Episode 243 - Transcript

So today we’re talking about the play Hamlet by Shakespeare. And this being the THIRD episode we’ve done on his work…I wanted to do something a little more, INSPIRATIONAL, this time.

See usually we talk about the events of the play… we give analysis from people who have dedicated their LIVES to Shakespeare… and BOTH of those will CERTAINLY be in this episode but the THING I wanted to do that’s a bit MORE today…is to inspire you to READ classic literature like this…a bit differently. 

I wanna talk about READING this play… more like a PHILOSOPHER… might be reading it. 

If part of the JOB of a philosopher…is to take concepts that SEEM really familiar to us…something like love or justice…and if part of what they do… is WORK through them… and SHOW us a whole other SIDE to the thing that can make us SEE the world in a new way…well, then HAMLET…is a very familiar PLAY, from classic literature, right…so what if a philosopher reworked an entire PLAY…to SIMILARLY, give us an exciting, new way of SEEING it…that BREATHES life into the work and makes it even MORE relevant?

BUILDING on what Nietzsche, Hegel, Benjamin and others THOUGHT about Hamlet as a play….philosopher SIMON CRITCHLEY and psychoanalyst Jamieson Webster are going to team up and interpret Hamlet as a play… through a much more modern, TRAGIC philosophical lens than you typically hear about. 

And while they’re not…AGAINST…more TRADITIONAL takes on the play…they just call them a kind of “biscuit-box” Shakespeare. That’s the term they used in an interview one time; meaning it’s kind of generic. Like there’s a take on Hamlet that everybody knows, the KIND of reading of the play that’ll get you an A on your test at school; there’s nothing EVIL about that.

But they DO think…that SHAKESPEARE…should SHAKE something UP in people if it can…and the reading of the play they lay out in their book called Stay Illusion! The Hamlet doctrine…is gonna BE something that does just that… by the end of this episode here today.

Anyway… LOT to cover so let’s get right into the events of the play…

The play begins at the front walls of a castle in Denmark. 

Now the GUARDS of this castle…stationed up in the watchtowers at night…for the last few nights they’ve SEEN something that’s KIND of been freaking them out. 

There’s a ghost that’s been visiting them on the front platform of the castle. That when it shows up… it just comes up to them, stares them in the face…and when they try to go up to talk to it… it turns around and leaves. Just like everyone in my elementary school did. 

So on THIS particular night that the play BEGINS…the guards have come more prepared this time. They brought along a guy named Horatio, who’s a scholar, friend of the royal family, and their plan is to SHOW him this ghost…hoping that maybe he’ll know what the right thing to do NEXT is. 

Sure enough they’re standing on the platform on THIS night…and the ghost shows up again. And as Horatio sees it…he notices something they had warned him about. The FACE of the ghost…looks EXACTLY like the former KING of the castle they’re guarding, that has JUST recently DIED. 

The guards and Horatio decide that the BEST thing to do…is probably to tell the SON of the person they thought that GHOST just looked like…the young PRINCE of the castle, named prince HAMLET. 

Now as Horatio, his friend, APPROACHES Hamlet to tell him what’s going on…we see a character in Hamlet…who’s CLEARLY a man.already feeling pretty distraught. 

I mean it would make sense he just lost his father…but MORE than that he just recently found out his MOTHER, the queen… has decided to REMARRY some other guy named Claudius, so SOON after his father’s death. On top of even THAT: he just gets this feeling that…something seems kinda OFF with this whole royal COURT he’s a part of…it’s a place he USUALLY sees himself as a pretty important figure in, not so much lately.

So when his friend tells him that the ghost of his dead father was just seen at the front of the castle…and when that SAME GHOST…appears to HAMLET later that same NIGHT…Hamlet’s not exactly in the mood for getting even MORE bad news delivered to him…but by golly does he get some of it anyway.

The ghost of his father tells him…that he didn’t just randomly DIE that day. But that he was MURDERED…BY that guy CLAUDIUS… that his mom just chose to marry.

The IMPLICATION of all this being of course to Hamlet…that he HAS to do something…that the ENTIRE COURT that he’s a PART of is now something rotten and corrupt… and that society would tell him that if you wanna be an honorable SON in this situation…the right thing to do here is to KILL this Claudius guy, and AVENGE your father’s DEATH. 

