Everyone has gone mad? Or have they?

In this week’s blog post I am going to be a little more risky. I typically would write about Ophelia, keeping with my theme of women in the play, but I am thinking that I might look at Ophelia and Hamlet and the way that my own religion helps me to determine if they have gone mad.

For some time it has been debated whether or not Hamlet has gone mad. Many of the characters have shared with each other, and particularly with Claudius and Gertrude, that the boy has gone crazy after his father’s death.

Ironically we see Ophelia enter into a world of “madness” as well. “All from her father’s death, and now behold!” (4.5.74). Now we have two characters that are driven mad because of their father’s deaths. Quite frankly Claudius is to blame for both deaths. If he had not killed his brother, Hamlet would not be in this state of revenge. If he had not killed his brother, he would not be with Gertrude and she would not have been confronted by Hamlet the way that she was and Polonius would still be alive.

I think the real question here though is if the characters really are mad or not. Is Hamlet mad? In the eyes of those during Shakespeare’s time I would guess that majority of the audience would think that he was not mad but was simply seeing his father’s ghost and needing to put his father’s soul to rest through revenge.

I read this play from a Catholic perspective. When I read these moments where Hamlet sees the ghost and some see it yet others do not, I have to believe that this is true. I have to believe that he really is being visited from someone who has died, but remains in purgatory. In my own faith, when someone close to us dies, we are given prayer cards, and we must pray for that person every night for 30 days so that they will ascend from purgatory to heaven.

As I am reading this play I can only see Hamlet as doing the things that needs to be done to put his father to rest. In this play Claudius says, “…and we have done but greenly in hugger-mugger to inter him” (4.5.81-82). Claudius talks about not giving Polonius a proper funeral, and that is also what my faith believes will keep a soul from reaching heaven.

I am curious how my peers read into this. If you do not share the same faith as me, do you see Hamlet as being mad rather than faithful to God? Do you see God as being angry for not giving Polonius a proper funeral? (This is what I am chalking up to Ophelia’s madness)

The Importance of Language/Communication

As we discussed in Twelfth Night, language and the use of words can be extremely important to understanding and interpreting Shakespeare’s plays. I also believe that an in-depth look at the use of language and communication within Much Ado About Nothing can help to further interpret and study the play.

I find it quite interesting how Beatrice and Benedick use their words to attack each other. Both characters are strong and witty, and use their words as weapons. I found it particularly comical when Beatrice tells Benedick that she does not care to ever be in love. He replies, “God keep your ladyship still in that mind. So some gentlemen or other shall scrape a predestinate scratched face” (1.1.109-10). Beatrice comes back with, “Scratching could not make it worse an ‘twere such a face as yours were” (1.1.111-12). The two of them go back and forth using their words to offend one another. One question I have about this, is from the very beginning of Act I. Beatrice’s very first line occurs when, on lines 25 and 26, she asks the messenger, “I pray you, is Signor Montanto returned from the wars, or no?” We soon find out she is actually asking about Benedick by a name no one knows him by. Why are her first words about Benedick, but with a different name? Perhaps this demonstrates a hint of concern for him on her part. I’m really not sure of the significance, but I can imagine that it must be important.

Another thing I picked up on that demonstrates the importance of language and communication involves Don John. I have only read Acts I and II, and so far Don John seems to be the “villain” of this play. There are a lot of characters, but most of them speak often. Don John, though, speaks very little. After being spoken to by Leonato, Don John says, “I thank you. I am not of many words, but I thank you” (1.1.127). In this line, Don John points out the fact that he does not speak much. I find it interesting that the bad guy in the play is the one with few words. Perhaps this demonstrates the importance of communication. Don John does not use his words to attack like Beatrice and Benedick, but his lack of communication and words could hint that his attacks will be more sinister.

Probably the most important part of the play, within acts I and II, which speaks to readers or viewers about the importance of communication is when Don Pedro’s plan to woo Hero for Claudio is misheard and improperly spoken of. Antonio’s servant overhears the conversation between Claudio and Don Pedro but misunderstands their actual plan. He then relays the wrong information to Antonio, who then relays the information to Leonato (1.2). I believe this incident, though maybe a small part of the plot, is quite significant in that it seems to set the stage for one of the major themes of the play: language and bad communication.

            Although I still have questions and ideas to develop further, I think communication and interpretation words are very important in Much Ado About Nothing. It is an important theme that is demonstrated throughout the play and within the words of the characters.

Challenges of interpretation

What is King Lear’s darker purpose? If there’s one thing Shakespeare readers can depend on, it’s Lear’s totally undependable characterization. Is he insane? Is he senile? Is he fragile? Is he wicked? Is he sympathetic? One can interpret just a single line of Lear’s dialogue in a squabillion ways.

In 1.1, Lear divides his kingdom among two of his three daughters by way of a diabolical test of their love – “Which of you shall we say doth love us [me] most?” (Lear, 1.1.49). Trying to picture the delivery of his lines and his physical comportment in act one is like trying to explain to a child why Van Gogh cut his own ear off. It doesn’t help that stage directions are scarce. But the challenge is kind of fun, and I’m sure play directors and filmmakers who have adapted the play would agree.

I could picture the delivery of Lear’s lines during the test in 1.1 a few different ways. Lear says to Cordelia, after she says she has no answer to his test (but more specifically—and perplexingly—she really says, “nothing”), “How, how, Cordelia! mend your speech a little,/Lest it may mar your fortunes” (1.1.2495). First, I thought, he totally says this line with a wink and a nudging elbow. Totally. But he also says it with clenched teeth and narrow eyes. Or maybe he says it with a little chuckle, like a self-conscious Santa Claus. Actually, he says it as a calm scolding, raising his voice but not shouting. You get the idea. It’s open to interpretation.

I don’t know if making stage directions sparse was a standard theatrical convention in Shakespeare’s time, but it works in this play. Really, all of Shakespeare’s plays are more compelling because of the scarcity of stage directions. Aside from encouraging the reader to feel confident in their capability of interpreting Shakespeare, the scarcity of stage directions packs a thematic punch. Less is more. The thematic implications of the stage directions, whether they are absent or (strategically) present, are wonderfully perplexing.

Of course, these revelations don’t get me much closer to figuring out Lear’s characterization. The dude is still massively complex and mysterious. The play is still massively complex and mysterious. Shakespeare is still massively complex and mysterious! I think that’s the point.

I guess the challenge of reading this play is settling on one or two interpretations of the characters and themes and then seeing those interpretations through to the end. As I’m still not sure what my idea of Lear is right now, it’s hard to say how consistent I’ll be in forming and maintaining a cohesive idea of him later on in my reading. But is trying to define an "idea" of Lear even the right approach to understanding him? 

All I can say is, Shakespeare knows what’s up. It’s not easy to understand people at all. They’re not cardboard cutouts and they don’t come with an instruction manual. Lear really does deliver his lines in all of the ways I can think of, because he has all of the qualities I can think of.