The Economics of Crime and Capital Punishment Essay

The Economics of Crime and Capital Punishment - Essay Example   Ã¢â‚¬Å"The Economics of Crime† The economics of crime is the study of factors that cause crime and the consequences of criminal activities in the society as well as approaches towards the reduction of the criminal effects on the society. Economics of crime deals with the costs of criminal justice programs and policies and their benefits to the society. It also deals with analyzing market progress in regard to all activities associated with a crime like drugs, money laundering, and firearms, among others. Economics of crime still evaluates the effects of criminal activities on other aspects of life like healthcare, education, labor market, and substance abuse. â€Å"Capital Punishment† Capital punishment is a method of executing justice especially to offenders who have committed acute crimes like murder. It was highly practiced in ancient days, but later some people and courts found it unconstitutional and against human rights. There have been issues of debate on whet her it should be abolished or it should continue, and this remains a major issue of concern. Many countries so far have abolished capital punishment for all crimes, though there are others that retain it. However, the practice has not proved to be the best in deterring crimes. People differ on the kind of crimes on which capital punishment should be accorded, and the issue remains unresolved. However, capital punishment has a number of effects on the economy of a country especially with the processes involved in administering justice to offenders, and its cost to the entire society. The Common Economic View The economics of crime and capital punishment go hand in hand in dealing with the economic issues. The economics of crime help in determining the cost a country incurs when administering justice to offenders. For example, the society uses public and private resources to prevent crimes and administer justice to offenders. The economics of crime helps to know the type and amount of resources used to give punishment to offenders. Capital punishment, on the other hand, affects the economy of a country to a greater extent. Administering punishment to an offender goes through a number of processes that involve the use of many resources mainly because of its passing through the different panels to justify the offender’s liability for capital punishment. Thus, it affects the economy widely and should be discouraged. Friedman’s Letter to Bill Bennett The main topic in this article is the use of law enforcement to control drug use in America. This letter is important because it talks about the cost incurred in fighting drug use in America (Friedman 85). Milton urges Bill that the direction they take off using more police, imposing harsh penalties for drug users, increasing jails, among other measures will not help in fighting drug abuse in America, but would rather worsen the current situation. Milton argues that the measures taken are only a source of major evils. Enforcing harsh penalties on drug users only increases disasters for both users and society (Friedman 86).  

8 Principles of a Good Oral Communicator Essay Example for Free

8 Principles of a Good Oral Communicator Essay According to Lewis (1975), Communication means sharing messages, ideas, or attitudes that produce a degree of understanding between a sender and a receiver. Communication cannot take place until the receiver correctly receives and interprets the information and then respond. Oral communication implies communication through the mouth and includes individuals interacting using spoken words. Speeches, oral presentations and discussions are all forms of oral communications. Being a good oral communicator can enable you to inform, motivate, entertain or even persuade others to accept your points of view. There are many basic principles of being a good oral communicator. For the purpose of this paper I will briefly discuss eight (8) of these principles. Maintaining good eye contact with your audience, knowing your topic and purpose, showing emotion of passions and interest during your speech, presenting a rounded picture and speaking clearly and pleasantly in a conversational manner all contribute to a person being an effective oral communicator. Being prepared is of most importance when giving a speech. Know your subject. Thoroughly research your topic and prepare for possible questions. The written speech should never be memorized. See more:  Mark Twains Humorous Satire in Running for Governor Essay You will look stiff, sound uninteresting and bore your audience. Memorizing is a fatal mistake. It turns the speech into a mere recitation; and reciting is not nearly as effective as speaking direct to the audience. A speaker must be free to alter, omit, or add as he sees what his audience requires. If possible, make up index cards with notes or key phases to refer during your speech. It is very important to connect with your audience. Speak to your audience, listen to their questions, respond to their reactions, adjust and adopt. One mistake speakers often make is trying to prove they’re smart. When you stand in front of an audience, there is already a gap — you’re the expert, they’re not. By trying to impress your audience with your intellect, you create more distance and could come across as arrogant. Your job is to close the gap, not widen it. Add humour whenever appropriate and possible. Keep audience interested throughout you entire presentation. A public speaker should always anticipate objections. There will be members of the audience whose sole purpose is object to whatever is being presented. There will also be persons in the audience who might