MovieChat Forums > Anonymous (2011) Discussion > Hamlet and 'unfulfilled love'

Hamlet and 'unfulfilled love'


There are some who say that Hamlet is about revenge. It is actually about love and Hamlet dealing with "manic" adolescent feelings which make him unable to have a fulfilling, loving relationship with Ophelia. In his words, "Achilles’ greatest foe may be Achilles".

Hamlet’s Soliloquy

How be this, that in this most wretched state of self-loathing and pestilent unfulfilled duty, that my withered and dishevelled heart can feel such vibrant and relentless affection for another? That when my head doth feel its unanswered accountability, it can yield to my heart’s deepest desires and fantasies?

Ophelia. Ophelia. Her name doth canter from mine tongue through my resistant lips as such the horse doth through the field. Yet how may she be known, that in my spleen vented t’ward her vivacity, ‘tis my heart I wish t’offer. Ophelia. To perchance the swiftest glance at her is the greatest gift a prince may receive. But to be granted the chance to stare. To gaze upon sweet Ophelia. It would be that I were Narcissus whence first seeing mine own reflection, and I warrant that it would be a kindest sentence to like he, sink unto roots by the river’s bed, just to stare, for eternity. To love her, to be granted to be near her, to be bestowed the honour of hers.

But O unwelcomed guilt of reality. Mine own sense of duty is deeply conflicted by mine own selfish and distinguishing flaws. Is it th‘demon that resides so relentlessly resting upon mine back? Or be it that I am th’putrid and accursed creature that will not act for one but mine own self? Ay, marry, ‘tis my duty, and that I am destined to take it alone, to act for others. Alike to the Son having to crawl and struggle, but with no cross to bear, nor no father to watch o’er and draw strength upon. Alike to the Son, as mine duty is thrust upon me from the sins of others. The snake. And that I am to share its blood. Slithering its way into th‘garden, of which I used to reside, and poisoning all that ‘twas holy, causing their fall. O fie! And that I am to shed its blood. Is it that I am doomed to misery? That I to avenge a lost love and not to advance to a new? That in my e’er growing antic mind I am to push away the one for whom I long, for whom I burn and yearn? That by practising my manic mode I can be perhaps to push her to madness? Is it this that is’t to make it so? Or is it she that is already maid? Hither? In this rotting state? Can it be that one so sweet could be of the same sex of one that could be so sour?

She. She that gave me life and now sucks all reason and moral from it. She that smothers, suffocates, the pain that is my armour’s *beep* one that I might heel from by th’cutting away at its most rotten roots. Maybe this ‘twill be what we shall have to come together upon? The cutting of roots so that we may blossom. For she verily is suffocated by the breed of roots of which I speak. But e’en a rose of such sweet scent and succulent sight may be susceptible to weeds. And there is no other rose that I might tend to in more compassionate fashion than she. O what pain can come through my ambition. But to act. To accomplish. To anticipate and take to arms. I fear that Achilles’ greatest foe may be Achilles.

reply

I hope the author of that incompetent screed wasn't out of his or her teens. Adolescent hormones and partial education are the only possible excuses for it.

reply

It was written by someone who calls himself or herself "literarydormouse." Here's the link:

http://literarydormouse.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/a-soliloquy-of-hamlet -discussing-love-and-hate/

If the URL does not work, take out any space in the URL that appears immidately before or after a dash.

The quote is almost bad enough to have been written by the Earl of Oxford.

Is it possible that the Troll actually thought this was a quote from the play?

Anyone who would describe the play "Hamlet" as

"actually about love and Hamlet dealing with 'manic' adolescent feelings which make him unable to have a fulfilling, loving relationship with Ophelia"
has obviously never seen or read "Hamlet.".

reply

Is it possible that the Troll actually thought this was a quote from the play?
’'In his words' amounts to a full confession.

Unintentionally a much better simplification of the authorship debate than the one he offers.

Rather than look at the nunnery scene to analyse the core of Hamlet's relationship with Ophelia, the Oxfordian ignores everything that Shakespeare wrote and scours the Internet for something anyone at all has written that supports whatever point he is trying to make.

He then presents his quote or link with a flourish, untouched or even passed off as his own work, as if the fact that he has found someone as credulous as himself amplifies the credibility of what he is arguing.“We are oft to blame in this,
'Tis too much prov'd, that with Devotion's visage,
And pious Action, we do sugar over
The devil himselfe”** I've modernised the spelling and punctuation for those who have never read any Shakespeare.

reply

It does explain why he thinks that Hamlet is about unrequited love, if he truely thinks that this is in the play...
It also means that he never read or saw the play or even read about the play....
Which makes it all the more curious that he thinks that he is more able to dicuss the plays than I am...

