I feel that these three different approaches to “Hamlet” have to be analyzed together, mainly because they were assigned together. But also because I can safely state that all three of these propose a specific approach to Hamlet, the character. I’m not inclined to any one of these analyses to tell the truth and am kind of annoyed with them
First, Dr. Derwey’s take on Freud. A little of my history with Freud to give you the context in which I read him. I am very interested in psychology since about 3 or 4 years ago. I respect Freud very much and very much enjoy reading his takes on human kind, the human mind, and specific cases of which we find “Hamlet”. I found this approach kind of predictable and (for lack of a better word) bland. It’s kind of established that as a general rule, all humans “suffer” from Oedipus or Electra complex, so him repeating and further explaining this specific case and why it applies made his piece fairly mundane. On another hand, his diagnosis of neurasthenia and description of him being unscrupulous suggesting that he is unfit to rule… to put it simply, that he is a good-for-nothing socially slow rich kid unfit to rule. I, along with many other people in the existence of the world, have already established that in our minds. So to Dr. Dewey I say, “try not to write about something so redundant”.
Next, T.S. Eliot. As a summary of his work I can say that he is claiming that “The Tragedy Of Hamlet” is a fraud. In fact he implies that it’s a rip-off of Thomas Kyd’s Spanish tragedy. He sustains this idea with details of Kyd’s characters and plot and the possible chronological correlation between those of Shakespeare. I think this is very bold if his part. I mean, to challenge possibly the single most important writer in English literature takes guts. For this, I accept his affirmation but don’t agree with it. Because I think that you can’t not take familiar things into your own creations. The only way to I make things is basing them off something you know. Yes, maybe” Hamlet” is partly based on Spanish Tragedies but that’s simply how everything works. You see, I believe that for example words already exist; however, the order which you put them in and the circumstances in which it is used makes a sentence. That chronological sentence may have been already written, but not put in the same circumstance therefore it won’t receive the same connotation than another. According to multiverse, that same sentence and be rearranged over time with different people to mean different things not necessarily with the intention of fraud.
Lastly, Directing Hamlet.
To be honest, this piece got me thinking that we over history, as readers, have overanalyzed this piece. That we have been looking for answers about people in general in “Hamlet”. About family relationships, about jealousy, greed, envy, love, mourning and the rest of human qualities that this situation would entail in real life. The way in which the actors were so descriptive in explaining why their character was written the way it was and the way that they played it, yet in the different renditions of this play, all characters are played slightly different. With more emphasis on this line and less on the other, and somehow, the actors find a way to justify it, which as a matter of fact is what I think they’re doing right. The problem is that we forget that this is a play, and like in all plays the characters are up for individual interpretation so there’s very few things that could be wrong about each individual interpretation.
Overall, I would like to say that if it wasn’t clear already, my interpretations of “Hamlet” have no more value than the next person’s. So basically these are my “corrections” to others’.
