What makes hamlet worthy of critical study

‘What makes Hamlet worthy of critical study?’
Hamlet strips away the veneers and smoke screens that trap our minds, forcing us to confront the raw human condition in all its pain and glory. For this reason, Hamlet has never ceased to enthral audiences since its conception, and has been critically scrutinized for centuries. Shakespeare explores ideas that are universally understood: the human need for vengeance, human glory as well as human failings, and the unavoidable presence of death. Collectively, these ideas compose a deep probing of the human condition. On a personal level, Hamlet has been worthy of my interpretive study because it has provoked me to engage with my surroundings more critically, questioning established values, norms and codes of behaviour that had previously held my conviction.
Hamlet’s enduring dramatic merit, and by extension its unfailing worthiness of critical study, is mostly pinned on its ability to explore universally understood emotions and ideas that contribute to our understanding the human condition. Humanity’s innate fascination and desire for vengeance is probed in Hamlet, which is a play about revenge rather than a traditional revenge tragedy, shown through Hamlet’s deep philosophical musings about his task, such as whether true revenge would be served if Claudius ends up going to heaven. Revenge drives the double strands of the play’s plot: Hamlet’s revenge against Claudius; Laertes’s against Hamlet’s. Another less prominent strand is Fortinbras’ revenge against King Hamlet’s, who annexed Norwegian land. Shakespeare asks us to consider the notion of revenge on all these levels. By counterpointing these strands of the plot, as well as the different characters’ (Hamlet, Laertes and Fortinbras) reaction to their task, Shakespeare explores the range of ways humans deal with our desire for vengeance. Hamlet is full of doubt and moral scruples, but Laertes and Fortinbras are Herculean men that seek vengeance with ease and direction. Thus through revenge, Shakespeare also explores the nature of men. Furthermore, the play ends with resolution on all three ‘revenge plots’; Hamlet does indeed kill Claudius, Laertes stabs Hamlet, and Fortinbras wins back his land. This theatrical resolution lies in the realisation of revenge – things are not ‘right’ unless vengeance is achieved. Because of the nature of Hamlet as a play about revenge, our relief at this theatrical resolution is double-edged; Hamlet prompts us to ponder the human psychological need to ‘set things right’ through vengeance.
A play that can grapple effectively with the nature of man – whether man is great and noble, or whether man is wretched – ensures that it connects to audiences from all contexts. Shakespeare juxtaposes humanist and anti-humanist values, a particularly prominent subject for philosophical discourse in the Elizabethan world. These ideas are best seen in Hamlet’s ‘what a piece of work is a man’ speech. The tension between the positive humanist view of man and the depressing view of man as wretched is explored through repeated juxtaposition of images. There is a contrast between descriptions of humankind’s greatness, and Hamlet’s personal bleak view of the world. Man’s angelic qualities, his supreme beauty and apprehension, are placed next to Hamlets view that we are the ‘quintessence of dust’. The implication is that all these glorified human capabilities dissolve to dust when looking at the broader context of existence – we live for an infinitesimal amount of time, and then we die, are forgotten, and become dust. Though man might be the purest form of dust, we are still ultimately made of dirt. Hamlet has the unique ability to address the issues lying at the root of human existence in language that is not overbearingly philosophical or construed, making it worthy of critical study.
Fear of death is a sensation universally understood, and death itself is a phenomenon that affects all living beings. Hamlet acts, amongst other things, as a Memento mori. Hamlet’s personal preoccupation with death, and Shakespeare’s desire to confront the audience with the notion of death, is reflected through the preponderance of death and allusions to death throughout the play. When Hamlet first appears, he is dressed in black, mourning his father; he longs for death (‘there is nothing that I will more willingly part withal: except my life’); the players enact the death of Priam and the murder of Gonzago; Polonius’ death, Ophelia’s death and Hamlet’s own death, which is emphasized as his body is carried off stage. King Hamlet’s death prompts Hamlet himself to consider death and suicide: ‘to be or not to be’. The speech’s notoriety is testimony to the universal human fascination with death, and our conflicting sense of longing and fear for death. Hamlet confronts us with the true fact of human existence – it is futile, because death is the end result, erasing all we achieve in life. ‘We fat all creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots: your fat king and your lean beggar is but variable service, two dishes, but one table that’s the end.’ The simplicity of diction here allows these ideas to be expressed in confronting way; there is no fanciful intellectual postulation about the nature of death – Shakespeare just tells it as it is. Someday, you too will be dead, and good only to feed worms. The repetition of ‘we’ emphasizes our collective fate. It is also no coincidence that the recognized visual for Hamlet is a skull. Yorick’s skull represents the harsh reality of death; we may cover up signs of aging with ‘paint an inch thick’ but we will eventually be a mere pile of bones.
Hamlet has been worthy of my critical study because it has prompted me to question the codes, behaviours and beliefs that I previously took for granted. I easily empathise with Hamlet, and his journey through disillusionment has encouraged me to adopt a more critical and cynical view on my own surroundings. Hamlet breaks down the niceties and varnishes that conceal the true nature of human existence. Claudius’ Denmark of the Renaissance operates on rationality. It is a well-oiled political machine for control. Because of the shocking nature of his father’s death and his mother’s subsequent marriage to Claudius, Hamlet is shocked out of this paradigm. The rational outer appearance of Denmark is shown through the pomp and ceremony of Claudius’ speech, which prompts everyone to overcome their grief and to welcome a new state – to choose reason over emotion. He tells the court, ‘in equal scale weighing delight and dole’. There is an emphasis on measurement and rationality. The overturning of reason is symbolized by the ghost, an element of the supernatural and immaterial. Dramatically, this is shown as the ‘ghost cries under the stage’; the reality of this world is less than stable. Denmark’s saccharine, reasonable appearance masks a deep corruption; every character except Horatio is a liar, murderer or mad. The decay at the heart of personal and social life increasingly infects the language: ‘sullied flesh’; ‘rank and gross in nature’; ‘foul deeds’; ‘maggots’; ‘carrion’; ‘offal’; ‘rank corruption’. Madness that Hamlet assumes and into which Ophelia descends is the individual symptom of a deeper social malaise. Hamlet’s sheer honesty exposes the true nature of this world. Hamlet’s growing disillusionment and breakdown of the surface values of his world has resonated personally, allowing me to judge my surroundings from new angles.
Hamlet is worthy of critical study because it grapples with deep universal themes of human existence. Such themes include the human need for revenge, the nature of man and the overbearing presence of death. Personally, studying Hamlet has been an enriching experience. Hamlet has prompted me to engage in a deeper reflection on my surroundings and not simply take things on face value. Thus, Hamlet is worthy of study on both the scholarly and personal level.