Nature Of Emotions In Hamlet

Language seems to have endless capabilities. It can tell expansive stories, give precise directions, create abstract objects, and even describe the emotions which are at the core of human life. The last of these abilities of language is arguably the hardest to achieve in practice, however, especially in written form. A writer must somehow relay to the reader certain physiological responses. He or she might attempt to use imagery or metaphor to describe to what an emotion is similar. Alternatively, the writer might employ an omniscient narrator who is able to describe the emotion happening within the mind of a character directly, naming the emotion as passionate fury, insatiable jealousy, and so on. Through these devices, the reader is able to draw from his or her own experiences to understand the emotion being described, but the connection is not organic. In a situation of anger, a man does not describe himself as angry or think of how similar he is to a rampaging bull; he feels it innately as his surroundings stimulate his mind. T.S. Eliot comments on this setback of conventional literature in his 1916 essay, ‘Hamlet and his Problems,’ lamenting that even classic works like Shakespeare’s Hamlet are “dominated by an emotion which is inexpressible, because it is in excess of the facts as they appear.” (Dr. …show more content…
The emotion can change depending on how the tools are brandished. The effect is much more personal and intuitive than a narrator simply explaining or relating to each changing emotion, and they can be used to indicate both how actions are meant and how they are perceived. T.S. Eliot’s description of the “objective correlative” fits very well with the device as used by Virginia Woolf. As the conversation emotionally affects Peter or Clarissa, the object is made to be “the formula of that particular