The quieter one becomes, the more one can hear. In both The Story of Edgar Sawtelle and Hamlet, the lead characters lack voices. Edgar is physically unable to speak, and Hamlet’s constant flirtations with words remain unheeded by the people around him. Furthermore, both characters “walk around in love with the idea of a thing instead of the reality of it” (257). Without the power of words, however, Edgar becomes a more potent observer. Cut off from verbal communication, he expresses himself by direct confrontation. Although Hamlet possesses this powerful instrument of expression and Edgar is mute, both characters follow parallel paths that lead to the same end. Edgar’s ability to take action without a voice questions the power of language and
…show more content…
Even with Hamlet’s vast experience and a “motive and cue for passion,” his “native hue of resolution is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought.” Like a slave, he is chained to his “godlike reason” and tendency toward melancholy reflection. Through his overuse of words to interpret reality, Hamlet is deceived and delayed. Consequently, his plans tend to “turn awry and lose the name of action.” Even his famous line, “I will speak daggers to her, but use none” relies on words and logical cowardice rather than direct confrontation. Compared to Edgar’s form of nonverbal communication, Hamlet’s use of words is powerless and he “falls a cursing, like a very drab.” Although “brevity is the soul of wit,” Hamlet endlessly soliloquizes his emotions rather than take direct action, and each soliloquy delves further into Hamlet’s motivations or lack thereof. While Edgar exploits his silence by becoming hyper-observant, Hamlet’s vengeful actions seem to lie more in empty bluffing. He can do “nothing; no not for a king, upon whose property and most dear life a damn’d defeat was made.” Hamlet trifles with language, and fails to confront Claudius until the mass killing at the end of the play. The drama Hamlet stages is only an indirect vehicle for Hamlet to obtain proof of Claudius’s guilt. All Hamlet needs to do is act upon the ghost’s words, and yet he craves …show more content…
In the scenarios that call for quick, decisive behavior, Hamlet ruminates. Hamlet is prepared to “drink hot blood,” and yet he finds that he is unable to kill the unarmed Claudius because “now he is a praying.” The time has come for action, and yet Hamlet falters, though he has “cause and will and strength and means to do’t”. Although he justifies his delay, longing for Claudius to be condemned to eternal damnation, he continues to be a slave to his own paralyzing habit of “thinking too precisely on th’event.” If Hamlet had remained silent for once and focused on the task at hand, perhaps the play would have ended earlier, with Claudius killed “in the purging of his soul, when he is fit and season’d for his passage.” In those scenarios that call for thorough contemplation and logic, Hamlet is impulsive. For example, he rashly kills Polonius, mistaking him for Claudius. This inconsistent approach stands in stark contrast to Edgar’s methods. Indeed, Edgar’s thoughts have always been “bloody,” and without the power of voice, he is able to prepare effective plans. Hamlet is an anti-hero; his intellect and sensitivity contrast the violent, quick action required to avenge his father’s
Even with Hamlet’s vast experience and a “motive and cue for passion,” his “native hue of resolution is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought.” Like a slave, he is chained to his “godlike reason” and tendency toward melancholy reflection. Through his overuse of words to interpret reality, Hamlet is deceived and delayed. Consequently, his plans tend to “turn awry and lose the name of action.” Even his famous line, “I will speak daggers to her, but use none” relies on words and logical cowardice rather than direct confrontation. Compared to Edgar’s form of nonverbal communication, Hamlet’s use of words is powerless and he “falls a cursing, like a very drab.” Although “brevity is the soul of wit,” Hamlet endlessly soliloquizes his emotions rather than take direct action, and each soliloquy delves further into Hamlet’s motivations or lack thereof. While Edgar exploits his silence by becoming hyper-observant, Hamlet’s vengeful actions seem to lie more in empty bluffing. He can do “nothing; no not for a king, upon whose property and most dear life a damn’d defeat was made.” Hamlet trifles with language, and fails to confront Claudius until the mass killing at the end of the play. The drama Hamlet stages is only an indirect vehicle for Hamlet to obtain proof of Claudius’s guilt. All Hamlet needs to do is act upon the ghost’s words, and yet he craves …show more content…
In the scenarios that call for quick, decisive behavior, Hamlet ruminates. Hamlet is prepared to “drink hot blood,” and yet he finds that he is unable to kill the unarmed Claudius because “now he is a praying.” The time has come for action, and yet Hamlet falters, though he has “cause and will and strength and means to do’t”. Although he justifies his delay, longing for Claudius to be condemned to eternal damnation, he continues to be a slave to his own paralyzing habit of “thinking too precisely on th’event.” If Hamlet had remained silent for once and focused on the task at hand, perhaps the play would have ended earlier, with Claudius killed “in the purging of his soul, when he is fit and season’d for his passage.” In those scenarios that call for thorough contemplation and logic, Hamlet is impulsive. For example, he rashly kills Polonius, mistaking him for Claudius. This inconsistent approach stands in stark contrast to Edgar’s methods. Indeed, Edgar’s thoughts have always been “bloody,” and without the power of voice, he is able to prepare effective plans. Hamlet is an anti-hero; his intellect and sensitivity contrast the violent, quick action required to avenge his father’s