Research Proposal on "Hamlet, According to Williamson William Shakespeare"

r />

Williamson begins in a slightly inflammatory style, and he keeps it up throughout his criticism of other critics; he is not insulting, merely radical in the simplicity and denial of his assertion that "qua work of art, the work of art cannot be interpreted; there is nothing to interpret; we can only criticise [sic] it according to standards, in comparison to other works of art" (Williamson, 86). This is the crux of Williamson's argument; there is nothing in Hamlet that requires or even allows for interpretation, but rather the text should be looked at in the light of its external genesis and the historical context and legacy from which it springs.

Among the key features of this argument are what Williamson cites J.M. Robertson, as well as others, as having put forward but quickly lost sight of in the excitement or even frenzy of interpretation: "namely, that our royal Hamlet was not a Danish prince, but a dramatis persona, no more, no less" (Williamson, 86). This is certainly a valid observation; though there was a historic Hamlet -- or at least one of legend -- upon which the character and some of the plot points of Shakespeare's Hamlet are loosely based, the text in the main is not about that Hamlet, but about Shakespeare's concept and creation of the character. Historical fact was never a strong influence in Shakespeare's writing, and Williamson is correct in pointing out that it should not be looked for here. Yet he seems to err in his next conclusion, still following Robertson's train of thought, that "the essential fact is that Hamlet is an adaptation of an older play" (Williamson, 87). This must give us pause. If the historical -- or legendary, which was as close to historical as would have been available -- plot and character of Hamlet were deemed -- correctly, in my opinion -- to be inadequate and unnecessary tools of analysis, how then could the interim dramatic interpretations be "essential?"

For one thing, Williamson maintains, "the theme or legend or saga upon which it [Hamlet] was based, and upon which Shakespeare felt bound to work, was a tragic story of revenge. It was bound to finish as a tragedy -- " (Williamson, 87). This seems to counter his earlier position that the legendary saga that would have been -- and is -- the closest thing to an original version of the Hamlet story did not matter, however here Williamson is talking about the dramatic structure of the narrative, which Shakespeare, it is true, altered only slightly -- except for the ending. Williamson fails to note that the Hamlet… READ MORE