Persuasions In Hamlet
After reading the book Hamlet by William Shakespeare, and the two critical essays about this book written by T.S. Eliot and William Hazlitt, I believe that it is important to read secondary sources and adopt others’ opinions. However, one should also have his or her own persuasions before reading the secondary sources. Secondary sources could help one explore a brand new perspective of looking at a literature, and may help us explore a different way of viewing a literature that we cannot see on our own. I believe that it is important to appreciate literature the way one see it as it is rather than having ideas planted into one’s head before one has his or her own persuasions. Before I even started to read the book Hamlet, the idea of Shakespeare—the
…show more content…
S. Eliot’s essay holds an somewhat opposite opinion on the book Hamlet, I am not sure if I could say I agree or disagree with his ideas, but I really do respect and admire what he wrote in his essay. In his essay, he judged Shakespeare by saying that “Of the intractability there can be no doubt. So far from being Shakespeare ‘s masterpiece, the play is most certainly an artistic failure” (182). Eliot is a master to judge people like Shakespeare. He mentioned that Hamlet is one of Shakespeare’s earlier works, and the whole book was written in two different tones, some are very impressive, but others seemed like Shakespeare is too much of trying to prove his poetic than to write a story. The language in this book is not consistent. I was absolutely shocked by what Eliot said in his essay. The idea of “Shakespeare’s works are imperfect” has never even crossed my mind before, and Eliot led me to a fresh perspective of looking at Shakespeare’s literature. He used proves to show how Shakespeare’s work are not as good as people think they would be: “The artistic ‘inevitability’ lies in this complete adequacy of the external to the emotion; and this is precisely what is deficient in Hamlet” (183). Eliot Stated that Hamlet should have shown a lot more emotions in the play, since he has a stoic personality. His emotions toward his father’s death, Claudius, and Ophelia’s death should have a huge impact on Hamlet, but what Hamlet really shows throughout the book is lacking these
S. Eliot’s essay holds an somewhat opposite opinion on the book Hamlet, I am not sure if I could say I agree or disagree with his ideas, but I really do respect and admire what he wrote in his essay. In his essay, he judged Shakespeare by saying that “Of the intractability there can be no doubt. So far from being Shakespeare ‘s masterpiece, the play is most certainly an artistic failure” (182). Eliot is a master to judge people like Shakespeare. He mentioned that Hamlet is one of Shakespeare’s earlier works, and the whole book was written in two different tones, some are very impressive, but others seemed like Shakespeare is too much of trying to prove his poetic than to write a story. The language in this book is not consistent. I was absolutely shocked by what Eliot said in his essay. The idea of “Shakespeare’s works are imperfect” has never even crossed my mind before, and Eliot led me to a fresh perspective of looking at Shakespeare’s literature. He used proves to show how Shakespeare’s work are not as good as people think they would be: “The artistic ‘inevitability’ lies in this complete adequacy of the external to the emotion; and this is precisely what is deficient in Hamlet” (183). Eliot Stated that Hamlet should have shown a lot more emotions in the play, since he has a stoic personality. His emotions toward his father’s death, Claudius, and Ophelia’s death should have a huge impact on Hamlet, but what Hamlet really shows throughout the book is lacking these