Bell, Millicent. Hamlet, Revenge!
Hudson Review 51 (1998): 310-28.
GENRE / METADRAMA / NEW HISTORICISM
This article perceives Hamlet as contemporary and as belonging
to that latest Renaissance moment which Shakespeare shares with
Montaigne. Yet it deliberately frames its modernity within an archaic
kind of story (311). The stock characteristics of the revenge
drama genre receive modernist twists, as if Shakespeare struggles to
evade tradition and audience expectations (314). For example,
the traditional Revengers feigning of madness should divert suspicions,
but Hamlets use of a mask draws attention and raises questions
of appearance versus reality; Hamlets elements of the
metadrama and the mystery play also contribute to such questions, challenging
the distinctions between theater/reality and actor/audience. Another
conundrum presented in the play is the problem of self-conception. Hamlet
appears so pliable in nature, through appearances and contradictions,
that he seems the dramatic embodiment of Montaignes Essays,
which denied the stabilityor even realityof personal
essence (319). He also seems tortured by the Shakespearean periods
anxiety over the new man who challenged prescribed form
(320). But Hamlet must come to terms with the conflict between thought
and action; he must accept his primary role of Revenger, just as Shakespeare
must concede to the audiences expectations (327).
[ top ]
Partee, Morriss Henry. Hamlet and
the Persistence of Comedy. Hamlet Studies 14 (1992): 9-18.
GENRE / HAMLET
This article views Hamlet as a profound comic figure developing
within an intensely tragic context (9). Hamlet initially appears
to be the young lover and student, without volition, responsibility,
nor self-awareness; he alternates between the extremes of depression
and merriment, while remaining subordinate to authority (e.g., Claudius).
But he gradually sheds these trappings of comic detachment
(13) and begins to acquire the traditional characteristics of a tragic
figure (e.g., personal guilt, moral responsibility). Hamlets shift
parallels the state of Denmark, which originally seems stable but is
slowly revealed as corrupt. Hamlets transformation is complete
in the final moments of his life, when political concerns receive his
focused attention and mature handling. Interestingly, Fortinbras
convenient claiming of the throne represents a distinct return
to the domestic tranquility of comedy (16). Ultimately, Hamlets
complexity stems from the interacting modes of comedy and tragedy
(16).
[ top ]

Raffel, Burton. “Hamlet and the
Tradition of the Novel.” Explorations in Renaissance Culture
22
(1996): 31-50.
GENRE
This article contends that “there surely is something about
Hamlet that simply does not get onto the stage, is never performed,
and perhaps cannot be” (33-34). The play appears as “a theatrical
entity that bears striking resemblances to much of what would be finding
its way into the English novel in another century or so” (35).
While Renaissance drama, unlike the novel, generally does not consist
of three-dimensional characters nor of character-based plots, Shakespeare
seems to be striving for both in Hamlet—and against the
limitations of his medium/period. His “exploration of interior
depths, which the novel offers,” succeeds in providing “more
questions to think about than we can answer” (41). For example,
why does Hamlet delay? Does he love Ophelia? Is he truly mad or merely
feigning? Perhaps Shakespeare could not even answer all of these questions,
but “on some level he was seeking answers” (40). Hamlet’s
“unresolvable issues, and their unresolvability is intrinsic to
the artistic situation in which . . . Shakespeare increasingly found
himself” (47).
[ top ]