Customer Reviews

Hamlet: Poem Unlimited

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I think that the other, negative, reviews are the result of expecting some kind of senior thesis. I, for one, am glad he doesn't spend much time quoting other scholars. The problem with thesis-country is that it tends to be boring. I think that the spirit of the book is the very personal feelings that Hamlet invokes for Harold Bloom. While I do not agree completely with Bloom's interpretation of Hamlet, it has given me much to consider. Without question, Bloom does prove that Hamlet is eternal, and will continue to be studied, puzzled over, and - most importantly - enjoyed.

Professor Bloom (THE WESTERN CANON) knows his Shakespeare. In HAMLET: POEM UNLIMITED, he enthusiastically shows why D. H. Lawrence was correct in his observation that "the soliloquies of Hamlet are as deep as the soul of man can go . . . and as sincere as the Holy Spirit itself in their essence" (p. 9). "Of all poems," Bloom writes, HAMLET "is the most unlimited. As a meditation upon human fragility in confrontation with death, it competes only with the world's scriptures" (p. 3).

Bloom wrote this 154-page commentary on Shakespeare's four-thousand line play as a "postlude" to SHAKESPEARE: THE INVENTION OF THE HUMAN(1998), and he assumes his reader already has an in-depth familiarity with the play (my only real criticism of the book, albeit a small criticism). He presents Hamlet as the "neglected child" of a warrior-king father and a "sexual magnate" mother (pp. 4-5), influenced more by the royal court jester, Yorick, than anyone, and ultimately at war with himself. In his lively, opionated style, Bloom cautions us not to "condescend" to the Prince of Denmark, for Hamlet, we are instructed, "is more intelligent than you are, whoever you are" (p. 86). In his short book, which reads like a series of lecture notes, Bloom not only triumphs in teaching us who Hamlet is, but he successfully illuminates the secret of his subject's "charismatic eminence" (p. 109). Bardolators will not be disappointed.

G. Merritt

It is not often that one reads a book about a Shakespeare play and needs about half a dozen other books - including a dictionary - nearby for reference. But it is absolutely worth the effort - reading this book is an education.

Hamlet, a play within a play within a play, plays out as pure deception. In this respect Harold comes close to the mark by saying it is "unlimited." It allows scholars to keep asking the ever puzzling and vexing questions... ensuring more debate and questions in return. In other words, Hamlet is a universe of ever expanding possibilities because, as literature and fiction, it is never grounded in reality. We don't have the letters of the real Hamlet, we don't have anything written about him by his family or friends that would give us an insight into his true actions and character. Everything is fiction and speculation and could be argued indefinitely. In point of fact, the play itself contains the more questions asked by its characters than any other Shakespearean play -- and if the characters in the play don't know much, how can we?

Harold has given us his surmises about this hollow universe that expands into the unknown. One important thing he tells us is that Hamlet is acting from the start. I would say that almost everybody is acting or is disingenuous right from the start. If deception is par for the course at Elsinore then it is perfectly natural that Hamlet should act as well. Even the last scene of sword fighting involves deadly deception from this family of actors.

If deception and uncertainty are the royal stamps in Denmark, then I would take it farther and argue that the biggest deception of all was perpetrated by Fortinbras. I propose a new theory: Fortinbras had Claudius commit the fratricide and then he had Reynardo the spy act as the Ghost to incite Hamlet to kill Claudius. This would constitute Fortinbras' revenge against King Hamlet for killing his father and leaves him in a nice situation to take over the kingdom, which he eventually does. Fortinbras is then by far the greatest Machiavellian of the lot. Now I can back this theory up and it is as valid as any other out there. In other words, there is no ground floor of truth in Hamlet. But Harold should be glad if he gets people thinking - if Hamlet is acting right from the start, perhaps so is the Ghost -- and, in time, who knows what imaginative theories scholars will come up with and how perverse Hamlet could become!

In response to negative reviews a defense of Bloom must be proffered. The genius of Hamlet is dark, capricious, spurring, somewhat mystical, and surpasses our own in each cognition. Where some have argued that Bloom's treatise of the poem unlimited is brief, I argue that prolix erudition is not what we need in regards to Hamlet. He is a professor par excellance in creativity and the commentarys we don't need on his genius are those of the ominous tomes of Henry James and the like. We likewise can do without a pithy take-home message that utterly misses the heart of the play and it's protagonist. Bloom's musings, like the divine criticisms of Dr. Johnson, go strait through the heart of Hamlet giving us an aesthetic mosaic of it's best parts for us to taste. Other oposing views are without a doubt concievable, but what Bloom gives us is one of the most lively, and sober readings of the most easily misread piece of literature in the english language. Bloom is a masterful laureate of critics.

As Bloom himself admits, this brief book is really just an extension of what he wrote in his tome, Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. He feels he didn't do justice to this play in his larger work and he wants to correct that shortcoming here.

If you are familiar with Bloom's other works on Shakespeare, there won't be any real surprises for you here. All of his prejudices and obsessions are on display here: how Hamlet and Falstaff are the greatest of Shakespeare's creations, how modern criticism and performance do no justice to this play, his subtle (and not so subtle) disdain for other characters and plot in the face of the character of Hamlet, etc. I've written of these before and don't want to go over the same ground again.

Still, as this is a much closer examination of Hamlet than he has done previously, there are many joys here as he digs in deep. True, many readers find Bloom ponderous and arrogant and he can be; however, I find his argumentativeness inspiring. I disagree with many of his opinions on Shakespeare but I always find Bloom invigorating, forcing and focusing my own opinions.