Risking being reported by Shakskeptic for disagreeing with him.....

I'm not crazy I'm just not your kind of sane
He who laughs last, didn't understand the joke

reply

He may be gone awhile now.

I'm not sure how he's going to explain his claim that he understands Hamlet better than anyone here when he has just revealed that not only does he not recognise the play, but he can't tell the work of the world's most famous playwright from that of a blogging sophomore.

An exact parallel of the mess that Looney got himself into before Ogburn attempted to get him out of it.

reply

Alfa - check your PMs

www.nickmazonowicz.blogspot.com

reply

OK.

reply

I have cited Stratfordians who say Hamelt is about unrequited love between Hamlet and Ophelia. Why don't you attack those academics who express that view?

"Ophelia is destroyed by her loss of Hamlet and essentially the future throne, driven by madness to suicide. Hamlet must now deal with another loss, that of his love. A classic story of unrequited love, Hamlet realises what everyday teenagers go through, though perhaps in a slightly more dramatic way!"

Cite: http://www.usq.edu.au/artsworx/schoolresources/hamlet/themes


Oh, I forgot, because none of you actually studied Shakespeare at university level. Ooops.

reply

If you were to say that ONE of the themes is unrequited love... But apparently multiple themes in a play is too complicated for university level .....
At my university the rule was one source is no source

From the website you linked to (http://www.usq.edu.au/artsworx/schoolresources/hamlet/themes:
The Themes are:
Death
- Revenge
- Inevitability
- Natural Order
Teen Angst
- Questioning of Death
- Love (unrequited)
Class Issues

As you see, unrequited love is one of the themes within teen angst, not a central theme, that would be death, Teen angst and class issues.
Sparknotes has a themes of Hamlet page too http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/hamlet/themes.html
More themes:
Gradesaver.com
http://www.gradesaver.com/hamlet/study-guide/major-themes/
RSC
http://www.rsc.org.uk/explore/hamlet/teachers-resources/themes.aspx
BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/english_literature/dramahaml et/hamlet_themes1.shtml

Or this study guide:http://www.artsalive.ca/pdf/eth/activities/hamlet_guide.pdf

I'm not crazy I'm just not your kind of sane
He who laughs last, didn't understand the joke

reply

You didn't read that, did you? You just copied the sentence with 'unrequited' in it.

Didn't you?

reply

Please do not delete this thread as it demonstrates clearly what people who have been criticising Anonymous have had to put up with both generally and from this individual.

When this poster has committed gaffes of this order in the past (actually, this may be his biggest), the thread has disappeared or the posts have been deleted. We cannot prevent him deleting his own posts but I see nothing unfair in keeping this as a testament to the weakness of knowledge on one side of this argument.

reply

Perhaps someone should copy the whole thing and re-post it, so even if he does pull the plug on his own post it'll still be here.

reply

Done

From the poster Shakskeptic

There are some who say that Hamlet is about revenge. It is actually about love and Hamlet dealing with "manic" adolescent feelings which make him unable to have a fulfilling, loving relationship with Ophelia. In his words, "Achilles’ greatest foe may be Achilles".

Hamlet’s Soliloquy

How be this, that in this most wretched state of self-loathing and pestilent unfulfilled duty, that my withered and dishevelled heart can feel such vibrant and relentless affection for another? That when my head doth feel its unanswered accountability, it can yield to my heart’s deepest desires and fantasies?

Ophelia. Ophelia. Her name doth canter from mine tongue through my resistant lips as such the horse doth through the field. Yet how may she be known, that in my spleen vented t’ward her vivacity, ‘tis my heart I wish t’offer. Ophelia. To perchance the swiftest glance at her is the greatest gift a prince may receive. But to be granted the chance to stare. To gaze upon sweet Ophelia. It would be that I were Narcissus whence first seeing mine own reflection, and I warrant that it would be a kindest sentence to like he, sink unto roots by the river’s bed, just to stare, for eternity. To love her, to be granted to be near her, to be bestowed the honour of hers.