be knowledgeable about the topic you are presenting on. Be open to questions and let it be known that you ‘don’t know it all. ’ By being self-effacing, humorous and real, you become approachable and it’s easier to win over your audience. In turn, the more connected the audience feels to you, the more they’ll pay attention to what you have to say. Use words that are within your audience’s vocabulary or calibre. Do not try to impress them by using â€Å"big words† as they will not understand what is being said and will lose interest in your presentation. Maintaining sincere eye contact with your audience is a very essential part of giving a speech. It helps create a sense of two-way communication and shows that you are interested in interacting with your listeners. When you are looking at your audience, you should not stare and should try to scan the group, not looking too long at any one person or section of the room. You should try to vary the focus of your eye communication, trying to involve everyone in the group or each section of the room. In public speaking the management of the voice is very important. Some speakers speak too low and cannot be heard well in a large hall. Some shout, and their voices are drowned by the echoes. Some talk so fast that they cannot be followed; and some speak so slowly as to tire their hearers patience. The speaker should speak clearly, for all to hear; he should vary the intonation of his voice to avoid monotony and to enforce his meaning; and he should know when to make effective pauses. Also you should add inflection and emphasis to be effective in making your points. Communicate a little at a time. Simplify your messages. You are where you are because of the depth and breadth of your expertise. Your natural inclination will be to impart lots of that knowledge onto your audience. Resist it! Otherwise, you’ll bore and overwhelm your listeners with details they’ll never retain. Focus on conveying a few powerful ideas that they’ll remember. It is also beneficial for a presenter to present information in several ways. Use audio-visual aids or props for enhancement if appropriate and necessary. Master the use of the presentation software before your presentation. A presenter should speak with conviction as he really believes in what he is saying. Let your passion show. There is no substitute for authentic passion at the podium. When you believe in your message and have energy around your topic, it will ranslate to your audience. Above all else, be yourself up there! In concluding, a good oral communicator should aim to master the basic principles of public speaking. A speaker should know the needs of his audience and match his contents to their needs. Look pleasant, enthusiastic, confident, proud, but not arrogant. Maintain eye contact. Show appropriate emotion and feeling relating to the topic. Know his material thoroughly. Ensure that his speech will be captivating to his audience as well as worth their time and attention. The result will be a sharper central idea and a tighter, more coherent speech.

Legalizing Voluntary Euthanasia Essay -- mercy killing physician assis

Today, voluntary euthanasia is getting closer to being legalized in more than just one state in the United States. â€Å"‘Voluntary’ euthanasia means that the act of putting the person to death is the end result of the person’s own free will† (Bender 19). â€Å" Voluntary euthanasia is an area worthy of our serious consideration, since it would allow patients who have exhausted all other reasonable options to choose death rather than continue suffering† (Bender 19). The question of whether or not voluntary euthanasia should be legalized is a major debate that has been around for years. Because the issue of whether people should have the right to choose how they want to live or die is so complex. With the advances in technology today we have made it possible to keep a person alive for longer periods of time, even when a person is permanently unconscious or has brain damage. However it seems reasonable to believe that there are many conditions in which voluntary euthanasia should be allowed, and there are many organizations that support the choice of voluntary euthanasia. So why is it that so many do not support the choice of the way a person wants to live or die? There are many common arguments people have against voluntary euthanasia. One argument against voluntary euthanasia is that â€Å"the old, disabled and incurably ill would feel they should choose voluntary euthanasia so that they were not a burden on others†¦.† (Anonymous Common 1). However there is no real evidence to show that this problem will arise if voluntary euthanasia is legalized. Another argument is â€Å"there is always a possibility of an incorrect diagnosis or the discovery of a treatment that will permit either survival or recovery† (Anonymous Objections 1). This is so... ... possible treatment. â€Å"Unfortunately, even when medical advances and excellent hospice research in palliative care, severe indignity, pain and distress cannot always be controlled† (Anonymous 5). There are many conditions that a person would have to obtain before given the opportunity to choose to die. A person would have to be suffering from a terminal illness that would unlikely benefit from the discovery of a cure for that illness. Also as a direct result of the illness, the patient has to be suffering intolerable pain. Another requirement would be that they are mentally able to make the decision and are not forced into making a decision. Legalizing voluntary euthanasia is all about having a choice. Most people today believe that everyone should be given the right to choose how they live and die. It’s not your life, if you can’t choose when to let go.

