[FairfieldLife] From Judy (Re: Is Flaming Evil not allowed here? )
Edg, thanks, I'm going to take you up on this, just for the hell of it--although you may want to withdraw the offer on the basis of the following reply. Judy Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Flaming Evil not allowed here? (9-11 -- The Inside Job ) I can't let stand the twisting of my favorite play to promote a nutcase agenda. Angela wrote: When the ghost of Hamlet's father tells him that it is necessary to re-establish order in the state of Denmark, and that to do so Hamlet must kill a relative (synecdoche for all our fellow humans), he also says that he doesn't care how Hamlet does it, the important thing is 1) Taint not your mind and 2) leave your mom (symbolic for Nature) out of it. Even when rulers accomplish that state of consciousness in which they do not incur evil karma (tainted mind) and when they act established in a state beyond nature, it still tends to be a universal truth that Uneasy lies the crowned head. Nice summary of Peter Brook's interpretation of Hamlet, except that he and you are mistaken about the quote. Here it is, in full: - But, howsoever thou pursuest this act, Taint not thy mind, nor let thy soul contrive Against thy mother aught: leave her to heaven And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge, To prick and sting her. - Taint not thy mind is not an isolated command; it goes with the rest of the sentence: nor let thy soul contrive against thy mother aught. Hamlet is neither to taint his mind against his mother, nor is he to let his soul contrive anything against her. Heaven and her own conscience will mete out her punishment. Note the dualism of mind and soul here. Note also that Hamlet is told to kill his uncle because his uncle has murdered his own brother, Hamlet's father (the Ghost), in order to gain the throne of Denmark and marry Hamlet's father's widow, Hamlet's mother. So it isn't just to reestablish order in the kingdom of Denmark, it's to right a grievous wrong within a family, to revenge a fratricide and the sanctification of the murderer's adultery with his murdered brother's wife. Note further that at first Hamlet accepts the Ghost's demands enthusiastically: - Yea, from the table of my memory I'll wipe away all trivial fond records, All saws of books, all forms, all pressures past, That youth and observation copied there; And thy commandment all alone shall live Within the book and volume of my brain, Unmix'd with baser matter: yes, by heaven! - This might fit with Brook's interpretation, if it weren't for the fact that Hamlet proceeds for most of the rest of the play to agonize over whether killing his uncle is the right thing to do; he's almost driven to suicide by the conflict, but fears what he'll encounter after death too much to actually take his own life. He agonizes as well over his mother's perfidy, at one point berating her so brutally that the Ghost has to make another appearance to get him back on track. And finally, Hamlet *dies* in the end, along with both his uncle and his mother (and sundry other characters along the way). It isn't as if Shakespeare is putting the bloodletting on some exalted transcendental plane washed clean of guilt and blame; none of his characters take what they're doing lightly, least of all Hamlet. None of them act established in a state beyond nature, nor do any of them escape from the evil karma they have wrought for themselves. Horatio sums it up, gazing at the bodies strewn about the stage: - And let me speak to the yet unknowing world How these things came about: so shall you hear Of carnal, bloody, and unnatural acts, Of accidental judgments, casual slaughters, Of deaths put on by cunning and forced cause, And, in this upshot, purposes mistook Fall'n on the inventors' reads. - Not only do Hamlet and his family members suffer their just deserts, but the whole world is going to hear about the terrible things they did. There's nothing wrong with looking for novel interpretations of the classics; but you can't just pick a line or two that suit your fancy and throw out the rest of the text.