But O unwelcomed guilt of reality. Mine own sense of duty is deeply conflicted by mine own selfish and distinguishing flaws. Is it th‘demon that resides so relentlessly resting upon mine back? Or be it that I am th’putrid and accursed creature that will not act for one but mine own self? Ay, marry, ‘tis my duty, and that I am destined to take it alone, to act for others. Alike to the Son having to crawl and struggle, but with no cross to bear, nor no father to watch o’er and draw strength upon. Alike to the Son, as mine duty is thrust upon me from the sins of others. The snake. And that I am to share its blood. Slithering its way into th‘garden, of which I used to reside, and poisoning all that ‘twas holy, causing their fall. O fie! And that I am to shed its blood. Is it that I am doomed to misery? That I to avenge a lost love and not to advance to a new? That in my e’er growing antic mind I am to push away the one for whom I long, for whom I burn and yearn? That by practising my manic mode I can be perhaps to push her to madness? Is it this that is’t to make it so? Or is it she that is already maid? Hither? In this rotting state? Can it be that one so sweet could be of the same sex of one that could be so sour?

She. She that gave me life and now sucks all reason and moral from it. She that smothers, suffocates, the pain that is my armour’s *beep* one that I might heel from by th’cutting away at its most rotten roots. Maybe this ‘twill be what we shall have to come together upon? The cutting of roots so that we may blossom. For she verily is suffocated by the breed of roots of which I speak. But e’en a rose of such sweet scent and succulent sight may be susceptible to weeds. And there is no other rose that I might tend to in more compassionate fashion than she. O what pain can come through my ambition. But to act. To accomplish. To anticipate and take to arms. I fear that Achilles’ greatest foe may be Achilles.


www.nickmazonowicz.blogspot.com

reply

Always worth reposting...the moment when D B Harris revealed his profound knowledge of Hamlet...by quoting a passage from someone;s blog.

Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

reply

[deleted]

Add genius to the list of things you wouldn't recognise even if a Supreme Court Judge hit you on the head with it.

Shakskeptic mistook the work of a blogging sophomore for the work of William Shakespeare. Nothing I have ever seen on the entire internet has been more revealingly stupid.

But it does point to the major problem are with hard-headed Oxfordianism. They know nothing about the work.

reply

[deleted]

You quoted Hamlet, in his own words, when they weren't.

The biggest mistake anyone has ever made in the history of the authorship debate and you made it.

Dunce.

reply

This thread was getting near the bottom, but it deserves to live forever.

This is one of the ones in which Halfwit (who often complains that not everyone has read Ogburn) demonstrated that he has never read "Hamlet."

reply

AWESOME

As usual-- you Stratfraudians are all talking to YOURSELVES!

reply

It is like a self help group.

They are in denial. The Oxford position started in 1923 with 1 man writing a book about it debunking the world's greatest dramatist. 90 years later every English student studying Shakespeare will know about it and the only major film dealing with the issues paints their hero as a corrupt buffoon.

Shock of horrors. EE Gads.

One would go into a state of "denial" if one were a Bardolator with such a cataclysmic explosion, all of a sudden onto the world stage of Mr. Ed.

And, what is the reaction? Classic denial. The Stratfordians come out with a book which doesn't actually present any alternative facts on which to reconstruct their man, it just announces, "yes folks, the authorship debate is over". Why, because these writers are so inpressed with themselves that they too have gone into shock and denial and are just "telling us" that they are the experts and we should just listened to them.

Sadly, for them, no one has bought the book. And, of course, traditional Stratfordian biography is mindlessly boring as is, actually, orthodox Shakespearean literary analysis. I mean, seriously, who gives a flying about Henry V pt. 1....oops, fell asleep.

People want to hear a good story and while film could have been different which might have made it in some way a better film for the advancement of studies of the Earl of Oxford, it was a "damn good, ripping yarn" which brought the subject to world attention, and for that, I bless and thank Mr. Orloff and Mr. Emmerich.

reply

No proof.... much like the creationist movement, we have a film, so now we have to be in the class room...

but as with creationists, where is the proof.....

The Stratfordian side has evidence and logic, anti-Strats have only denial of facts and conspiracy....

So again where is the proof, any historian would kill to be the one to prove that someone else wrote Shakespeare, but they have the honesty to say that there is no proof....

A good story is not historical evidence. If you want to treat it as historical fiction, fine. But if you think it is historical fact than ....


where is the proof.

I'm not crazy I'm just not your kind of sane
He who laughs last, didn't understand the joke

reply

No EM, the Stratfordian side has a huge problem, so big someone just drove a Hollywood film cast and crew through it and a few million cinema goers.

