Summaries of Hamlet Critiques

Author’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Due Date
Summaries of Hamlet Critiques
Hunter, G. K. “Hamlet Criticism.” Critical Quarterly 1.1 Wiley Online Library. (1959): 27-32.
In this article, Hunter highlighted that Hamlet is known as one of the outstanding artworks, especially to the western people. The author points out that until today Hamlet should be regarded as one of the significant literary works. On the other hand, the author gets to criticize Hamlet that to a certain extent, it is not as popular as one could imagine. For instance, Hunter deduces that the rise of popularity of Hamlet is traced from the platform of romanticism customarily known as the great ideal. In his view, this has made the literature be a self-communion to the readers rather than being a general communication mode.
Notably, the author indicates that all criticisms of Hamlet that emanate from the twentieth century are rendered as some of the motives geared towards disengaging the play away from its romantic association. Conversely, the article elaborates the kind of answers that should be applied to a basic charge of Eliot’s notion that the mentioned play was one of the artistic failure given the fact that it showcased no objective correlative that could be used to explain the confusion as seen in Hamlet soul. In the article, the author argued that the most viable answer to the above aspect is deemed as radical since the condition of Hamlet’s Soul and Denmark are two contradicting aspects of life (Hunter 27-32).

Another answer can be attributed to the sickness of the prince which is barely a means of showing the concept of poison in the entire society. The article then concludes that if by any chance the realities and evidence emanating from the mid-twentieth centuries could teach people anything regarding literature then it is true that in Hamlet individual readers are experiencing the picture of social composition in the society.
Goldman, Peter. “Hamlet’s Ghost: A Review Article.” Anthropoetics 7.1 (2001).
Peter in this article tends to review some of the criticism of Hamlet’s work by Greenblatt. The article points out that there is a desire for Greenblatt to speak to the said dead in the works of Shakespeare. He insists that such desires encompass the participation of fans or the readers of Hamlet’s work. He elaborates that it is not only us as depicted in Hamlet’s work that desire to converse with the dead but also the dead year to speak with us since they are afraid of forgetfulness soon after they perish. This depicts the reason as to why ghost asks for remembrance once they perish. The author of this article also talks about the secularization. He asserted that secularization could not be described as the processes of leaving religious beliefs and replacing them with modernity as the best secular forms. Secularization is precisely traditional events like a ritual exorcism. This is different to what is evidenced in the Hamlet work where traditional rituals are seemed to have been abandoned.
The article insists that Shakespeare left an academic gap as far as a ghost is concerned. There is ambiguity in defining and interpreting ghost as used in Hamlet works (Goldman N.p). This is in controversy of the perceived meaning of ghost in the Elizabethan community. The article explains that the ambiguity to the meaning of ghost is attributed to its underlined dramatic power. Finally, the article also talks about revenge and relates it to remembrance. In this aspect, the author argues that vengeance is comparatively significance in as far as the aspect of purgatory is concerned in the society. In as much as purgatory is barely mentioned in the play, it plays a vital cultural power as demonstrated by the aspect of the dead and they need to revenge and gain remembrance among the living ones.
Works Cited
Goldman, Peter. “Hamlet’s Ghost: A Review Article.” Anthropoetics 7.1 (2001).
Hunter, G. K. “Hamlet Criticism.” Critical Quarterly 1.1 Wiley Online Library. (1959): 27-32.