Opinions on Fortinbras as hero of Hamlet?
jgal...@my-dejanews.com
"Fortinbras, not Hamlet, is the hero of Shakespeare's revenge play". Can I
please see some opinions on this matter? Thanks,
Jeremias.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
book...@my-dejanews.com
jgal...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I'm about to start writing a paper on Hamlet. My argumentative thesis is
> "Fortinbras, not Hamlet, is the hero of Shakespeare's revenge play". Can I
> please see some opinions on this matter? Thanks,
>
> Jeremias.
>
tale of battle between princes, at stake the Kingdom of Denmark.
Hamlet's father temporarily defended his principality against the foreign
prince, Fortinbras, but his stronger brother, a Machiavellian intriguer, takes
over, believing any amoral, unprincipaled political act is justified for the
sake of the survival of the principality. On this basis, the fact that the
principality falls from disorder and chaos--the villagers are alarmed at the
goings on--permitting the popular Fortinbras to be victorious in his camplaign
in the end, makes him a nominal hero for restoring strong order, the "health"
of the state.
But I doubt Shakespeare wants us to view Fortinbras as anything more than an
element in the political equation; rather, he want us to see court corruption
and intrigue as a threat to the kingdom that permits real evil to enter. The
particular problem was that a Machiavelle could get close to the king and
influence all on down.
bookburn
"Nor are those empty-hearted whose low sound/
Reverbs no hollowness." KL,I,i,Kent.
Lstuder
suggested exactly the same thing. The entire thing was a conspiracy by
Fortinbras and his secret service. The tone was drily humorous, but the content
was an interpretationworth considering.
LArry (Lstuder @ aol.com)
Symposium1
>I'm about to start writing a paper on Hamlet. My argumentative thesis is
>"Fortinbras, not Hamlet, is the hero of Shakespeare's revenge play". Can I
>please see some opinions on this matter? Thanks,
>
>Jeremias.
Well, you could compare Fortinbras to Richmond, who more clearly comes off as
the hero of Richard III. Fortinbras doesn't kill the head of state, but he
does show up in time to be a possible redeemer of Denmark's ills.
I think Fortinbras is definitely a hero, but of his own story--its relationship
to Hamlet's being only in adjacency, comparison and contrast.
--Ann
"Is it a world to hide virtues in?" (Twelfth Night, I.iii.131)
JereArg
I'm not really considering Shakespeare's viewpoints. I'm analyzing the play
from my own viewpoint, with some help from other people. I don't really think
that Shakespeare knew anything about the Oedipus Complex, but many people
believe that its implications are embedded in the play.
My thesis arises from an analysis of Hamlet, the character. I understand that
this play must have a hero. At the first sight, Hamlet seems to be the hero.
But if you analyze his acts, you realize he does not attain to the
Medieval/Renaissance heroic values. He waits too much to take revenge, and he
actually takes revenge when he knows he has been poisoned and that he is
irreversibly bound to die. Is this what we call a hero? I don't think so. What
about the Closet scene? He hears screams coming from behind the curtains, and
assuming that Claudius is hiding there, he stabs that person repeatedly. Does a
real hero act by what his/her heart, not his mind, dictates? Hamlet spends
almost the whole play hesitating to kill Claudius, and the one time when he
should take one moment to think, he does not and acts irrationally.
On the other hand, young Fortinbras, who is also seeking revenge, achieves what
he proposed himself to do. The character is always rising in the play, getting
to the higher place at the end, when he becomes King of Denmark. I could say
that Hamlet the play is two revenge stories in one: Hamlet's revenge and
Fortinbras' revenge.
Jeremias Galletti
jgal...@my-dejanews.com
Julia
>I'm about to start writing a paper on Hamlet. My argumentative thesis is
>"Fortinbras, not Hamlet, is the hero of Shakespeare's revenge play". Can I
>please see some opinions on this matter? Thanks,
>
>Jeremias.
>
your idea of a hero is. Where do you place Hamlet? IMO Fortinbras is
merely 'Deus ex Machina'.
--
Julia
volker multhopp
> My thesis arises from an analysis of Hamlet, the character. I understand that
> this play must have a hero.