Now Hamlet…even BEFORE any of this horrible stuff ever happened to him…he was ALREADY a guy that probably thought little too MUCH about stuff. But now that he’s gotten THIS news…NOW the inside of his head has been turned into a veritable SNOWglobe. 

He AGONIZES over what the right thing to DO is in this situation. 

After all, sitting back and doing NOTHING about this isn’t an option. But look just cause society says I should go out and KILL this guy…that doesn’t mean that THAT’S the right thing to do either. By the way, do I know if this guy Claudius is even GUILTY? I mean who did I hear this from? Not exactly the most reliable of all sources…a freakin’ GHOST told me about it. How do I even know it's telling the truth? How do I even know if the ghost is real? Couldn’t it be an evil demon just deceiving me, he says. 

So he comes up with the plan…that he’s going to ACT like he’s gone CRAZY…to buy himself some time while he WATCHES Claudius, and tries to figure out what to do next. 

But the MORE TIME that passes…the more he ruminates, the more the people around him see his weird behavior… eventually he starts to think of himself, as a coward…and EVENTUALLY he even begins to LOATHE himself…for being someone who’s FAILING to be able to make a decision at all. Hamlet becomes someone progressively CONSUMED by this unresolvable, internal torture. 

Now this is ALREADY…a great place in the story to pause and start talking about some of the philosophy underneath all this. I’ll start with the more TRADITIONAL take…and then we’ll get on to Webster and Critchley’s take. 

A common reading, of the events of the story so far… is that Shakespeare’s someone doing his work during the Renaissance. Meaning this places him right after the middle ages… and right before the Enlightenment. Importantly that MAKES him someone who DURING his time… would’ve been painfully aware of the collision of ideas he’s living in the wake of…where OUT of this collision came Renaissance Humanism. 

Under THIS kind of reading of Hamlet as a character…IN all of his moral confusion, his lack of an ability to choose and make a decision…many critics say this was Shakespeare staging the tension that goes ON…when EARLIER, MEDIEVAL forms of moral guidance rooted in something like a god…collides with LATER, Renaissance Humanism…where these answers AREN’T as easily available to people, and so CREATE people who are stuck in a battle up in their own minds. Hamlet’s snowglobe of a brain is what HAPPENS…when we, as people, try to THINK our way to moral answers all on our OWN. 

And the point is: MAN does he try really hard to figure OUT what the right thing to DO is. And MAN does he FEAR making the wrong decision. 

Hamlet, then under this kind of reading, is a GOOD person…that’s been put in a BAD situation. The take is that Shakespeare WRITES this play… as a very underrated kind of moral psychologist LONG before psychology is even a field of specialty. 

The take is that ULTIMATELY, the character of Hamlet is a work of BRILLIANCE…because no matter who you are READING it in the modern world…we can ALL…see a little bit of ourselves IN Prince Hamlet…we SEE ourselves when we READ his PROCESS of RUMINATING and SUFFERING over deciding what the right thing to DO is. 

And maybe this WHOLE POINT…is seen most CLEARLY in his FAMOUS speech, that he gives much later ON in the play, where he says to be or not to be, that is the question. Whether it is nobler to suffer life’s hardships or to end them. You know, under this reading, this whole speech can be TAKEN… as the sort of ULTIMATE representation of this modern person’s way of thinking. 

Where EVEN when it comes to the seemingly EASY question of whether or not to continue with our LIVES…our FATE, in this new, modern disposition of identity and thought that’s emerging… is to always be questioning and second guessing ourselves…never quite knowing what the right thing to do is. 

Now ALL THAT SAID: there’s ALSO the possibility here…of reading Hamlet as a character who’s nothing like this at all. What if we read Hamlet more like a philosopher might approach the play?

Friedrich Nietzsche thought something very DIFFERENT, can be taken from the character of Hamlet. He writes about it in the Birth of Tragedy, but Webster and Critchley quote it in their book he says, “Knowledge kills action; action requires the veil of illusion – it is this lesson which Hamlet teaches.”

