Please respond to the following prompts in collaboration with your fellow classmates. I'm looking for you to discuss the readings by referring to previous posts rather than just listing your interpretations. Also make sure to identify who you are and your class period. I need this so that I can give you credit for your posting. Thanks. Mr. Domingo
Friday, March 2, 2012
"The Embassy of Death" and HAMLET
Do you agree with G. Wilson Knight's claim? Why or why not? Support your arguments with direct evidence from the play and Knight's essay. Also use this space for any other questions that you may have about Hamlet.
In "The Embassy of Death" by G. Wilson Knight, he describes how Hamlet is inhumane and is overly obsessed with everyone's flaws and ways to justify his murder of Claudius. In the essay he describes Hamlet as being inhumane, which refers to him as being too observant and looking for flaws on others and seeing the evil in all. He becomes miserable due to his insanity of thoughts of suicide and ways to torment Claudius. I do agree that Hamlet is inhumane because he becomes as an outsider and just observes everyone and what their faults are. During the play the only friend or person that he could trust or talk to was Horatio. It seems that all the other characters where more in relation with King Claudius rather than Hamlet, this shows that Hamlet lacks certain human qualities which made everyone become distant from Hamlet and only wanted him gone. In the essay, Knight also describes Hamlet as being pure evil and he claims that as well that Claudius is far from evil in contrast with Hamlet. I do not fully agree with this I think both have evil in them. Even though as Knight claimed in his essay that Claudius was being a good King and caring for Denmark, he still committed murder and even if he began to feel guilt and repentance he still wanted to keep the fruits: the crown and the queen. This shows he was not truly sincere . In contrast Hamlet began to have a major goal of ending the corruption of Claudius but along the way he began to spread like venom and began to hurt others in his way. It might have unintentionally but he still become even more cynical than Claudius, with an over obsession of death.
Do you guys think that the apparition of King Hamlet's ghost was evil and only change Hamlet to become evil, or was the ghost intentions just to tell him what had happened? How does the ghost play in all this? Do you think Hamlet as being pure evil as he was described?
In Knight's claim to Claudius being innocent and Hamlet guilty, I would have to disagree. In the beginning of the play, Claudius is seen as a caring uncle who begs Hamlet to stay home and move on from his father's death. Although he encourages this, Claudius's intensions can be interpreted as him just keeping a close eye on Hamlet to prevent him from finding out the truth. I would also have to disagree when Knight states that Claudius's faults were "forced on him". When Claudius killed King Hamlet, Claudius knew what he got himself into and what the consequences can be for this crime. Because of this, Hamlet does indeed hold onto his father's death. The Ghost also plays an important part of Hamlet being inhuman, that part of Knight's claim I do agree on. Could it be that Hamlet being called inhuman is the fact that this Ghost has influenced him to have a vengeful thought process? Also, if the King had never been murdered, Hamlet would have never become, as Knight claims, "an element of evil" or a "danger to the state". With Claudius's envy of his brother in having the throne and the queen, caused him to commit such a crime. With this envious act and greed, it is someone who is not content with what they have, them being not logical in the mind as well. Hamlet is not human in that he does not take part in Claudius's events but rather seeks for revenge, which in turn causes the people around him to get hurt and suffer from his actions. Which brings me to my agreement with Knight, in that death does play a major role in this play. The death of King Hamlet has caused chaos in the state of Denmark, leaving Hamlet confused with the matter of death even when the play starts.
Referring to Jessica's question, I do think that this ghost is a representation of a demon because he influenced Hamlet to commit horrible acts, such as him killing Polonius. Also, he puts in Hamlet's mind about the idea of committing murder, which is something that can lead Hamlet in hell too.
Yeah, I agree with Jessica in the sense that I can't fully agree when Knight labels Claudius as a good king. Knight continues with that point by saying Hamlet is the one that is forcing Claudius to do all those bad deeds. Claudius initiated Hamlets insanity with the murder of King Hamlet. This can prove how he isn't a good king to start with.
Is it me, or does the authors repetition of Hamlet using 'poisonous venom' to corrupt everyone else in the play make this response sound unappealing?
