The Radio on Hamlet

In the radio program "This American Life," the different versions and productions of Hamlet that have been made around the United States are analyzed. That gets them to a conclusion: the people that you least expect might be the ones who can relate the most to the play. In a specific prison, the production of Hamlet had been set up for a long time, and surprisingly, many prisoners turned up wanting to be actors.

While to normal readers of the Shakespearean play, Hamlet's decision is just a normal decision, the prisoners really understand what it is that Hamlet wanted to do. Hamlet is known for his inaction, but the action he is deliberating doing or not doing is the act of killing someone. Many of these prisoners, who impersonated Hamlet in the play, understand what it is like to be in the verge of killing someone, so they know where Hamlet's indecision comes from. They know how it feels to take the life from someone, even if they might deserve it.

As seen by the people in the radio show, the prisoners have a gift for literary criticism not seen in any other production. One actor specifically understands that if someone hurt your family, you are not going to stop and think about revenge. He has had experience with this type of situation, so he always knew that Hamlet was going to measure up to the task and kill Claudius in the end. For prisoners, the ending of the play was so obvious that it was necessary for them to invent better reasons for Hamlet to kill and to kill Claudius in order for them to be interested.


It was very important for others to see the interpretation of Hamlet given by people who understand where his inaction comes from, because it gives a wider view of the play to audiences who see it as a trivial decision. Yet, Hamlet was also important for the actors themselves. After being in a prison for so long, and growing up in a totally different environment, the literary world opens up thousands of new possibilities for them. Most actors had their own reasons why they were in the play, like finding out that after only passing third grade, they weren't stupid. For others, knowing that being criminals was not the only solution opened their eyes to the idea of wanting to be better persons. Literature has the power of changing people, inspiring in them new opportunities and a different lifestyle.

Hamlet becomes a better play itself when the actors can actually relate the pain Hamlet is going through to their own lives. Hamlet is feeling the same emotions than the prisoners were feeling moments before committing their worst crimes, so while acting, the actors need only remember their past. It helps them get into character, and therefore create a more believable play. As prisoners understand the cowardice in being a criminal, and the unfair advantage that they need to be able to act, they get Hamlet and his hardest decisions.

After all these actors have been through,the play they put on was an amazing performance, in which every actor supported one another and the play was filled with reminiscence from their dark pasts. It is very interesting to see how a play like Hamlet can affect the lives of so many people, opening good doors and closing bad ones. It is also nice what people can do to Hamlet, better understanding the emotions that Shakespeare wanted to get through to the audience. Complimenting each other, prisoners and Hamlet are made to be presented together. That means that the people you would least expect to feel connected to something are the ones who will connect the most.

Conscious Acting or Acting Conscious?

Northrop Frye, while analyzing Hamlet's characters, mentions that the actions you make can affect your potential abilities and interests. Frye says that even though most people, as they get older, tend to narrow their potential, they don't admit it to themselves. Yet, Claudius had to accept that fact, because he committed a crime and was smart enough to know it. Hamlet, instead, wasn't blocked from a wide potential by any of his actions, but his consciousness led him to believe that even the mere condition of being a human was keeping him imprisoned in his own life.

For Northrop Frye, the only way of releasing yourself from that prison of being conscious is to act. Hamlet thinks that consciousness is a "withdrawal from action that kills action itself," which in turn leads to his inaction. He realizes that there is nothing he can do to change anything, and he is but a ghost in deciding the future of his life.

In his analysis, Frye also comment on the famous "to be or not to be" soliloquy, which can be considered the essence of the play. While saying it, Hamlet is not clear on what he wants to do, or if he even wants to do something. No real action is made during the soliloquy, and it doesn't take Hamlet anywhere. Since the beginning of the play, Hamlet has said he wants to kill himself, but he is kept alive by the "fear that he might become just another ghost."

Consciousness and action are necessary for each other, but they also coincide and prevent each other from functioning in their maximum potential. Without action, consciousness has no point, and without consciousness, action is "mindless." Yet, consciousness could be seen as a "withdrawal from action." Hamlet is precisely significant in the Romanticism period because it dared to explore the conflict of consciousness and action, which no other literature piece had done before. As Northrop Frye so convincingly said, "perhaps, if we had not had Hamlet, we might not have had the Romantic movement at all."

The reason for Hamlet's inaction in Shakespeare's play has been deeply analyzed for a long time, and different theories have arisen that try to explain why he is driven to be who he is. I believe he doesn't feel inclined to act because of an excess of reflection about the actions he must take, in which he finds a consequence for every action. His cowardice then leads him to hide behind very scholarly words, hoping none will notice he is too afraid to act.