So, who is the Poet-Ape? Let's have some "meaning shearing" which you accuse us of. Go on, I am waiting for you to say that the "chief" poet of Elizabethan England with the hypenated name is...not William Shake-Speare. Go on, get busy.

The historical evidence is in Charlton Ogburn's book and the many others which address the issue, of which you have read, what 39 pages or so??

reply

WTF is 'meaning shearing', and when did Earthmonkey accuse you of it?

reply

The hyphenation: Of those 15 title pages with Shakespeare's name hyphenated, 13 are on the title pages of just three plays, Richard II (Q2 1598, Q3 1598, Q4 1608, and Q5 1615), Richard III (Q2 1598, Q3 1602, Q4 1605, Q5 1612, and Q6 1622), and Henry IV, Part 1 (Q2 1599, Q3 1604, Q4 1608, and Q5 1613).[50] The hyphen is also present in one cast list and in six literary allusions published between 1594 and 1623.
The cast list.... the actor's name is hyphenated...... who was that.... also not a real man??

Evidence of Ogburn?? I have gotten on in that fictional book (not very good read btw0 but no proof, you cannot even quote any of his 'proofs' no Oxfordian can... it just is not there....

And what is that meaning-shearing you speak of.... explain please.... I am not the only one puzzled by that...

I'm not crazy I'm just not your kind of sane
He who laughs last, didn't understand the joke

reply


Too good to die.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

reply

Mark Twain...on all his books...

It's a pen name. Shake-Speare.

Man up to it.

reply

The hyphenation: 17 publications with Shakespeare's name unhyphenated. 15 were hyphenated..
Of those 15 title pages with Shakespeare's name hyphenated, 13 are on the title pages of just three plays, Richard II* (Q2 1598, Q3 1598, Q4 1608, and Q5 1615), Richard III* (Q2 1598, Q3 1602, Q4 1605, Q5 1612, and Q6 1622), and Henry IV, Part 1* (Q2 1599, Q3 1604, Q4 1608, and Q5 1613).

Of those hyphened publications Richard II, Richard III, Henry the IV, Titus Andronicus, and Romeo and Juliet were identified by the Palladis Tamia as by Shakespeare

Which makes the unhyphened the norm.... and by your logic NOT a pen name..

I'm not crazy I'm just not your kind of sane
He who laughs last, didn't understand the joke

reply

Shouldn't that be Mark Twa-in?

There is nothing to indicate a hyphen established a pen name. Nothing but wishful thinking. No comment from anyone saying that such a convention exists, no one drawing that conclusion at the time based on a hyphen. Just... Look! Someone hyphened Shakespeare's name! And look! Here is a pen name that is hyphened! I can construct an argument out of that just see if I can't!

Some pen names in Elizabethan lit are hyphened, some not. Some real names hyphened, some not. There is nothing to lead to the conclusion that hyphens were anything other than compositor preference. and whether the name lended itself to hyphenation - Shakespeare, Waldegrave, Campbell, Oldcastle.... All real people, all sporadically hyphened in print. Drawing a conclusion from that is idiotic. Just a measure of the extent Oxenfraudians like to lie to themselves.

This is particularly true, by the way, if you accept whatever name he is using now's contention that the lords of England wrote all the literature and had it dealt out under the guise of their clerks. Where are their hyphens? If Munday's work or Lily's was actually Oxenford's, why aren't they Mun-day and Li-ly?

Datta, dayadhvam, damyata.

reply

Still worth pointing this out - Harris thought this was actually from Hamlet.

Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

reply

Excellent example for the archive.

reply

What always amused me was that DB Harris took this constant desperate search to prove that 'unfulfilled' or 'unrequited' love was a feature of Hamlet and Shakespeare's work in general to these lengths - but in the end even if it could be proved then so what?

Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

reply

Exactly right.

Another Black Knight searching for the False Grail.

reply

This is one of my all time favorite threads, and I wanted to save it for a while longer.

reply

Though once again, could have been improved by learning the lesson that opposition nonsense has to be quoted or they will delete it after they are embarrassed.

reply

Alas - there was so much nonsense from the poster with many names that I wish had been saved

1 mark deducted for not being Curse of Fenric. Insert 'The' into previous if you are Ant-Mac

reply

A little bumplette.

reply

In honour of Mr Harris's return to these shores - let us take a moment to remember his greatest hit

No gumbo for you

reply