Monday, October 25, 2010

Is Hamlet really mad?

Today in class, the issue of Hamlet’s madness arose. We discussed how he tells Horatio and Marcellus that he plans to act crazy and that they must not display any reaction to this. We came to the general consensus that Hamlet purposefully feigns madness in order to establish himself as a loose canon incapable of deviously plotting the king’s murder. The more I thought about this, however, I began to wonder if Hamlet truly is mad. It would definitely be logical for someone who loses their father, witnesses their mother marry their uncle, and then learns from a ghost that this uncle is a murderer to lose their sanity. Although Hamlet claims that his crazy behavior is an act, do you think he might really be mad?

6 comments:

Katherine said...

I definietly think that there is a possibility Hamlet could be crazy. Samantha pointed out that Hamlet has had events happen in his life that could make a person go mad. But when you think about it, anyone who sees a ghost and is willing to murder their uncle-no matter how evil he is, must be some what crazy. I think regardless of how Hamlet chooses to act, he most definietly have some insanity in him.

Chloe said...

I don't think Hamlet is mad. I think the apparition of his father's ghost weighs heavily upon his conscience. He feigns madness by constantly questioning what he knows or what he should do ("to be or not to be"). I think his contemplation of his madness is really just a sign of him being human.

chrissy said...

I don't think he's mad. His ability to change between prose and blank verse reveals his act. Shakespeare uses prose for the common people. Blank verse is a trait of the lofty and sophisticated. I don't think a mad man would be able to switch between these two types of conversation so readily depending on who he is talking to. In his soliloquies, he speaks in blank verse. Yet when he talks to people who need to believe he is mad, he uses prose.

Olivia Celata said...

Whether he is technically crazy or not, Hamlet definitely becomes absorbed in his role as a madman. He appears irrational, but is actually very thoughtful and eloquent in his speeches. Hamlet's analogy about Claudius ironically being eaten at dinner is extremely clever. Hamlet is fascinated with death/decay of the body, but is still scared of it.

C-Sted said...

I think that Hamlet might become so drawn into his acting role that he really does become insane. In other words, Hamlet first rationalized his acting insane as a ruse to fool others. However, as time went on, Hamlet's madness became so excessive that it ceased to be an act. I guess that this is fairly similar to what Olivia said.

efabio said...

I think Hamlet is entirely sane, as he planned out his craziness in advance. He seems to be always in control, which his ability to switch modes of speak shows. He is also very eloquent, even after he has supposedly become mad. While he plays his role very well, I believe that it is ultimately a role.