Oh! and to clarify, is he claiming that the whole setting and plot of Hamlet is completely opposite from that of Macbeth and King Lear?
Also, I agree with Kat's agreement with Knights claim that death is the ulterior tone created by Hamlet and his effect on all of the other characters. To make a long story short, as soon as Hamlet turned crazy, people started dying.
I agree with Kat and Jay, I feel that Hamlet's good intentions got the best of him. He had a very vulnerable personality, which i believe was the main cause of his insanity. He took on the quest for vengeance with good intentions; to get justice for his father, but he ended up doing more harm than good.
I also agree with Jessica and Jay that I disagree with the Knight labeling Claudius as a good King. Throughout the socratic seminar during class, people were saying how Claudius may have done some bad, but he did make up for it by praying, and that the burden and guilt he carried showed he as truly sorry. But i disagree, i feel that if he was, he would have confessed about killing King Hamlet, and he would have given up the throne and the queen, and "the fruits" that he gained when he had the crown.
Also, in response to Jessica's question, i feel that the ghost was both evil and used the information to fuel Hamlet's insanity, and since Hamlet was so determined and vulnerable, he let the ghost got the best of him. Resulting in catastrophe.
Overall, I agree with Knight in the sense that Hamlet is negative force that ruins the lives of characters around him, but it confuses me that He would contrast the overall world of Hamlet from the worlds of Macbeth and King Lear. So if King accuses Hamlet of being a bad influence on the play, why does he agree with the notion that Hamlets philosophy is inevitable, blameless, and irrefutable? He constantly uses his claim that Death is the underlying idea to negate his agreements with the opposing positions.
In response to Jessica's question i have to say that i do not believe King Hamlet's ghost was not evil, although when he told his son Hamlet about his death, Prince Hamlet rather took it the wrong way which created his sort of madness.I also agree with Kat's opinion on disagreeing with Knight's claim to Claudius being innocent and Hamlet being guilty, due to the fact that Claudius is the mainly the cause of Hamlet's madness by killing his father then later marrying his mother.
Although I do not understand the concept of Hamlet being inhumane, may someone explain to me the reason and in Hamlet is there a signifigance to why Horatio, a really good friend of Hamlet,is the only one that lives after the many deaths in the play?
Wilson G Knights interpretation of Hamlet being about death does not sit well with me. Yes his argument is sound in that there is death everywhere with Hamlet's musings about suicide and death,and the ghost, King Hamlet dying and the war surrounding Denmark. But that is not all that could be taken out of Hamlet. The plays conflicts stem from Hamlets struggle with himself to be a loyal and honorable to his father and become a righteous dealer of justice by exacting revenge on his uncle but not letting the knowledge that the people he loved once betray the father he must have had a great love for to mourn for so long poison his thoughts about the rest of humanity. Knight goes on to say that Claudius's actions, after Hamlet learning of the murder, were forced upon him. He also states his remorse for killing the King was not genuine. If it were he would not continue to reap the benefits of killing his brother. If he were remorseful Hamlet was next in line before he married the Dowager queen, He should have let Hamlet take the throne. Knight attempts to portray Claudius as a good person but Claudius is not any better than Hamlet sometimes even worse. Hamlet does things for what he believes is just and honorable but Claudius' motivation is purely selfish. He doesn't start to repent what he's done until he realizes Hamlet is testing him with the knowledge. He does things for his own selfish gain its a human thing to do. The last major thing I disagree with him on is that he shows that Hamlet is inhuman when they are all in fact human. Everyone was tempted and succumbs to something no human is invincible everyone has their weaknesses. Polonius is stupid, Gertrude oblivious, Ophelia succumbs to madness, Claudius to Greed and Hamlet was tempted by violence and the chance of revenge and went mad because of it. Hamlet mourning for his father was completely normal, even though it was exaggerated. He fell into a depression and alienated himself from others which is not uncommon from people in depressions. I think the main thing to take from the play is that evil can come from anywhere. Our educated Hamlet, the loyal Polonius, the kind Gertrude, the beautiful Ophelia and the Sensible Claudius all fall to the evil the knowledge the ghost brought. In response to Jessica's question the ghost itself is not evil. Simply what the human mind did with the knowledge was evil because it spread to poison everyone in the play. The fact that they used the imaginary poison hebona proves that there was evil in the mind because if it was a natural one it could be connected that nature is evil as well but because the poison does not exist the evil can come from anywhere and the mind can make anything. -Alexis Donaldson