An Existentialist's Point of View

For an existentialist, the most important thing in life is to act. It is a human's own responsibility to make his life worthy of living, so an undesirable situation should be turned around in case it presents itself. Therefore, it is likely for Friedrich Nietzsche to have very strong feelings about Hamlet's lack of action in the play.

Most of us, including me, might think that Hamlet's inability to act accordingly comes from his being a scholar, and knowing too much. An open range of possibilities leads the way to indecision, which is exactly what I thought was happening to Hamlet. However, Nietzsche seemed to think differently. Stating that Hamlet's problem was not too much reflection, Friedrich Nietzsche said that Hamlet is stopped by his true knowledge.

Hamlet has apparently seen it all, and he is similar to the Dionysian state in the way that he knows the true essence of things, and has gained knowledge. According to Nietzsche, "action requires the veils of illusion," and since Hamlet knows the horrible truth, there is no way for him to take action. Hamlet knows that the world is as it is, and there is nothing he can do to change it. Therefore, he feels humiliated when he is "asked to set out a world that is out of joint."

 There is no denying that Hamlet is a well-educated scholar, who makes his way with words in order to avoid action. The question is if his inability to act comes from his large amount of possibilities and indecision upon one of them, or from his deep knowledge of the life that lies ahead and the truth that he can't change it in any way. There is still the chance that the whole play is a fake, and by choosing not to act, Hamlet has caught himself in the midst of a decision.

Shakespeare's back

The time has come to talk about Shakespeare´s amazing plays, and this time it's about Hamlet. Shakespearean tragedies have always given much to talk about, and Hamlet is no better. From known philosophers such as Nietzsche and Freud, to unknown writers and actors, everyone wants to express their opinion on the renown plays. A specific essay about Hamlet's character caught my eye, written by August Wilhelm Von Schlegel.

Von Schlegel wrote that Hamlet, in the story, portrays himself in certain occasions as a gentlemanly royal who sees excellence in others and appreciates people. He admires his wit and the easiness with which Hamlet was able to lie about his sanity and convince onlookers of his apparent madness. Yet, Von Schlegel believes that Hamlet is also a coward, fearful or determination and being a hypocrite with himself to avoid reality. He says that Hamlet is "too much overwhelmed with his own sorrow to have any compassion to spare for others." Hamlet is also perturbed inside, as he feels a certain joy when he kills off his enemies. He doesn't feel bad for Ophelia or Polonius, and says that "there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

I as a reader am not yet to the part where we see Hamlet's reaction to the deaths of the ones close to him, so it is without much proof that I say that Hamlet seems to be in strong control of his life. He changes how he wants to be seen in order to accomplish the favors asked by his father, without caring much about who he steps over in the way. As far along as I have read, no one has died, so Hamlet hasn't shown his true colors. Yet, we see him thinking about portraying himself as mad to avenge the death of his father. I don't think Hamlet has anyone he completely trusts yet, so that might lead to his uncaring nature towards the destinies of everyone else.

Before the court of Denmark, Hamlet was very courteous, speaking with dignity but accepting his mother's words. There was still something in the words he spoke that proposed a subtle defiance of his uncle's power. As soon as he was out of the room, his soliloquy showed the resentment he felt towards Gertrude and Claudius, for their lack of mourning for his father and marriage that happened too quickly. This suggests that Hamlet does have feelings and cares about someone other than himself, or at least about his father. He mourns his death, but might as well be the last human he cares about.

In order to prove Von Schlegel's accusations about the cowardice and discomposure of Hamlet's character, it is important to continue reading the play, because most of Shakespeare's characters change along the way. And who knows, in Hamlet's fake path towards madness, he might just take something too seriously, and fall into his own trap.

The End of The End

Finally, the story about the end of the world has come to an end. "Perhaps in the world's destruction it would be possible at last to see how it was made. Oceans, mountains. The ponderous counter-spectacle of things ceasing to be. The sweeping waste, hydroptic and coldly secular. The silence." (274) McCarthy makes it sound beautiful, the way in which everything has stopped being, the moment in which things stop becoming what they once were and the creation process reverses.

I have to say that I found the ending to be extremely sad, and naturally being a girl, I was disappointed to find that there is no hope of everything being perfect and a happily ever after. Even though it was expected that McCarthy wasn't going to fix it all at the end, I always had my hopes up that a random government would come and save all survivors and the man and the boy would live a long, complete life. The sad ending was necessary, though, because the author wanted to make the statement that messing with the Earth has consequences that cannot be reversed.

