet is presented with a choice that would be hard for anyone to choose: seek revenge for his father's death or just sit by and do nothing - "to be or not to be". This choice alone would make it impossible for Hamlet to be seen as a saint or a sinner. Will killing the uncle make him a immoral person? Or should he do the deed anyways? Claudius is seen as an immoral, bad (for lack of a better word) character (even if there is times where is morality is fairly ambiguous - the prayer scene). So to us, as the audience, killing him wouldn't seem to be such a bad thing, but nevertheless it is still the act of killing a human being. Since we see Claudius as the bad guy, we see Hamlet as good. But do good people wish to damn others to hell, no matter what that person may have done? Once again, moral ambiguity comes into play because of his situation that he was forced into.
I agree with Michelle saying that the entire play can be pointed toward moral ambiguity. We view a character who is going through so many things (a dead father, an "absent" mother, and a disturbed girlfreind) that we feel bad for him. However, we must also see a deceptive murderer who attempts to play God by not killing Claudius. In my mind, the fact that Hamlet is pretending to be crazy and in control of so many of his actions proves that he is not innocent and thus is primarily evil. Hamlet reminds me of grendel, in the sense that neither had control of the circumstances of their lives. But Grendel was a beast: a wild animal, and his emotions got the best of him. Hamlet's emotions are being kept in check, and yet still he becomes a murderer. Therefore, as a human being, he is still responsible for his actions, no matter how bad his life may have turned out.
Kristen and Michelle's posts make a lot of sense, except that comparing Hamlet and Claudius doesn't do anyone any good. Even in the prayer scene Claudius specifically says that he does not regret his brother's murder, which means his ambition is stronger than his love for his brother. Hamlet is simply feigning madness in order to avenge the father he looks up to and loves, and since he has lost nearly everyone honorable in his life, is it really that surprising that he blindly follows his "father's" advice? I agree with the 'moral ambiguity' idea but I guess that can be simplified further. Hamlet is lost (literally) and all he wants is to please the father he loved by avenging his death. And to Hamlet, there is nothing sinful about taking the life of a man who doesn't even regret murdering his own brother. (I think it should also be known that Hamlet wants life to be all rainbows and smiles, but romantic dreamers never get what they want). Anyway, Hamlet is just another tragic hero, trying to do what he can to make the world a better place.
As the bloggers above me have highlighted, moral ambiguity is prevalent throughout all of *Hamlet.* First, Gertrude seems the helpless mother unable to control or even account for her son's madness. Yet, this is the same woman who hastily married her brother-in-law without observing a meaningful period of mourning. Polonius is portrayed at times as a caring father, providing Laertes with traditional words of advice before his departure to France. On the opposite hand, he manipulates his daughter so that he may prove his own theory about Hamlet's supposed insanity simply to better his reputation in the eyes of Claudius. Claudius commits the blackest of sins, but is seen asking God for salvation in later scenes. Hamlet, though, is the greatest representation of moral ambiguity. In one sense, he is the victim of his family's tragic decisions, and thus reserves the right to be enraged and depressed. In another sense, Hamlet is the witty puppeteer, attempting to take on the role of God. The fact that Hamlet kills Polonius immediately lowers him to Claudius' level before he can kill the king himself. Hamlet's way of dealing with the situation forced upon him ultimately deems him an evil character.
Hamlet's personality is similar to that of Holden Caulfield. Just as the reader feels sympathy for Hamlet, the reader feels sorry for the immature Holden who receives poor grades,has bad luck with girls, and is almost friendless. Holden tries to be a good person by looking out for Jane and his sister. His less admirable side is communicated through his physical attack of Stradlater, the lies he tells to a harmless woman about her son, and the way that he harshly criticizes Sally.
