The Brilliance of Tom’s movie-making can be seen from how well Dream in Hanoi shows the cultural conflict between a multicultural team. The Asia Society in the US has taught Dream in Hanoi American students before their scholarships to study in Asia. Moreover, the US government has used Dream in Hanoi to train diplomats for Asian countries [2]. Furthermore, Dream in Hanoi helped Vietnamese understand Americans. For example, when Tom screened Dream in Hanoi for the Vietnamese theatre company members, Tom said Viets first time saw that Americans cry and are soft inside [2] even though they look and talk as if they only care about work, success, and efficiency. The feeling of Vietnamese actors towards Americans “changed after watching Dream in Hanoi” [2]. 

In a fan’s eyes, Dream in Hanoi shows a real-life story of Lorelle Browning’s “determination” (English and Peace Studies Professor, co-producer and dramaturg), Allen Nause’s “professionalism” (co-director), Doan Hoang Giang’s authority and teachings (co-director), Do Doan Chau’s leadership (co-producer and designer), Doug Miller’s “go with the flow character” (Lysander), Kristen Brown’s American feminism (Helena), Stephanie Mulligan’s union work ethic (stage technician), Cendrine De Vis’s love (marketing manager), Ngan Hoa’s making history by kissing on the stage (Hermia), and Do Ky’s masculinity and fight to save his face (Demetrius).

Lorelle sits on an emotional roller coaster in Dream in Hanoi. First, she was really sad and mad when six servants for Puck as a Vietnamese Cheo Theatre element were added to the play regardless of her opinion that they “demystify” [1] Shakespeare’s world of ferries. Later, Mr. Giang proposed to cut from the Vietnamese lines since even though actors were already rushing through the lines, the play was longer than two and a half hours. It drew Lorelle crazy again since she cut 400 lines from the play already and thought cutting more would destroy the “wonderful and powerful” [1] story of Shakespeare. She argued, “it is not about information. It is about what happens on that stage between human beings,” [1] hitting on her forehead and crying. 

As a consequence, Lorelle is reviewed “too rigid in directing this adaptation” by Carlos Uribe ’21, “anxious about cultural exchange and cultural contamination” by Caroline Crider ’20, “intense, almost religious reverence to...the original script...unwilling to adapt and cut out parts of the play as necessary to fit this unique production” by Finn Lorenz ’21, “the cliche ‘universality’ argument...ignoring (and perhaps belittling) the cultural context and the Vietnamese audience” by David Rubin ’21, “expected to have total control over the play and were fine with collaboration in name only…[and] Western supremacy by the dismissal of traditional Vietnamese techniques” by Isabel Anderson ’22, and “Western supremacy … colonialist ideals” by Joaquin Grace ’20 at Carleton College on quiz 2 of English course Global Shakespeare on the Spring 2020 term at Carleton College. I found a different answer from my research in which I interviewed Tom Wiedlinger, Kristen Brown, Stephanie Mulligan, and Allen Nause from Dream in Hanoi. 

I summarise that why Lorelle fought to have A Midsummer Night’s Dream as pristine as possible can be understood if we understand how her academic background and lack of experience in the real theatre production influenced in her actions, why she felt “unbalanced” as Tom described, and Lorelle’s relationship to the project, which resulted in a founder’s syndrome defined in the startup communities. 

Lorelle’s relationship to the Vietnam and Shakespeare

In an interview with me, Tom Weidlinger said he was "initially pessimistic" when he heard about Lorelle's project cooperating with the Vietnamese theatre company. First of all, it was a communist country that had ideology different from what Americans stand for or used to. Tom agreed that American actors, to a certain degree, thought Viets would hate them for being Americans due to the memory of the Vietnam war. 

Having theatrical cooperation between Yankees and Viets sounded difficult in the prevailing sentiment. But Lorelle told herself, “I have to do it” and made it happen. In an interview with me, Kristen Brown said, “Lorelle was determined and got a lot done.” She raised money and brought the Vietnamese theatre company to tour in the States, therefore, gained goodwill from and trust of Vietnamese Theatre in 1998. She worked hard for five years since Vietnam opened its embassy in San Francisco to gain approval from the Vietnamese Ministry of Culture and Information to have theatrical cooperation between the US and Vietnam. Then when she finally won permission, she put together the American team to go to Vietnam in 2000. She also convinced renowned Vietnamese intellect, Dr. Nghi, to translate the A Midsummer Night’s Dream. She worked with the Vietnamese team that didn’t speak English through translators. At the fruition of her work, she watched the opening of A Midsummer Night’s Dream’s opening in Hanoi's Soviet Friendship Palace with a beautiful necklace and dress. On top of that, when Vietnamese theatre declined after the tour in Vietnam to continue the cooperation in the US, she didn’t give up. A year later, she went to Vietnam with Tom, screened Dream in Hanoi for the Vietnamese theatre company actors and directors, and convinced them to tour A Midsummer Night’s Dream in the US.

