You will choose one of the following questions and respond to it. You will also comment on one of your classmate's posts. You may also say bad things about Mr. Owens while you do it, or you can save all of your complaints and insults for lunchtime when they may reach their full potency in the slew of teacher bashing. (Two posts total).
P.S.-Thank you guys for working diligently on this discussion forum.
Why does this scene begin with two clowns trading jokes? Do their jokes make any sense in the context of the play?
Does Hamlet realize that he might not come out of this fight alive? See V.ii.225-238.
What is the outcome of the fight scene at the end? What thematic conclusions can you draw based on this conclusion?
When Gertrude drinks from the cup, Claudius asks her not to drink and she refuses. Has she ever disobeyed Claudius before?
Who is alive at the end of the play, and how do the others meet their ends? Is there a sense of redemption or restored order to the kingdom and the characters by the end of the play?
Why is Fortinbras's presence important?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What is the outcome of the fight scene at the end? What thematic conclusions can you draw based on this conclusion?
ReplyDeleteThe fight scene at the end of Act V ends with the death of nearly all the characters in the play. Laertes poisons the tip of his sword so that during his duel with Hamlet (an activity that does not necessarily require that either player dies) he kill the prince by mereley making a shallow cut. Gertrude dies as a result of the treachery of her husband and Laertes. She drinks a cup of poison that was meant for Hamlet if Laertes was unsuccessful in cutting Hamlet in their duel. However, as Hamlet is in fact cut by his opponent, the cup of poison, which would have served to insure Hamlet's death, is turned against the King. Using Laertes's own sword, Hamlet cuts this opponent, poisoning him with the same blade that had condemned Hamlet to die. Hamlet, after witnessing the death of his mother and then Laertes, who Hamlet forgives for his treachery, turns to the king. He forces him to drink what is left of the potent poison, killing him quite quickly. Then, as Hamlet is dieing, he asks Horatio to not kill himself because of the death of everyone around him and to tell his story. Shortly thereafter Fortinbras enters and becomes King of Denmark.
As both the king and Laertes are killed with the implements of treachery that they sought to kill Hamlet with, it can be concluded that Shakespeare was conveying that treachery is double edged. Those that commit unscrupulous acts will become a victim of themselves. Through the conclusion of production Shakespeare demonstrates a concept that closely resembles the "Karma" of various eastern philosophies.
What is the outcome of the fight scene at the end? What thematic conclusions can you draw based on this conclusion?
ReplyDeleteThe outcome of the fight scene at the end of Act V is the death of almost all the main characters of the play. Claudius and Laertes poisoned the sword Laertes would use in the fight so that they could be sure Hamlet would die. Claudius also poisoned the wine that Hamlet would drink at the end of the fight if he was able to beat Laertes in the sword fight. During the fight scene Gertrude ends up drinking the wine even thought Claudius begs her not to and she ends up dying. Laertes cuts Hamlet with his sword to insure his death. This angers Hamlet and he ends up cutting Laertes with his own sword, which leads to his death. Hamlet realized that the wine was poison and after Laertes dies he turns on Claudius and makes him drink the wine, which kills him rather quickly. The only ones left alive are Horatio and Fortinbras, who ends up becoming King of Denmark.
During the fight scene you finally see Hamlet seeking revenge on Claudius and you see Laertes seeking revenge on Hamlet. The death of all the main characters brings to a conclusion the problems that arise during the play. Claudius kills his brother in order to become king of Denmark, Gertrude doesn’t mourn her husband’s dead and some believe had something to do with his death, and Hamlet killed Polonius on accident. They all did wrong and ended up getting what they deserved in the end. The death of all the characters who were apart of the wrong doings throughout the play conclude all the problems of the play.
Response to Nathans Comment:
ReplyDeleteThe outcome of the lives of Claudius and Laertes shows the cycle of karma. They committed treachery by poisoning the sword and the wine in order to kill Hamlet. This in the end leads to their dead. Karma is a major theme in the last Act of the play because of the fact that all the characters who did wrong ended up getting what they deserved. The fight scene in Act V is an example of the saying: “you get what’s coming to you” which is exactly what happened to the ones who died during the fight.