Why "must" the play have a hero? Whose requirement is that? Can there
be more than one?
> On the other hand, young Fortinbras, who is also seeking revenge, achieves what
> he proposed himself to do.
For me Fortinbras is an "alter hero". When Hamlet dies, I feel the
author's spirit (No, I'm being evocative, not parapsychological) leaves
Hamlet and enters Fortinbras. For me the msg of the play is that the
world is too corrupt, the true hero struggles against the corruption but
is overwhelmed; however, things have been set more aright, and the next
hero can struggle onward.
--Volker
Deborah G. Buckner
>>"Fortinbras, not Hamlet, is the hero of Shakespeare's revenge play". Can I
>>please see some opinions on this matter? Thanks,
>>
>>Jeremias.
I think this is an intriguing idea. I have been a bit puzzled by
Fortinbras. In one sense, he is very like Hamlet, taking on the mission of
avenging his father's death. Unlike Hamlet, there is no debate about
it--Fortinbras makes his plan and charges forward, even against the wishes
of his uncle.
But, if we believe the gravedigger, Old Hamlet killed Old Fortinbras thirty
years ago. Young Fortinbras (just how young is he, anyway?) can't have much
memory of his father. But assuming he was an infant when his father died in
battle, he is now a little over thirty. Where has he been all these years?
What was the reason for his delay in avenging his father's death? The
entire Fortinbras plot line suggests that the battle was a more recent
event--hence the tension around the court and Claudius' cutting response to
Young Fortinbras' demands. Yet, the gravedigger's story muddles all of
this. Any thoughts?
Deborah
Gary K. Allen
> But I doubt Shakespeare wants us to view Fortinbras as anything more than an
> element in the political equation; rather, he want us to see court corruption
> and intrigue as a threat to the kingdom that permits real evil to enter.
The accession of Fortinbras at the end of _Hamlet_ is comparable to that of Albany
at the end of _Lear_ and Octavius at the end of _Julius Caesar_: He is the
highest-ranking, non-corrupt survivor. I think this is a continuation of
Shakespeare's analysis of rightful kingship in the English history plays.
Gary
Anthony Bernardo
don't get enough attention, so I'm glad he's getting some now. But I
have difficulty seeing him as the tragic hero, since he seems to be
ascending throughout the play. Shakespeare doesn' t give us Fortinbras's
thoughts, his doubts, his wrestling with painful truths and moral
ambiguities, but he does give that to Hamlet.
My 2 cents
Symposium1
In article <73h6gj$7u6$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Deborah G. Buckner"
<sb...@sprintmail.com> writes:
>But, if we believe the gravedigger, Old Hamlet killed Old Fortinbras thirty
>years ago. Young Fortinbras (just how young is he, anyway?) can't have much
>memory of his father. But assuming he was an infant when his father died in
>battle, he is now a little over thirty. Where has he been all these years?
>What was the reason for his delay in avenging his father's death?
Might take a bit of a career in the military, even as a son and nephew of a
king, to work one's way up to leading an army on the Poles and Danes. Let's
say for the sake of argument that "Norway", the uncle, isn't much of a
capitalist. Maybe he likes a good party like Claudius and has either let his
borders shrink or has been content not to enlarge his kingdom. Young Fort
still has to matriculate to power as he's not the king; maybe Norway kept him
busy in, say, France, in his youth.
So Young Fort makes his move at thirty -- or thirty-five. Had he been king or
dauphin, that might be a bit of a slacker. But maybe the slack's on Norway's
part.
>The
>entire Fortinbras plot line suggests that the battle was a more recent
>event--hence the tension around the court and Claudius' cutting response to
>Young Fortinbras' demands. Yet, the gravedigger's story muddles all of
>this. Any thoughts?
At the T&C reading, somebody laughed at the thought of Helen being much of a
babe after thirty years of fighting over her. Shaks. wasn't notoriously
accurate about the passage of time, either in real history or within the works.
Interesting thoughts. As often as I've looked at Fortinbras, I never really
thought about what he was doing in those thirty years. It's a good question.
I also like Volker's term "alter-hero."