I still think Hamlet's a truly good person. I know that he is very witty, intelligent, and is feigning madness throughout the play, which makes people believe that he is in total control of his actions, i.e, killing Polonius and plotting evilly. However, as I have learned in Psych this year, placing a truly good person in the role of an evil villain can often lead to the good person acting evil without their control. Here is the question, then: Is Hamlet pretending to be mad, (and thus truly is evil because he is acting in control of his actions) or has he lost control of that action? We all know Hamlet is very self-aware, and even admits to himself that he believes he is losing his mind. Hamlet is a good person, deep down. Another misconception is that he is evil because he plots to damn Claudius to Hell--well that is just another of Hamlet's excuses because he can't bring himself to kill Claudius, so no one can call him evil for that. And in killing Polonius--obviously killing is wrong, but Hamlet was in the middle of a screaming fight with his mother because he felt everything about her was a lie. Then he heard Polonius behind the curtain and his suspicions were revealed--even in his most private conversations he could not trust anyone. Polonius had been spying for Claudius, and Hamlet knew it. It may have seemed out of character for Hamlet to act on only impulse, but come on, hasn't his character changed enough throughout the play? Everything Hamlet endures throughout the play forces him from his "Jon-A-Dream" romantic, idealistic nature to an impulsive, emotional character. His burden is too great to stay passive and contemplative. He's had to lose everything and everyone he loved because of Claudius or Polonius plotting behind his back. Compare Hamlet's feeble attempts to actually do something about it to Claudius' murder and incest, Polonius pulling Hamlet's girlfriend away (and making it seem as though she didn't love him), spying on Hamlet, and Claudius plotting to kill Hamlet to prevent him from getting the crown. I don't see any point in the play where Hamlet was doing ANYTHING for selfish reasons, and I think that's what clearly sets him apart from Polonius and Claudius. He was never interested in anything but helping his father, as I said in my last post, and trying to restore order to his country. Hamlet IS the rightful heir, yet I never once have heard Hamlet honestly say that he is killing Claudius to gain the throne, nor to help his reputation (like Polonius). So I'd say Hamlet is a pretty good person.
Okay, so i'm pretty sure ive done 6 posts already, so I'll make this one quick. All that I really wanted to say was...lauren, way to reference catcher in the Rye. Also, Amanda said that there were no selfish actions in Hamlet's mind. But maybe he was just good at covering them up...was it selfish to feign madness and thus hurt Ophelia? And more importantly...Fortinbras is Hamlet's foil. They are extremely alike, different only in Hamlet's patience. Both are nephews of the king (who they don't particularly like), both have dead fathers. So if Hamlet gave the crown to Fortinbras in the end, isn't he really giving the crown to a representation of himself? And everyone said that he wasn't ambitious...hmmm...
All of the bloggers above have made some really enlightening pionts. As Amanda said, the character's morality is often based on situation: Maybe Claudius was a decent guy before the murders, if we read about him back then, then he wouldn't seem all to evil. We obviously can't probe into a character's mind to find what they are thinking, all of the clues to thier morality are in their actions. Maybe Gurtrude was an evil mastermind who uged clauius to kill King Hamlet? The play doesn't quite point in that direction. Hamlet's sililoquies do give us an idea as to what is going on in his mind, and I have to say, the evilness makes him more human. If we are angry at someone, obviously we will have some sort of malicious thoughts towards them; Hamlet has all the motive in the world to kill Claudius. Does that mean its morally right? Of course not, the situation however, amkes us ignorant to the morality, and focus more on "honor" or "justice". Other such morally ambiguous characters include Severus Snape, Galadriel, Beowulf, Sweeny Todd, Peter Griffin, Vladamir Putin, you, me, Frank N Furter...EVERYONE! Everyone is morally ambiguous, its a natural human condition. Its not a bad thing, in fact, it's good to be bad.
Many aspects of Hamlet point towards the idea of moral ambiguity. His wrestling with the decision of whether or not to kill Claudius, his decision to not kill him when he is praying, what to do in regards with Gertrude; the entire play is about Hamlet's morals and is indecision about what to do. By the time he finally decides what to do (after the play scene), I think that Hamlet ought to be considered as acting somewhat on the behalf of evil. The support from this comes mainly from decisions and actions such as him deciding not to kill Claudius while at prayer, and wait until he is in the midst of sin, or the way that he treats Polonius, who Hamlet killed. He ends up being not an agent of good or an agent of evil, in my opinion, because he kills Claudius and Laertes in a rage, rather than in cold blood, making him human, rather than the puppet for some sort of divine or infernal will.
As for other characters facing morally ambiguous cases, I point once again towards the Song of Ice and Fire saga, in which nearly every main character is faced with morally ambiguous choices, making them all extraordinarily human characters, just like Hamlet is.
Post a Comment