That Eye, The Sky

Tim Winton’s that eye, the sky (1986) uses first person narrative techniques, symbolism, imagery and characterisation to create the persona of Morton Flack, the narrator and protagonist of the novel. Winton uses Ort’s narration to give the reader insights into the Flack family, the relationships they have and the issues that they face. As Winton develops Ort’s narration the reader is supplied with many symbolic images. The most important symbol and imagery in the novel is the sky.Prior to Henry Warburton entering the life of Ort and educating him about God and religion, Ort sees the sky as an eye which looks over the world and sees everything. Throughout the novel the eye imagery signifies the spirituality and mysticism between Ort and Henry. This essay will analyse how Winton uses the eye imagery to reveal the differences between the two characters by examining Ort’s unyielding faith in a higher force and Henry Warburton’s ever changing relationshi p with God.This paper will also compare the dispositions of both Ort and Henry. To describe the character of Ort and his journey throughout the novel, one may look to both vision/imagination and spirituality. Ort appears to be a very imaginative child who lacks knowledge and education. This is demonstrated in the book through the colloquial language of the text with phrases such as ‘Geez, yeah’ and ‘Yer justa kid’ (p 35 & 36). Ort has visions of an eye in the sky, jewels appearing in the flour jar and bells ringing in the forest.At night Ort sees rabbits’ eyes around the fence line and a mysterious light above the house (Matthew, 1986, p 83), although Winton describes the light as â€Å"a little cloud small and fat like a woolly sheep† (p 51). Nobody else can see these visions. Most of the time Ort keeps these images to himself. Sam and Alice Flack chose to move to the country after getting married so that they can live amongst the trees. The countryside is another strong image in the book which symbolises the true nature of the Flack family and the reason for the natural connection Ort has with the environment (p 62).When Ort identifies the sky as a symbol of God, he is happy to believe that something is watching over his family and protecting them. The novel ends on Easter morning, signifying the resurrection of Christ, but also the rebirth of nature and Sam Flack’s possible return to conscious life. It is because of Ort’s love for his family and relentless faith in God this miracle has occurred (p 150). Ort is pure and therefore has a natural connection with God, and Winton utilises the eye imagery to connect this with Ort.A glimps into Henry Warburton’s character may be found in the incident where he almost became blind but by some fortune he was miraculously healed. That is when Henry first came a believer in God. After this incident Henry stole a bible and became a Christian (p 92). As explaine d by Watson, a Christian is a person who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ (2000, p 8). Henry preaches only what he has read from the bible, quite like most institutionalised religions.Henry has never had any visions or powerful sense of spirituality. Henry’s sincerity as he ministers to the Flack family, providing spiritual and practical teaching, is evident, but he is always tormented by his past sins (p 141). Henry believes that his sins have harmed his relationship with God (Watson, 200, p 44), and at times Henry attempts to hide from him, â€Å"I hide and you see. I run and you follow† (p 83). Henry seems to have an ambivalent relationship with God.The reason Henry mysteriously arrived at the Flack household was to try and heal Sam. Henry believed that if he provided this selfless act he would be healed and God would give him the ability to truly love (p 141). Henry is a very hypocritical character who tries to give Ort spiritual meaning, yet i s still searching for meaning himself. Everything about Henry seems to be artificial just like his false eye. There are conflicting characteristics between Ort and Henry. Henry’s false eye emphasises Henry as a flawed messenger.He mimics the words of God, just as his eye mimics the eye in the sky, the true eye (p 133). In comparison Ort has a very natural spirituality and is kind hearted, which leads him to be able to see visions. Ort loves his family so much that he has a habit of peeping through windows, cracks and holes in the walls. In Ort’s mind he is just â€Å"Checking on people† (p 24), just like God is like the sky and can see all and hear all, Ort does not know why it will make a difference if a person’s son or brother sees them as well (p 24).Henry only watches people for his own gratification, for example when he crept around watching the Flack family for weeks and Tegwyn swimming in the â€Å"nick† (p 140). The light that Ort envisages throughout this novel represents religion. Although Henry knows all about religion, he does not really practise what he preaches and consequently cannot see the light (p 91). At the end of the novel when Henry and Tegwyn depart and Grammar dies, there are only three people left in the family (p 150), symbolic of the Holy Trinity.This essay has analysed the significance of the eye imagery in Winton’s novel and how the two characters perceive the eye of God and religion. The major revelation in Ort's spiritual growth is his recognition of Henry Warburton's false identity. Ort has grown and learnt enough about religion and life through Henry Warburton's stories and actions to identify what is right and what is wrong. Although Henry's preaching was honest and true, Ort saw that Henry was far from the image he portrayed himself to be.Winton demonstrates through the eye imagery that Henry is more like the orthodox harshness practised by much of the institutionalised religion. In c ontrast, Winton seems to support the more personalised connectedness between individuals and God which is revealed by Ort. Winton is critically revealing the idea that it is important to trust one’s own faith within the Lord, rather than human leaders of religion because, just like Henry, they too can be deceptive and give a flawed interpretation of God’s messages to their followers.

