Hamlets Characterisation Essay Example for Free

Hamlets Characterisation Essay The aspect of Shakespeare’s Hamlet that is most interesting to me is the playwright’s intimate depiction of Hamlet’s daily struggle againt the world. Through soliloquies and characterisation, we see that Hamlet’s world is a cold, political one, unreceptive to his grief, and this fundamental incompatibility is ultimately what creates and drives the play’s great drama behind his struggle, his murderous plot, uncertainty, and finally his thoughtful, accepting resolve at the end of the play. Early in the play we see this great incompatibility between Hamlet and his society emerging, as he, stricken with grief, is surrounded by cold political plotters. Shakespeare revels in his use of irony, as Claudius utters the oxymoron â€Å"lawful espials†, and Polonius, evangelising that â€Å"this above all else: to thine own self be true†, endeavours with â€Å"this bait of falsehood† to â€Å"by indirections find directions out† and thus â€Å"take this carp of truth†. Hamlet continues this tradition of fish-related metaphors in accusing Polonius of being a â€Å"fishmonger†, a claim which reflects his own struggle to comprehend how cold and contriving his society is. Hamlet even wonders how â€Å"a beast that wants discourse of reason would have mourned longer† than his mother, Gertrude, the â€Å"pernicious woman† whose â€Å"salt of most unrighteous tears† falls from merely â€Å"galled eyes†. That she could be â€Å"like Niobe† is a twisted classical allusion which adds to the sentiment of tension which Hamlet feels against his society, which, in the disillusioned wake of his grief, he has found is superficial and immoral, especially as â€Å"one may smile, and smile, and be a villain†, while â€Å"virtue itself of vice must beg† and â€Å"rank corruption†¦mining within†¦infects unseen†. Thus this great tension forms an integral part of the early part of the play and drives the drama which underlies Hamlet’s characterisation, and his struggle to find where he belongs in this morally void society. Hamlet’s soililoquy at the end of Act II reveals how this tension has acted upon his soul. He questions his own sanity, asking if it is, in fact, the â€Å"pleasing shape† of the devil, which â€Å"abuses me to damn me†. This particular tension between Hamlet and his world is what reveals several important character elements in Hamlet. That the Player could invoke such passion in such a superficial â€Å"fiction†, and â€Å"for Hecuba† at that, while Hamlet sits statically racked with indecision, is reflective of the superficiality which frustrates him and drives him to see imself as a â€Å"dull and muddy-mettled rascal†. It drives him inwards to consider what kind of person he is, and how best to resolve the tension which has evolved as a result of his society’s immorality. Yet as the soliloquy changes tone dramatically, and marked by Hamlet’s cry of â€Å"Oh, vengeance! †, the apostrophic appeal to Nemesis herself reve als an early attempt to break free from these chains of indecision and uncertainty set upon him due to his struggle. Thus the tension between him and his immoral peers is what ultimately produces this first change of heart, from â€Å"pigeon-livered† to the successful invocation of the mythical figure, the â€Å"rugged Pyrrhus†, out to â€Å"drink hot blood†, whom he struggled to portray and rehearse earlier in the scene. That the tension is so central to this first episode of self-realisation, and subsequent ascents to personal conviction, reflects how truly crucial his struggle and journey towards self-understanding is to Hamlet’s textual integrity. Hamlet’s obsession with death, beginning with the Act III soliloquy not long after, is another seeming affliction brought on by this grievous tension with the world around our hero. That the world could so easily forget a human life, and that this life was that of a king, brings on a deep sense of aporia for the young prince, as he struggles to reconcile the significance of life with the great ease with which it is forgotten when lost. His turn to â€Å"what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil† forms part of the plaintive introspection revealed by this soliloquy as he searches for truth, away from the â€Å"pangs of disprized love† for which he was informed that â€Å"to persever in obstinate condolement is†¦unmanly grief†. His obsession with death throughout the play and in this soliloquy is hence marked as a decided escape from the constant tension with his society and its many unknowable uncertainties, as portrayed by a play whose opening line is â€Å"who’s there! †. Death plays the role of the only certain, pure truth, as symbolised by the memento mori of Act V, the skull held in Hamlet’s hand which in all its graspable physicality and feeble perishability becomes a source of finality, and certainty for the young