In response to the reference of Macbeth and King Lear I think the author mention them to show that all are tragedies and that all display a gloomy universe.But to also contrast with Hamlet in how in Macbeth(about a man that commits genecide to become king) and in King Lear( a king who steps down the throne to split his kingdom between his daugthers and turned out mad when he relaized his daugthers were plooting against him) though the use of "the verbal colour, the symbolism..." we can feel the protagonist suffering,to see with his eyes; that thanks to the events of the play as a whole and the repeating idea of death in those plays the consciousness of evil can be easily understood by other people. Whereas in Hamlet there is not such massive amount of evil/death originally (except for king Hamlet's death)that Hamlet can attach to so strongly; most of the death is within Hamlet's mind that slowly grew throughout the play to a point that spread and effected other people.Outside of Hamlet's mind his atmosphere can be considered as healthy,good-nature and humorous(unlike the other two novels). In my opinion Claudius is not a good king although he might of been pressured by Hamlet's actions,he did the first sin- killed his brother, whatever followed that is completely his fault. And if we would of be a good king he would not be fooling aroung with his nephew's gossips and take care of his throne.
I believe Taylor has a good point regarding the personality of Claudius. Although it is true that Claudius seemed to be an adequate ruler by attempting to establish peace in the war his brother started and a caring lover to the queen, his actions in the end prove otherwise. When one repents, one should wholeheartedly repent. Claudius was still considering what he had gained from the murder. In addition, to keep his throne, he teamed up with Laertes to murder Hamlet. I am unsure of the accuracy, but in the movie, I recall Claudius telling Gertrude not to drink the poison in the goblet, but never actually, physically did anything about it. If he was to act, the others would be aware of his evil doings.
What are some thoughts on the distinct outfits of the ghost in the beginning and the ghost after Polonious' murder?
Jessica Martinez
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
In "The Embassy of Death" by G. Wilson Knight, he describes how Hamlet is inhumane and is overly obsessed with everyone's flaws and ways to justify his murder of Claudius. In the essay he describes Hamlet as being inhumane, which refers to him as being too observant and looking for flaws on others and seeing the evil in all. He becomes miserable due to his insanity of thoughts of suicide and ways to torment Claudius. I do agree that Hamlet is inhumane because he becomes as an outsider and just observes everyone and what their faults are. During the play the only friend or person that he could trust or talk to was Horatio. It seems that all the other characters where more in relation with King Claudius rather than Hamlet, this shows that Hamlet lacks certain human qualities which made everyone become distant from Hamlet and only wanted him gone. In the essay, Knight also describes Hamlet as being pure evil and he claims that as well that Claudius is far from evil in contrast with Hamlet. I do not fully agree with this I think both have evil in them. Even though as Knight claimed in his essay that Claudius was being a good King and caring for Denmark, he still committed murder and even if he began to feel guilt and repentance he still wanted to keep the fruits: the crown and the queen. This shows he was not truly sincere . In contrast Hamlet began to have a major goal of ending the corruption of Claudius but along the way he began to spread like venom and began to hurt others in his way. It might have unintentionally but he still become even more cynical than Claudius, with an over obsession of death.
Do you guys think that the apparition of King Hamlet's ghost was evil and only change Hamlet to become evil, or was the ghost intentions just to tell him what had happened? How does the ghost play in all this? Do you think Hamlet as being pure evil as he was described?