See what if Hamlet… is not just a GOOD PERSON, who can’t act because he can’t decide on what the right thing to DO is? What if Hamlet is INSTEAD read as someone…who CAN’T ACT… because he SEES THROUGH the entire GAME, of trying to RATIONALIZE our own behavior AFTER the fact…and then call it MORAL to make ourselves FEEL better?

If as Nietzsche says: action REQUIRES the veil of illusion. Well, Hamlet is someone who can’t ACT…because he LACKS the moral illusions to justify what he wants to do. For example, when he finds out his father was murdered…he doesn’t, HAVE to be confused there. He can listen to society, do the honorable thing, and just KILL Claudius. That’s the READY MADE ANSWER, SERVED UP to him, and it would be TOTALLY, morally justifiable to do in THEORY.

But under THIS reading… he sees THROUGH that option, as merely being a STORY. 

This whole idea…that he can just KILL someone… and afterwards his hands are gonna be morally CLEAN just because he had good REASONS for DOING it…he KNOWS too MUCH… to ever bring himself to BELIEVE in something that SIMPLE…about our actions. He knows that killing someone here runs the risk of killing an innocent person. He knows there could be a fallout to his actions: it could start a really messy succession war about who will rule next. He knows it could drag all sorts of OTHER, innocent people INTO this thing like HE’S been dragged into it, not the LEAST of which are the people of Denmark. 

In other words: knowledge here has killed action. And action requires the veil of illusion. 

To Nietzsche, Hamlet is just someone who sees through this GAME we play with morality…when it comes to EVERY possible choice we make. All many people EVER do in practice is just ACT…then come up with a good moral reason for why they had to DO the thing…and then sit around, BASKING in some ILLUSION about how ABSOLVED they are of any of the true complexity and FALLOUT of what they did. 

Hamlet CAN’T make that same kind of decision… because he can’t BRING himself to live in that kind of an illusion.  

See, it’s in this way that Critchley and Webster DESCRIBE the character of Hamlet…as a bit of an Anti-Oedipus. 

Remember Oedipus, from the episodes we’ve done on Greek tragedy? Real quick in THAT story: Oedipus is a king who kills a random stranger, marries a widowed queen, has children with her, he curses the murderer of the OLD king, he launches a FULL investigation into the CRIME…only to finally realize that he’s ACTUALLY the guy he’s hunting the whole time. He’s the one that KILLED the former king. 

Their POINT is that: Oedipus, then, is someone that ACTS totally in ignorance, despite not knowing much of anything…and to Webster and Critchley HAMLET…is the ANTI-Oedipus, he’s a man whose KNOWLEDGE of his father’s death and his insights about the moral game most of us are playing…PREVENT him from EVER taking action in the first place. 

This is also for whatever it’s worth what they’re referencing in the title of the book, The Hamlet Doctrine: it’s the NAME they give to this idea that knowledge and insight…just IN PRACTICE…HAS the ability to KILL people taking action in the world. 

Now BUILDING on this, Critchley and Webster offer a very DIFFERENT picture of the situation we’re watching unfold in the play. Hamlet is not a good person, that’s in a bad situation. Hamlet is someone stuck in an internal situation that is unsustainable. 

Because with all of his doubt about what actually happened to his father…. he’s completely unable to do the NORMAL thing where he accepts what’s happened, integrates it into his life and moves ON. But at the SAME time he’s UNABLE to take ACTION and DO anything that might be redemptive, you know, move things FORWARD for him, because he SEES through the illusion and knows that ANYTHING he does will just be rationalizing his actions AFTER the fact. 

So we have a man here in Hamlet…where the BETTER way to describe him…is someone who’s paralyzed. And to Webster and Critchley: ALL this excess psychological energy that can’t be metabolized…gets transformed through his behavior in the play into the shame we see, self-loathing, melancholy about his situation. 

That JUST like other victims of a traumatic event often do…Hamlet starts to LASH OUT at the people AROUND him. At his love interest Ophelia, at his friends and co-members of the court: once again Hamlet is NOT, JUST some guy that can’t make a decision. A DIFFERENT way to read this…is that Hamlet is a damaged, often mean, UNLIKABLE king of person who can’t CHANGE…and so becomes COMPLICIT in everything…. that starts to play out next in the events of the story.