Who is alive at the end of the play, and how do the others meet their ends? Is there a sense of redemption or restored order to the kingdom and the characters by the end of the play?
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the play, only Horatio and Fortinbras are alive. The last scene of Act V is packed with the deaths of just about everyone else, expect for Ophelia, who earlier in the play had gone completely mad and committed suicide earlier by drowning herself in a river. In the duel scene between Hamlet and Laertes, Gertrude, is the first to go. Claudius had poisoned the drink that she drank from, having intended for Hamlet to be the one to drink it if he were to win the duel. Her death was probably the least anticipated among the others. It was pretty imminent that Hamlet would die, since the plan that Claudius and Laertes had in store for him (poisoned drink and poisoned sword) would’ve taken a miracle to avoid. Laertes quickly cuts Hamlet with his sword, and Hamlet stabs him back with his same sword. Laertes, being the naturally ethical man, tells Hamlet the truth about the plan he’d made with Claudius. The dying Hamlet finally charges toward Claudius and stabs him. It is a sort of chain of killings. I do believe that there is a sense of restored order in the kingdom after everyone dies. First off, Gertrude gets the punishment that the ghost had told Hamlet she deserved for her incestuous behavior. Hamlet, after hesitating for almost the whole play, finally got his revenge on Claudius and killed him. Laertes would not have been able to settle until he also got revenge on his own father’s murderer, Hamlet. These characters had all been impacted by each other and with them all gone, the kingdom would finally be able to peacefully exist.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the outcome of the fight scene at the end? What thematic conclusions can you draw based on this conclusion?
ReplyDeleteThe outcome at the end, of course, is that Hamlet along with Gertrude, Claudius, and Laertes dies in the end fight. Claudius puts poison in the drink he intends Hamlet to drink, and poisons the tip of Laertes' sword so that Hamlet would be killed no matter what. Unfortunately Gertrude drinks the poisoned drink, Hamlet stabs Claudius, Laertes cuts Hamlet, and Hamlet kills Laertes. This sums up the story well, since everyone dies. This undisputedly classifies Hamlet as a tragedy, though I'm sure Cara would be able to argue against that. The theme of death in the end signifies the death or morality in the state of Denmark.
Who is alive at the end of the play, and how do the others meet their ends? Is there a sense of redemption or restored order to the kingdom and the characters by the end of the play?
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the play, almost all of the characters die. Hamlet is killed by a wound from a poisoned sword, Gertrude dies from drinking poisoned wine, and both Claudius and Laertes die by being stabbed by Hamlet. Only Horatio and Fortinbras are left in the end. Horatio was asked by Hamlet to not commit suicide but instead to stay alive and tell his story and tells him that he wishes Fortinbras to be made King of Denmark.
Hamlet clearly redeems his father's death by killing Claudius Laertes helps him sense of satisfactory by exposing Claudius' true nature is exposed to the people when Laertes tells them that he was behind the poisoning of the blade and the drink. His father's vengeance came at a high price, his mother's death, and his own.
I think that it was necessary for the queen, Hamlet, Laertes, and Claudius to die in order for Denmark to return to a happy state because the characters are so vindictive that Denmark could never be happy with them alive.
Nathan commenting on Natalia's Post:
ReplyDeleteI agree with the sentiment that the deaths of most of the character's in Hamlet allows the Kingdom of Denmark to be cleansed of corruption. All the characters killed in the final fight scene have blood on their hands, including Hamlet himself. The slate is essentially wiped clean with the placement of Fortinbras as the new King of the land,establishes that only an new, uncorrupted force can "cleanse" Denmark. The parallel of Fortinbras conquering his new throne and the corrupt characters killing each other off reinforces the message that only conflict can wash away the forces that have caused the rot of Denmark.
