Hamlet and What Not

Post Seminar Reflection

1. Add to your notes while the seminar is fresh in your mind. What new ideas did you

get for each question? Which of your ideas were challenged? Did you change your

mind or further develop your own answer?

Hamlet is my favorite among Shakespeare’s tragedies. Rereading

the play,

analyzing the meanings and motivations behind it, and having a class discussion with

different perspectives brought some new details to my attention. None of my ideas were

challenged and I haven’t changed my mind about the way I answered either. Actually, the

debates made me more sure that my points of view were accurate, since it was in

agreement with others. There are however many ideas that were presented and that I had

never thought about before. For example: the importance of the subplots and the secondary

characters. I liked this idea of “stories within the story”, not just as pieces of information that

will be useful to know as the story develops further, but also because of the dramatic

suspense they create. As for the characters, I gained some new insights as well. I could see

Gertrude and Ophelia as foils, Polonius as a busybody, Claudius as a controlfreak

and

Fortinbras that does not appear in most of the play as the ultimate winner.

2. What lasting idea will stick with you from the Socratic Seminar?

I think there are three ideas that I will remember about Hamlet’s story that were

presented at the Socratic Seminar.

a) Ophelia’s death.

I always felt this is one of the most moving parts because Ophelia is the most

innocent and helpless character in the play. But in the Socratic Seminar I learnt that actually

Shakespeare’s intention in announcing Ophelia’s death through Gertrude was to create a

stage effect, without actually having to build a special set for the scene. Gertrude’s

description is the stage. This technique of informing about events indirectly through a

passing reference or as told by other characters, helps with the flow of the story.

b) Fortinbras and the Norway subplot

Here too we have a side story. At the beginning we do not understand very well why

a war with Norway has anything to do with Claudius taking the throne of Denmark by killing

his brother and Hamlet seeking revenge for it. But at the end we learn how essential it is:

We know that Old King Hamlet defeated and killed the Norwegian king, which explains that

young King Fortinbras is seeking revenge. As a brave prince avenging his father, Fortinbras

becomes a foil figure to Hamlet. So, this character, of whom we know little and does not

show up for most of the play, ultimately closes the circle of the story. Because as Hamlet is

dying he sees in Fortinbras the virtues that will make him a good king for Denmark –bravery,

sense of reality and resolution.

c) The Lion King is based on Hamlet

A favorite Disney classic and Shakespeare were not things I would have put

together. Even if I have seen the movie many times as a child and I love it, and even though

I know Hamlet’s story, I never thought of a connection between them. But apparently the

Lion King was partly based on the Shakespearean tragedy. There are several similarities:

Simba and Hamlet have royal blood, they must avenge their fathers and overcome moral

struggles; Scar (Simba’s uncle) kills Mufasa (Simba’s father) to become king, as Claudius

with Old Hamlet; Simba has some close friends (Timon and Pumba) as Hamlet has Horatio,

etc. Of course, there is a major difference as well; The Lion King has a happy ending!

3. What did you think of how the Socratic Seminar functioned? Lost one specific thing

you liked and one thing you disliked. What can be changed/improved in how the

group operated in its exploration of interesting literary questions?

Overall I think the Socratic Seminar was a positive experience. What I liked best was

the chance to dig deep into the story