Because once Hamlet adopts the strategy of acting crazy and lashing out at all the people around him in the court…that guy Claudius starts to get a little bit suspicious of him. He asks: how do I, as the new RULER of this whole place, REALLY use the resources I have to get a READ on what’s going on with this guy Hamlet?

So he comes up with a plan. He’s gonna take two old FRIENDS of Hamlet, ask them to hang out with him and try to get information about what’s making him act so crazy all of a sudden. Their names are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Sounds like a law firm or something. 

Anyway, they get some information by spying on him like this…and Claudius and his inner circle develop the theory that what’s making Hamlet act so erratic…must have SOMETHING to do with the LOVE that he has for a woman named Ophelia, who everybody kind of KNOWS she and Hamlet have something between them. 

So they come up with ANOTHER plan. Lets set up a meeting…and USE OPHELIA…as a kind of BAIT. She can TALK to Hamlet, WE can listen in…and we can see if this theory of ours is actually what’s going on or if we’re just imagining it. 

The meeting goes on inside of one of the giant lobbies of the castle. 

Ophelia is sitting in the lobby, reading a prayer book…. and Hamlet enters the room and it’s at THIS point that he delivers the famous To be or not to be speech we talked about. 

After he’s done, when Ophelia tries to talk to him…THIS is the moment that he lashes out at her. He insults her, he tells her she needs to get herself to a nunnery REAL quick, you know, just implying some really horrible stuff about her. 

SHE’S hurt. Hamlet’s screaming at someone, YET again. And Claudius who just USED her for his own spying…he NOW realizes that whatever Hamlet’s mad about…really has nothing to DO with his interest in Ophelia. 

So when he has his head spy go and hide in a closet to be able to listen in on ANOTHER conversation Hamlet’s having… and when Hamlet, notices someone’s in the closet and ends up STABBING the guy…. MORE than ever before Claudius realizes now…that it’s probably a good time to get RID of this guy Hamlet, BEFORE he becomes even more of a problem. 

Now let’s pause again for a moment because all this SPYING that’s been seen in the play so far… can be read in a COUPLE different ways that are important to understand. 

More TRADITIONAL readings usually see all this SPYING put in here by Shakespeare…as a reflection of the Elizabethan, English society, that Shakespeare is writing his work in. 

See, historians will sometimes call THIS PERIOD of 16th century England that he’s WRITING in…the BIRTHPLACE of what we NOW know as the modern surveillance state.

Shakespeare’s living in a world here where there’s a WHOLE NEW LEVEL emerging of spy networks, there are double-agents being embedded into things by the government, there’s code breaking, they would torture and throw certain PRIESTS in jail if they didn’t like what they were saying to the public, they would intercept letters and read them before they were delivered…Shakespeare HIMSELF, EVEN in his WRITING had to HAVE things approved by a Censorship office… that then on multiple occasions required him to CHANGE things in his WORK if it didn’t fit into a certain narrative. 

So the more traditional READING of the spying of Claudius and his inner circle in the play…is that this is a reflection of what’s going on in the real world of Shakespeare. What does the world start to LOOK like… when we MAKE surveillance like this commonplace about how people do business with each other?

But then there’s the reading of Critchley and Webster. That takes THIS reading…and then INTENSIFIES it into something else ENTIRELY. They say:

“Hamlet’s world is a globe defined by the omnipresence of espionage, of which his self-surveillance is but a mirror. Hamlet is arguably the drama of surveillance in a police state…”

See again what if we read Hamlet, a BIT more like a philosopher might read it? What if we interpreted the SURVEILLANCE in the play… as something that goes BEYOND just people that are spying on each other in a closet or something? 

What if surveillance…is actually a STRUCTURAL CONDITION…OF the play itself? Something CRUCIAL to be able to understand how EVERYTHING IN IT comes to pass?

Well let’s try to make a case for it: first of all, OBVIOUSLY… There's the fact that MANY of the major events of the play…DO center around some kind of espionage that’s going on. That’s just true. 

But Critchley and Webster say even MORE than that: Hamlet’s whole internal experience…his constant self analysis, the CONSTANTLY looking INWARD as his primary way of interfacing with the world…what if this is a TENDENCY he has…that emerges out of the way his whole EXTERNAL world is structured? 