Only Horatio remains at the close of the production, serving, as the request of Hamlet, as a warning to others than may attempt the same treachery. Though most of the main characters do die, Denmark is in a better state without them.
Who is alive at the end of the play, and how do the others meet their ends? Is there a sense of redemption or restored order to the kingdom and the characters by the end of the play?
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the play Hamlet, Claudius, Gertrude, Ophelia, Polonius, Laertes, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern have died. Polonius is stabbed by Hamlet. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are executed under Hamlet’s orders by England to save his own life. Ophelia accidently drowns. Gertrude drinks the poisoned wine intended for Hamlet. Laertes stabs Hamlet with a poisoned sword her in turn is stab with the same sword by Hamlet. Before his dying breath Hamlet finally kills Claudius. The only living major characters left alive are Horatio, the scholar left to tell Hamlet’s tale, and Fortinbras left to take over Denmark. Although it is true Hamlet finally acted his revenge on Claudius for killing his own father there was no redemption because it came at the expense of multiple people’s lives including both his mothers and his own. The state of Denmark is corrupted and the royal family lies on the floor dead, then Fortinbras arrives ready to take over Denmark. The play concludes without addressing whether his rule will restore order to the kingdom. One would assume that Fortinbras would restore moral authority to Denmark because Fortinbras character provided the contrast to the Hamlet’s character, therefore Fortinbras represent a more capable leader.
Response to Nathan's Comment:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nathan's comment about karma playing a role in Hamlet. The characters who committed horrible acts, got what they deserved. Laertes was killed by Hamlet, for wounding him with a poisoned blade, Hamlet was killed by Laertes for killing Polonius, the queen-for her unacceptable behavior, and Claudius for killing King Hamlet, and the queen.
What is the outcome of the fight scene at the end? What thematic conclusions can you draw based on this conclusion?
ReplyDeleteThe outcome of the fight scene is the death of Gertrude, Hamlet, Claudius and Laertes. Both Claudius and Laertes poisoned Laertes sword to ensure that Hamlet would die. Claudius also poisoned the wine because if Hamlet were to beat Laertes in the sword fight, then when he drank the wine he would die. But in the end Gertrude drinks the poisoned wine and dies. Hamlet forces Claudius to drink the poisoned wine as well so Claudius ends up dying. Laertes cuts Hamlet and Hamlet cuts Laertes and they both end up dying.I feel that due to the act that almost all of the characters die in the end that it brings about the idea that the state of Denmark is dead. Basically all of the characters seemed to have gotten what they deserved because they had done unjust things.
The fight scene at the of Hamlet ends with Hamlet dying after the sequential deaths of Gertrude, Claudius, and Laertes. The giant death-fest finale to the play is very significant because it marks the metaphoric death of the plague or madness that infested the royal family. The thing that was “rotten in the state of Denmark” was the insanity that seeped throughout the royal family into the lives of Ophelia and Laertes, which is also paralleled by the theme of incest between Ophelia and Laertes, Gertrude and Claudius, and Gertrude and Hamlet (all of these are debatable, but still sometime existent). By the end of the play the disease has festered so much that it kills off the entire organism in one giant pathogenic eruption. The dramatic finale ends the themes of incest and madness and leaves the “rotten” the royal family of Denmark to rot in the ground.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Julia's comment:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Julia's comment that the state of Denmark is corrupted and Fortinbras is ready to take over Denmark. I also agree that the conclusion doesn't really show whether or not the order will be restored in Denmark, but I definitely feel that it will be. Like julia said Fortinbras character was the contrast to Hamlet's character therefore Fortinbras should be able to help Denmark state fresh and establish a strong state.
Justin commenting on Nathan’s post:
ReplyDeleteThe idea that Shakespeare was communicating a theme similar to karma is very interesting and quite accurate. I agree that the finale of Hamlet conveys karma-like conclusion to falling action of the play. In addition, the similarity of the deaths between Hamlet and Laertes can also be linked with the fact that Laertes is Hamlet’s foil. The outcome of both the protagonist and the foil are the same, killed by (and to emphasize another one of Nathan’s points) a double edged sword.