The Philosophy of Action in Hamlet

‘Words, words, words’: Hamlet’s philosophy of action Central to any drama is action. What distinguishes drama from other literary forms is the very fact that it is acted upon a stage, that voice is given to the words and that movement creates meaning. It is, therefore, puzzling that the most seminal dramatic work in the English language contains, arguably, precious little of what many might describe as dramatic action. Nevertheless it has moved, enthralled and, what is more, entertained generations of theatre goers across the centuries and is still regarded as one of Shakespeare’s most popular play.It has divided critics: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe regards as central to the play Hamlet’s inability to act[1] whereas T. S. Eliot reduces the work to ‘an artistic failure’. [2] If Tom Stoppard is to be believed, even the characters are at odds with this apparent lack of drama as Stoppard’s Rosencrantz asks ‘is it too much to expe ct a little sustained action?! ’[3] If then, we are to acknowledge that action is central to drama, it is important to remember that such action is usually derived from conflict.When regarding Hamlet through this basic philosophy, the play is in every way dramatic. The play is concerned with conflict. We have international conflict, familial conflict and internal conflict and it is these conflicts that drive the play. This is confirmed within the opening line ‘Who’s there? ’(I. i. 1)[4] Immediately we are plunged into the state of paranoia that envelops Elsinore, the question is confrontational and, furthermore, directs us towards the international conflict between Denmark and Norway. The drama of the play, however, is not as simple as this.For instance, we must also consider the dramatic structure of a play and apply this to Hamlet; a structure that goes from equilibrium to conflict and then on to a new equilibrium. It is impossible to relate this to the play; for who would agree that the Elsinore, at the start of Hamlet, is in a state of equilibrium? Indeed, as Stephen Ratcliffe points out, the catalyst for all action in the play does not occur within the play[5]. The murder of Hamlet’s father has already happened when Barnardo delivers that famous first line, a line which itself suggests a response to something that has happened offstage.Ratcliffe goes on to discuss that the line could almost be a response to a ‘knock knock’ joke but more seriously that it: begin[s] the play in response not only to some implicit, unspoken physical action- some motion or noise in the dark, [†¦] but to an implicit action not performed on stage – some motion of the Ghost of Hamlet’s father which Bernardo, who speaks this line, must imagine he has seen and/or heard. [6] Ratcliffe also suggests that the action not performed on stage does not happen at all.Alarmingly, he refutes Claudius’s confession of frat ricide in Act III, arguing unconvincingly that Old Hamlet’s murder had never taken place. [7] In spite of this he does raise an interesting issue that is concerned with the question as to why – when in Western literature dramatic narrative is defined by cause and effect – does Shakespeare place the primary cause off stage and beyond the gaze of his audience? We are left to imagine the dramatic possibilities of opening the play with the alarming and visually striking image of a brother’s murder.If Shakespeare’s decision to leave this exciting and sinister event in the wings confounds us, what, then, are we to make of the climax of the play? If we are to return to the classic dramatic structure of a play, we expect to see rising action leading to a climax that, in turn, leads on to the falling action culminated by the denouement. Hamlet gives us no such structure. There is no climax in the classic sense or if there is it appears in the final scene, n ot where one would expect. There is, nevertheless, one possibility that the climax may appear earlier in the play and that would be, in the traditional sense, in Act III.The murder of Polonius in Act III, scene iv might be regarded as the turning point of the play in the same way that Mercutio’s death in Romeo and Juliet is seen as such. It is at this point that we see Hamlet at a height of passion, ‘How now? A rat! Dead for a ducat, dead’ (III. iv. 23). The use of the word ‘rat’ shows Hamlet’s contempt for his supposed victim, the repetition of ‘dead’ embellishes his determination to kill, and the ducat is the small price Hamlet values the life he has just taken. The consequences of this action feed into every other event that is to happen: Claudius’s resolve to kill Hamlet, Ophelia’s eath and Laertes’s act of revenge which brings about the play’s final dynastic collapse. Once again, though, Shakespear e ‘removes’ the audience from the action, having the murder take place ‘offstage’. Polonius is murdered behind the arras and this takes us away from the immediacy of the action. There is no huge build up with a climactic duel as there is in Romeo and Juliet; we are not even given the drama of remorse that is evident in Macbeth. For these reasons, it is impossible to consider the death of Polonius to be the dramatic climax of the play, merely another cause leading on to another effect.This shortage of ‘action’, though, is illusory. A. C. Bradley comments on this when he suggests a hypothetical reaction to the play: What a sensational