JereArg
That is the kind of evidence I was looking for. Thanks. I guess I'll have to
read both King Lear and Julius Caesar now ... :-(
Jeremias
JereArg
I don't see Fortinbras as the tragic hero, I see him as the hero. He is always
ascending morally, and he doesn't have a downfall. I think Hamlet is the tragic
hero of the play. I might have not expressed myself properly in my previous
postings, but this is what I actually think.
Jeremias.
JereArg
JereArg
>If you think Fortinbras is the hero of "Hamlet', I'd like to know what
>your idea of a hero is. Where do you place Hamlet? IMO Fortinbras is
>merely 'Deus ex Machina'.
>--
>Julia
In my English class, I heard Aristotle's concept of a 'tragic hero', the
character with the 'tragic flaw'. The subject was just mentioned, so I looked
for detailed information on my own. I got to Aristotle's Poetics, where he
describes many aspects of a Tragedy. But the concept of 'tragic flaw' doesn't
appear in that work, and neither does the definition of a hero. Do you know
which philosopher described such concepts? If it was Aristotle, in which of his
works can I find them?
I think of Hamlet as the 'tragic hero', the one with the 'tragic flaw'. I can
go one step further and say that Hamlet's 'tragic flaw' is his indecision.
Someone could argue that his delay is due to his strong sense of morality, but
that issue is out of the scope of this discussion. I think of Fortinbras as the
hero of the play. I'm also working with Macbeth in class, and although we
haven't finished it, I know that at the end Malcolm kills Macbeth and he
becomes King of Scotland. Well, I think of Hamlet as Macbeth, and of Fortinbras
as Malcolm, the characters that restore order in the kingdom.
I really don't know whether a play must have a hero, and I also don't have a
definition of a hero. I would say that 'hero' is one of those concepts that you
live with and that you actually can't define properly. I cannot think of any
story or play without a hero, and that is reason why I say that every play must
have a hero. I need some references to back up my opinions. I was hoping to
find them in Aristotle's Poetics, but I didn't. Any suggestions?
By the way, I saw 'Deus ex Machina' in Aristotle's Poetics. What does it mean?
From the words, I can guess God used as a machine, as an element of the play?
Jeremias.
JCMandel
that in many, many modern productions, Hamlet ends with Horatio's "goodnight
sweet prince..." and Fortinbras is completely excised. Isn't that amazing???
Robert Stonehouse
...
>In my English class, I heard Aristotle's concept of a 'tragic hero', the
>character with the 'tragic flaw'. The subject was just mentioned, so I looked
>for detailed information on my own. I got to Aristotle's Poetics, where he
>describes many aspects of a Tragedy. But the concept of 'tragic flaw' doesn't
>appear in that work, and neither does the definition of a hero. Do you know
>which philosopher described such concepts? If it was Aristotle, in which of his
>works can I find them?
the seeds of them are there, though it has taken much
misunderstanding and distortion to produce the later growth. See
chapter 13, where Aristotle is discussing what kind of person a
tragedy should be about; not a saint, he says, and not a villain
either.1453a 7 and following, in Bywater's translation but
bracketing two words that are not in the Greek:
'There remains, then, the intermediate kind of personage, a man not
pre-eminently virtuous and just, whose misfortune, however, is
brought upon him not by vice and depravity but by some error (of
judgment), of the number of those in the enjoyment of great
reputation and prosperity: e.g. Oedipus, Thyestes, and the men of
nore of similar families.'
I repeat that Aristotle says 'error', not 'error of judgment'.
>I think of Hamlet as the 'tragic hero', the one with the 'tragic flaw'. I can
>go one step further and say that Hamlet's 'tragic flaw' is his indecision.
>Someone could argue that his delay is due to his strong sense of morality, but
>that issue is out of the scope of this discussion. I think of Fortinbras as the
>hero of the play. I'm also working with Macbeth in class, and although we
>haven't finished it, I know that at the end Malcolm kills Macbeth and he
>becomes King of Scotland. Well, I think of Hamlet as Macbeth, and of Fortinbras
>as Malcolm, the characters that restore order in the kingdom.
