Soliloquies are Shakespeare’s primary tool for expressing inner thoughts and feelings. Many scholars argue that soliloquies are technically not necessary as they can be distracting and irrelevant to the core of the play (Alam). These critics reason that, for the most part, the personal monologues are merely accessories. Hamlet is commonly used to exemplify this. If Hamlet’s soliloquies were replaced or simply removed from the play, the removal would not impair the play beyond comprehension. For example, Hamlet’s famous “to be, or not to be” soliloquy, (depicting his internal struggle with suicide’s enticements) is a lovely and rich addition to the story (3.1.57). Still, it could be cut and an audience would still follow the story. They do not
…show more content…
The world Shakespeare created could be extremely complex in regards to understanding. His plays were difficult to follow seeing that initially attending a play was an introduction to hundreds of words never heard before. Shakespeare’s audiences endured a bombardment of new vocabulary every premiere. In the play Hamlet alone, there was a total of approximately 600 brand new words. And in King Lear, there were about 350 original terms (Shapiro, 286). So, in order to alleviate complications of comprehension, Shakespeare took an approach that would appeal to the audience’s understanding. This appealing to understanding typically refers to appealing to the rhetorical voice of logos. (Cook, 118-119) Through logos, a method relying on reason, following the plays became less intimidating because logical arguments supplied comprehendible substance. However, people still craved raw emotion and its consequential drama. This yearning for drama is simply the nature of the dramatic arts. So, this likely influenced Shakespeare to incorporate more opportunities for pathos into his works. It would appeal to the public’s emotional hunger. Presumably, that reason gave rise to the soliloquy’s use. This is why I believe Shakespeare’s soliloquies were successful and essential to his work. In his Shakespearean world of drama based primarily in logos, Shakespeare’s soliloquies allowed his writings to flourish because of the refreshing opportunity for pathos
The world Shakespeare created could be extremely complex in regards to understanding. His plays were difficult to follow seeing that initially attending a play was an introduction to hundreds of words never heard before. Shakespeare’s audiences endured a bombardment of new vocabulary every premiere. In the play Hamlet alone, there was a total of approximately 600 brand new words. And in King Lear, there were about 350 original terms (Shapiro, 286). So, in order to alleviate complications of comprehension, Shakespeare took an approach that would appeal to the audience’s understanding. This appealing to understanding typically refers to appealing to the rhetorical voice of logos. (Cook, 118-119) Through logos, a method relying on reason, following the plays became less intimidating because logical arguments supplied comprehendible substance. However, people still craved raw emotion and its consequential drama. This yearning for drama is simply the nature of the dramatic arts. So, this likely influenced Shakespeare to incorporate more opportunities for pathos into his works. It would appeal to the public’s emotional hunger. Presumably, that reason gave rise to the soliloquy’s use. This is why I believe Shakespeare’s soliloquies were successful and essential to his work. In his Shakespearean world of drama based primarily in logos, Shakespeare’s soliloquies allowed his writings to flourish because of the refreshing opportunity for pathos