story! Why, here are some eight violent deaths, not to speak of adultery, a ghost, a mad woman, and a fight in a grave! [8] Hamlet does have a dramatic conclusion, of that no one is in doubt, but this has come after a series of procrastinations from the titular hero. All other action is kept firmly offstage. One mig ht hear Bradley go on to say ‘Treason, pirates, war, the storming of a castle and a regime change! The latter two were included in Branagh’s film version strongly alluding to the storming of the Iranian embassy in 1981 an event that was intensely exciting and dramatic for any that can remember it. For Shakespeare, however, such extravagant action appears to be superfluous to his play and is, therefore, not of importance. As a consequence, it would appear redundant to continue analysing what is not in the play, as Ratcliffe has done at length[9], and to focus on what Shakespeare does give us. What Shakespeare does give us is words, ‘words, words, words’(II. i. 192) and it is through these words that he provides the action. It is here where I must agree with Ratcliffe when he suggests that, in Hamlet, it is the language that is of importance and not the action. [10] It is necessary, then, to look at the power of language within the play and how Shakespeare fa cilitates it in order to sustain a dramatic structure. Firstly, as mentioned above, the catalyst for all the action in the play happens off stage but is delivered to the audience, and Hamlet, through the words of the ghost. We know that these ords are to hold significance as we have shared Horatio’s anxiety for the ghost to ‘stay and speak’ (I. i. 142). The appearance of the ghost is not enough. It is, therefore, the words that are spoken to Hamlet in conjunction with the apparition that help to creates the first piece of dramatic action in the play: Now, Hamlet, hear. ’Tis given out that, sleeping in my orchard, A serpent stung me – so the whole ear of Denmark Is by a forged process of my death Rankly abus’d – but know, thou noble youth, The serpent that did sting thy father’s life Now wears his crown. [†¦]Ay, that incestuous, that adulterate beast, With witchcraft of his wit, with traitorous gifts- O wicked wit, and gifts that have the power So to seduce! – won to his shameful lust The will of my most seeming-virtuous queen. (I. i. 34-46) What is striking about this scene is how it is dominated by the ghost and how little Hamlet actually says. If it were one of the lesser characters, it could be assumed that they were struck dumb and in awe of the presence of a spectre but, even this early in the play, we know enough about Hamlet to realise that this would not be the case for him.He mentions a few lines earlier that he is not afraid, saying ‘I do not set my life at a pin’s fee’ (I. iv. 65), so why now is he so quiet? Surely Shakespeare feels that Hamlet, like the audience, should be still with trepidation at the drama that is unfolding before them. In this short passage of the ghost’s speech we have incest, adultery, witchcraft, treachery, not to mention murder. Here we see Shakespeare using the power of words to create the action upon the stage, words that, like Ra tcliffe points out, enter through our ears as did Claudius’s poison. 11] Later on in the play we will see words used as poison, again by Claudius, when, in true Machiavellian style, he corrupts the mind of the vengeful Laertes. When discussing the power of words we must look at the play-within-a-play sequence of Act III, an aspect of the play which has been discussed at length by the critics but also one that brings into question another facet of action, that of acting. Hamlet is an extremely self-conscious play, bringing comedy into a highly dramatic moment in Act I, scene v when Hamlet asks the ghost ‘Canst work i’th’ earth so fast? (l. 170): this is an obvious comment on the crudeness of Elizabethan stagecraft. Earlier in the same scene Shakespeare has commented on the possibility of a bored audience when Hamlet comments on ‘this distracted globe’ (l. 97)[12] and, when Polonius states that when he played Caesar ‘Brutus killed me. â₠¬â„¢ (III. ii. 103) Jenkins points out that the actors playing Hamlet and Polonius were likely to have played Brutus and Caesar respectively in an earlier play and therefore are about to ‘re-enact’ the murder. 13] If we look at Hamlet’s instructions to the players: Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue; but if you mouth it as many of your players do, I had as lief the town-cryer spoke my lines. Nor do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus but use all gently; for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as I may say, whirlwind of your passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness.O, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who for the most part are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb-shows and noise. I would have such a fellow whipped for o’erdoing Termagant. It out-Herods Herod. Pray you avoid it. (III. ii. 1-14) Again, we have a very self-conscious speech where there seems to be an in-joke upon the acting style of the actor who plays Polonius, if not intended by Shakespeare it could certainly be performed as such.There is also the awareness of audience as well in the comments about the groundlings which is rather a brave joke which, had they been enjoying the play, would have gone down in good humour. It might