I agree with Haleigh's post because she mentions that these deaths signify that the state of Denmark itself is dead. Denmark had been rotting from the moment Claudius killed his brother, King Hamlet. By the end of the play, all the characters who died had, in their own way, committed a sin. Therefore the current Denmark was destroyed, but with Fortinbras coming in as the new king, the state would be reborn as one without lies and treachery.
ReplyDeleteResponding to Eric's post.
ReplyDeleteI think one can argue that the play entitled “The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark” in which almost every main character dies at the end Is both a comedy and a tragedy, It start out as a revenge tragedy, it quickly turns into a bizarrely entertaining play which is first and foremost about a character who is pretending to be crazy in the midst of a bunch of other characters who are not extremely bright. In this way the play is a comedy. Aristotle's definition states that, "Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and possessing magnitude." "Hamlet" definitely contains very serious subject matter. The driving theme throughout the entire play is revenge. The show deals with all aspects of how a person can die. Some characters are, of course, murdered. Ophelia either commits suicide or just doesn't care to save herself from drowning. Hamlet contemplates taking his own life is the infamous soliloquy in Act III, Scene I that begins, "To be, or not to be." "Hamlet" must possess magnitude in order to be a tragedy, meaning that the story has to have some kind of importance. The story of Hamlet is without a doubt a story that matters. Hamlet is a very relatable character. His story, his feelings, his thoughts could belong to any person suffering in this life
The outcome of the fight scene at the end is the deaths of Gertrude, Laertes, Claudius and Hamlet. They all died poisoned. Before Laertes and Hamlet began the duel, Claudius and Laertes plotted Hamlet’s death by poisoning Laertes’ sword and the drink that Hamlet was to drink when in victory. Unfortunately, Gertrude drinks this poison and dies but not without discovering her husband’s true intentions. Then Hamlet and Laertes which are both wounded by the poisoned sword die, but before Hamlet kills Claudius and lets everyone present know about what was going on and what he had discovered about Claudius. The death of the governing body of Denmark symbolizes the death of Denmark. And the death of the characters symbolizes the theme of Karma in the play. Laertes gave in to Claudius’ game and ended up dead by the sword that he agreed to poison. Claudius dies stabbed to death with the sword he himself poisoned with the intentions of killing Hamlet.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Justin’s comment on how the deaths of numerous characters marked the metaphoric death of the madness that infested the royal family which put an end to the incest and insanity of the family. I like how Justin tied in the “rotten Denmark” line because it really does apply. This family was rotten and in the end when they all die they are truly left to rot giving Denmark a chance to a new clean beginning.
ReplyDeleteWhy does this scene begin with two clowns trading jokes? Do their jokes make any sense in the context of the play?
ReplyDeleteThe clowns in the beginning of Act V are used in a similar way of the foils of the play. They are highly comedic and parody Hamlet himself. The clowns are gravediggers and they are digging Opheila's grave, discussing between themselves whether or not she committed suicide and if so, does she deserve a Christian burial considering suicide is a sin. They banter back and forth puzzling and dissecting such issues as "arm" using the word in both senses of arms and an arm.
Their witticism in spite of the literal grave and figurative graveness of the play parodies Hamlet's famous "To be or not to be" speech. Their discussion of Ophelia's maybe or maybe not suicide plays into and reminds the audience of Hamlet's speech. They add lightness just before the darkness of the tragedy. They offer the relief that makes the punch of the tragedy that much more brutal.
In response to Natalia....
ReplyDeleteI agree that the deaths were a chain reaction. Like dominoes, once the murders started there was nothing else that could happen. I also agree with the idea that order was restored to the kingdom. The deaths, while considered tragic, served to cleanse the kingdom of corruptness and betrayal. By the end of the Act, I did not feel a sense of sadness, only relief. These characters acted out of rashness or indecision (indecision in itself being a decision of inaction) and wrecked a havoc that could really end in no other way. The blood letting cleansed the kingdom making it possible to have a more honorable future.
