Thursday, November 11, 2004


Seeing as I am clearly not going to get a drum roll welcome; hello everyone. I am on sabbatical from Xanga for a week, or until Hepcat chucks me off. I know nothing about politics or football (literature being my thang) but I guess he was just after the exposure of all of my loyal readers for a week.

Anyway, so, going with the political theme: over the past few weeks I have been looking at the power roles in Hamlet (suggested by a great BBC production). For example, I have been looking at the illegal transferal of the power of the crown. After his brother's death Claudius got the throne by two dodgy methods. Firstly, the system was crooked. Claudius appointed himself (with the aid of his corrupt council) King before Hamlet even has a chance to contest it. The country loved Hamlet more than Claudius (Cl admits this) and yet they didn't get a chance to have their voices heard (according to most political critics the king should have been elected by the people in this situation).

The second method is that he plays on his kingly abilities - Denmark is being threatened with war by a bloodthirsy adversary, and the people are turning to him to protect them. They are scared and worried that having Hamlet rule the country might be about as much use as letting Gerty run it. But he's still a murdering, lying baddie, isn't he?

Now, as I say, I'm not up on current affairs and politics. But it makes you think, doesn't it?
Thanks for listening,

Old Hamlet was a warrior king, while Claudius was a scheming wimp who had to sneak up on the old man while he was napping to get what he wanted. His son should have pulled his finger out and whupped his ass when he had the chance, instead of all this messing around talking about shit and moping and trying to fuck his mother. It's not like the bastard was firing arrows at him or something.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?