also be considered that Shakespeare followed up the joke by including the dumb-show that followed! If we look closely at the instructions, however, we notice the emphasis on the words rather than the action. The opening imperative is ‘Speak the speech’ and interestingly ‘as I pronounced it’ not as I acted or showed it which seems strange to say when instructing actors.It is true that in the restricted views of an Elizabethan playhouse an audience would go to hear a play but this would not be the case in a private cou rtly performance. Also we must remember that Hamlet is only concerned with one member of the audience; someone who, one might assume, would have the best view of the play. Hamlet’s instructions are followed by references to the tongue and mouth where the words must inevitably come from and then the simile of the town cryer again placing stress on verbal communication.Hamlet requests a limit to the ‘action’, the body movement – the acting- so that it is the language that is of paramount importance. In such a self-aware moment of the nature of acting and drama in the play are we not to assume that this is coming from Shakespeare as much as Hamlet? The players’ sequence has significance because here we have on stage the mechanics of Hamlet. There is the murder of Gonzago/Hamlet acted out on stage, the betrayal of Lucianus/Claudius and the union between the Lucianus/Claudius and Queen/Gertrude.Here Shakespeare gives us what we were denied in the first a ct the event which sets the whole play in motion. Not only that but by having Lucianus as the nephew to Gonzago we are also witnessing the events that are about to happen on stage or, at least, those that we expect to happen. Interestingly enough, though, is that Shakespeare has included a dumb-show as if to appease the groundlings despite his earlier comments but it is not through watching this that Claudius reacts but rather the words of the players that follows.At the line ‘On wholesome life usurps immediately’ (III. ii. 254) Claudius can no longer remain seated for he cannot deny the words, something that has been discussed and embellished by Ratcliffe. [14] The question as to why Claudius does not react to the dumb-show can be resolved in performance by choosing to have Claudius showing signs of discomfort throughout until he can finally stand it no more as in Olivier’s film version. There is nothing in the text, however, that suggests that this is how it sh ould be performed. The king questions Hamlet, Is there no offence in’t? ’ (III. ii. 227) and in this dialogue there is nothing to suggest that he is suffering from any anxiety regardless of how this line has divided critics. [15] So once again we see that it is words that have more power, more effect and more significance than mere actions. In looking at the philosophy of action in the play one must recognise that the play is essentially a revenge play and that all action must stem from the concept of revenge. Michael Mangan defines the revenge play as a play which: harts the protagonist’s attempts to [revenge]: this may involve a period of doubt, in which the protagonist decides whether or not to go ahead with the revenge, and it may also involve some complex plotting (in both senses of the word) as the protagonist decides to take revenge in an apt or fitting way. The revenger, by deciding to take revenge, places himself outside the normal order of things, and often becomes more and more isolated as the play progresses – an isolation which at its most extreme becomes madness. [16] It would appear, from this definition, that Hamlet is, indeed, a revenge play but who is it that seeks revenge?I would argue that it is not Hamlet for, as Catherine Belsey notes, ‘[r]evenge is not justice’[17] and we are reminded throughout the play that Hamlet seeks justice. For instance, Hamlet does not act rashly for he states: Give me that man That is not passion’s slave, and I will wear him In my heart’s core, ay, in my heart of heart (III. ii. 71-73) This might suggest that Hamlet holds reason close to his heart. Here we see that contrary to popular belief Hamlet is not a man that is ruled by passion but that is not to say that he is not passionate.If Hamlet were ruled by passion he would not have devised such an elaborate ploy to confirm the guilt of the king but would have acted straight away. Gone would be the procrasti nations and Hamlet could have roused up the populace as easily as Laertes does in Act IV, as Bradley points out[18], and Claudius would have been dead by Act II. Many critics that have argued this case seem to suggest that Shakespeare’s reason for prolonging the action was to fill out the five act structure of the play. [19] We are given three possible revenge heroes in the play: Hamlet we can discount, Fortinbras and Laertes.Shakespeare has provided these two characters to put Hamlet’s inability to act into stark contrast. Through Fortinbras we see the noble prince revenging the death of his father through careful planning and sharp resolve and in Laertes we see a rash young man whose desperate bid for revenge only quickens his own demise. It is important to note that even with the careful planning Fortinbras still shares Hamlet’s prolonging of the act when we consider that Denmark’s defeat of Norway was at the time of Hamlet’s birth some thirty y ears previous.Hamlet, however, does not seek revenge. He could have easily been