Hamlet: A Modern Perspective

In Michael Neill’s essay Hamlet: A Modern Perspective, he claims that “Even today, when criticism stresses the importance of the reader’s role in ‘constructing’ the texts of the past, there is something astonishing about Hamlet’s capacity to accommodate the most bafflingly different readings” (Neill 308). Neill’s thesis is supported by the evidence he cites, but his verbose style of writing alienates some of his audience and his argument loses some of its power because of this.
Neill makes a great claim in his thesis, and it is not unsupported. Following his thesis, Neill cites several examples of people reading the topics they care about into the play. The cases he mentions range from the political disillusionment of czarist Russia to the Romantic criticism of the early nineteenth century (Niell
When presenting an argument, it is important to be concise. However, Niell’s sentences are long, complex, and often require a reread or two in order to understand them. For example, he writes, “In the early nineteenth century, for instance, Romantic critics read it as the psychological study of a prince too delicate and sensitive for his public mission; to later nineteenth-century European intellectuals, the hero’s anguish and self-reproach spoke so eloquently of the disillusionment of revolutionary failure that in czarist Russia ‘Hamletism’ became the acknowledged term for political vacillation and disengagement” (Niell 308). This sentence takes such a roundabout way of reaching its meaning, that one is hardly sure what they just read by the time they arrive at the end of it. While Niell’s essay should read as persuasive, the reader almost gets the idea that Niell is trying to confuse the reader to the point of agreeing with him. His argument would gain traction if it were presented in a more concise