Re: [FairfieldLife] From Judy (Re: Is Flaming Evil not allowed here? )
You do not have my interpretation of Hamlet, only a very short snippet. No judgment as the quality of the whole can be based on that. a Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Edg, thanks, I'm going to take you up on this, just for the hell of it--although you may want to withdraw the offer on the basis of the following reply. Judy Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Flaming Evil not allowed here? (9-11 -- The Inside Job ) I can't let stand the twisting of my favorite play to promote a nutcase agenda. Angela wrote: When the ghost of Hamlet's father tells him that it is necessary to re-establish order in the state of Denmark, and that to do so Hamlet must kill a relative (synecdoche for all our fellow humans), he also says that he doesn't care how Hamlet does it, the important thing is 1) Taint not your mind and 2) leave your mom (symbolic for Nature) out of it. Even when rulers accomplish that state of consciousness in which they do not incur evil karma (tainted mind) and when they act established in a state beyond nature, it still tends to be a universal truth that Uneasy lies the crowned head. Nice summary of Peter Brook's interpretation of Hamlet, except that he and you are mistaken about the quote. Here it is, in full: - But, howsoever thou pursuest this act, Taint not thy mind, nor let thy soul contrive Against thy mother aught: leave her to heaven And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge, To prick and sting her. - Taint not thy mind is not an isolated command; it goes with the rest of the sentence: nor let thy soul contrive against thy mother aught. Hamlet is neither to taint his mind against his mother, nor is he to let his soul contrive anything against her. Heaven and her own conscience will mete out her punishment. Note the dualism of mind and soul here. Note also that Hamlet is told to kill his uncle because his uncle has murdered his own brother, Hamlet's father (the Ghost), in order to gain the throne of Denmark and marry Hamlet's father's widow, Hamlet's mother. So it isn't just to reestablish order in the kingdom of Denmark, it's to right a grievous wrong within a family, to revenge a fratricide and the sanctification of the murderer's adultery with his murdered brother's wife. Note further that at first Hamlet accepts the Ghost's demands enthusiastically: - Yea, from the table of my memory I'll wipe away all trivial fond records, All saws of books, all forms, all pressures past, That youth and observation copied there; And thy commandment all alone shall live Within the book and volume of my brain, Unmix'd with baser matter: yes, by heaven! - This might fit with Brook's interpretation, if it weren't for the fact that Hamlet proceeds for most of the rest of the play to agonize over whether killing his uncle is the right thing to do; he's almost driven to suicide by the conflict, but fears what he'll encounter after death too much to actually take his own life. He agonizes as well over his mother's perfidy, at one point berating her so brutally that the Ghost has to make another appearance to get him back on track. And finally, Hamlet *dies* in the end, along with both his uncle and his mother (and sundry other characters along the way). It isn't as if Shakespeare is putting the bloodletting on some exalted transcendental plane washed clean of guilt and blame; none of his characters take what they're doing lightly, least of all Hamlet. None of them act established in a state beyond nature, nor do any of them escape from the evil karma they have wrought for themselves. Horatio sums it up, gazing at the bodies strewn about the stage: - And let me speak to the yet unknowing world How these things came about: so shall you hear Of carnal, bloody, and unnatural acts, Of accidental judgments, casual slaughters, Of deaths put on by cunning and forced cause, And, in this upshot, purposes mistook Fall'n on the inventors' reads. - Not only do Hamlet and his family members suffer their just deserts, but the whole world is going to hear about the terrible things they did. There's nothing wrong with looking for novel interpretations of the classics; but you can't just pick a line or two that suit your fancy and throw out the rest of the text. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] From Judy (Re: Is Flaming Evil not allowed here? )
Re: From Judy (Re: Is Flaming Evil not allowed here? ) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You do not have my interpretation of Hamlet, only a very short snippet. No judgment as the quality of the whole can be based on that. a Disingenous (again). You (following Peter Brook) took a couple of lines of a very long play and *misread* them in a manner completely contrary to anything that's actually in the play, let alone in the lines themselves. And more disingenuity: You were most definitely putting forward an interpretation of the play. Here's the part that comes right before what I quoted from your post: Rulers throughout history have never been bound by the distinction ordinary human beings naturally draw between good and evil. The Gita makes that perfectly plain. And so does Shakespeare's Hamlet. I imagine we're all familiar with the Gita, particularly with verse 45 of Chapter Two. Hamlet's theme can be understood as an elaboration of that verse. Not only does Shakespeare not make it perfectly plain that rulers are not bound by the distinction between good and evil, he explicitly *contradicts* any such notion, again and again throughout his plays: even his loftiest rulers are subject to the same terrible flaws, and especially to the same self-doubt, as the rest of humankind. Hamlet's theme can legitimately be understood in many ways, but one way it *cannot* be understood is as an elaboration of verse II:45 of the Gita. Bash away at the Gita all you like, but don't try to ensnare Shakespeare in your net through guilt by warped association. That's about as intellectually dishonest as it gets.
