Joshua Rothman - HAMLET: A LOVE STORY

Around 1905 or 1906, Sigmund Freud wrote an essay, unpublished in his lifetime, called “Psychopathic Characters on the Stage.” The essay addressed the question of what we, as spectators, get out of watching people go crazy. Freud’s theory was that we’re fascinated by crazy characters because they help us express our own repressed impulses. Drama, of course, can’t express our fantasies too literally; when that happens, we call it pornography and walk out of the theatre. Instead, a good playwright maneuvers our desires into the light using a mixture of titillation and censure, fantasy and irony, obscenity and euphemism, daring and reproach. A good play, Freud wrote, provokes “not merely an enjoyment of the liberation but a resistance to it as well.” That resistance is key. It lets us enjoy our desires without quite admitting that they’re ours.

“Hamlet,” Freud thought, best exemplified the appeal of managed self-expression. Watching “Hamlet,” we think that it’s about revenge—a familiar, safe subject. In fact, “Hamlet” is about desire. The real engine of the play is Oedipal. Caught up in Hamlet’s quest to kill Claudius—and reassured by his self-censure—we can safely, and perhaps unconsciously, explore those desires. Freud thought that prudery and denial had for centuries prevented critics from acknowledging the play’s propulsive undercurrent, which, he believed, the new psychoanalytic vocabulary made it possible to acknowledge. “The conflict in ‘Hamlet’ is so effectively concealed,” he wrote, “that it was left to me to unearth it.”

Freud’s hilarious (and no doubt self-conscious) boast is doubly resonant in “Stay, Illusion!,” the thoughtful, fascinating, and difficult new book about “Hamlet,” by Simon Critchley and Jamieson Webster. Critchley, a philosopher at the New School, and Webster, a psychoanalyst, can’t help but thrill to Freud’s “delightfully arrogant assertion”: they are, after all, writing a book about “Hamlet,” and you only do that if you believe that nearly every great thinker in Western literature has gotten it wrong. At the same time, they resist the idea that “the Oedipus complex provides the definitive interpretation of ‘Hamlet.’ ” Critchley and Webster, a married couple, have clearly been conducting a long-running two-person seminar on “Hamlet.” They call their book the “late-flowering fruit of a shared obsession.” Their book convenes a sort of literary-philosophical-psychoanalytic roundtable—featuring Hegel, Nietzsche, Benjamin, Joyce, and Lacan, among others—to question Freud’s interpretation.

Desire and its repression, they conclude, might be too small a frame for “Hamlet.” It’s better to think about the play in terms of love and its internal contradictions. They argue that we tell the story wrong when we say that Freud used the idea of the Oedipus complex to understand “Hamlet.” In fact, it was the other way around: “Hamlet” helped Freud understand, and perhaps even invent, psychoanalysis. The Oedipus complex is a misnomer. It should be called the Hamlet complex... read more:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/08/hamlet-a-love-story.html

An interesting comment

Hamlet is Shakespeare's magnum opus. The reason that it cannot be understood in the narrow terms of "revenge" or "shame" or "desire" is because, like Beethoven's 5th or 9th, it goes beyond specific themes and ambitiously encompasses the whole of human experience.

This was the playwrite's project. He was thrust into a situation where the traditional religious plays of the past, which used heavenly allegory to explain earthly motives (like Greek mythology or the bible) had been banned (by parliament) due to the drunken rioting that followed Marlowe's Faustus. Shakespeare embraced this challenge by building grand human meaning into the vagaries of historical kings and queens. 

He picked off "ambition" and "jealously" etc in other works (Macbeth, Othello) but Hamlet is about the entire frailty of humanity - he even tells us up front: Act 1, scene 2, Hamlet's FIRST pronouncement (on Horatio: father, patriarch & king): "He was a man. Take him for all in all".  Robert Burns understood this sentiment when he picked it up for the great poem "A man's a man, for a' that" . (Burn's also wrote his own hilarious take on Macbeth in "Tam' o Shanter"...the least ambitious, yet glorious, hero in "English" literature).

For me, the hijack of Hamlet by Freud has sidelined one of Shakespeare's most poignant messages. By looking only into the psychological elements of Shakespeare's characters, we have modernized his purpose too much...and perhaps missed the point he most wanted to make? The important plays deal with the conflict between spiritual and human worlds - witches and ghosts. Moreover, the most famous and profound monologs are a simple quest for meaning in an existential (non religious) reality. To be or not to be????

It is a tale told by by an idiot, signifying nothing.