Act V of Hamlet is filled with dramatic irony and delivers a climactic ending to the traumatic and tense play. Shakespeare makes it clear to the reader that Claudius has poisoned the wine and Laertes has poisoned the tip of his sharpened sword, and also that Hamlet and his mother are ignorant to this scheme. Yet, Hamlet remains untouched by Laerte's sword and refuses to drink the tainted wine. During Act V, Hamlet appears to be recovered, composed, and resolute compared to the character Shakespeare creates in earlier scenes. Shakespeare possibly suggests that the what had before seemed inevitable tragedy could now be avoided. Yet, this is not the case because Hamlet has procrastinated for too long. Hamlet may have returned a healed, or more emotionally stable character, yet the exponential decay of Denmark cannot be halted. Due to the deterioration of their country, all the characters must die, each in their own way. Hamlet is slain by the poisoned sword, Laertes is murdered by Hamlet, Gertrude ingests the poisoned wine, and Claudius is killed by Hamlet. Horatio remains to recount the wickedness of Claudius and innocence of his dear friend Hamlet.
Fortinbras plays an important part in the return to order in Denmark. The arrival of Fortinbras signals the end of corruption in the failing state. How did this corruption occur? One pivotal reason is the need for revenge. Whether it is justified or not, revenge reveals a peculiar ugliness in characters. The idea of revenge is intrinsically connected to the notion of family honor, a deep running theme throughout the play. Fortinbras is initially the first taste of vengeance Shakespeare reveals to the reader. The late King defeated Fortinbras' father in battle and Fortinbras pledges to avenge the deed. Fortinbras acts quickly and resolutely; he will stop at nothing to recover his father's lost power, yet finds another avenue of revenge. In contrast, Hamlet fights his inner voices and conscience, delaying his acts of vengeance. Although Hamlet does avenge his father's untimely death, it is at the cost of the deterioration of the very state his father ruled and the destruction of many. Shakespeare illustrates his genius in the irony of Act V. Hamlet destroys the family whose honor he sought to recover and avenge. Laertes, like Hamlet, achieves revenge with a great cost. Unlike Hamlet, Laertes does not allow his thoughts to paralyze his action, although in the end, both characters cause major destruction. Hamlet and Laertes view murder as the only acceptable way to avenge their fathers' deaths, yet this perspective results in the deterioration of them both.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Since I'm not allowed to comment on irony now, I'll simply discuss the second paragraph: I enjoyed your analysis of the impact of revenge on the conclusion of the play.
Good job.
Jessica Darling,
Simply marvelous blog darling. In the second paragraph, you say, " whether it is justified or not, revenge reveals a peculiar ugliness in characters." I never really thought of revenge in that wide of a statement before, and it makes me feel almost sad. I mean, if someone beats me up for no reason, and I want revenge and send him crying back to his momma, does that show an inherent ugliness in my character?
Just some food for thought.
Peace,
Aravind
Good job, you really caused me to think about the opposign argument to how I feel! it is ironic how Hamlet is trying to avenge his father and by doing so he ruins his fathers kingdom. I found ur argument interesting and presented coherently. I still definitely think revenge was essential though!
Jess, although it is not the main focus of your blog, I found it very interesting that you hinted at the notion that when Hamlet returns to Denmark "recovered," it seems as if the play may not be a tragedy in the end. I find this interesting because Hamlet's recovery only makes the play more of a tragedy, since it is more difficult to watch a character die who wants to live, than one who wants to die.
Great blog, Jess! I never thought to compare Fortinbras and Hamlet before. It certainly is an interesting comparison. The issue of revenge is quite complicated in this play because, although it is clear that revenge plays a significant role in the downfall of the main characters, it does leave me wondering whether it would have been any better if Hamlet had not acted out the revenge and instead had left such a corrupt man as Claudius in power. It seems that Shakespeare has left Hamlet in a lose-lose situation to which I can see no resolution.
Jess--corruption, decay, deterioration, and the return of moral order. Powerful themes, all of them highlighted in several ways throughout the play (one of the cards says, when the ghost first appears, "something is rotten in the state of Denmark."
Well done.
And someone tell Mark that it is not Irony which has been banished but rather its illegitimate cousins Sarcasm and Innuendo. Without a keenly developed sense of irony, much of life would be unbearable.
Post a Comment