What if it just MAKES SENSE…to CONSTANTLY live in surveillance of YOURSELF… when the environment you LIVE in… is something that watches you and tracks you at a level that gives you no free space to just BE? 

I mean EVEN in just a self preservation sense: why not RELENTLESSLY track my OWN inner experience… so that I can make sure I’m not going to face problems when it’s tracked by OTHERS? 

Now IF this were TRUE…then ONE question we can ask as we’re reading Hamlet…is what if external surveillance like this…PRODUCES a kind of neuroticism in people?

And you know GIVEN the world we live in NOW…often called a digital Panopticon that no one can really ESCAPE…how do all the varying forms of tracking and surveillance that we live immersed in…how do these affect people’s behavior in ways that aren’t obvious to us? Ways that SHOW UP in polite conversation as simply, personality quirks. 

Webster and Critchley say at ONE point about all this that if you were to READ Hamlet in this way… and if the world continues to PROGRESS into this direction of more surveillance…there could honestly come a day, where if the authorities became aware OF this messaging…INSTEAD of Hamlet being one of the plays that’s COMMON for students to read when they’re in school…Hamlet could be something students are BANNED from reading, for fear that they’ll start considering how they’re living in a kind of police state, SIMILAR to the tactics used by Claudius. That again, Hamlet is arguably THE drama… of surveillance in a police state. 

But all that said… what comes next is arguably the most important scene in the entire play, and it involves Ophelia… which if you remember from before was the woman Hamlet screamed at that she needs to go check herself into a nunnery. 

See, in one of those scenes from before where Hamlet was being spied on…it ended with Hamlet stabbing someone who was hiding in a closet behind a curtain. Well to clarify: THAT MAN…that Hamlet STABBED…was named Polonius. And not ONLY was Polonius the head of Claudius’s spy network…but he ALSO happened to be the father…of Ophelia. He WAS the father. 

This moment in the story…marks a pretty significant turning point for the meaning of everything going ON in it.

Because while Hamlet BEFORE her, was just PRETENDING to be losing his mind as a TACTIC…Ophelia… given the significant cost she’s had to pay so far, she’s ACTUALLY someone who’s starting to lose her mind. Think about what she’s gone through: 

She is USED by the Royal Court, as part of their GRAND SCHEME to save themselves and spy on Hamlet. Then in her forced involvement in that: she is brutalized and REJECTED by Hamlet, who she cared for a lot. And then her FATHER… hides behind a curtain in a closet… and gets KILLED by that very same guy that just said all those really nice things about her. 

So it’s not shocking that we then cut to a scene in the play with Ophelia…where she shows up…and something’s obviously going very wrong when it comes to her mental health. 

She’s speaking to people in these weird fragments and riddles…sometimes she’s kind of rambling to herself…she’s singing songs, but only bizarre PARTS of the songs…she even hands out these FLOWERS to people…where as she DOES it, there’s obviously some symbolic meaning to her giving them OUT… that APPARENTLY everyone around her is supposed to know about, nobody really DOES though. She’s NOT in a good spot, in other words.

Fast forward just a couple scenes later in the play and Hamlet’s mother comes into the scene… and she informs everyone that Ophelia was just found dead, floating in a river, flowers all around her…that she had apparently fallen out of an willow tree near BY the river…and whether this was accidental or on purpose is never EXPLICITLY said by anyone, but again, this is a tragedy, and there are plenty of readers that TREAT her death as though it was on PURPOSE. 

Now it’s said by MANY…that the character of Ophelia is ACTUALLY, the tragic HERO of this play, DESPITE the fact that Hamlet is the MAIN character. 

More TRADITIONAL readings of Ophelia… will TREAT her character as someone that Shakespeare wanted to include in the play…to symbolize a kind of lost innocence. 

That Ophelia is the tragic COST that societies and families have to pay…when the people IN them… get TOO CAUGHT UP in their own ego driven corrupt nonsense, MUCH like the royal court in the play. 

This kind of reading will say if Hamlet is somebody who lost his father…and then eventually finds himself imploding in a very INTERNAL way…then OPHELIA can be read as someone who loses her father… and acts a sort of FOIL to Hamlet. That to Shakespeare this is YET ANOTHER way that a person can EXTERNALLY crumble…ALL of it as a RESULT of when we allow for political or moral decay to spread. And this is a PERFECTLY FINE READING, for whatever it’s worth. 

