Responding to Literary Criticism

Andrei

1. What was your author's thesis?

a. Hamlet aligns with the mono-mythical hero archetype. The hero’s journey consists of
three stages: separation, initiation, and return. In Hamlet, the intentions of the hero are
“often embedded in soliloquies.” Soliloquies are vital to fully comprehend the story, and
the author examines the soliloquy “To be or not to be” in films, more specifically the
position of the soliloquy in the archetype the Hero’s Journey. The author determines
that no matter the film, the soliloquy “To be or not to be” is always a transition between
stages of the Hero’s Journey.

2. Did she provide convincing evidence to support her thesis? If yes, then provide an example
and explain why it was convincing. If no, then provide an example and explain why it wasn't
convincing.
a. Her idea was that the soliloquy “To be…” is a transitional step in the Hero’s Journey. She
argued that by the end of each soliloquy, Hamlet had already taken action or was ready
to take action, thus being a transition between the stage of the Hero’s Journey. In
Gibson’s version, Hamlet is in the separation stage when the soliloquy starts, yet as he
nears the end, it appears he’s ready to take action. The darkness of the tomb goes along
with Hamlet’s contemplative state, in other words, not taking action. When the light
shines on Hamlet in the dark tomb –an element of contrast—we can connect that
contrast of light and dark to unready to take action to ready to take action. This example
was rather convincing because it’s logical; after the speech Hamlet is ready to take
action, as he is in the other renditions. Since the speech made him ready to take action,
then the author’s thesis is reinforced: “To be or not to be” is a transitional element
between the Hero’s Journey. Therefore, her evidence was convincing.

3. Using one example, identify how the author used a direct quotation:
a. Is the quotation from a primary or secondary source?
i. “O that this too too sullied flesh would melt” (1.2.129) This is a primary source,
from Hamlet itself.
b. Is the quotation used to illustrate a point, provide clarification, or just to identify a
part of the play?
i. The quotation is used to identify a part of the play, more specifically the place
where Hamlet delivers his first soliloquy. This is important because the author
says that the play Hamlet very much depends on soliloquies to complete to
develop Hamlet’s character and complete the play.
c. Does the author use an entire sentence, or just part of the sentence?
i. Part of a sentence, the soliloquy is too long to include the whole thing.
d. Is the quotation incorporated into one of the author's sentences?
i. Yes, plain and simple. The author says something along the lines of: “and then
Hamlet goes to say his first soliloquy, (and then the quote).”
 e. How do the parenthetical citations for Hamlet differ from those of the secondary
sources?
i. Secondary sources use (LastName Page#) whereas citations from Hamlet use
(act.scene.lines)

4. Was there anything confusing in the essay that you feel you would need additional
information to understand? If so, what?
a. “Regardless of each film’s mise-en-scene, “To be or not to be” is placed in the
Separation/Departure stage of the hero’s journey, which takes place inside “The Belly of
the Whale” in three of the above mentioned Hamlet films, Olivier, Zeffirelli, and
Almereyda, (whereas Branagh’s soliloquy takes place in the Initiation stage).”
i. In my mind, this statement makes no sense. She’s basically saying that
regardless the film, “To Be or Not To Be” takes place in the Separation stage.
Later in brackets she says that one of the 4 films has the soliloquy in the
initiation stage –um… what? I think this could’ve been written in more
sentences and with more clarity.
b. Overall, I think the thesis could’ve been more explicit. I understood that the author was
going to examine the position of the soliloquy, only at the end did it say that it was a
transitional step in the Hero’s Journey. It would’ve been helpful for a simple statement
saying where exactly the soliloquy is located in relation to the archetype, and if she
didn’t know exactly, then where she thinks it’s located.

5. Identify at least two key ideas or terms from either archetypal or feminist literary criticism
your author used.
a. Hamlet is the mono-mythical hero in the story. The archetype includes a hero –who is
innocent at first—then embarks on a journey with many obstacles, and eventually
accomplishes his/her goal.
b. Belly of the whale. This is part of the hero’s journey, it symbolizes being down –maybe
depression in non-fiction or actually being swallowed in a fiction story, and having the
hero spend time in there, but eventually being “burped out” by the whale. The idea is
that the hero comes out changed, whether it be physically or mentally.
c. Deep Water – This is Poseidon’s kingdom, and a potential major obstacle/encounter in
the story.

6. What did this particular perspective add to your understanding of Hamlet?

a. At first, I thought Hamlet was about a cold-blooded killer, named Hamlet, who goes to
avenge his father’s death. My thoughts on were very 2D black and white. Examining the
story from an archetypal perspective allowed me to see the story in 3D color. As
opposed to Hamlet killing Claudius for revenge, I was able to see inside his thoughts,
understand how the unconscious tempts on to do certain things, and how knowing
archetypal theories allows one to even predict the story’s trajectory. For example, by
knowing that the monomyth has 3 stages, I can relate to those when going through the
story and can predict when the next stage may be about to start. The archetypal
perspective also showed me the depth of the journey; I originally thought Hamlet finds
 out Claudius kills his father and then kills him, without many encounters. I see now the
obstacles of the story, and how Hamlet is guided back on track, for example Wise Old
Man archetype (Hamlet Sr.) when Hamlet Jr. is confronting his mother (3.4). The
archetypal analysis of Hamlet has allowed me to investigate the conscious and
unconscious emotions behind the story.

7. Did you notice anything about the way in which this essay was written that seems to
contradict essay “rules” you have been taught in the past? If so, explain.
a. (This is kind of a joke) The essay isn’t double-spaced.
b. From Orwell’s essay, he says to avoid use of Latin/Greek phrases when one can use
simple English. The author here uses Mise-en-scène, a French phrase. This can easily be
replaced with “set arrangement” and would be much easier to understand. In fact, I had
to stop and search the meaning of Mise-en-scène, which interrupted my train of
thought/focus. The French phrase should’ve been replaced with something like “set
arrangement,” which would’ve made the message clearer.