In Knight's claim to Claudius being innocent and Hamlet guilty, I would have to disagree. In the beginning of the play, Claudius is seen as a caring uncle who begs Hamlet to stay home and move on from his father's death. Although he encourages this, Claudius's intensions can be interpreted as him just keeping a close eye on Hamlet to prevent him from finding out the truth. I would also have to disagree when Knight states that Claudius's faults were "forced on him". When Claudius killed King Hamlet, Claudius knew what he got himself into and what the consequences can be for this crime. Because of this, Hamlet does indeed hold onto his father's death. The Ghost also plays an important part of Hamlet being inhuman, that part of Knight's claim I do agree on. Could it be that Hamlet being called inhuman is the fact that this Ghost has influenced him to have a vengeful thought process? Also, if the King had never been murdered, Hamlet would have never become, as Knight claims, "an element of evil" or a "danger to the state". With Claudius's envy of his brother in having the throne and the queen, caused him to commit such a crime. With this envious act and greed, it is someone who is not content with what they have, them being not logical in the mind as well. Hamlet is not human in that he does not take part in Claudius's events but rather seeks for revenge, which in turn causes the people around him to get hurt and suffer from his actions. Which brings me to my agreement with Knight, in that death does play a major role in this play. The death of King Hamlet has caused chaos in the state of Denmark, leaving Hamlet confused with the matter of death even when the play starts.
ReplyDeleteReferring to Jessica's question, I do think that this ghost is a representation of a demon because he influenced Hamlet to commit horrible acts, such as him killing Polonius. Also, he puts in Hamlet's mind about the idea of committing murder, which is something that can lead Hamlet in hell too.
Yeah, I agree with Jessica in the sense that I can't fully agree when Knight labels Claudius as a good king. Knight continues with that point by saying Hamlet is the one that is forcing Claudius to do all those bad deeds. Claudius initiated Hamlets insanity with the murder of King Hamlet. This can prove how he isn't a good king to start with.
ReplyDeleteIs it me, or does the authors repetition of Hamlet using 'poisonous venom' to corrupt everyone else in the play make this response sound unappealing?
Oh! and to clarify, is he claiming that the whole setting and plot of Hamlet is completely opposite from that of Macbeth and King Lear?
Also, I agree with Kat's agreement with Knights claim that death is the ulterior tone created by Hamlet and his effect on all of the other characters. To make a long story short, as soon as Hamlet turned crazy, people started dying.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kat and Jay, I feel that Hamlet's good intentions got the best of him. He had a very vulnerable personality, which i believe was the main cause of his insanity. He took on the quest for vengeance with good intentions; to get justice for his father, but he ended up doing more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Jessica and Jay that I disagree with the Knight labeling Claudius as a good King. Throughout the socratic seminar during class, people were saying how Claudius may have done some bad, but he did make up for it by praying, and that the burden and guilt he carried showed he as truly sorry. But i disagree, i feel that if he was, he would have confessed about killing King Hamlet, and he would have given up the throne and the queen, and "the fruits" that he gained when he had the crown.
Also, in response to Jessica's question, i feel that the ghost was both evil and used the information to fuel Hamlet's insanity, and since Hamlet was so determined and vulnerable, he let the ghost got the best of him. Resulting in catastrophe.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I agree with Knight in the sense that Hamlet is negative force that ruins the lives of characters around him, but it confuses me that He would contrast the overall world of Hamlet from the worlds of Macbeth and King Lear. So if King accuses Hamlet of being a bad influence on the play, why does he agree with the notion that Hamlets philosophy is inevitable, blameless, and irrefutable? He constantly uses his claim that Death is the underlying idea to negate his agreements with the opposing positions.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jessica's question i have to say that i do not believe King Hamlet's ghost was not evil, although when he told his son Hamlet about his death, Prince Hamlet rather took it the wrong way which created his sort of madness.I also agree with Kat's opinion on disagreeing with Knight's claim to Claudius being innocent and Hamlet being guilty, due to the fact that Claudius is the mainly the cause of Hamlet's madness by killing his father then later marrying his mother.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not understand the concept of Hamlet being inhumane, may someone explain to me the reason and in Hamlet is there a signifigance to why Horatio, a really good friend of Hamlet,is the only one that lives after the many deaths in the play?
