|
|
Post by isaiahcortez on Oct 22, 2012 11:04:59 GMT -5
Through out the story Shakespeare uses the great chain to characterize social class and order, it seems to me that Shakespeare believed in the great chain and wanted it to stay in order however in the play Hamlet criticizes the chain saying that all men either way turn to dust my question is, does Shakespeare show more evidence of being in favor of the great chain or does he oppose it
|
|
|
|
Post by berenicecontreras on Oct 22, 2012 18:41:54 GMT -5
I'm not really sure myself! Obviously he is advocating "Don't f... with the order of things!" But still he expresses to mess with the order in a humor manor in a way? I'm not sure how he really felt, I was quite confused myself!
|
|
|
|
Post by john petree on Oct 22, 2012 19:35:58 GMT -5
well, higher class people think of themselves as bein superior, and not being savage, well shakes made all the higher class stuck up and savage, like the murderous king and prince, shakes obviously fuc*** with the order of things, because the lower class did nothing wrong
|
|
|
|
Post by Maria Corona on Oct 22, 2012 22:28:27 GMT -5
Shakes is quite a contradicting person, he does imply that he wants the order of things to remain untouched, and stick to where you belong but I feel like he enjoys changing the roles, its these little twists that kept me reading. Like I would be reading and I would seriously say "wait...what?" causing me to reread and reread. He himself likes to challenge the so say authority, to see how impressionable authority truly is.
Secretly, I still feel like he enjoys playing these little tricks on our minds, that's all he really wants to do. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by mayrapuente on Oct 23, 2012 0:12:00 GMT -5
I think Shakespeare is in favor of the Great Chain of Being.
For instance, even though Shakes seemed to play both sides, contradict himself, and fuck with the order himself, Hamlet did end with the order being restored. Sure, everyone died.. But, if you think about it, he killed off all the characters who were messing up the order in the first place. So in his opinion, he was probably saving the Great Chain of Being.
Also, what I thought was interesting was that Hamlet did not become king, right? His uncle did. Likewise, Fortinbras did not become king. His uncle did. In the end, when all died, Fortinbras became king, like he should have been in the first place! It's not normal for uncles to become kings. Sons are supposed to follow their fathers. Therefore, I think Shakes restored the order there as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by crystalruiz23 on Oct 24, 2012 21:54:45 GMT -5
Shakespeare happened to mess with the order of things himself. I believe Shake's should be seen as one of those superior type of people because he happens to write in his own way but yet he contradicts his statement, ''Don't f*** with the order of things''. I don't really get it myself because he does kill off everyone and I sure can agree that he did it to kill off those who didn't follow his statement. He should be seen to be up in the chart of the Great Chain of Being. He's basically taking control of all his characters and just mixing whoever he wishes to be superior.
|
|
|
|
Post by Megan Carazolez on Oct 28, 2012 14:49:51 GMT -5
Shakes was confusing and contradicted himself quite frequently, maybe he was trying to give people that watch his plays some kind of hope, but seeing as all of his plays end tragically, maybe what he was really trying to do was give people hope that things might change, but before they could change end it tragically, because he knew that things would never change.
|
|
