Freud and Hamlet
Freud believed that Hamlet did not kill Claudius the first time
he saw him because Hamlet saw himself as the enemy. This sounds like a
solid reason to me. Who am I to say that it is not? However, I also
find Samuel Taylor Coleridge's reasoning very interesting. He
believed that Hamlet did not kill Claudius the first time because he
was praying. This sounds almost too easy, although very legitimate.
Now, I am not one to say which interpretation is right, or even ponder if
either is right; however, they both come credible critics. So, who is
right and who is wrong--that is the question? No? Maybe both are right
to an extent. We do not actually know what Shakespeare was feeling when
writing Hamlet.
This brings me to the point Chris Early made previously. I, like
Chris, do not believe that works should only be investigated on the
surface, but it is difficult to uncover every meaning of every aspect of
every work. Is there always something bigger and more meaningful than
the original words? Sometimes I would say yes, and sometimes no. So,
this leads me to my next question: how does one know if the words mean
something bigger or not? I believe that there is no actual way to
know if something has hidden meaning or not; therefore, almost
everything is scrutinized as if it does. I am not trying to make
silly excuses; I am being completely serious. No one, even the great
critics, know what is symbolic and what is not; therefore everything is
considered symbolic in the beginning, causing some sort of symbolism to
be uncovered. Whether this symbolism is correct, no one will actually
know. As Chris touched on, who knows what Shakespeare was thinking
when writing Hamlet? We can only make educated guesses at what
Hamlet was thinking when he withdrew from killing Claudius the first time.
These educated guesses come from what the reader thinks,
he saw him because Hamlet saw himself as the enemy. This sounds like a
solid reason to me. Who am I to say that it is not? However, I also
find Samuel Taylor Coleridge's reasoning very interesting. He
believed that Hamlet did not kill Claudius the first time because he
was praying. This sounds almost too easy, although very legitimate.
Now, I am not one to say which interpretation is right, or even ponder if
either is right; however, they both come credible critics. So, who is
right and who is wrong--that is the question? No? Maybe both are right
to an extent. We do not actually know what Shakespeare was feeling when
writing Hamlet.
This brings me to the point Chris Early made previously. I, like
Chris, do not believe that works should only be investigated on the
surface, but it is difficult to uncover every meaning of every aspect of
every work. Is there always something bigger and more meaningful than
the original words? Sometimes I would say yes, and sometimes no. So,
this leads me to my next question: how does one know if the words mean
something bigger or not? I believe that there is no actual way to
know if something has hidden meaning or not; therefore, almost
everything is scrutinized as if it does. I am not trying to make
silly excuses; I am being completely serious. No one, even the great
critics, know what is symbolic and what is not; therefore everything is
considered symbolic in the beginning, causing some sort of symbolism to
be uncovered. Whether this symbolism is correct, no one will actually
know. As Chris touched on, who knows what Shakespeare was thinking
when writing Hamlet? We can only make educated guesses at what
Hamlet was thinking when he withdrew from killing Claudius the first time.
These educated guesses come from what the reader thinks,