Wilson G Knights interpretation of Hamlet being about death does not sit well with me. Yes his argument is sound in that there is death everywhere with Hamlet's musings about suicide and death,and the ghost, King Hamlet dying and the war surrounding Denmark. But that is not all that could be taken out of Hamlet. The plays conflicts stem from Hamlets struggle with himself to be a loyal and honorable to his father and become a righteous dealer of justice by exacting revenge on his uncle but not letting the knowledge that the people he loved once betray the father he must have had a great love for to mourn for so long poison his thoughts about the rest of humanity. Knight goes on to say that Claudius's actions, after Hamlet learning of the murder, were forced upon him. He also states his remorse for killing the King was not genuine. If it were he would not continue to reap the benefits of killing his brother. If he were remorseful Hamlet was next in line before he married the Dowager queen, He should have let Hamlet take the throne. Knight attempts to portray Claudius as a good person but Claudius is not any better than Hamlet sometimes even worse. Hamlet does things for what he believes is just and honorable but Claudius' motivation is purely selfish. He doesn't start to repent what he's done until he realizes Hamlet is testing him with the knowledge. He does things for his own selfish gain its a human thing to do. The last major thing I disagree with him on is that he shows that Hamlet is inhuman when they are all in fact human. Everyone was tempted and succumbs to something no human is invincible everyone has their weaknesses. Polonius is stupid, Gertrude oblivious, Ophelia succumbs to madness, Claudius to Greed and Hamlet was tempted by violence and the chance of revenge and went mad because of it. Hamlet mourning for his father was completely normal, even though it was exaggerated. He fell into a depression and alienated himself from others which is not uncommon from people in depressions. I think the main thing to take from the play is that evil can come from anywhere. Our educated Hamlet, the loyal Polonius, the kind Gertrude, the beautiful Ophelia and the Sensible Claudius all fall to the evil the knowledge the ghost brought. In response to Jessica's question the ghost itself is not evil. Simply what the human mind did with the knowledge was evil because it spread to poison everyone in the play. The fact that they used the imaginary poison hebona proves that there was evil in the mind because if it was a natural one it could be connected that nature is evil as well but because the poison does not exist the evil can come from anywhere and the mind can make anything.
ReplyDelete-Alexis Donaldson
Jason Galang
ReplyDeletePeriod 5
Can someone emphasize the significance of Knight's mentioning of King Lear and Macbeth?
In response to the reference of Macbeth and King Lear I think the author mention them to show that all are tragedies and that all display a gloomy universe.But to also contrast with Hamlet in how in Macbeth(about a man that commits genecide to become king) and in King Lear( a king who steps down the throne to split his kingdom between his daugthers and turned out mad when he relaized his daugthers were plooting against him) though the use of "the verbal colour, the symbolism..." we can feel the protagonist suffering,to see with his eyes; that thanks to the events of the play as a whole and the repeating idea of death in those plays the consciousness of evil can be easily understood by other people.
DeleteWhereas in Hamlet there is not such massive amount of evil/death originally (except for king Hamlet's death)that Hamlet can attach to so strongly; most of the death is within Hamlet's mind that slowly grew throughout the play to a point that spread and effected other people.Outside of Hamlet's mind his atmosphere can be considered as healthy,good-nature and humorous(unlike the other two novels).
In my opinion Claudius is not a good king although he might of been pressured by Hamlet's actions,he did the first sin- killed his brother, whatever followed that is completely his fault. And if we would of be a good king he would not be fooling aroung with his nephew's gossips and take care of his throne.
Jason Galang
ReplyDeletePeriod
I believe Taylor has a good point regarding the personality of Claudius. Although it is true that Claudius seemed to be an adequate ruler by attempting to establish peace in the war his brother started and a caring lover to the queen, his actions in the end prove otherwise. When one repents, one should wholeheartedly repent. Claudius was still considering what he had gained from the murder. In addition, to keep his throne, he teamed up with Laertes to murder Hamlet. I am unsure of the accuracy, but in the movie, I recall Claudius telling Gertrude not to drink the poison in the goblet, but never actually, physically did anything about it. If he was to act, the others would be aware of his evil doings.
What are some thoughts on the distinct outfits of the ghost in the beginning and the ghost after Polonious' murder?