He offers, rather, an account, centered around his notion of the objective correlative, of how such feelings enter the poem in the first place that differs significantly from the expressive model of poetry promulgated by the Romantics.
And Hamlet the character has had an especial temptation for that most dangerous type of critic: These minds often find in Hamlet a vicarious existence for their own artistic realization.
Such a mind had Goethe, who made of Hamlet a Werther; and such had Coleridge, who made of Hamlet a Coleridge; and probably neither of these men in writing about Hamlet remembered that his first business was to study a work of art. The kind of criticism that Goethe and Coleridge produced, in writing of Hamlet, is the most misleading kind possible.
For they both possessed unquestionable critical insight, and both make their critical aberrations the more plausible by the substitution—of their own Hamlet for Shakespeare's—which their creative gift effects.
We should be thankful that Walter Pater did not fix his attention on this play.
Two recent writers, Mr. Robertson and Professor Stoll of the University of Minnesota, have issued small books which can be praised for moving in the other direction. Stoll performs a service in recalling to our attention the labours of the critics of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, 1 observing that they knew less about psychology than more recent Hamlet critics, but they were nearer in spirit to Shakespeare's art; and as they insisted on the importance of the effect of the whole rather than on the importance of the leading character, they were nearer, in their old-fashioned way, to the secret of dramatic art in general.
Qua work of art, the work of art cannot be interpreted; there is nothing to interpret; we can only criticize it according to standards, in comparison to other works of art; and for "interpretation" the chief task is the presentation of relevant historical facts which the reader is not assumed to know.
Robertson points out, very pertinently, how critics have failed in their "interpretation" of Hamlet by ignoring what ought to be very obvious:Hamlet and His Problems. Dr. Richard Clarke LITS Notes 09B 1 T. S. ELIOT “HAMLET AND HIS PROBLEMS” () Eliot offers, as we have seen, what has .
Hamlet's anxiety, uncertainty, and tensions cause him to doubt the power of reason alone to solve his problems. Hamlet begins to realize that reason is impotent to deal with the depths of human life—one of the central assertions of existentialism (Bigelow, paragraph 6).
Published in , Hamlet and His Problems may be considered an example of “destructive criticism” in the sense that it challenges the age-old established critical perspectives on a work of art.
Eliot puts forward his contention that much of the critical has been devoted to analysing the character of Hamlet, rather than analysing the play, which should be the primary business of the critics.
The Sacred Wood; Essays on Poetry and Criticism Hamlet and His Problems: FEW critics have even admitted that Hamlet the play is the primary problem, and Hamlet the character only secondary. And Hamlet the character has had an especial temptation for that most dangerous type of critic: the critic with a mind which is naturally of the.
"Hamlet and His Problems" is a essay by T. S. Eliot which offers a critical reading of Hamlet. Originally published in Eliot's The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism, it was reprinted in Selected Essays, We provide free model essays on Shakespeare: Hamlet, Hamlet And His Family reports, and term paper samples related to Hamlet And His Family.
Start. Services. Infodesk. Samples.
Support. Essays. Term Papers. Book Reports.
Shakespeare often puts the antagonists in circumstances similar to or resembling the problems of the main character or.