Many of my friends do not understand or appreciate my love of Shakespeare but my feelings pale before Bloom's. This is my favorite play but I don't see it as of "no genre." I don't see the character of Hamlet as somehow beyond his play and his playwright. I don't see Shakespeare as some secular god. On the other hand, insight can often come from one of great faith and that is what can be found here.

Easily read in a couple of hours or less, this short book is an interesting, if occasionally quirky (but isn't Bloom always a little quirky?), overview of what Bloom considers the world's central literary creation.

The book has its genesis in Bloom's reconsideration of his book on Shakespeare (which is excellent, by the way) and particularly of the chapter on Hamlet, in which he focuses largely on Ur-Hamlet. Bloom regrets that and so offers this essay as a follow-up. His analysis meanders and sometimes suffers from trying to cover so much in so little place. Some topics that receive treatment: Hamlet as a play about acting and playing; Hamlet the character as a sort of ambassador of death, as New Adam; the play as "secular scripture." Bloom regards Hamlet as a genius, smarter than any of us who watch the play, smarter even than Shakespeare himself. Indeed, Bloom never tires of saying so. (In more than one passage, I had the vague notion that when Bloom wrote about Hamlet, he was writing about himself.)

Because it's so short, the book is more interesting than it is profound. I doubt scholars will cite this book in future criticisms of Hamlet, but it's good reading nonetheless.

Bloom says that he wrote this book as a postlude to "Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human". It is a short book, but it is not a slight one. There is a lot here to meditate over, read again, and argue over. Bloom certainly didn't write this expecting anyone to agree with everything he writes. In fact, a teacher is poorly served by his students if they simply accept what he says as if it were scripture. If the student doesn't understand or isn't persuaded, he must question. If he disagrees, he must argue. If he agrees, he must take what the teacher gave him and take it further. Don't think that because this book quotes extensively from the play and is only 154 small pages long that you won't have a lot given you.

I enjoyed Bloom's "Invention of the Human" a great deal, but I am glad that he has given us more of his insights into Hamlet. Bloom's thoughts about how the play should be presented, what other critics have written, how his own perspectives have changed over the years, what it means to have a play within a play within a play. I also found his discussion of which verse is archaic and which is written to be understood as bad verse quite illuminating. Since my ear cannot hear the shades of Elizabethan English quite so clearly I have to admit that I didn't pick up that the slaughter of Priam was supposed to be taken as awful. I will have to work on hearing the language in all its varieties within this play and the others.

I think it is vital to remember that works like this provide their greatest value by giving us a path to further thought, study, and deeper reading. We waste them by either accepting or rejecting their arguments at face value. This is a book that everyone who loves Shakespeare and Hamlet should read and then make their own judgments. I found this a very valuable book.

Hamlet: Poem Unlimited provides more than just a deeper look at Hamlet, but it also places him aside other great characters in the canon. So if you are looking for good criticism of other characters, this is great volume to have on hand. I love the idea that Hamlet is his own Falstaff, successfully outwitting the dim-witted characters around him. Bloom points out marvelously that the only character who can match wits with the prince is the silver-tongued grave digger in the Yorick scene. All others are unceasingly uncomprehending.

What this volume lacks in length it packs in strength for no one would read it without wishing that Bloom would do more, such as debating with other critics like A.C. Bradley and Pasternak. Of course, Pasternak opines that Hamlet is Elsinore's palace pretty boy, spoiled beyond belief by a doting, aged father and his callow, simplistic mother. When it comes time for Hamlet to serve his family and his country, he is ill-prepared for such a fate, which sets him on his delayed course, soliloquizing selfishly and constantly about suicide instead of facing up to his duty. Really, it seems almost by accident that he ever exacts revenge in the Act V bloodbath. What Bloom shows successfully is that Hamlet is more than just a character who can be pigeon-holed so easily: he is both tragic hero and tragedian who seems to be creating and directing the play as his goes along! What other character in Shakespeare could orchestrate other characters while acting himself and then viewing his actions as if detached from himself, as though he is also his own audience? A marvelous chapter is the "Apotheosis" section in which Bloom explains how what seems a failure to accomplish one's fate becomes a greater, transcendent moment. Is there another tragic character in Shakespeare who is eulogized so magnificently and whose memory makes him super-human and super-natural? What does all that say about Shakespeare's own views and voice in the play and the psychological interplay between the Bard, his world, his stage, and the after-life?

Though some of the humor fails to amuse, I know that those like me--who insatiably desire to think divergently about the prince and his play--would be more than gratified by this wonderful little book. It creates more questions than answers, so this would be be a fitting volume for Shakespeare classes to read and discuss. Don't pass this one up.

"Could not The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, be retitled
A Cry of Players?" Harold Bloom has given the reader an attempt to uncover the mystery of both Prince Hamlet and 'Hamlet' the play!

Personally, to have discussed the importance of the speech by the
PLAYER KING: 'I do believe you think what now you speak;
But what we do determine, oft we break. Purpose is but the slave
to memory, Of violent birth but poor validity, Which now, the fruit unripe, sticks on the tree, But fall unshaken when thy mellow be.--
III.ii, is unique and requires more critical acclaim!

Thank you, Professor Bloom for your enlightened discourse, it is
very much appreciated.

Dag Stomberg
St. Andrews, Scotland