Hamlet & Don Quixote

In the Bloom Anthology is an essay by Ivan Turgenev, entitled "Hamlet and Don Quixote:  The Two Eternal Human Types."  Turgenev compares the two works, which appeared in the same year.  He states his belief that the characters represent "the two ends of the axis about which [human nature] turns."  All humanity can be divided into one of the two classes.  Each of us resembles Hamlet or Don Quixote.

My first thought after reading the opening of the essay was the similarity to a deleted scene from Quentin Tarantino's film, Pulp Fiction.  Uma Thurman's character, Mia, gives John Travolta's character, Vincent, her theory that people are either Elvis people or Beatles people.  While they can like both of them, they tend to prefer one over the other and this says something about their personalities.  (If you haven't seen the scene, or if you just want to give it a repeat viewing, it is embedded at the end of this post.)

Turgenev describes Don Quixote as exemplifying "faith in the truth...existing outside of the individual...[and]...which is attainable only by constant devotion and the power of self-abnegation" (author's italics).  His mind is truly addled, to the point of imagining Dulcinea, the love of his life.  Hamlet, on the other hand, represents analysis, egotism, skepticism, and incredulity.  Hamlet "lives entirely for himself" and yet has no faith in himself.  He "scorns himself, and at the same time lives, so to speak, nourished by this scorn."  Does Hamlet really love?  His interactions with Ophelia present us with that very question.

Don Quixote is a comical figure whose appearance is one aspect of the comedy.  We ridicule him and yet we can love him.  Hamlet's appearance is attractive and yet melancholic.  To love him is impossible, though, as he himself does not love anyone.  Hamlet is literate, of noble birth and royal lineage, yet he rebukes kings and courtiers.  Don Quixote is ignorant, poor, old and lonely with no connections, but deeply respects monarchs and other existing orders.

Turgenev considers that Polonius and Sancho Panza represent the general masses' reaction to Hamlet and Don Quixote, respectively.  Polonius humors Hamlet, tolerates him as an adult would a sick child, but ultimately the masses find Hamlet to be useless.  That feeling is mutual.  As one of noble birth might complain, "[Is] it really worth while to bother about the masses?  They are so rude and filthy!"  Conversely, Sancho Panza knows Don Quixote is demented and yet is devoted to him to the point of death.

Turgenev summarizes his discussion thus.

"And so, on the one side stand the Hamlets--reflective, conscientious, often all-comprehensive, but as often also useless and doomed to immobility; and on the other the half-crazy Don Quixotes, who help and influence mankind only to the extent that they see but a single point--often nonexistent in the form they see it."

At the conclusion of the essay, I was left with the question.  Into which category would I fall?  I think this blogging exercise makes that answer quite apparent.  Considering Turgenev's argument, though, is that good or bad (or does thinking just make it so)?