Hamlet Essay

Well, I wasn't 100% satisfied with my essay. I feel like there's more I could do. I definitely want to come back to it and work on it more because I liked the prompt and I feel like the essay could really go places.

Hamlet, Self-Overhearing and Performativity

     It is often said that actions speak louder than words. I disagree with this. I would say that such claim is erroneous because words are actions in themselves. Words have real world implications that can be seen in everyday life; we make assertions, promises, threats and judges hand down sentences that can condemn criminals to a life in prison. Hamlet, in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, shows us the impact of words as Hamlet’s performative utterances are not only describing his present state but also creating meaning for and changing the reality created within the play.

     We use words and language all the time. We use it in our physical world to convey ideas, opinions or ask for something. We also use it in our minds, in a self-overhearing way. We talk to ourselves in order to straighten our thoughts or debate an issue with ourselves. Despite no one else hearing our thoughts, we hear them and them being there makes them as real as if we had promised a loved one something. Much like so, Hamlet’s soliloquys constitute a self-overhearing like process in which his words constitute actions more than anything. In his soliloquies, he condemns Claudius for what he did to his father and convinces himself that killing him is the correct thing to do. His soliloquies have impact in the world of Hamlet, because they are the performatives that Hamlet uses to decide what to do and that in turn shapes the course of events.

     Performative utterances can only be successful if the receiving party infers the correct meaning behind the words. Hamlet often uses his words to act crazy, and fools almost every character into thinking he is mad. He uses words to try to shape the unfolding events in a way that would set up the success of his plans and that would help further his agenda. He successfully fooling almost all characters to believe in his madness though his performative shows us the success of it.

     Performativity impacts the world around, but can also be seen to impact the performer directly. Hamlet uses words to do a plethora of things within the play and to give meaning to the reality of it. Through his performativity, especially that seen in his soliloquies, his self-overhearing reveals to him a good deal about himself. He uses performativity to criticize himself and reflect on the reality that is unfolding around him. He also uses performativity to come to logical conclusions, which are revealing to him in terms of his agenda.

     Performativity is impactful, and can describe as well as create. Hamlet shows us that to be true, but apart from that we can see it in ourselves and in the real world around us. Performativity creates a sense of what’s true and our self-overhearing can reveal things to us we did not previously know.

Vocabulary #9

aficionado (n.): a person who is very knowledgeable and enthusiastic about an activity, subject, or pastime.

-Mark was a golf aficionado.

Browbeat (v.): intimidate (someone), typically into doing something, with stern or abusive words

Commensurate (adj.): corresponding in size or degree; in proportion.

-His penetrating stare browbeat her into doing as he said without question.

Diaphanous (adj.): (esp. of fabric) light, delicate, and translucent.

-Her voice was diaphanous and very pleasing to listen to.

Emolument (n.): a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.

-There was a protest outside the office because of employees complaining about their emolument not being paid in its entirety. 

Foray (v.): A venture or an initial attempt, especially outside one's usual area

-To foray into areas of life we are not keen of or good at can make one a better and more round individual.

Genre (n.): a category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, characterized by similarities in form, style, or subject matter.

-The magical fantasy genre is one I don't find interesting at all.

Homily (n.): a religious discourse that is intended primarily for spiritual edification rather than doctrinal instruction; a sermon.

-After disagreeing with my mom regarding religion, she called my priest uncles to deliver a homily to me on the importance of religion.

Immure (v.): enclose or confine (someone) against their will.

-Homework immures us in our room all day.

Insouciant (adj.): showing a casual lack of concern; indifferent.

-President George Bush was very insouciant after Katrina.

Matrix (n.): an environment or material in which something develops; a surrounding medium or structure.

-Air is the matrix in which we live.

Obsequies (n.): funeral rites.

-Usually priests deliver the obsequies. 

Panache (n.): flamboyant confidence of style or manner.

-Kanye West walks on stage with a panache that makes us all either hate him or adore him.

Persona (n.): the aspect of someone's character that is presented to or perceived by others.

-Sheldon's persona makes him beloved by us the television viewers, but hated by the show's characters.

Philippic (n.): a bitter attack or denunciation, esp. a verbal one.

-In his book he presented a philippic argument against gun control.

Prurient (adj.): having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters.

-Shakespeare's plays can be said to be very prurient.

Sacrosanct (adj.): (esp. of a principle, place, or routine) regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.

-Religion is seen as sacrosanct by many people. 

Systemic (adj.): of or relating to a system, esp. as opposed to a particular part.

-The human body is a system that is evolution's Mona Lisa.

Tendentious (adj.): expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, esp. a controversial one.

-I was given a tendentious flyer in which a man argued against gay marriage. I threw such paper away.

Vicissitude (n.): a change of circumstances or fortune, typically one that is unwelcome or unpleasant.

