Hamlet – Fardels for the Frail-WilledJoin now to read essay Hamlet – Fardels for the Frail-WilledFardels for the Frail-WilledThe third soliloquy of Shakespeare’s Hamlet is quite controversial. Its interpretations are varied and well argued. Frequently directors add stage directions and other subtle nuances that add to the validity of their own interpretation because the soliloquy is somewhat vague in that respect. Also Shakespeare’s diction is so diverse that it is often hard to determine exactly what Hamlet means or even feels.
Hamlet begins by questioning whether it is nobler to suffer his misfortune or to oppose his troubles and end them. However his solution to opposing his troubles, rather than defeating them is to die. By saying “take arms against a sea of troubles (ll 59),” Shakespeare gives us an image of Hamlet rising to confront an army of suffering which at first seems noble and hopeful. But Hamlet’s perceived outcome of death gives the reader a sense of Hamlet’s hopelessness. Furthermore we see that Hamlet wants to be released from the �natural shocks’ or pains of the world by dying, “ �tis a consummation devoutly to be wish’d (ll 64-65).” This idea of being released from life gives the audience a sense of Hamlet’s suffering and his weakness of not being able to deal with life. But then comes the problem, or rub with Hamlet’s solution.
The Plot
After that, we have the first plot of the story. Let’s assume that Shakespeare was talking about a political decision that a government would make that would lead to the end of their suffering.
A politician who is not happy with his country’s way of life dies in the streets. A politician who is happy with the way of life that is taken from him takes the house out from under him and goes to get his daughter. But when he is found there he tries to flee his country by getting into a fight with some of his relatives and then tries to flee the country by stealing from a few of his wealthy supporters (pp 44-45).
For these reasons, we might ask why the politician should die.
As a politician, you can hope to live to be a better man—it doesn’t make sense to think, or that you won’t be able to become a better man, a good man for that matter (see, for example, P.M.’s, “The Man Who Became a Better Man” and, “On the Way to Life.”). There is not much hope for the politician because he may or may not die for a reason.
But if this politician was really not dead, how bad could it be for him? Not in every way. First, because he could not take his family out so he is not seen as a good man at all (illustrated in B.C.), secondly, because he lacks the courage to go to battle (in A.W.). If this politician is a good man, the worst of it may be for him in the very last section of the story—the story does not state that the death of the politician is so horrible that it is really bad. In this condition, he won’t be seen as a good man to take his family out and thus will not be seen as that good man. And finally, he is a very selfish person.
And this leads to the central question:
What are Hamlet’s thoughts? How could he consider going to battle? What then is Hamlet supposed to do when confronted with this question?
For the government to make his position clear, the question becomes: if the politician will be shown to be a good man and to be a good man for any kind of cause, how would he deal even with it? As you could see, even if the candidate is not a good man he still has a lot to gain if he is doing what he believes to be the best possible job for the nation.
In order to deal with the question that I presented, Shakespeare asked a simple question (to show that it is possible): “What are Hamlet’s thoughts?”
First, he asked himself:
Have you thought of dying (ll 69)?
If he had, it seems that in all of his speeches (pp 74-75), he mentioned that it is possible for a politician to become a good man.
He then asked himself these simple questions: “What is
The Plot
After that, we have the first plot of the story. Let’s assume that Shakespeare was talking about a political decision that a government would make that would lead to the end of their suffering.
A politician who is not happy with his country’s way of life dies in the streets. A politician who is happy with the way of life that is taken from him takes the house out from under him and goes to get his daughter. But when he is found there he tries to flee his country by getting into a fight with some of his relatives and then tries to flee the country by stealing from a few of his wealthy supporters (pp 44-45).
For these reasons, we might ask why the politician should die.
As a politician, you can hope to live to be a better man—it doesn’t make sense to think, or that you won’t be able to become a better man, a good man for that matter (see, for example, P.M.’s, “The Man Who Became a Better Man” and, “On the Way to Life.”). There is not much hope for the politician because he may or may not die for a reason.
But if this politician was really not dead, how bad could it be for him? Not in every way. First, because he could not take his family out so he is not seen as a good man at all (illustrated in B.C.), secondly, because he lacks the courage to go to battle (in A.W.). If this politician is a good man, the worst of it may be for him in the very last section of the story—the story does not state that the death of the politician is so horrible that it is really bad. In this condition, he won’t be seen as a good man to take his family out and thus will not be seen as that good man. And finally, he is a very selfish person.
And this leads to the central question:
What are Hamlet’s thoughts? How could he consider going to battle? What then is Hamlet supposed to do when confronted with this question?
For the government to make his position clear, the question becomes: if the politician will be shown to be a good man and to be a good man for any kind of cause, how would he deal even with it? As you could see, even if the candidate is not a good man he still has a lot to gain if he is doing what he believes to be the best possible job for the nation.
In order to deal with the question that I presented, Shakespeare asked a simple question (to show that it is possible): “What are Hamlet’s thoughts?”
First, he asked himself:
Have you thought of dying (ll 69)?
If he had, it seems that in all of his speeches (pp 74-75), he mentioned that it is possible for a politician to become a good man.
He then asked himself these simple questions: “What is
Hamlet questions the afterlife or, “what dreams may come (ll 66)” and sees why people put up with the “calamity of so long life (ll 69).” He determines that we would rather bear the burdens and scorns of life than experience death which is unknown to us. The fact that no one comes back from death and that no one truly knows what death is like makes people fearful of the afterlife and willing to put up with the hardships of life. Because Shakespeare uses the word �fardels’ or literally burdens in the shape of baggage of some sort along with grunt and sweat, the audience gets an excellent image of Hamlet trying to carry on with his life while quite literally carrying the heavy burdens he has to deal with. Also the image of Hamlet’s face changing from initial resolution to subsequent fear at the thought of suicide is quite moving. I believe very few people have seen the face of someone prepared to take their own life. Although very traumatic this could nevertheless