When I asked why Lorelle was so passionate about Vietnam and Shakespeare, Tom answered that Lorelle's husband was a Vietnam war veteran. Tom explained they wanted to have some form of peace gesture to soften the memory of the devastating war that Americans and Vietnamese had 25 years ago. An interview at Pacific News [11] shows that Lorelle had a much stronger personal reason to heal the painful memory of the war. It says when Lorelle was a student at UC Santa Barbara during an anti-war demonstration, "students and other protesters burned the Bank of America building to the ground." As a consequence, the National Guard arrived, shot down the campus, and installed a curfew for three months. During the National Guard's occupation in the college town, Lorelle lost a close friend, Kevin Moran, her roommates were "clubbed, beaten and dragged away to jail by the police," and "she "was hit in the head with a police baton and pepper-sprayed during a massive demonstration in a park protesting the curfew." The interview finished with Lorelle's own words:

That was my radicalizing moment, despite my being such a novice in political activism...By then, the only moral order in my life — as I watched the sheriffs and National Guard inciting the riots and violence — was Shakespeare.  I had a wonderful professor who helped us appreciate the morality and justice Shakespeare explored in his plays.  Reading and performing his works gave me hope. [11]

Shakespeare gave Lorelle hope for a better time, peace, and justice. She wanted to bring that to Vietnam to heal not only her pain from the war but also the pain Viets experienced. The proof is that her career centered around Vietnam and Shakespeare. Pacific University said Lorelle taught “American drama and acting techniques at the Hanoi Academy of Theatre and Cinema” and was “the most renowned non-native expert on Vietnamese theatre.” Another proof is that before she fell ill, she was given a second Fulbright grant on Vietnam “to write a book, illustrated by never-before-seen archival photos, about actors who performed war propaganda plays in the jungles amidst ambushes and U.S. bombing strikes during the French and U.S. wars there.” [12] 

Lorelle’s life story shows that Lorelle dreamed and planned to bring a pristine Shakespeare to Vietnamese people because that was what helped Lorelle pass through the difficult times during the occupation of the National Guard in her college town. 

Lorelle’s lack of experience in the real theatre production before Dream in Hanoi

Tom argued in defense of Lorelle and explained, “fighting to stop America’s participation in the Vietnam war, Lorelle was a liberal who worked among liberals at a liberal arts college’s English department. She was fully aware of cultural differences and difficulties at communicating over cultures. She knew that she would need to overcome them and that she needed to learn the Vietnamese culture well in order to lead the project successfully.” Lorelle’s frustration was not “western supremacy” or “intense, almost religious reverence to...the original script.” She cut 400 lines already from the play. It was her lack of experience in the real theatre production, and she could not constructively channel her frustration productively. For example, Lorelle was not the only person who was frustrated with what Vietnamese partners did to the play. Allen was also frustrated, but he was diplomatic and was able to compromise when he needed to with his real theatre production experiences at home and abroad. Allen said,

It totally took me aback, because it had never been mentioned, never been brought up. Shakespeare didn't write Puck with six servants. He wrote Oberon with one servant, Puck. I had the feeling last night that maybe I was just kinda going through the motions of getting the play on its feet, and he[Mr. Giang] was gonna come in and direct the real play. That made me feel, um, slightly used. But, um, I, I, feel that we've come, we've come to an agreement at least today. But tomorrow I may be surprised again.[1]

Due to her lack of experience in theatre production, Lorelle also gave American team members a hard time. Stephanie Mulligan said that “She drew me crazy sometimes. She trusted me but failed to compromise even though I did not agree. But her passions get the better of her! She learned later in her life how to express that frustration more constructively. Vietnam experience taught her she needed to change and made her a better calibrator and teacher.” Kristen Brown added, “One time, I pulled Allen and told him that Lorelle is out of control and is saying things that are beyond the pale.” 

Lorelle’s feeling of being unbalanced due to the way she was provided information about the reality

Tom said, “She acted the way she did in the documentary because she was unbalanced due to inaccurate reality her Vietnamese partners provided to her.” For example, the production team thought they were opening the play at the most prominent Vietnamese Opera House. However, the Ministry of Culture and Information canceled their opening at the Opera House just one week before the opening. It was a shock to the production team. The production team was left without a place to stage its creation. Lorelle’s Vietnamese partners’ promises disappeared. She asks when Allen tries to find a solution, “do we need to continue on this roller coaster when we don’t know what is going to happen tonight?” She states, “I think we do have the option. Tell them that we are leaving.”