Question 3, What is the outcome of the fight scene at the end? What thematic conclusions can you draw based on this conclusion?
ReplyDeleteIn the end of the Act 5 its seems that the truth came out about how taking revange and deciding to kill lead into a lose, lose situation because in the end nobody won. Nobody actually again anything from killing each other; leaving Horatio as the person that would stop the chain by telling Denmark how in the end everyone lost the battle of taking reveange. I believe that Hamlet in the end realized that it wasnt a smart idea of what has happen but was hoping that it would make a diffrance so then it wont happen again by telling Horatio to tell everyone.
In conclusion, i ask myself was it necessary for this to happen to brake this chain that was based on taking reveange so one can feel that joy of taking reveange? It seems to me that the only way people learn not to do some if something horrible happen in the end learning from seeeing but not from experiencing oneself which in this case its Horatio and Society of Denmark
What is the outcome of the fight scene at the end? What thematic conclusions can you draw based on this conclusion?
ReplyDeleteIn the end Hamlet, Gertrude, Claudius and Laertes die in the fight. Hamlet dies due to the poison on the tip of Laertes’ sword. Gertrude drinks the poisoned wine that Claudius intended for Hamlet to drink and dies. After his mother dying Hamlet realizes that the tip of the sword Lasertes is using is poisoned and stabs Laertes which kills him. Finally Hamlet kills Claudius and avenges his father and soon dies after doing so. The theme of death at the end of the play shows how morally disturbed the state of Denmark was.
Katie Jeffers responding to Haleigh's Post...
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Haleigh says about the deaths of all the characters signifying the idea that the state of Denmark is dead. And of course I agree that all the characters got what they deserved, seeing as all of them played a part in murdering someone else.
Elias Kassir Responding to a Question:
ReplyDeleteWho is alive at the end of the play, and how do the others meet their ends? Is there a sense of redemption or restored order to the kingdom and the characters by the end of the play?
By the end of the play, pretty much anyone who had any relative importance is dead, except for Fortinbras and Horatio. Hamlet kills Polonius, Ophelia kills herself, Rosencratz and Guildenstern are executed by England when Hamlet tricked them, Laertes and Hamlet get killed via poisoned blade, Gertrude accidently drinks from a poisoned cup, and then Hamlet kills Claudius with the same poisoned sword. At the end, Horatio informs Fortinbras what happens and Fortinbras becomes next in line to take the throne.
I think there is definitely a set of order restored by the end of this scene. Anyone who was corrupt or scheming (Claudius, R&G, Polonius) or who was trying to get revenge (Hamlet, Laertes) or who was related to anyone in the previous two categories (Ophelia, Gertrude) dies at the end and in this way, Denmark is able to start completely annew without the taint of corruption at the start of Fortinbras' reign.
Elias Kassir commenting on Nathan's Post:
ReplyDeleteYes yes everything you say is correct, and it would fit very nicely to say that Shakespeare was trying to give a lesson in Karma in this play. However I don't think it was intentional, since karma is, as you say, an Eastern thing (indian (i think) to be more exact) and at this point in history, the English were not very involved in the East at all. Also, if they did have any involvement at this time, the English would have likely scoffed at their culture as being inferior, and there is no reason to think Shakespeare would be any different. Therefore, if the end of the play does seem to teach a lesson in karma, it is very likely accidental and not intentional.
When Gertrude drinks from the cup, Claudius asks her not to drink and she refuses. Has she ever disobeyed Claudius before?
