Language
Country/Area
No result found
oes Hamlet really "violate the norms of tragedy"? Is this a fair assessment
Since its first performance in the early 17th century, Hamlet has become one of William Shakespeare's best-known works and is often the focus of literary analysis. Although Hamlet presents complex character psychology and profound philosophical issues, some critics believe that it violates the so-called tragic norms of the time, particularly regarding the balance of action and character.
In Shakespeare's time, plays generally followed Aristotle's Poetics, emphasizing action-driven plot structures rather than focusing excessively on the characters' internal struggles.
The biggest difference between Hamlet and other Shakespeare works is that this play has almost no strong subplots, and all the plots are closely centered around Hamlet's struggle for revenge. The play's numerous soliloquies, which showcase Hamlet's inner world and his moral contradictions, are often criticized for focusing too much on the character's psychological state, thereby diluting the story's plot drive.
For example, Hamlet’s famous soliloquy “To be or not to be, that is the question” is the best presentation of his inner doubts and struggles. In the eyes of many critics, this profound depiction of the character's inner world was actually a violation of the tragic norms of the time.
Some critics believe that the emotional depth displayed in Hamlet makes actions and decisions secondary, which violates the dramatic tension that traditional tragedy should have.
However, whether it can be concluded that Hamlet violates the norms of tragedy has sparked discussion among many scholars. Some scholars believe that Shakespeare intended to explore the complexity of human nature, and that the characters' confusion and difficult decision-making reflected the moral and philosophical adjustments of society at that time. At the same time, the repeated occurrences of decision-making delays and moral dilemmas in the play give the characters more dramatic tension, which actually makes Hamlet's revenge story more attractive.
Hamlet may be a departure from the canons of traditional tragedy in form, but this departure is not entirely negative; on the contrary, Shakespeare's rich, rhythmic verses are not without merit in terms of style or emotional expression. A classic of literature. The language and character creation displayed by Shakespeare in the plays have become an important reference for later playwrights and literary critics.
Although the interpretation of Hamlet has changed over time, whether it is the early criticism of the character, the romantic glorification of the character, or the modern new historicism's political analysis of the text, it shows that the play It is famous not only for its plot, but also for the philosophical thinking and moral questions it raises.
Critics such as T.S. Eliot even called Hamlet "an artistic failure," arguing that its emotional expression lacked the necessary objective contrast.
However, are these criticisms too harsh? Perhaps we can see that what Shakespeare does in Hamlet is not a violation of traditional norms, but an effort to redefine those norms. Through the characters' moral struggles and the richness of its language, Hamlet actually provides a deeper theatrical experience.
Moving into the 21st century, many scholars, such as Margreta de Grazia and Linda Charnes, have taken a closer look at Hamlet in its political context. This not only introduces a new dimension of interpretation for Hamlet, but also echoes how Shakespeare blends the moral, political and philosophical issues of the times into his works.
In conclusion, Hamlet may not fully follow the tragic norms of the time, but it challenges our understanding of tragedy by depicting the complexity of life through its unique inner world of characters. So, is Shakespeare's profound exploration of human nature in Hamlet a betrayal of tragic norms or a rediscovery of its potential?