prince. His tension with society is characterised by great inaction and uncertain angst, but in death, all souls return to absolute dust. Whether they bear the â€Å"pate of a politician† or the â€Å"skull of a lawyer† is insignificant in this regard, for â€Å"e’en so†, even the great Alexander â€Å"looked o’ this fashion i’th’earth†. He finds great solace in the promise of this finality away from the contrarious moods of his â€Å"comrades†. This characterises the self-reckoning which ultimately leads him to his final resolvel and faith by which he stands ready to once more face his society and his fate, whatever it may be. With this sentiment he remarks â€Å"there is Providence in the fall of a sparrow†¦let be†. Lastly, Hamlet and Ophelia’s relationship with the world reveal analogous tensions which manifest in different ways and provide interesting insights into the dramatic consequences of this tension. Ophelia and Hamlet’s relationship is torn apart by Polonius’ meddling. Hamlet’s proclamation that â€Å"frailty, thy name is woman! † foreshadows the way that we soon see Ophelia being influenced to a great extent by her filial, obedient devotion to Polonius, so much so that, struggling to reconcile her personal integrity and her duty to her family, she descends into her own madness, â€Å"divided from herself and her fair judgment, without the which we are pictures, or mere beasts†. Polonius, the â€Å"fishmonger†, tells her that her love is that of â€Å"a green girl†, and her submission to such worldly expectations is what begets her destruction. Yet even in her insanity she finds a resolve which, though markedly more frenzied, mirrors Hamlet’s own. Her flowers are each symbols of denouncement of the court’s treacherous figures, whose â€Å"rue with a difference† Ophelia insists they must acknowledge for their most distressing actions. There is thus a great tension which arises out of the persistent degradation of the lovers’ relationship, and their final destruction at the hands of Laertes for Hamlet, and in the river for Ophelia. These elements are undeniably integral elements of the play which drive its enduring drama and converge to form a crucial part of Hamlet’s textual integrity. Thus we can see that the tension of the world, manipulative, cold and immoral, as it acts on the fundamentally honest, if perhaps naive prince, is the source of the great drama which underpins Hamlet’s struggle through the play to pit his own psyche against that of his peers. This tension time and time again proves to be central to a true consideration and understanding of Hamlet’s episodes of character evolution which sees him descend into the murky depths of his world’s uncertainty. It is only with the realisation and grasping of truth, whether he finds this in the finality of death or the power of fate, that Hamlet ascends once more to the safe anchorage of sanity and resolve, and finds the courage and conviction needed to face his society once more, and finally his death.

Hamlet Essay -- ESSAYS

Hamlet Each major character of Shakespeare’s Hamlet has a major flaw, which destroys him or her. The King, Queen, Hamlet, Ophelia, and Polonius all have these flaws but Horatio does not. He is Shakespeare’s ideal man. Claudius’ fatal flaw is ambitiousness. Claudius kills his brother King Hamlet and then takes the throne by marrying King Hamlet’s wife: â€Å"Therefore our sometime sister, now our queen†¦have we (as ‘twere with a defeated joy, with an auspicious and a dropping eye, with mirth in funeral and with dirge in marriage, in equal scale weighing delight and dole) taken to wife†(I.ii.10-14). Claudius admits to killing the King in a confessional prayer: â€Å"O, my offense is rank, it smells to heaven; it hath the primal eldest curse upon’t, a brother’s murder†¦O, what form of prayer can serve my turn? ‘Forgive me my foul murder? That cannot be, since I am still possessed of those effects for which I did the murder: My crown, mine own ambition, and my queen. May one be pardoned and retain th’ offense?’ †(III.iii.40-43, 55-60). Another ambition of Claudius is he wants to have Hamlet murdered in England: â€Å"I like him not, nor stands it safe with us to let his madness range. Therefore prepare you. I your commission will forthwith dispatch. And he to England shall along with you†¦hazard so near ‘s as doth hourly grow out of his brows† (III.iii.1-7). The fate of the King is fatal. His deceitfulness kills him when he challenges Laertes and Hamlet to duel, he poisons the tip of Laertes sword and in a cup of wine he puts a poisonous pearl: Hamlet: The point envenomed too! Then, venom, to thy work. King: O, yet defend me, friends! I am but hurt. Hamlet: Here, thou incestuous, *murd’rous,* damnà ©d Dane, d... ...s some danger (III.iv.26-30, 38-40). Shakespeare’s ideal person is Horatio. In the beginning of the play, Horatio, when he sees the ghost