ReplyDeleteThroughout the play Gertrude never disobeyed Claudius, then again it was rare for any woman back then to disobey their husband. Not only was Gertrude tied down by the role and view of women back then but also by her love and dependency on Claudius. All throughout the play she backed and supported Claudius in everything he did, she was unconditionally loyal to him reason why she would obey him on everything. This time it was different; she disobeyed him and that caused her death. It is probable that for the first time she did not listen to Claudius because she was happy and wanted to cheer for Hamlet whom she loved dearly, perhaps even more than her husband. She wanted to celebrate in honor of Hamlet and she believed that her son’s happiness was of much more importance than her loyalty to Claudius. All throughout the play there had been misery and despair, Gertrude thought that for the first time there would be peace and happiness that is probably the reason why she ignored her husband’s request not to drink and viewed it as him just being bothersome.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletecommenting on Nathan's Post
ReplyDeleteTreachery is double edged because all of the treacherous acts that some of the characters committed ended up bringing their own live to a halt. Claudius became victim of his own actions; he came up with the idea of poisoning Hamlets cup so he died with that same poison. It was as if by plotting the murder of someone else they were preparing their own death. Even though Karma was not a Danish philosophy I would believe Shakespeare was trying to demonstrate that what ever you do or plant is what you will harvest.
Melanie Baca responding to:
ReplyDeleteWho is alive at the end of the play, and how do the others meet their ends? Is there a sense of redemption or restored order to the kingdom and the characters by the end of the play?
At the end of the play, the one main character who is still alive is Horatio and, of course, Fortinbras. All of the others who remained after Ophelia’s death lost their lives due to everyone’s drive to seek revenge: Gertrude drank from the cup that had been poisoned by Claudius to kill Hamlet. Hamlet was cut with a poisoned sword by Laertes, who wanted to kill him to avenge his father’s death. This then resulted in Hamlet stabbing Laertes, and then upon learning of the poison, Claudius.
I feel like, upon the death of all of the characters, that Denmark is given the chance to redeem itself. That “something rotten,” that existed before is now gone, as the origin of that something rotten (which I’ve always seen as Claudius as he sort of sets the ball rolling) is now gone, along with everyone corrupting the system further as they attempt to seek revenge.
Melanie Baca responding to Katie’s post:
ReplyDeleteAs far as the death representing how morally corrupt Denmark is, I disagree. I see it more as the State’s chance to begin again. I feel that everything going on before hand, all of the fighting and scheming and such, was more of an indication of how corrupt things were. The deaths, however, and Fortinbras, who was completely unrelated to the internal conflict of the kingdom, being brought in as king show how Denmark has the opportunity to brush it all under the rug and start again.
Monica commenting on...What is the outcome of the fight scene at the end? What thematic conclusions can you draw based on this conclusion?
ReplyDeleteIn result to the duel between Hamlet and Laertes, the four main characters at the end of the play, as Ophelia and Polonius have already passed on, fall all too quickly at once. Because Laertes had cut Hamlet moments before his death with a poisoned sword and then reveals his devious plan with Claudius, Hamlet then charges after Claudius and ends his life with a stab and pouring the rest of the poison into his mouth. Gertrude also dies because she disobeys Claudius first act of sincerity as a trick or bothersome and ends up poisoning herself from the wine intended for Hamlet. What also results from the fight scene is Laertes was able to have revenge of Hamlet for his father’s death and Hamlet also, finally after leaving us waiting forever to make his move, avenges his father’s death.
Even though the deaths of these main characters were rather more of a relief than a tragedy for the state of Denmark and Elsinore, the deaths also symbolize the cleansing of the troubles that had shadowed everyone throughout the play. It shows the heavy weight being lifted from corruption and betrayal and madness that was stirring in the hallways of the castle and finally Denmark can start fresh with a new leader and the past can finally be put to rest.
Responding to Eric’s commentary: [note: the views portrayed to not reflect the point of view of the author in any way, shape, or form]
ReplyDeleteContrary to Eric’s statement that the death of every main character makes Hamlet a tragedy, this is merely an appeal to common practice which is a logical fallacy and therefore logically deficient. Romeo and Juliet also features the death of the two main protagonists and yet is classified as a “tragic-comedy” meaning it is at least 50% comedy. Comedic instances in Hamlet are not rare. While the Gravediggers are chatting they make various jokes that while a bit morbid, may provide a moment of lightness for some audience members. Hamlet’s oddities make for an amusing 3 hours (the length of the play). For generations the nuances of Hamlet have had audiences in tears… from laughter. Shakespeare meant the entirety of Hamlet to be a giant metaphor for the absurdity of life and when you think about it, the absurdity of life is really quite hilarious.
