|
|
Post by Jooyoung on Feb 28, 2016 1:44:48 GMT
As I was reading Hamlet, I realized that it was difficult to define the term "Madness". What is the difference between sane character and insane character? and How is Hamlet's madness different from Ophelia's madness? If we consider Hamlet the insane character, I didn't think he acted much different from other characters such as Fortinbras, Claudius, and Laertes. As for Ophelia, her madness seemed to be more childish while Hamlet's madness was full of rage and anger. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonah21 on Feb 28, 2016 5:15:48 GMT
I agree. You can't really make a solid idea of what madness is in the story. Hamlet was angry at Claudius for murdering his father slowly turning him mad. Claudius could have been mad possibly from the effects of murdering Hamlet's father. He was continuously worried over what would happen if he was caught, etc. thus making him act certain ways. For Ophelia, I found her to be somewhat selfish. She wanted to be free for herself since she didn't turn out to be fine: Hamlet's rejection and her father's death.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 28, 2016 11:09:47 GMT
Madness is really vague and hard to define. Determining sane and insane character is also hard too. I remember during psychology cluncool, the cluncool talked about case studies about insanity. Even those case studies were vague too. As you said, if Hamlet was insane, then the other characters are no different than him. Like for Laertes, he was in 'uncontrollable' rage when he heard his father died. He was all about revenge revenge revenge, which might have lead him to act such haste ways. Ophelia was mad because of her brokenness caused by love. She got rejected from Hamlet and heard that her father died, both of whom he loved - gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by timmy on Feb 28, 2016 12:04:23 GMT
Often, a person goes insane with a strong emotion. I personally think it is emotion that makes us human "imperfect." But then, at the same time, what is the fun if we are perfect? Couldn't we play a little bit of insanity for our amusement. Hamlet presents us the extremes of human emotions- we as audience, can't help but be amused.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tharu on Feb 28, 2016 12:30:47 GMT
I agree with (Timmy), a person going insane is due to a reason. Hamlet's fake insanity was due to his father's death and his ultimate ego was to get revenge from Claudius, so he cunningly handled his words and behavior to fool around with people. But Ophelia, is more likely a childish version of insanity. This could also represent the difference between men and women. Maybe the author tried to show how childish women are and how smart and cunning men are.
|
|
|
|
Post by graceyichen on Feb 28, 2016 12:34:15 GMT
Maybe we just call someone "mad" when we begin to disagree with their behavior. I don't understand why insanity keeps coming up as a theme in Hamlet. If Hamlet's mad, then aren't we all mad? I think the situation he is in is simply an extreme representation of any situation where we may be angry and indecisive too. To me, Hamlet is just being honest about his anger which I believe we all do in our heads. Which is the same thing right because Hamlet says his thoughts out loud in a play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jessica (Yeeun) Kim on Feb 28, 2016 12:56:58 GMT
In my opinion, it is difficult to define between sane character and insane character because the characters in Hamlet are all mad. This is because people can not be mad because of one event or reason. For example, I believe Hamlet may get mad right after he heard about the death of his father. And then, the ghost of King Hamlet becomes a trigger to the start. Claudius is also mad because he may be too greedy and he killed his brother.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Feb 28, 2016 13:10:32 GMT
I agree! It's hard to distinguish the insane characters from the supposedly sane characters. I feel like madness is just a metaphor for corruption is Denmark and Hamlet's pessimism. I also think that Hamlet turns mad not just to trick Claudius but in self-defense. He wants to avoid the problems in his life by losing himself completely.