able to exact it when he says ‘Now might I do it pat’ (III. iii. 73). The semantics of the word ‘might’ suggest that he has no intention of committing the murder. ‘Will’ or ‘must’ would imply a more decisive move yet Shakespeare gives us a Hamlet who is questioning his actions. His decision to spare Claudius whilst at prayer further indicates that it is justice and not revenge that Hamlet desires.Claudius points out to Laertes that ‘No place indeed should murder sancturise’ but Hamlet delays his action because he wants justice – a death for a death- like for like. Significantly, Hamlet is a revenger who is unable to act as Calhoun states he is unable to ‘play the role’,[20] or to use Ted Hughes’s metaphor: Like the driver of a bus containing all the characters of the drama, he hurtles towards destruction, in slow motion, with his foot jammed down hard on the brakes. [21] Having established the substance and value of words in Hamlet it is necessary to return to the question of dramatic climax in the play.It has always been recognised that it is a dramatic impossibility to act Hamlet on the stage in its entirety and it is not unknown for students of the text to skip through sections when reading but one thing always remains and that is the soliloquies. Within the play we have the most beautiful speeches composed in the English language and it is one of these that, I believe, forms the climax of the play. The climax of language that we are given in the play does follow the classic dramatic structure coming in Act III and at the risk of sounding cliched I would suggest that it is the ‘To be or not to be’ speech.It is in this soliloquy that we have the nub of the play rests and that is Hamlet’s internal conflict on how he should act. It has long been considered to be the musin gs of a troubled mind contemplating suicide and whilst no one will argue that Hamlet’s is not a troubled mind is he really deliberating the end of his own life? I would argue no. Shakespeare has already given us such ruminations earlier in the play with ‘o that this too too sullied flesh would melt’ (I. ii. 129) and I find it difficult to accept that a dramatist of Shakespeare’s calibre would not have developed his main character by the third act.In fact, I would argue that after confronting the ghost and hearing the charge against Claudius, Hamlet has been given new meaning to his life and that all thoughts of suicide have faded. ‘To be or not to be’ should read as ‘To do or not to do’ or ‘To act or not to act’ for it is in this speech that we witness Hamlet’s thoughts on whether to proceed with the killing of Claudius. Not once in the speech is there an ‘I’, nowhere does Hamlet refer to himself. His examples of the ‘whips and scorns of time’ (III. i. 70) save one do not seem to be justifications for taking one’s own life:Th’oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely, The pangs of dispriz’d love, the laws delay, The insolence of office, and the spurns That patient merit of th’unworthy takes (III. i. 71-74) Apart from unrequited love, for which many have taken their life, these seem to be the wrongs that are urging Hamlet to seek justice against Claudius. I might take this further and suggest a reading of the soliloquy where Hamlet knows that Claudius is eavesdropping, something that seemed to me implicit in Brannagh’s film. Through this reading we can see that Hamlet is acting a role for us as an audience but specifically for Claudius and Polonius.He is diverting attention from his true thoughts of murder whilst also confirming his ‘antic disposition’ (I. v. 180). In addition to this it explains why he apparently forgets the ghost of his father as he claims ‘No traveller returns’ (III. i. 80) as it would not be practical to reveal the truth at this stage. Also, the speech concludes that it is conscience that prevents him and the fear of the unknown when prior to this he has stated that it was because that God has ‘fix’d / His canon ’gainst self-slaughter’ (I. ii. 131-132).Arguably, this could be a variation of the same rationale yet there is a distinct change in tone which suggests a difference in attitude. Therefore, it is within this soliloquy where Hamlet reaches his decision which he reveals to Ophelia (and Claudius) when he says that ‘all but one – shall live’ (III. i. 150). One might argue that the opening line of this speech, ‘To be or not to be’ (III. i. 56), uncontrovertibly suggests that Hamlet is, indeed, reflecting on suicide but, once again, this is another self-conscious reflection upon the nature of drama.For Hamlet, the character in the play Hamlet, must act in order to ‘be’ and as a revenge hero, that act is the murder of Claudius. While Claudius is alive, Hamlet’s mind and soul are troubled and only through the act of revenge with ‘a bare bodkin’ can he bring about his ‘quietus’ (III. i. 75-6). Words, therefore, are the focus of this play. It is Shakespeare’s longest and in it we are given a character who ‘â€Å"comes alive† only in language’[22], it is through words that the dramatic action, except the final scene, takes place upon the stage.In terms of drama, the play is at odds with its form in that the driving action of the plot precedes the start of the play. We are given a revenge hero who is unable to live up to that title and only seems to spring into what one might call action when he has been hit by Laertes poisoned rapier and he knows that he is about to die, something which he poin ts out twice in the scene. Indeed, in performance, the final scene can be played as equally low-key as it can be played dramatic. In a self-conscious play such as this it seems clear that Shakespeare understands the power of words.To a dramatist, all action that can be created on a stage is a representation – one that is created through words. Crucially it is through language that the world of Elsinore is created and all those that exist within it exist through the words that they speak. It is, therefore fitting that Hamlet’s dying words are ‘the rest is silence’ (V. ii. 363) for he knows that without language he is nothing. Through Hamlet Shakespeare gives us a world where action is secondary to language because, in drama, one creates the other. 