In conclusion, I concede the point. Hamlet is definitely a tragedy (although it is a political tragedy, not a love tragedy which is why Ophelia is so boring as I have mentioned before).
When Gertrude drinks from the cup, Claudius asks her not to drink and she refuses. Has she ever disobeyed Claudius before?
ReplyDeleteI think that Gertrude’s character is comparatively simple to other male characters in the play. Despite the slight enigma of whether or not she had a hand in the murder of her husband and her strange sexual infatuation with her son, Gertrude is a classic tragic character. She is obedient, manipulated, and does not play a great role in the events of the play. She is merely the pawn, manipulated by the men around her. Of course, she marries Claudius before the beginning of the tragedy. However, can we really assume that this was her choice? In Denmark during this period, a widowed queen would have few options but to take a new king. Gertrude does not show the strength necessary to rule (which is interesting because at the time Shakespeare began composing Hamlet, England had kept a strong female monarch on the throne for over twenty years). Textually, Gertrude has never before betrayed the orders of Claudius. It is interesting that the one act that finally does show integrity and that shows she has a will of her own separate from his, is the one act that kills her.
Monica commenting on Natalia's post:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Natalia’s comment on her post that the deaths were all connected like dominos and it really only took one person’s fall, or death, to set the chaos off. As soon as all secrets were out at the fight scene and exposed for everyone, the fire was set blazing down and being fueled by anger and revenge. Laertes was after Hamlet but was stabbed with the poisonous sword which probably angered him that he would die before Hamlet and that Claudius, the evil man in all this, would live instead of him. Hamlet was angry because his mother, his last family that really truly cared for him, died because of Claudius and Laertes selfishness and innocence was destroyed by them. And Claudius was probably upset that everything was falling out of line. So, one led to another and it was harder for them to stop it because their emotions took over.
When Gertrude drinks from the cup, Claudius asks her not to drink and she refuses. Has she ever disobeyed Claudius before?
ReplyDeleteThroughout the play, it appears that the only men Gertrude chooses to be solely loyal to, are always close to becoming King. For example, she began to fall for Claudius even before King Hamlet had died because she knew of Claudius's plans. Next, in Act 5 after hse ad rekindled the relationship she had with her son and as Cara pointed out, as she grew more and more attracted to him, she saw how powerful he was tp become and knew the Claudius's days were numbered so she began to cheerlead Hamlet. When she took the drink after Claudius told her not to, I'm certain that she did so because she felt tat it was another way Claudius was trying to control her or, she thought him to be rather mad for not letting her congratulate her son. So it was then that she decided to disobey Claudius for the first time and actually be a responsible mother for once.
I'm really glad that Shakespeare let her die when she did because, had Fortabrais entered before she had don so, her alliegiances would not have been toward Hamlet but rather Fortainbras and the play would ave become a joke of sorts.
@ Nathan's post
ReplyDeleteI must say, that I disagree with your theaory about karma being the cause of everyone's death in the play. I believe that Shakespeare was merely writing a commentary on politcs with this play and when it comes to political affairs, the old ways must die in order for new days to begin. I belive that all of the characters died becuase it was reall just that time in the cycle. There really was no karma invovled. Hamlet killed Laertes because Laertes had been rude and stabbed him during the match when the duel wasn't "in session", he no longer saw Laertes as a pla and decided to kill him off. Gertrude had no reason to die if it was Karma inflicted, she had made ammends with her son and her dead husband had alread forgiven her plus se had turned her back onthe evil that was Claudius.
What is the outcome of the fight scene at the end? What thematic conclusions can you draw based on this conclusion?
