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.
No comments:
Post a Comment