Secondary Sources In Hamlet Essay

Innumerable criticisms of Shakespeare’s Hamlet have been created to shed light on the play. Secondary sources offer insight on what authors in the past have thought about Hamlet, and also how the thinking changes as time passes. I believe that secondary sources are good resources; however, one should not fully rely on it for an interpretation of the text. When reading a secondary text there should be a balance between what the author is saying and what one personally thinks about the story. Secondary sources offer insight to what people think of Hamlet as time goes on. For example in their criticisms of Hamlet Hazlitt and Elliot both put their personal thoughts on why they think Hamlet is successful or fails. Hazlitt who lived during the late 1700s to the early 1800s offers what people might have thought about the contents of the play during that time, while Eliot offers what people might have thought about a hundred years later. Each writer is effected by the ideas of their time, and write accordingly to what they have experienced.
All the secondary sources possess biases because they are not Shakespeare himself explaining the play. Secondary sources are merely one person’s interpretation of the play, and what they believe the meaning behind the words is. While Hazlitt says the play is a success because Hamlet develops his emotions, and spectators are bound to empathize with him because of his wavering doubts. Eliot says Hamlet is a failure because Hamlet shows many feelings, but in reality the feelings mean nothing. These authors each offer their own thoughts on what they think of Hamlet; however, there is no way to prove if they are correct in their assumptions. So it is wise to have our own thoughts when reading Hamlet so that an opinion may be formed about the