The General reads Shakespeare

J. · Post by J. » Wed Apr 03, 2002 5:07 pm

She's quoting Hamlet, Act 3, sc. iv, 162-163. The previous lines are extremely interesting as well:

"And when you are desirous to be blest,
I'll blessing beg of you. For this same lord,
I do repent. But heaven hath pleased it so
To punish me with this, and this with me,
That I must be their scourge and minister.
I will bestow him, and will answer well
The death I gave him. So, again, good night.
I must be cruel only to be kind.
Thus bad begins, and worse remains behind."

Hamlet is speaking to his mother, Queen Gertrude, about his accidental slaying of Polonius. So the General's saying that she must destroy innocent lives to achieve her goal, ordained by forces greater than herself.

However, the subtext that she seems unaware of (or just chooses to disregard) is that Hamlet was possibly insane when he murdered Polonius, and that the killing was senseless and totally unncessary - in fact, it can be seen as directly responsible for both Ophelia's suicide and the duel that caused Hamlet, Laertes, and Gertrude to die along with Claudius. At best a Pyrrhic victory, at worst horrific and preventable bloodshed.

Judging from the General's comments about the greatness of her own destiny, I doubt she realizes the damnation she's calling down upon herself. She covers up her ultimately self-serving motives with a facade of resignation at her appointement as "scourge and minister." We know that she's done this many, many times before. I don't believe that she feels any real sadness or remorse.

_________________
"We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time."
-- T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: J. on 2002-04-04 09:52 ]</font>

LordNicodareus · Post by **LordNicodareus** » Wed Apr 03, 2002 10:31 pm

*sniff sniff* that was beautiful man...

Shatteredtower · Post by **Shatteredtower** » Thu Apr 04, 2002 12:08 am

But if you asked her, would she say that she was but mad north by northwest?

And if so, why do I think that she'd have a certain appeal to Will? Sorry, must just be the Hitchcock tie-in interfering.

Matrygg · Post by **Matrygg** » Thu Apr 04, 2002 5:48 am

On 2002-04-03 17:07, J. wrote:
She's quoting Hamlet, Act 3, sc. iv, 162-163. The previous lines are extremely interesting as well:

"And when you are desirous to be blest,
I'll blessing beg of you. For this same lord,
I do repent. But heaven hath pleased it so
To punish me with this, and this with me,
That I must be their scourge and minister.
I will bestow him, and will answer well
The death I gave him. So, again, good night.
I must be cruel only to be kind.
Thus bad begins, and worse remains behind."

Hamlet is speaking to his mother, Queen Gertrude, about his accidental slaying of Polonius. So the General's saying that she must destroy innocent lives to achieve her goal, ordained by forces greater than herself.

However, the subtext that she seems unaware of (or just chooses to disregard) is that Hamlet was possibly insane when he murdered Polonius, and that the killing was senseless and totally unncessary - in fact, it can be seen as directly responsible for both Ophelia's suicide and the duel that caused Hamlet, Laertes, and Gertrude to die along with Claudius. At best a Phyrric victory, at worst horrific and preventable bloodshed.

Judging from the General's comments about the greatness of her own destiny, I doubt she realizes the damnation she's calling down upon herself. She covers up her ultimately self-serving motives with a facade of resignation at her appointement as "scourge and minister." We know that she's done this many, many times before. I don't believe that she feels any real sadness or remorse.

You know, with all the talk of at least one death, and now the reference to Hamlet, I can't help but think of the end of the play.

I don't see how it could be a phyric victory when everybody dies. Unless, of course, you're counting Fortinbras as the ultimate victor.

Actually, that brings up a point -- the comparison in-play between Hamlet and Fortinbras. Fortinbras is brash, a warrior, a spendthrift with his mens lives...but he's the exemplar. Whereas Hamlet is a thinker ans scholar who seems to cause the events of the play because he simply can't take that sort of brash action.

In terms of Fans, it makes me think of Stu's throwing of the knife, and also of the General's apparent aim of culling the Faan's herd. Assuming Fandom is like Hamlet, and she wants it like Fortinbras, maybe she's culling the people who will most likely cause the kind of waffling she's avoiding.

Not that the analogy works perfectly -- I don't think I've seen the club as a whole waffle to any great extent (except for the vote on Stu) but there are elements of it present.

--Matt

Shatteredtower · Post by **Shatteredtower** » Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:23 am

On 2002-04-04 05:48, matrygg wrote:
You know, with all the talk of at least one death, and now the reference to Hamlet, I can't help but think of the end of the play.

I don't see how it could be a phyric victory when everybody dies.

From the perspective that Hamlet's goal was to avenge his father, it was a victory. The cost was certainly excessive, so the term is appropriate here.

If the terms of victory were Hamlet's capture of the throne, then no, it would not count as a victory, Pyrrhic or not.