But of course again: there’s another way ALTOGETHER we could be looking at the character of Ophelia. 

Honestly an entire EPISODE could be done JUST on the character of Ophelia and the ways different philosophers have interpreted her. But BECAUSE we’re talking about who we are TODAY…

Critchley and Webster would ask, again: what if Ophelia… is ACTUALLY where we see MOST of the classic ambiguity…that MAKES a tragedy like this what it is? What if she is the true tragic HERO… of this play? 

CONSIDER her character for a moment they might say: she is a person in the play who LOVES someone (Hamlet). She gets USED by everyone AROUND her (her father, brother, other members of the royal court). Through the EVENTS of the play she gets pushed to her own LIMITS as someone caught UP in all this going on around her…and then she TAKES her own life in what Critchley and Webster call her only real “language of exchange”, meaning, the ONLY thing she really has left to EXPRESS her position, after everything ELSE has been taken away.

In other words, they say it’s USEFUL to FIRST think of Ophelia… as a character that’s PRETTY similar to someone like Antigone from earlier GREEK tragedy. Real quick just so we can understand what they mean by this point: Antigone… is a story of a woman who’s denied by a king to be able to give her brother a proper burial. 

The king says she can’t bury him…that her brother was a traitor, and that his body has to be left out on display, as a message to everyone else NOT to be a traitor. And Antigone REFUSES to ABIDE by this. She says she has a duty to her brother and to the Gods that is FAR MORE important than anything a KING ever has to say. So she goes out and buries him anyway. And after DOING that the king locks her in a cave, leaving her for dead. And instead of waiting there IN the cave, CRYING OUT FOR HELP, WAITING for someone to come and SAVE her: she instead decides to take her own life while TRAPPED in the cave…as one of her ONLY remaining acts of TRUE solidarity.

Now again, Webster and Critchley draw a comparison here between Antigone…and Ophelia in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. 

Consider the similarities: Ophelia, ALSO had something she strongly desired, and TRIED as hard as she could to GIVE it to someone. She also, was treated COMPLETELY as an object by a King…not to mention by all the OTHER men around her. I mean, she essentially became an INSTRUMENT…for whatever the WHIM of the DAY was for all these guys. And then she ALSO, when she MEETS the end of the world she finds herself trapped in…she ENDS her life in what she sees as a final act of expression. 

Point is: as a member of this royal court…that treats her ENTIRELY as a pawn in their rationalizing and calculating of EVERYTHING…Webster and Critchley call her death… a sort of  “love-act”. Her madness and her death, BECOME a kind of heroic TRUTH in the play…because they expose what the world has worked so hard to reduce her to…nothing. 

In fact, this is one of the several reasons they say in their interpretation of the play…that Hamlet is ULTIMATELY a story…that’s about nothing. It’s not about a prince named Hamlet that has to make a tough decision. No, in some IMPORTANT sense…they say it’s a play about NOTHING. Nothing in the form of nihilism, that is. 

Hamlet is reduced to nothing because he is trapped in a state of paralysis where he can’t accept and can’t move forward. Ophelia is reduced to nothing by the men and schemes that USE her that are all around her. Even most of the CAST of the play is reduced to nothing…in that pretty much every main character other than Horatio…just DIES at the end of it. 

And THIS is the important difference to understand between Hamlet and Ophelia if you want to consider how Critchley and Webster see the deepest parts of their characters. 

Ultimately… what MAKES Ophelia SO DIFFERENT from Hamlet…is that OPHELIA is someone who’s ACTUALLY capable… of love. 

To help make their case for this: they work in a famous quote here about love from Dostoevsky. 

We talked about this quote when we did our series on him: he said “Hell is the inability to love.” 

And to Critchley and Webster…THAT QUOTE, is pretty much the CORE of Hamlet’s entire existence. 

They say the FIRST thing to understand here…is that love is something that is always built on a kind of lack. They’re building off of LACAN with this point. Whenever we want to be LOVED by another person…we love because we have needs…or because we’re incomplete…and to truly LOVE someone else ALWAYS requires a kind of vulnerability… that Hamlet, as a character, just doesn’t allow INTO his life. 