|
|
|
|
Post by jin794 on Feb 28, 2016 13:33:57 GMT
It is hard to define whether Hamlet is actually going insane. I believe Hamlet is in the edge of sanity. Hamlet reaches its peak of sane throughout the play, but his madness is clearly directed for readers to conclude that he is becoming insane. Shakespeare shows the effects of when a person loses trust in people and society. Through Hamlet’s deep and emotional dialogue, Shakespeare intentionally makes readers feel more connected to Hamlet as they can relate to logic, his situation, as well as his cause. Furthermore, he cannot turn to philosophy, which cannot explain ghosts or answer his moral questions and lead him to action. For example, in Act II, scene 2, after watching one of the actors cry and mourn over Hecuba’s death, Hamlet begins to curse at himself out of frustration for being such a coward unable to take revenge for his father’s murder. With pressure of melancholy from his father’s death and his mother’s remarriage, Hamlet’s madness is reasonable. He may not be clearly mad, but he may be in the edge of sanity.
|
|
|
|
Post by juliaj on Feb 28, 2016 13:36:53 GMT
I think madness is different to each person because in madness seems to be a sort of freedom. They don't restrict what they say or do anymore. For example, in Ophelia's madness, she started giving people flowers and saying things she really wanted to say. If you look at the flowers she gives people, we can see that she's being quite bold because she's alluding to things like adultery and faithlessness to possibly the king and/or the queen.
|
|
toufiq
Junior Member
Posts: 86 
|
Post by toufiq on Feb 28, 2016 14:55:14 GMT
I agree with the point Julia stated that madness can differ from person to person. If I try to compare it to the real world today, we can see people who seems to be a bit odd. But we give that judgement from our own perspective. May be it's totally fine from their's point of view.
|
|
|
|
Post by jungseunghoon16 on Mar 5, 2016 8:53:21 GMT
I also think that the extent of madness depends on the person going crazy. Like the two characters in Hamlet and their insanity "level", Hamlet is driving himself insane when Ophelia's madness is driven by her manipulative environment. In addition to the manipulative environment Ophelia is dealing with, she is also has a pure soul and let herself to thinking that the words and the manipulation of the people around her is ok for her and that she should follow them. As I mentioned, this would be different for Hamlet because he is the one manipulating the environment and he is responsible for himself going insane. I also think that when Hamlet is acting insane, that he was being manipulated by himself to thinking that he was actually going insane. I think that is one of the reasons that he went insane which led to his death. Madness is expressed in many different ways, some people go mad but doesn't talk about it, some people may scream when they are frustrated, and some people may become the incredible hulk to destroy everything. It is the way that they show their anger but can be changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by maysamyounis on Mar 5, 2016 16:08:41 GMT
It is hard to define whether Hamlet is actually going insane because I believed he planned for evening thing and how to kill his uncle. And especially in act III Sence III hamlet tell Horidio that will be play tonight and he tell him to notes his uncle if he causes guild. So Hamlet goal was to revenge for his father murder.But Ophelia's was the insanest in story she surfacing for everything thing. Until in end lets kill herself.
|
|
|
|
Post by anniee on Mar 7, 2016 0:22:09 GMT
It does seem difficult to define madness, since uncommon behavior is based on the society that one lives in. I think madness is somewhat a social construct. In one African culture, it is natural for women to stretch one's neck with rings to look pretty, but if anyone tried that in America, they might be considered crazy for stretching their neck out like a giraffe. Also, several centuries ago, it was common for women to use corsets to slim down their waist, but when one female showed her extreme corset lifestyle on modern television, many viewers thought her crazy for trying to make her waist look like that of an ant. However, I think the universal definition of madness is one that disregards societal moral values, such as murder/manslaughter and hallucinations. Therefore, as you mentioned, Hamlet didn't seem that crazy, just furious at life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emily on Mar 11, 2016 1:59:05 GMT
A person being 'mad' is very ambiguous, as we all have different opinions on how a mad person truly acts. Sometimes, just a simple abnormal behavior can lead people to believe that someone is mad, especially in the past. However, there are others who look past abnormal behaviors and only when the 'mad' person does a truly despicable act finally agrees that person is mad. I agree with you that Hamlet's madness had more of a temper, while Ophelia's was more childish, but doesn't mean Ophelia didn't have a temper. When Mayurika did Ophelia's monologue, she included a few scenes where she screamed at other characters and was very emotionalful, but did dance around and act almost foolishly happy.
|
|