Anyway, for those who didn't know, at the end the man dies. He doesn't have the guts to take his son with him, so the boy is left alone in the middle of nowhere to mourn the death of his only companion. Luckily, (or not?) a man finds the boy, and asks him to join their "tribe." With nothing left to lose, and the promise of more kids his age, the boy decides to take the risk and trust them as good guys. The boy, as promised, talks to the dead man often and never forgets him. The reader is left hoping that the new guys are also "carrying the fire."

The last lines in McCarty's The Road confused me a little. In the last paragraph, the author wrote "...On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery." (287) I like how the ending is a lot more complex than the rest of the story, showing that the importance is the effect of the story and not the content itself.

It is saying that the world was on its way to becoming something else, starting a new road. It could never be what it was before, but there is still hope for a new world. Also, it mentions "older than man," which means that the world has been alive for a lot longer than humans have been walking in it. Even though humans were responsible for its destruction, only the human part of the world is now gone, and all that is older than humans has survived in the eyes of those who are there to witness it.

Keep Holding On

The future for the man and the boy starts to look a lot blurrier, as they realize just how alone they are and how low their stakes of surviving have become. When they find a flaregun, as this blog says, the boy is first to realize that the flaregun can't help them using its original purpose, because there is no one to ask for help to. They could throw a flare in the air, but there would be no one on the other side to see it and save them. In our current lives, most circumstances of trouble could be solved with a flaregun, or it might at least give the despaired one a little hope of being found. However, in this lonely world the man and the boy live in, signaling other humans will do no good to them.

It is interesting how the boy says that maybe God can see the flare and help them, or one of the good guys. The boy seems to be the most philosophical of them both, and certainly the one with a better heart. When the man decides to leave the poor thief naked in the middle of the road with no food or clothes, the boy is the one who brings reality back to him, and makes him go back to help. It does the thief no good; however, because when they come back in a leap of forgiveness, he is already gone.

The story continues in a very pessimistic way, as both of the main characters have their own moments of sickness. The boy gets really sick of vomit and a fever, while the man tries his best to keep him alive. But gradually, it is him who has to fight the hardest, because his cough doesn't seem to be something momentary. I think it will lead to something bigger, and cause trouble for the family. Anyway, the man had promised to not leave his son alone, so we are left wondering if in the case of his health getting worse, will he kill his son first?

How Did It Come To Be?

We are getting closer to the end of the book, and there’s still no clear explanation of what is going on that can help us understand the background on their situation. We know they live in an apocalyptic world, and the author adds little hints here and there that try to describe their surroundings, but as far as a straightforward explanation, there has been none. I have reached the point of thinking that there won’t be any in the future either, so I guess it is up to the reader to infer what the hell happened before that got them where they are now.

To reach a more educated evaluation, it is useful to take all the hints and put them together, to try to understand the image that McCarthy was trying to give us of their surroundings. I have heard that the apocalypse they are going through is supposedly an environmental apocalypse, so I’ll see how much proof I can find of that. 

The first idea that seems to be repeating itself is that the boy and the man are always out of water, in a constant worry of not finding more. Also, the houses they visit lack gas. When the man was searching the boat for anything that might be of use to them, he “turned on the stove and turned it off again,” when he realized it had no gas left. (226) The way the author wrote it made it seem as if it wasn’t important; as if the man had turned on the stove already expecting it to be empty. It shows that the man had probably done that a lot more times, and he had rarely had enough luck to find a stove with enough gas.

The main road in the story is littered all around, and the man and the boy don’t care about where they throw away their trash. The priorities in their life have been rearranged to include only that directly related to immediate survival, such as food, water, sleep, and clothing. The talk of taking care of the world for the children of tomorrow has been completely forgotten, because the survivors are those children, and tomorrow caught up to them.

Another recurring theme in the description of their surroundings is that everything around them is burned. Even though fire is what is keeping the man and the boy alive, it seems to also be the cause of their despair. When commenting on the death of a man, the boy asked “They were trying to get away weren’t they Papa? Yes. They were. Why didn’t they leave the road? They couldn’t. Everything was on fire.” (191) So we now know that fire was the cause of people’s displacement and consequently, their death. It may have been caused by a massive fire started by the lack of good care for the Earth, and global warming’s response to forest fires. 

Anyway, that is basically all we know, so we might as well classify it as one of those books that try to make us more aware of the consequences that could arise from global warming, and pose different options of what it could look like. So what is the moral of the story? Take care of the environment.