decides to tell Hamlet: â€Å"So have I heard and do in part believe it†¦Break we our watch up, and by my advice let us impart what we have seen tonight unto young Hamlet†¦Ã¢â‚¬ (I.i.180-185). Horatio is ruled by reason and Hamlet recognizes and comments on this: â€Å"Give me that man that is not passion’s slave, and I will wear him in my heart’s core, ay, in my heart of heart, as I do thee†(III.ii.76-79).. Horatio does not have a fatal flaw and does not die. Shakespeare gives his main characters flaws that destroy their lives. The King, Queen, Hamlet, Ophelia, and Polonius all have flaws and die in the end, but Horatio, Shakespeare’s ideal character, does not have a fatal flaw and lives. Bibliography: Hamlet, William Shakespeare

Assess the Usefulness of Functionalism for an Understanding of the Family

Assess the usefulness of functionalism for an understanding of the family. Functionalism is a structural theory in that it believes that the social structure of society (social institutions such as economy, education, media, law, religion and family) is responsible for shaping us as individuals. Functionalists are interested in how the family functions for the greater good or society and in particular, how it contributes to maintenance of social order. Functionalist's view of families and households is mainly a positive view. In this essay, I will assess the understanding of families and households through a functionalist view.All over the world family life is differs by huge variation and diversity. But in the UK and according to functionalists who take the more traditional view of family believe it should be a small group of people living together, including the mother father and usually two or three children and are biologically related. The children should be the product of roman tic love. A famous sociologist George Peter Murdock (1949) defines the family as: â€Å"A social group characterised by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction.It should consist of adults of both sexes with at least two who maintain a socially approved relationship, which has created one or more children of their own. Therefore Murdock’s definition is based on the nuclear family – a stereotypical two-generation family made up of a heterosexual couple with dependent offspring. This definition was popular with functionalist sociologists who suggested that this is the ideal type of family which people should aim to have. Murdock’s four key functions are: Stabilisation/regulation of the sex drive (sexual) Reproduction of the next generation (reproductive)Socialisation of the young (educational) Meeting its members’ economic needs, providing food shelter etc (economic) Sociologists criticise Murdocks approach on the family saying it’s t o ‘rose-tinted’, which means it’s all a bit pretty and wonderful and he ignores conflict that happens in the family. Feminists believe women are oppressed in the family and Marxists argue the family meeting the needs of capitalism, not the members and society as a whole. Parsons, there is a clear division of labour. According to his studies, the husbands has an â€Å"instrumental role†, he is armed for success at work so that he can provide for his family.Wives on the other hand have an â€Å"expressive role† where they are expected to emotionally support their husbands and children. The male role is economic breadwinner and head of household, whereas the female role is nurturing and childcare. Lastly, the family members receive nurturing and un-conditional love and care from the mother. This nuclear family type, as mentioned above, is seen as the ideal. We see this in wider parts of society such as the media who portray this in such things as adver tisements, where there will be a family with a mother who is preparing the food, the male getting ready for work and two or three children.This is known as the ‘cereal packet family’. Functionalist see the family as a primary agent of socialisation, it teaches its members its culture by sharing common norms and values. So functionalist believes the family is crucial to order and created consensus. Another Functionalist, Talcott Parsons (1965) believes the family is a ‘personality factory’ who produces children with shared norms and values and has a strong sense of belonging to society.Another key point functionalists believe the family is crucial for is controlling society daily for example with marriage it keeps sexual relationships under control and monogamous. This is seen as socially acceptable when kept in a heterosexual marriage, so it stops chaos and disorder from unregulated sexual relationships. Parsons argues that a function of the family is that of a stress reliever for the male after a hard day of working, this is known as the ‘warm bath theory’ as all the hardships of modern working life is forgotten.Therefore functionalist sees the family