-The recent vicissitude of luck has made him fall into a great depression.

tools that change the way we think

Technology has completely revolutionized the way we think. The thinking process has been made simpler in the sense that we can just go on Google and search for whatever we want and find 1,000+ links to 1,000+ different pages with 1,000+ different ideas and opinions. Our predecessors actually had to look up things in books, which I imagine was more time consuming. Now the part that is harder on us is trying to navigate the plethora of information that is given to us. We need to figure out what information is important and relevant to our work and which is not. For our predecessors, they had one encyclopedia and they took whatever information was on there and used that without having to navigate all the information we are given. Sometimes I feel like the Internet could be damaging to the thinking process. The Internet is a tool,yes but it can also be a distraction. When we go on the Internet with the mentality of writing a research paper, we could end up getting completely distracted because of the infinite possibilities the Internet has. For example, we're supposed to be researching an extinct animal but end up watching videos of dinosaurs on YouTube because when we typed in "extinct blah blah" that came up on YouTube and it looked interesting. All I'm saying really, is that the Internet is so good because it exploits out infinite curiosity.

FILTER BUBBLES

a) I learned from the video that the Internet is personalized in a way that cannot necessarily be classed as beneficial.
b) Previous to watching the video, I had heard some things about complex algorithms being used to personalize our search results and Facebook news feed so that we only received the information that was relevant to us. It seemed like a good idea, but not so much now as I think about it under the context of the information I just recently acquired. We should all have access to the same information, regardless of race, sex, gender, or economic background.
c) We use the Internet so much and it has become our main source of information...I now wonder if this could be used in a way that the web developers and the corporations that pay them could benefit from. For example, we are only given the information that those guys want us to know.
d) One way to improve the effectiveness of my search is to search for specific things and dive into the links that my search engine provides me, instead of just clicking on the first few links on the first page.

Hamlet- Act 3 Analysis

   Let's begin with the most obvious. In Act 3, Hamlet delivers his famous "To be or not to be"soliloquy, which just so happens to be the most famous soliloquy/speech in Western literature. If indeed the soliloquy does speak of Hamlet contemplating suicide ("to be or not to be" meaning "to live or to die"), the soliloquy seems to be placed at an awkward place in the play. Hamlet is about to execute his plan and attempt to avenge his fallen father, it seems he ought to want to be alive more than ever, yet he is contemplating suicide as a possible better alternative to life.
   In Act 3, we also see just how much revenge meant to Hamlet. Hamlet has the opportunity to kill the King while he is praying, begging for forgiveness for his sins (even though this is insincere, as he refuses to give up the objects of his sin- the throne and his wife) but holds back because he realizes that if he is to kill the King then he will go to heaven because he was praying at the time of his death. Hamlet then comes to the rational decision that he will kill the King but when he is committing a sin, so he may go straight to hell. If anyone at this point thought Hamlet was crazy then they can take that back. With his actions Hamlet shows us that he is in full control of his body and emotions. He is being overwhelmed by emotions, as his soliloquies demonstrate, but he can control every aspect of himself. Revenge meant so much to Hamlet that he was willing to challenge divine authority. We can see a bit of a Promethean plot here, with Hamlet attempting to play God and decide who is to be damned for eternity.
   In the previous Acts, Hamlet had been very respectful and composed with the Queen. In Act 3,we can see this shift for the first time. Rather than continuing to be the respectful son he had been, he insults his mother gravely in Scene 4 of Act 3, even going as far as to tell her that he wishes she were not his mother, as well as commanding her to stop having sex with Claudius and even subtly threatening her.Could this be because Hamlet is going to shift his character once more, as we have seen him continuously do throughout the play (going from depressed, to composed, to crazy) or is he simply excluding his mother from the act he is playing because he is not going to exclude her in the revenge?
   One very interesting moment in the Act was when Hamlet kills Polonious and claims that he mistook him for a rat. Throughout the story Hamlet had not liked Polonious (just as we grew to dislike him due to his very dishonest and selfish behavior) and it seems quite appropriate that he compares him with an animal so despicable as a rat. Polonious' death falls very short to what was expected. All throughout the play,his character is built up and it is almost as if Shakespeare forces us to dislike him, putting so many negative characteristics in one character, and then he dies a death that has no impact (other that producing some humor at he being compared to a rat). His death can be a reflection of his life. During his life, he lived hiding behind people and calling the shots anonymously, which can be represented by him instructing the Queen on what to do then hiding behind the curtain. He is then killed without any impact, much like how he tried to be significant all the time but accomplished nothing.

LITERARY FICTION AND EMPATHY

What the article said about why fiction helps us understand others is something that I agree with. It claims that "literary fiction often leaves more to the imagination, encouraging readers to make inferences about characters and be sensitive to emotional nuance and complexity." In terms of Hamlet, this very strongly applies. From what I have researched about Hamlet, it is mainly about tough questions and moral dilemmas. Seeing people at their most vulnerable and at their strongest allows us to see them for what they actually are because at those two extremes, there is no concern for what you are showing the world due to other preoccupations. Hamlet would be a good insight into the human psyche because it allows for plenty of interpretation (for example, there is still debate on what "to be, or not to be" means, and there is no clear and concrete evidence on exactly what is it Shakespeare meant- it all depends on what the reader interprets) and it allows our mind to wonder and play with the material. Hamlet gives plenty of room for deep and higher level analysis that could then be translated into the real world. What we learn about motives and human mentality in Hamlet could then be used to either justify or condemn something, maybe of a lesser degree, that we see in our lives.