3967 words (exc. footnotes) 4338 words (inc. footnotes) Bibliography Primary SourcesShakespeare, William, Hamlet, ed. Harold Jenkins, The Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series (London and New York: Routledge, 1994) Stoppa rd, Tom, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (London: Faber & Faber, 1967) von Goethe, Johann Wolfgang, Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship, ed. and trans. Eric A. Blackall (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995) Secondary Sources Belsey, Catherine, ‘Revenge in Hamlet’, in Hamlet: Contemporary Critical Essays, ed. Martin Coyle (London: Macmillan, 1992), pp. 154-159. Bloom, Harold, Hamlet: Poem Unlimited, (Edinburgh: Canongate, 2003) Bradley, A. C. , Shakespearean Tragedy, 3rd edn. London: Macmillan, 1992), pp. 84-166. Calhoun, Jean S. , ‘Hamlet and the Circumference of Action’, Renaissance News, Vol. 15, No. 4. (Winter, 1962), 281-298. Dickson, Andrew, The Rough Guide to Shakespeare, (London: Rough Guides, 2005) Eliot, T. S. , ‘Hamlet’ in Selected Essays (London: Faber & Faber, 1951), p. 141-146. Fernie, Ewan, ‘Terrible Action: Recent Criticism and Questions of Agency’, Shakespeare, Vol. 2, No. 1 (June, 2006), 95-11 8. Hughes, Ted, Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being (London: Faber & Faber, 1992), pp. 233-239. Jump, John D. , (ed. ) Hamlet: A Selection of Critical Essays (London: Macmillan, 1968), pp. 2-32. Kettle, Arnold, ‘From Hamlet to Lear’, in Shakespeare in a Changing World, ed. Arnold Kettle (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1964), pp. 146-159. Mangan, Michael, A Preface to Shakespeare’s Tragedies (London and New York: Longman, 1991) Ratcliffe, Stephen ‘What Doesn’t Happen in Hamlet: The Ghost’s Speech’, Modern Language Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3/4. (Autumn, 1998), 125-150. ——————–, ‘‘Who’s There? ’: Elsinore and Everywhere’, Modern Language Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2. (Autumn, 1999), 153-173. ———————– [1] Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship, ed. and trans.Eric A. Blackall (P rinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), p. 146. [2] T. S. Eliot, ‘Hamlet’ in Selected Essays (London: Faber & Faber, 1951), p. 143. [3] Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (London: Faber & Faber, 1967), p. 86. [4] William Shakespeare, Hamlet, ed. Harold Jenkins, The Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), subsequent references are to this edition. [5] Stephan Ratcliffe, ‘What Doesn’t Happen in Hamlet: The Ghost’s Speech’, Modern Language Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3/4. (Autumn, 1998), pp. 125-150. [6] ——————–, ‘‘Who’s There? : Elsinore and Everywhere’, Modern Language Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2. (Autumn, 1999), p. 153. [7] Ratcliffe, ‘What Doesn’t Happen in Hamlet: The Ghost’s Speech’, pp. 135-139. [8] A. C. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy, 3rd edn. (London: Macmillan, 1992), Lecture III, p. 93. [9 ] Ratcliffe, ‘What Doesn’t Happen in Hamlet: The Ghost’s Speech’ pp. 125-150 [10] Ibid. , p. 129. [11] Ibid. p. 131 [12] Having opened my Christmas presents and receiving Bloom’s Poem Unlimited after I had written this essay, I feel obliged to cite him for what I assumed to be an acute and original observation.If only Father Christmas hadn’t been so efficient, I could have at least pleaded ignorance! Harold Bloom, Hamlet: Poem Unlimited (Edinburgh: Canongate, 2003), p. 10 [13] Jenkins (ed. ), Hamlet, p. 294 [14] Ratcliffe, ‘What Doesn’t Happen in Hamlet: The Ghost’s Speech’, pp. 131-132. [15] Jenkins explains how the line has been used to show Claudius’s calm attitude to the play and to prove his unease in Jenkins (ed. ), Hamlet, p. 301. [16] Michael Mangan, A Preface to Shakespeare’s Tragedies (London and New York: Longman, 1991), p. 67. [17] Catherine Belsey, ‘Revenge in Hamlet’, in Haml et: Contemporary Critical Essays, ed.Martin Coyle (London: Macmillan, 1992), p. 154. [18] Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy, p. 98. [19] Notably the anonymous critic in ‘Extracts from Earlier Critics, 1710-1945’ in Hamlet: A Selection of Critical Essays, ed. John D. Jump (London: Macmillan, 1968), p. 22. [20] Jean S. Calhoun, ‘Hamlet and the Circumference of Action’, Renaissance News, Vol. 15, No. 4. (Winter, 1962), p. 288. [21] Ted Hughes, Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being (London: Faber & Faber, 1992), p. 236. [22] Ewan Fernie, ‘Terrible Action: Recent Criticism and Questions of Agency’, Shakespeare, Vol. 2, No. 1 (June, 2006), p. 96.