Prompt: Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? If so, what precisely is it? Is anyone in particular responsible or is the rottenness simply a condition of life?
Throughout reading Act I in class, we hear the phrase "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." From the beginning to the end of this novel, we are able to infer and see foreshadowing for what exactly this phrase means. One of the largest pieces of evidence that something is rotten is by the return of Hamlet's ghost, which happens several times. However, only in the last two scenes does the ghost actually make any efforts to express any type of actions or dialogue. From Act 1 Scene 5, we learn that Claudius is the murderer of King Hamlet, instead of the king dying from natural causes. From this knowledge that is learned in Scene 5, it can be inferred that the 'something' in the phrase "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" is truly the 'solved' mystery of King Hamlet's death. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark because of Claudius murdering the king in order to marry Queen Gertrude and take the throne of Denmark. So, it is obviously made that Claudius is particularly responsible for the rottenness, and it is not simply a condition of life.
In conclusion, the rotten state of Denmark (in Act I) revolves around the murder of King Hamlet and the murderer, Claudius. From what it seems, Claudius tricked Queen Gertrude into marrying him because there was such a short period of remorse from the Queen over the dead Hamlet. From this trickery and murder, it is made well-known that Claudius is particularly responsible for the rottenness describes throughout Act I and throughout the entire rest of the play.
Thursday, October 27, 2016
Hamlet Blog 1
Prompt: To what extent is Hamlet's quest for revenge justifiable in terms of the situation presented? Why or why not?
Based off of knowledge from Act 1, Hamlet's quest for revenge is justifiable enough by his father's death. In the final scenes of Act 1, the reader and Hamlet learn of his father's death being a murder, and not from a natural cause of death. Evidence about this murder can be seen from when the ghost states, "Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder." (1.5._) The ghost is telling Hamlet to seek revenge for his father's death. Personally, I do believe that the situation in its entirety (from our knowledge so far) allows for Hamlet's quest for revenge to be justifiable, mostly because there is suspicion and knowledge that Claudius kills Hamlet for the crown and to trickily marry Queen Gertrude of Denmark. From this knowledge that Hamlet receives/already knows, he would be making his father's real cause of death known to everyone in Denmark. For the reasons of knowledge about Claudius and making his father's death known throughout Denmark, the terms are justified for seeking revenge on his father's death.
Based off of knowledge from Act 1, Hamlet's quest for revenge is justifiable enough by his father's death. In the final scenes of Act 1, the reader and Hamlet learn of his father's death being a murder, and not from a natural cause of death. Evidence about this murder can be seen from when the ghost states, "Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder." (1.5._) The ghost is telling Hamlet to seek revenge for his father's death. Personally, I do believe that the situation in its entirety (from our knowledge so far) allows for Hamlet's quest for revenge to be justifiable, mostly because there is suspicion and knowledge that Claudius kills Hamlet for the crown and to trickily marry Queen Gertrude of Denmark. From this knowledge that Hamlet receives/already knows, he would be making his father's real cause of death known to everyone in Denmark. For the reasons of knowledge about Claudius and making his father's death known throughout Denmark, the terms are justified for seeking revenge on his father's death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)