>
>I really don't know whether a play must have a hero, and I also don't have a
>definition of a hero. I would say that 'hero' is one of those concepts that you
>live with and that you actually can't define properly. I cannot think of any
>story or play without a hero, and that is reason why I say that every play must
>have a hero. I need some references to back up my opinions. I was hoping to
>find them in Aristotle's Poetics, but I didn't. Any suggestions?
See A.C. Bradley, Shakespearian Tragedy, first published about 1905
but many times reprinted. Lecture 1, 'The Substance of Shakespearian
Tragedy', section 3, beginning 'Let us now turn from the 'action' to
the central figure in it', will do what you want.
>By the way, I saw 'Deus ex Machina' in Aristotle's Poetics. What does it mean?
>From the words, I can guess God used as a machine, as an element of the play?
One of the bits of stage machinery the Greeks had was the crane
('geranos', the same name as the bird, from which our word 'crane'
in both senses evidently comes). It was used to bring on any
character who had to appear in the air or from the air, and those
were mostly divine characters. The crane was also called more
vaguely 'mechane' or apparatus, and the Romans called it 'machina'
which was their form of the same word.
Aristotle (1454b) did not like having magic or divine intervention
as a part of the plot; he thought it reduced credibility. The
expression 'god from the machine' is now used for the case where the
plot has got totally knotted and the author brings a god in to cut
the knot and sort things out. That is not exactly what Aristotle
meant, though not far from it.
Some Greek plays end in ways that look very much like 'deus ex
machina'. But there are a couple of cases in Euripides where the
author has had to twist the plot on purpose so that he can bring the
god in - maybe the audience liked it.
I think a case could be made for saying that Aristotle looks on
plays too much as poems. He tends to look down on the elements that
only come over in performance, perhaps because performances were far
less common than now.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Caius Marcius
Stonehouse) writes:
>
>jer...@aol.com (JereArg) wrote:
>...
>>By the way, I saw 'Deus ex Machina' in Aristotle's Poetics. What does
it mean?
>>From the words, I can guess God used as a machine, as an element of
the play?
>
>One of the bits of stage machinery the Greeks had was the crane
>('geranos', the same name as the bird, from which our word 'crane'
>in both senses evidently comes). It was used to bring on any
>character who had to appear in the air or from the air, and those
>were mostly divine characters. The crane was also called more
>vaguely 'mechane' or apparatus, and the Romans called it 'machina'
>which was their form of the same word.
>
>
>machina'. But there are a couple of cases in Euripides where the
>author has had to twist the plot on purpose so that he can bring the
>god in - maybe the audience liked it.
In some of Euripides' play - most notably Orestes - the playwright
seems to use the Deus ex Machina (DXM) in a thoroughly cynical manner -
rather like the Charles Durning angel in the Coen Bros' movie The
Hudsucker Proxy from a few years back.
I think Euripides was often mocking the audience and the current
theatrical conventions in using the DXM.
- CMC
Robert Stonehouse
>In <365e5888...@news.cityscape.co.uk> ew...@bcs.org.uk (Robert
>Stonehouse) writes:
>>Some Greek plays end in ways that look very much like 'deus ex
>>machina'. But there are a couple of cases in Euripides where the
>>author has had to twist the plot on purpose so that he can bring the
>>god in - maybe the audience liked it.
>
>In some of Euripides' play - most notably Orestes - the playwright
>seems to use the Deus ex Machina (DXM) in a thoroughly cynical manner -
>rather like the Charles Durning angel in the Coen Bros' movie The
>Hudsucker Proxy from a few years back.
>
>I think Euripides was often mocking the audience and the current
>theatrical conventions in using the DXM.
I had in mind the Helen and the Iphigenia in Tauris. In both cases
it would be easier, if anything, to leave the divine epiphany out.
I don't see Euripides as mocking the audience - as the Bernard Shaw
of the 5th c. BC - though sometimes he seems to us less than
respectful to the gods and heroes. That would be something he shared
with the audience, rather. The story of Menelaus in Egypt as he
tells it in the Helen does not show Menelaus in a very heroic light,
but neither does the same story as told in the Odyssey.
ew...@bcs.org.uk