ReplyDeleteThe end of this play was written to be a massive climax, resolving the tension that had been building throughout the play. The final battle between Laertes and Hamlet was inevitable, they might be said to have been fatefully death-crossed brothers. In order to use Laertes' pain at the death of his father to achieve his own desired end, Claudius manipulates Laertes' anger at Hamlet and stokes in him a murderous rage. He sets up a duel that, by all accounts, appears friendly, but in fact is an excuse to get Hamlet within a sword's reach. Hamlet accepts the challenge wearily, but with a tempered excitement. As they face each other in mock-battle, Hamlet performs better than does Laertes, and he begins to act comically, and begins to mock both the battle and his opponent. The jovial atmosphere is cut short when Laertes uses his poison-tipped sword to scratch Hamlet and thus subject him to the powerful toxin and subsequent death. But before he dies, Hamlet goes nuts and kicks Laertes' butt, finally stabbing him straight through the chest. Meanwhile, Claudius has been trying to get Hamlet to drink from a poisoned cup for a while, but he kept refusing. Claudius repeatedly returns to his throne to pout, while Hamlet's mother enjoyed watching her son beat the living crap out of Laertes. Finally, all the excitement works up in Gretchen a thirst and she drinks of the secretly poisoned water, much to the horror of Claudius. When she dies and Laertes, in death, apologizes to Hamlet and asks his forgiveness, he also tells him that Claudius is responsible for the poisoned cup that killed his mother. Hamlet stabs Claudius and achieves the revenge that he had desired since the beginning of the play.
Hamlet dies, at long extension, after a final monologue.
In response to Cara's post...
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Cara. I think that Gertrude is the most complex character in the entire play. In Hamlet there are many multilayered characters, but none of them are as implicitly complex as Gertrude. She is the only character whose layers remain unexplored, whose complexities are implied and unstated. It seems that Hamlet is psychoanalyzed by every character in the play. We are explicitly told a great many things about the problems in Hamlet's head. But I really believe that the very fact that Gertrude's character could have had anywhere from a massive to a minuscule influence on the course of events in the play makes her the most complicated to analyze. She is the most important character that we know the least about.
More to the point, Claudius' command not to drink the poisoned drink was not taken seriously. He could not have ordered her not to drink, as questions would have been asked. Even after she drank, he simply sat back in his throne without a sound, lest he be implicated in the attempted murder of Hamlet.
When Gertrude drinks from the cup, Claudius asks her not to drink and she refuses. Has she ever disobeyed Claudius before?
ReplyDeleteFor the most part it seems that Gertrude obeys all that Claudius says.
She does though keep things away from Claudius like Hamlets suspicions that Claudius killed her husband. Also in the beginning of act 4 scene 1 Gertrude tells Claudius that Hamlet killed Polonius in pure madness which was bending the truth that Hamlet really wanted to kill Claudius. But she has disobeyed him bluntly like drinking from the cup after he told her not to. That is partly why I believe that Gertrude knew that the cup was poisoned in the end and that's why she disobeyed Claudius to maybe save her son or just drink away her sins. Although no one can really say that is true, they can’t define Gertrude’s character either, because we never truly know her motives or knowledge in Hamlet.
Kathryn Holmstrom responding to:
ReplyDeleteWhen Gertrude drinks from the cup, Claudius asks her not to drink and she refuses. Has she ever disobeyed Claudius before?
No, Gertrude has never disobeyed him before. Perhaps she is in love with him, perhaps she suspects foul play with her husband and is frightened of him... but it is ironic that her only brave act against him is the one that causes her death. In this act she realizes that he meant to kill her son, whom she loved dearly, and her last words to him mean the last straw against Claudius. Her death is important because it finally urges Hamlet to go ahead with his plan of revenge.
Response to Tillan's post:
I never thought about it in that way before, really. That she leans toward whoever seems to be in power at the moment... her allegiance changes with an alarming frequency, and the fact that her last act in an attempt to fulfill her motherhood condemns her for these betrayals to her son.