Killed the Radio Star

First of all let me explain the title, if you know the song Video Killed the Radio Star by the Buggles that's where it comes from. Its ironic in this case because the "radio stars" in this case, the prisoners acting in Hamlet, are killers. Ha.
This is also relevant because the fact that the players are criminals, possibly murderers, brings more interest to the play, no doubt, but also could effect the actors' own lives. There is an interesting connection between the convicts playing the parts and Shakespeare's characters themselves. In a way, by performing these acts of Hamlet, the prisoners could be coming to terms with the actions that brought them to jail in the first place. Hamlet contains murderers and victims, so imagine a man who had killed another man playing the role of a man who gets killed - that would be a pretty interesting situation for the actor. In this way the prison productions of Hamlet could be seen as correctional, possibly even therapeutic, for the convicts involved to get in touch with their literary side but also their past actions and the consequences.

Northrop Fyre, "Hamlet"

Northrop Fyre examines Hamlet from a different direction than the critics who's works I have analysed in earlier blog entries, he focuses on action and the character and how they work together with life, as opposed to knowledge. Fyre claims that Claudius is a man of "great potential" yet has ruined himself by his horrible act of murder to Hamlet's father. Hamlet, however, according to Fyre, has even greater potential than Claudius and has not ruined it with any unforgivable acts.
Fyre draws mainly from the "to be or not to be" speech, pointing out how Hamlet was able to realize the kind of prison we are all in by being "finite humans" stuck in the "claustrophobia of consciousness." Here he relates to the other essays which I have discussed by being to incorporate action into his ideas. Fyre claims action can release one from the "prison" of consciousness but at the same time stating that withdrawing from action, killing the action, is better so that the action does not get around to killing anything else. He discusses Hamlet's discussion of voluntary death as a means of gaining freedom from the world as well.
I agree with Fyre on all terms regarding Hamlet, I feel that out of the essay's I've read he expresses his opinion in a way with which I agree the most. They way he phrases "the stock remedy for the claustrophobia of conciseness is action" makes perfect sense in the play regarding Hamlet's indecision and inaction as well as decisions and actions. I also love Fyre's description of the "to be or not to be" soliloquy as "a nothingness at the centre of being," as it brings meaning, for me, to the "stream of infinitives" in the speech.
My favourite of the essay's I have read, Northrop Fyre's opinions agree the most with mine and his insights helped me to see another side of a passage I thought was already all set in my mind.

A Study of A Study of Shakespeare

In Algernon Charles Swineburne's essay, A Study of Shakespeare, he refutes Goethe and Hugo's claims that Hamlet has "unconquerable weakness of the will" and "immedicable skepticism" by claiming that Hamlet simply appears this way because he has "more of a mind than another man to make up." Swineburne argues that Hamlet's clear ability to act quickly throughout various parts of the play shows that he can actually make decisions and his reputation among "the majority of students, not less than to all actors and all editors and all critics" as an irresolute, half-hearted doubter is really unfortunate.
This is a similar view to that of Friedrich Nietzsche, who also said that the reason that Hamlet never gets anything done is because he has too much knowledge. I understand both these men's points that people tend to question themselves before making important decisions, however it is not necessarily only smart people that do this. People question themselves all the time, but it should be the truly intelligent ones, or ones with "more mind" than others, who are able to realize that stuff needs to get done and decisions need to be made. I continue to disagree with this point and stand with all those students, actors, critics and editors who think Hamlet needs to get it together and make his mind up.

Friedrich Niezsche, "The Birth of Tragedy"

In Friedrich Nietzsche's essay he places much emphasis on the Dionysian state and the Dionysian man, so it is necessary to look at these two further before responding to the essay. According to the Free Dictionary by Farlex, Dionysian is of an ecstatic, orgiastic, or irrational nature; frenzied or undisciplined. According to the History Guide, the Dionysian man is one of two central principles in Greek culture. Drunkenness, madness, and all forms of enthusiasm and ecstasy are considered Dionysian because they break down a man's individual character. Nietzche claims that the Dionysian man resembles Hamlet because they have both "gained knowledge" but make no action because it could not change anything in the eternal nature of things. I agree that Hamlet resembles the Dionysian man in his act to lose his mind, but I don't agree that "knowledge kills action." Hamlet has knowledge but even as he encounters the ghost and hears its story he vows to avenge its murder, which would be considered taking action despite the fact that not much would change in the larger picture of the world. In this way I agree with Nietzche's comparison of the character and the idea, but I do not believe that they are completely parallel in every way.