> Interesting to note, in relation to Hamlet, that my high school teachers
> were adamant that no-one used the Oedipus complex as an explanation for
> Hamlet's antic disposition.
Yes, Freud has gone from blasphemous to orthodox and back to
blasphemous again. I think I'm just out of phase by believing at this
point that he was right about everything.
But it's hard to see how anyone could not have an Oedipal
interpretation of Hamlet. For instance, he goes into his mother's
bedroom ("The Queen's Apartment") and starts upbraiding her sexuality in
the most gloatingly clinical terms:
Nay, but to live
in the rank sweat of an enseamed bed,
stewed in corruption, honeying and making love
over the nasty sty --
and procedes to follow this up with sexual symbolism so classically
Freudian that it would seem embarrassingly obvious in a parody of
psychoanalytic criticism:
a cutpurse of the empire and the rule,
that from a shelf the precious diadem stole,
and put it in his pocket!
And then at this juncture what should happen but THE GHOST OF HAMLET'S
FATHER APPEARS IN THE BEDROOM AND PARALYZES HIM! I mean Jesus Christ
give me a fucking break, the only thing missing is Uncle Siggy standing
at stage left tapping his cigar and saying "Ah -- zo!"
====
Does it matter whether you hate your ... self? At least
Love your eyes that can see, your mind that can
Hear the music, the thunder of the wings. Love the wild swan.
-- Robinson Jeffers
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
|