Every time love gets close to Hamlet in the play… he has to RUN AWAY into his HEAD…into SOME commentary that involves either humor, social performance, CRUELTY he even uses at times…and he DOES all this…just so he doesn’t ever have to show anyone else any sort of NEED that he may be having.

To SPEND your whole LIFE…ENDLESSLY thinking in your own head…NEEDING a rational explanation for EVERYTHING, JUST because you’re scared of what it would mean for you to not have answers…there is one word to DESCRIBE that sort of life that fits here. Hell. 

Hell is the inability to love. And Hamlet’s about as CLOSE to that as a character in a play can actually get. He has to CONTROL EVERYTHING…but can DO NOTHING. 

Now notice how Ophelia…is in many important ways the inverse of all this. She DOES find a way to act and do things…but she often has VERY little control over what she actually gets to do. She represents for Webster and Critchley what Hamlet never finds a way to become...a person GENUINELY CAPABLE of vulnerability and love…and someone whose final act becomes a PROTEST against the BROKEN way of living… that has become so normal in the  rest of the castle. 

Anyway, to tie together the story here…uh, if you’re a fan of death and dying in general…then the rest of the play is gonna be a true JOY for you to be able to read. As I mentioned before Claudius now wants Hamlet dead…. so he puts him on a ship to England… with his two friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who ALSO happen to be his legal representation. Just kidding. 

But he sends him to England with a letter to deliver. Hamlet opens the letter along the way. He reads that it’s telling the people he’s delivering it to… to kill him. So he edits the letter and switches it to say they should kill his two friends instead, he gives it to them to deliver and eventually goes back to the castle. 

Once he gets back he’s challenged to a fencing match by Ophelia’s brother. Both Hamlet AND her brother get stabbed by a sword dipped in poison. Before he dies Hamlet forces the king to drink the poisoned wine he had set up for Hamlet. Essentially if there is a person you’ve heard about in the play so far who is not named Horatio…they find SOME way by the end of the play…to die. 

There’s some fringe theories here about what THIS whole ending coulda meant from Shakespeare. That this could somehow be a theory of history we’re getting from him. That everyone who’s actually INVOLVED in the events that went down are dead and can’t give their side to the story. All we EVER have… is some guy like Horatio, who safely watched from the sidelines, and then writes the story afterward like he’s Bilbo Baggins. The story of Hamlet. A Hobbit’s Tale. By Bilbo Baggins.

Anyway if there’s one last POINT to all this that I’d love to leave you with from Webster and Critchley…it’s a general point they make about knowledge itself, that’s made in the play.

By the way, maybe you’ve NOTICED…that THROUGHOUT these three episodes that we’ve DONE on William Shakespeare…each one of these plays… DEALS with some sort of important PITFALL we can experience… when it comes to knowledge. 

In Julius Caesar…you could say it’s how vulnerable we can often be to the force of rhetoric when it comes to choosing what we “know” about the world. In Romeo and Juliet…you could say it’s about how imprisoned, we all can find ourselves… if we just accept whatever inherited ideology is given to us. And in Hamlet you could say it’s about a REAL RISK we face when it comes to the over analysis of knowledge… and how it can KILL the action that we desperately NEED in the world if we don’t watch out for it. 

But OUTSIDE of even all this… there’s another SIDE point, about knowledge here that’s important to mention, and it’s EMBODIED by Hamlet as a character. I feel like the episode would be incomplete without at least MENTIONING this point as something to think about, and HERE it is:

The character of Hamlet shows us…that sometimes the knowledge we MOST NEED…is the VERY knowledge that RUINS us the MOST… at an existential level, and at the level of identity.

This is certainly true of Hamlet in the play when he RECEIVES the knowledge about his father from the ghost. It RUINS him. And I think this is a point… that’s true for MOST of us. Though, it’s tough to be the person to GIVE that knowledge to someone, when they need it. 

Anyway, thank you for indulging me there. Patreon.com/philosophizethis in the comment section of the episode page if you want to talk about it. Would love to hear what you think. Your history with this play, etc. 

Thanks for everything you do to help keep this podcast going! Thank you for listening. Talk to you next time.