as both beneficial for society and for the individual. But other sociologists such as feminists would argue this, as they believe the family is only serving the needs of men and oppresses women. According to Fran Ansley women are ‘takers of shit’ â€Å"When wives play their traditional role as takers of shit, they often absorb their husbands’ legitimate anger and frustration at their own powerlessness. † This would counter the warm bath theory and suggest males take their anger out on women, rather than see the family as a stress relief from their jobs.This could explain domestic violence. Parsons (1955) the family can perform many functions. The functions that it performs will depend on the needs of society. This is known as the ‘functional fit’ theory. Pre-industrial society = extended family (three generations living under one roof) Industrial society = nuclear family (just parents and dependent children). As society changed, the ‘type’ of family that was required to help society function changed.Industrial society has two essential needs which require a nuclear family to work: A geographically mobile workforce and a socially mobile workforce. Loss of functions ,Parsons also argues that the family in modern society has lost many of its functions as it has become a unit of consumption only (rather than also being a unit of production) This means that in modern society the nuclear family has just two essential or ‘irreducible’ functions: Primary socialisation of children Stabilisation of adult personalities.Sociologists such as Young and Willmott (1973) ; Laslett (1972) argue that the pre-industrial family was nuclear, which defeats all points made by Parsons and why a lot of people do n’t believe his argument is very reliable. To conclude I believe that the usefulness of functionalism for understanding the family has become dated, every key point they make can be argued or disproved with actual statistics and fact. I believe it would have been more credible in the mid-1900s where gender roles where a lot more evident and accepted.Also they take the nuclear family as the norm, ideal and most apparent family type in modern society which Is false, and Michael Andersons (1980) research proves Parsons functional fit theory wrong, as the extended family was the structure best equipped to meet the needs of early industrial society, due to the benefits such as older kin looing after children whilst parents worked. Therefore I don’t believe functionalism is very useful to get an overall understanding of every aspect of the family.

Role Of The Supreme Court - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 1 Words: 334 Downloads: 8 Date added: 2019/08/08 Category Law Essay Level High school Tags: Supreme Court Cases Essay Did you like this example? The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That is an expert from the United States Constitution, specifically the tenth amendment, pertaining to States powers. One of those powers was the right to decide the qualifications a person must meet in order to be able to vote in a particular state. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Role Of The Supreme Court" essay for you Create order In the history of America, there are numerous instances where the qualifications the States set in place were lawful or not, whether they are Constitutional or not, and that is decided by the highest court in America; the Supreme Court.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   One Supreme Court case pertaining to voter qualifications was Gomillion V. Lightfoot (1960). The petitioner was Gomillion, the responder was Lightfoot and the court was held at the Alabama General Assembly. The case was sparked when Alabama State legislature re-drew the electoral boundaries of Tuskegee. They turned the district from a square shape to a figure with twenty-eight different sides. The purpose of this was to exclude essentially all African American citizens from the city limits of Tuskegee and place them in a new district where no whites lived. By doing this these people were no longer allowed to vote in local elections. When brought to the Supreme Court the question that was asked was: did the redrawing of Tuskegees electoral district boundaries violate the Fifteenth Amendment? The case was argued for one day between October 18th through 19th and a decision was made on November 14, 1960. The ruling was unanimous throughout all of the Supreme Court Justices in favor of Gomillion. States are insulated from judicial review when they exercise power wholly within the domain of state interest. However, in this case, Alabamas representatives were unable to identify any countervailing municipal function the act was designed to serve. The court came to the conclusion that the only reason for drawing district lines in such a way as to deprive black people of political power.