Hamlet's Grief - Parents Just Don't Understand

O' Rourke cites grief as the main driver behind Hamlet's unusual and irrational behavior, and she does so very convincingly. She defines the byproducts of grief, including ennui, and also discusses how a negative environment can stall any sense of mourning, allowing it to take a deeper root within Hamlet's conscience. Where I disagree with O' Rourke is how she uses her own personal experiences as if they mirrored those of Hamlet's. Despite the common denominator of familial loss, nobody in the world today can relate to the conditions in which Hamlet lived. That is why it is so dangerous to assume a proper psychoanalysis of his character can be made, for it simply cannot be done. For me, Hamlet's behavior is not brought about by unaddressed grief, but rather that he wishes to maintain his role as a powerless figurehead, but still live a life where he is the center of attention.

When King Hamlet died, and the question of inheritance was up in the air, several powerful nobles, such as Claudius, stepped in to acquire the inherited power. In the early stages of the play, it appears that Hamlet is disenfranchised by the fact that he did not inherit power from his father, as he is the most direct descendent after all. It isn't long after that we understand that Hamlet is more obsessed with his father's absence than his own life (cue the red flags). This is because Hamlet has always been seduced by power, but is deathly afraid of having it. And I would be too if I lived in an environment where aristocrats play puppet master until they get what they want. The problem for Hamlet is that he still has to keep the charade of desiring power going, therefore he makes everyone know how infuriated he is about his father's passing. King Hamlet was the definition of power before he died, so if Hamlet associates himself with that stigma, people are bound to notice him. O' Rourkes' explanation of Hamlet's madness as a way of making sense of a world where logic doesn't exist isn't quite accurate. Instead, Hamlet acts "crazy" to protect himself from the worst case scenario; receiving power. "Oh darn, Claudius got kidnapped by Fortinbras, who's next up in line for the throne? Let's see...uh-oh, it's Hamlet. That won't work at all, that guy is freaking crazy". Also, as a result of his craziness, Hamlet does isolate himself in a unique environment, but it's nothing at all like ennui. The world Hamlet lives in is a constant battle to stay detached from society and convince himself that what he's doing is acceptable, fulfilling the desire of his life to be entirely about himself. Really, Hamlet doesn't suffer from greif. He lives life as a quasi-narcissist who is afraid to assume responsibility and power that he never had to deal with in the first place.

Being honest, Hamlet to me was this little kid who hadn't the slightest clue what hit him. I've always imagined it to be some sort of Disney level film much like the Lion King. To me, he wasn't older than 18 and just naive. Though he was a prince, he was sheltered, as many times children of rich and powerful people are. And though he understood the concept of death, he had never experienced to anyone close hand.

Being a naive child whose world had been shattered, Hamlet's grief could do nothing but spur on uncontrollable rage and anger. A teenager is known to have rash thoughts and poor decisions whilst being mired in a state of confusion and uncertainty. We can see that Hamlet possesses these characteristics. And another reason to believe that Hamlet is but a teenager is that he is not yet married. And in the medieval times, even royals were close to the marrying age at about their twenty's. While this is not clear indication that he is indeed but a youngster, it does lend to the idea that he is not very old, however.

To someone who is young, grief is not an easy thing to deal with. Especially not with a healthy support group. His dad died, mother married his uncle and all he has left are his friends to help him through. But instead of counseling his grief, they only enable and allow his sadness to grow and grow. In the end, the depression that comes from grief is too much for young Hamlet and he does the irrational.

However, it doesn't really seem like grief. According o the Kubler-Ross theory, (the five stages of grief) First comes denial, then bargaining, anger, depression and finally acceptance. It seems that we skipped the story of the first three stages and come across depression. It is evident in the wedding scene when he says "I am too much in the Sun," dressed in all black. But his actions seem to indicate that he is going back to anger and denial when he tries to channel his anger into vengeance against his uncle. In any case, grief for Hamlet was too much to bear

O'Rourke writes that Hamlet’s actions were caused by grief. I didn’t read Hamlet’s character this way. I felt that Hamlet’s actions were caused by a lack of stability in his family and a drastic change in his family structure. Overall, though, I don’t feel like it really matters what caused Hamlet’s actions. Hamlet, at the end of the day, is still committing the actions he commits and the cause of his actions don’t affect the plot or other characters. For example, Gertrude doesn’t stop and think about Hamlet’s grief when he kills Polonius, she simply reacts to his actions no matter their cause.

O'Rourke's piece is thought provoking, but as Shannon brought up, whether or not another reader of a text's opinion should have more weight than your own interpretation is interesting. What struck me about the commentator's opinions was that she was so quick to point to the simplest explanation within the context of her own life, which of course is understandable within a literary response-like criticism. But, I am also struck with the pretension it would take to tell another person that their interpretation of a piece of art is invaluable because it is not personally persuasive. I can see both sides, and I am, to be perfectly honest, stuck between a feeling a sympathy for the woman who lost her loved one and disgust with the critic who thinks less than critically because she quickly and irrationally isolated a simple answer without even acknowledging the TEXTUAL evidence that is present for the other side. Essentially, convince me I'm wrong before asserting your reality as the undeniable truth. O'Rourke's theory of Hamlet's grief as the sole source of his demeanor is an interesting theory when thought of in conjunction with others, but I simply believe it is foolish to ignore facts of an issue because they are too complex for you to shoot down. I think O'Rourke's article would have benefited from complication and nuance, because often times in the life and times of real humans depression and grief ARE complicated, entangled, and self-reciprocating issues. I guess I needed her to acknowledge some kind of relationship, some kind of glance at a "maybe".

O'Rourke's article is incredible. Her sharp self-awareness of her own grief helps her construct a beautiful commentary of Hamlet's grief. CS Lewis' "A Grief Observed" demonstrates this grieving self-awareness as well, on an exponentially brilliant level. This whole article touched my heart, as I have definitely been impacted by the loss of some loved ones in my life over the past year. It's been an interesting journey for me in English class this year while having conversations about the notion of death, because oftentimes, this concept has been very fresh in my own mind. There have been so many times where I've wanted to add some unorganized, raw thoughts to our conversations about death, but a combination of being on the verge of tears and being uncertain of the own thoughts running through my head has held me back. But what I do know for certain is that grief takes a toll on a person like we can't imagine unless we have been though it. I'd even confidently posit that we can never fully understand another person's grief because of the concept of individual relationships. While Hamlet and his mom both grieved over the loss of the same person, Hamlet's grieving experience was entirely different than his mother's because of the relationship that Hamlet shared with his dad. The loss of the same person seems to have triggered two entirely different grief-stricken behavioral paths for Hamlet and his mom. From a biographical critic stand point, I firmly believe that Shakespeare's loss of his own son prior to writing this novel enables him to create Hamlet's "dramatized grief" that O'Rourke describes,

I am deeply grateful for writers like O'Rourke, Shakespeare and Lewis who are so acutely aware of their own feelings that they can take language and make it into a coping mechanism not only for themselves, but for others as well.