The purpose of the particular work and the series is to provide "aids to reflection." The assumption is that one has already read Hamlet carefully. This work, then, can avoid having to retell the tale and instead can move directly to discussing it. Its brevity notwithstanding, this work does indeed pack a good, helpful discussion into its few pages.
Muir opens with an introduction recapping the historical development of the text through quartos and folio. He also recounts several different interpretations of Hamlet. He agrees with C.S. Lewis, who commented that critics tend to describe not Hamlet, but "themselves or their own pet theories." Thus, Coleridge ascribes his own weaknesses to Hamlet. Pacifists see Hamlet as a pacifist, Freudians use him to diagnose a complex. Even Lewis is not immune, though, as he looks at Hamlet from the view of an amateur theologian.
Muir questions objective attempts to discuss Hamlet. Uses of the imagery in the text itself can be equally problematic. For instance, one might pick a particular theme, such as Caroline Spurgeon's discussion of sickness imagery. Care must be taken to include all references within the play, even those that may disagree with the theory. Simply ignoring evidence is not valid. In addition, the imagery cannot be taken out of the context of the overall work. Hamlet is a much more complex play than one isolated set of images would suggest.
The bulk of Muir's work is a discussion of the relationships and interactions in the play. He takes the play out of sequence, which actually works quite nicely. In this manner, he can address each relationship and interaction in whole rather than interrupted by other relationships. This style allows the reader to follow the discussion clearly. While breaking the order might be confusing to one who is unfamiliar with the play, considering the fundamental assumption upon which the book operates, it is entirely appropriate here.
Hamlet's interactions with the Ghost, Ophelia, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern, and the players are described in turn. A discussion of the "To be or not to be" soliloquy provides an interesting thought. Usual theories of the speech relating to suicide tend to take the speech out of its context. Muir contends that the speech really is Hamlet weighing whether or not to kill Claudius pending the outcome of "The Mousetrap." He makes a good case for it. Following it is a discussion of the chapel scene, when Hamlet chooses not to kill Claudius, even though he has the opportunity.
A treatment of Polonius and the chamber scene is next. Muir asserts that "[until] this scene Gertrude seems to be unaware that she has done anything wrong." I don't really buy that Gertrude was a naive innocent. Later, Muir agrees with other critics who believe that the Ghost is invisible to Gertrude "because she has betrayed him." She's betrayed him, yet she's unaware that she has done so? That doesn't seem to follow.
The remaining sections include Hamlet's relationships with Fortinbras, Horatio, and Laertes. Osric garners a mention, although his purpose is described as practical; he is there to allow stagehands to close the stage trap that was Ophelia's grave.
Muir concludes with general thoughts under the title, "The Heart of the Mystery." He reminds the audience that Hamlet is "neither a novel nor a psychological case-book, but a play...." It was intended as a script, not a book "for reading or close analysis." Perhaps that is why Muir keeps his discussion so pithy. People sitting at a play do not have the voluminous interpretative issues of critics, and maybe they shouldn't. Maybe it would be more worthwhile for people to enjoy the work for what it is--a piece of drama--and quit trying to put more into it than perhaps was intended by the playwright. Ultimately, "Hamlet is a character of extraordinary complexity, and...no simple formula will serve to pluck out the heart of his mystery."
No comments:
Post a Comment