What Happens in Hamlet: John Dover Wilson on Hamlet

Every time I revisit a Shakespeare play or read a new piece of criticism, I see something new. His plays are so rich, so complex, so endlessly fascinating. Let other minds dwell on conspiracy theories and other trivia, I can just ponder over these plays for the rest of my life. 

1/ Unlike other critics I have read (such as Tony Tanner, G. Wilson Knight, or A. C. Bradley), John Dover Wilson places lots of importance on Claudius’s usurpation and Hamlet’s loss of the throne, which I think is an interesting point. Indeed, why does the throne go to the brother rather than the son? Hamlet mentions an election—is the tedious old fool Polonius part of the council that kicks out Hamlet? 

Wilson doesn’t mean that thwarted ambition is the only or even chief cause of Hamlet’s depression—he does talk at length about shock, disappointment in his mother, disillusionment with love and everything, the weight he has to bear, and so on and so forth—but he is saying that it’s a mistake to ignore Hamlet’s loss of the throne.

Once we think of that aspect—especially Claudius’s usurpation—we see everything in a different light, such as that exchange between Hamlet and his old friends Guildenstern and Rosencrantz. 

“GUIDENSTERN Which dreams indeed are ambition; for the very substance of the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream.

HAMLET A dream itself is but a shadow.

ROSENCRANTZ Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a quality that it is but a shadow’s shadow.

HAMLET Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and outstretch’d heroes the beggars’ shadows. Shall we to th’ court? for, by my fay, I cannot reason.” (Act 2 scene 2) 

2/ Like A. C. Bradley (and unlike G. Wilson Knight), John Dover Wilson sees Hamlet as noble—what would be the tragedy if Hamlet were not a noble character? (This is why I don’t like Andrew Scott’s performance). 

Then why, one must ask, does the sweet prince treat Ophelia like a whore? I think Wilson’s reading that Hamlet overhears Polonius saying “I’ll loose my daughter to him” makes perfect sense: she has abandoned him, she has offered him no consolation in time of crisis and anguish, and worse, she has agreed to be used as bait for his enemies to spy on him. 

His reading of Hamlet’s scenes with Ophelia, especially the nunnery scene, is also very good. 

3/ I like his reading of the play scene. Wilson thinks Shakespeare includes a dumb-show in order to tell the whole story to the audience, because later, when the actors reenact the murder, the play would be interrupted. 

Then why does Claudius not react till later? Isn’t the dumb-show enough to let him know Hamlet has known the truth? 

I think Wilson has argued rather convincingly that Hamlet does not plan the dumb-show himself—that he only adapts The Murder of Gonzago and inserts a speech—and he is extremely irritated with the insertion of the dumb-show (“the players cannot keep counsel; they’ll tell all”). 

As for why Claudius doesn’t react till later, Wilson argues that he, distracted by other things and more interested in plucking out the heart of Hamlet’s mystery, doesn’t watch the dumb-show (hence “Have you heard the argument? Is there no offence in’t?”).

So far, my interpretation has been different, with influence from my friend Himadri (Argumentative Old Git): Claudius sits through the dumb-show, pretending to notice nothing—one may smile and smile and be a villain—but it is too much when it comes to that moment because Hamlet is not only revealing that he knows the truth, he is also threatening the king—look, in the play, the king is not murdered by his brother, as Hamlet’s father is killed by Claudius, but he is killed by his nephew—that is a threat.

But Wilson does address the threat, the double meaning of the play, and the way the play would appear to the court, and his interpretation makes sense, with good arguments. 

4/ John Dover Wilson has a section about the contradictions in Horatio, which I didn’t notice, even after 3 readings and 2 performances (but then, who cares about Horatio? that’s my excuse). 

Next time, I’m going to have to pay more attention to Horatio.  

5/ The chapters about the reception of the play at court, Gertrude’s reaction, Hamlet’s delay, and the conversation between Hamlet and Gertrude are full of interesting insights. 

John Dover Wilson argues, part of the reason Hamlet is paralysed from taking any action is that he has the heavy and complicated task of avenging his father but protecting his mother—her life and her name—what is he then meant to do? I have always thought Hamlet has more hate for his mother than for Claudius—he is more obsessed with her frailty, her incestuous sheets—he has to tell himself not to kill her. So Wilson makes a good point that after the play, rather than focusing on killing Claudius, Hamlet seems occupied with thoughts about Gertrude. 

I also like what he says about the scene in Gertrude’s bedchamber. Wilson destroys some critics’ nonsensical idea that the Ghost is only a figment of Hamlet’s imagination, a sign of his madness—Shakespeare has taken care to make it clear to the audience that the Ghost exists—but why does Gertrude not see him? And why does the Ghost appear in the bedchamber in the first place? 

His interpretations—I’m not telling you—make sense. 

6/ There are also lots of other fascinating points in the book—the funeral scene, Hamlet’s nobility, his change of mood, the fencing scene, Osric’s complicity, etc.—but I will not write everything down. You have to go read the book yourself. 

What Happens in Hamlet is a very good book. An excellent book. Makes you think and rethink about every scene in the play. 

PS: I just created a separate tag for Hamlet on the blog as I keep writing about it. Go back and see.