Catch-22 and Hamlet : two sides of the same coin Comparing Joseph Heller’s antiwar Catch-22 (1961), a postmodern controversially absurd novel, and the acknowledged Renaissance play Hamlet (1602) seems enough of a farfetched idea. However, a
A Psychoanalytic Reading of Hamlet and Catch-22
Bahareh Azad and Pyeaam Abbasi
Freudian neurosis, despite being a psychological disorder rather than a literary topic, has been used in literature to conceptualise characters’ suffering. Freud contends that the suppression of desires due to hidden and unhidden causes leads to neurosis. Being unable to succeed in life, individuals feel neurotic and tend to displace their frustrations onto other persons or objects. Starting with the Renaissance, this article explores how displacement in Shakespeare’s Hamlet is tacitly approached and how this reaction has become a recurrent case in Willa Cather’s A Lost Lady (1923) and Laila Al Halaby’s Once in a Promised Land (2007). The article analyses the incentives of neurosis in each work, how these reasons lead to the onset of displacement and how literary works share relatively similar implications about displacement despite being about different issues.
historical context, I will consider manifestations of the cultural phenomenon of Hamletism, understood as ineffectuality, vacillation or irresolution in social and political commitment, 2 an exploration that seeks to contribute to the reception of
Q1 Hamlet (1603) routinely sets prose speeches so that they appear to be blank verse. This article argues that such was an attempt to confer prestige upon the text, particularly in the wake of the saturation of Shakespeare books on the literary marketplace around 1600 – a phenomenon that saw his prose works achieve less favour than those in pentameter. The publishers of Q1 Merry Wives (1602) and Q1 Hamlet may have hedged their bets on these Shakespeare texts by amplifying their verse, long the gold standard of the Shakespearean brand. Like The True Tragedie of Richard III (published 1594) and The Famous Victories of Henry V (entered 1594), which presented their opening pages to readers as iambic pentameter, Q1 Hamlet seems to have beautified its dialogue for readers in the early modern book marketplace.
A Feminist Reading of Arab Shakespeare Appropriations
Safi M. Mahfouz
Drawing on feminist theory, this article offers a feminist reading of some Arab Hamlet appropriations to demonstrate whether or not such plays qualify as feminist Shakespeare re-visions. It shows how some female characters in these plays have been, unlike their Shakespearean counterparts, empowered to challenge the hegemonic patriarchal structures of their societies while others remain oppressed and submissive. The discussed Arab Shakespeare renditions constitute only illustrative samples of heroic and oppressed women in the Arab Shakespeare canon which has been known for producing political satires. The featured plays include Ahmad Shawqī’s Masra‘ Kileopatrā (The Fall of Cleopatra), Egypt, 1946; Nabyl Lahlou’s Ophelia Is Not Dead, Morocco, 1968; Mamdūh Al-ʻUdwān’s Hamlet Wakes Up Late, Syria, 1976; Yūsuf Al-Sāyyegh’s Desdemona, Iraq, 1989; Jawād Al-Assadī’s Forget Hamlet, Iraq, 1994; and A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Palestine, 2011.
Graham Holderness and Bryan Loughrey
While the articles in this volume are focussed on new research in Hamlet studies, this editorial ‘Afterword’ reverts to an earlier stage of the debate around Q1, specifically the ‘culture wars’ of the 1990s, and re-examines the controversy surrounding the publication of the Shakespearean Originals series, which was launched with a new edition of Hamlet First Quarto (1992). Shakespearean Originals sought to situate texts within the historical conditions of textual production by decomposing conflated modern editions into the various discrete, and to some degree incommensurable, textualisations that were produced by historical contingency in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. A general recovery of such textualisations, as they existed before their colonisation by the modern edition, was at that point in time clearly a priority. Although the series was prompted by ascendant currents in critical theory, the academy was not ready for this particular editorial initiative.
Four Arab Hamlet Plays , edited by Marvin Carlson and Margaret Litvin with Joy Arab ( New York : Martin E. Segal Theatre Centre Publications , 2015 ). 299 pages. Contents: Ophelia Is Not Dead by Nabyl Lahlou (1969, trans. Khalid Amine
The present article seeks to analyse the place of Shakespeare’s work within the oeuvre of Gabriel Josipovici, starting with the latter’s first published critical book, The World and the Book, and ending with his most recent, Hamlet: Fold on Fold. In the early work Josipovici sought to establish a direct line between the Middle Ages and Modernism, yet Shakespeare was already a presence whose plays obliged that line to deviate. In his later critical work, such as On Trust, Shakespeare becomes one of the figures who allows Josipovici to exemplify clearly the crucial gap he wishes to explore between saying and doing. This gap is most fully explored in the recent book on Hamlet, where the protagonist is seen as the supreme literary example of what happens when the traditions governing doing have fallen away, leaving the character adrift in a sea of possibilities of utterance and action, none of which has the feel of necessity.
The Sequence of Creation and Implications for the 'Allowed Booke’
Charles Adams Kelly and Dayna Leigh Plehn
The case for Q1 Hamlet as a pre-Q2 text is coming into focus as the findings of several scholars are reconciled. Additionally, a finding related to the Brudermord text has helped mark that text as a predecessor to both Q1 and Q2/F, with further implications for Q1 as a pre-Q2 text. As this view of Q1 becomes accepted, patterns of Q1 vs. Q2 variance advance the case for Q1 as being the author’s draft of the text that became the censor-approved ‘allowed book’. There is no way to know how most of the Q1 vs. Q2 textual variants progressed from Q1 as printed, to the non-extant allowed book from which the players’ parts were copied, and finally to Q2. However, the 577 Q1 lines that are identifiably concordant but variant to lines in Q2 represent a category of Q1 lines that will be of interest to those planning to edit or stage Q1 Hamlet.
Thinking Outside the Box
Gianni De Luca's 1975 adaptation of Hamlet converted 30,000 words into 48 pages of graphic novel. One of the key techniques De Luca drew upon was that of 'continuous narrative', a historically tested method of 'thinking outside the box', whereby the same character, at different stages of the action, can appear several times on a single page. De Luca mastered the technique, making limited use of panel borders, whilst avoiding reader confusion. Nonetheless the method had been used previously, not just in Little Nemo and Gasoline Alley, but as far back as Botticelli's illustrations for Dante's Divine Comedy, or even the fifteenth-century Cent nouvelles nouvelles ['The Hundred New Stories']. Subsequently De Luca's technique was to influence graphic novelists as diverse as Fred, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, Frank Miller, Joe Sacco and Killoffer.