The second time, the reality she thought existed turned around when Lorelle learns that they cannot sell tickets for their opening night due to censorship rules, and her Vietnamese partners didn’t tell her even though they knew it from the beginning. Lorelle’s frustration can be seen from Dream in Hanoi:

Somehow not being told and until 30 hours before our opening that we cannot sell tickets to the opening when they have known for months that this was the case was beyond astonishing. I could not believe it. … what I heard when Chau said today is basically: you don't know what you are doing here, you don't really have any business being here, and you sure as hell have known that you have any business telling us how to advertise and sell tickets. I feel really betrayed. [1]

There was a cultural misunderstanding about each other’s intentions. Lorelle’s Vietnamese partners did not explain her reality in the American way, and it made it difficult for her to trust her partners, pushed her to be edgy, and made her act out of distrust and express her fear and despair as anger. Tom explained, “Americans talk looking at each other’s eyes, whereas looking straight in the eyes is considered bad behavior in some other cultures. Americans expected to hear the true situation,” but they didn’t get that in their way. It was the one reason Lorelle was frustrated. 

This way of Vietnamese communication did not only make Lorelle’s work difficult. It also made it difficult for Kristen and Allen. Kristen defined Vietnamese handling of sensitive issues, “Vietnamese power is staying calm to protect you. They don’t tell you much. It is not lying or deceiving you. They are just trying to fix it.” Kristen’s frustration in Vietnamese silence on sensitive issues still could be felt when I interviewed her. Kristen repeated emotionally, “I remember I am really wanting to tell them to just tell me what you like and what you don’t like. I just really wanted to have a real conversation: direct question, direct answer with a face value.” 

Another support for Vietnamese cultural communication made it not only Lorelle but also other Americans can be seen from Tom remembered Allen saying, “working with Vietnamese is like peeling a layer of onion one after another, you peel each layer thinking you learned the reality on which you can plan your future, but that reality changes when you feel the next layer.”  

Lorelle’s founder's syndrome

In the documentary, Shakespeare that Lorelle imagined when she worked on getting approval from the Vietnamese Ministry of Culture and Information was completely blurred by what Vietnamese partners were doing to the play. Lorelle had the right to have the play run in the way she wanted because she was the project founder and because she raised the money for the project. Also, Lorelle studied to understand what Shakespeare meant throughout her youth until Lorelle earned a Ph.D. Therefore, she had the qualification to teach everyone in the production team what Shakespeare is when she argued against six servants for Puck or cutting any more lines after cutting 400 lines. Unfortunately, Lorelle had no power whatsoever in the ultimate production decision, and it made her try to experience power in only an avenue she could control, which was Shakespeare. Tom said, "there was not anyone from the US embassy who helped Lorelle and made things happen for Lorelle." Lorelle was there because she asked to come and because the Vietnamese Theatre company allowed it. Lorelle was in someone's house, none of which she owned, but she worked hard to become an insider or lead the project to where she started. 

Conclusion

Tom said, “Lorelle’s character is either hated or loved, “which is great because people get to make their opinion. Stephanie concluded our interview, “Movie has a point of view, it shows a conflict and resolution in the end. But if you look at the bigger picture, the project was not about conflict but cooperation.”

Aside: interview summary with Allen Nause, showing there was more cooperation than conflict

International Shakespeare’s work requires patience and working-and-learning. From trips into the Middle East in the 1980s, I learned that even though there is a language barrier, if I communicate what I want out from characters, actors can bring the “characters come to life.” It was fundamentally and philosophically possible because Shakespeare plays are universal in theme. It deficits what many people go through in life. For example, in A Midsummer Night’ Dream, we see young people falling in love with each other but finding it difficult to win the love of the other person. You people ask, “how do you make [love] work?” It is a common theme in people’s lives all around the globe. 

At bringing Shakespeare on an international stage, people come with their “objectives.” Every project has obstacles. In the case of Dream in Hanoi, there was a conflict too. But Lorelle ultimately believed in the project. She loved Mr. Chau. Mr. Giang invited my original staging of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, such as where actors come from and where they stop. Then he tuned it for the Vietnamese audience, and I made suggestions. We had different training. “Vietnamese character types were highly stylized” whereas I brought in “Realism” and sought ways to adapt the play into the culture and time. Our actors had exercised for breathing, voice warming, and helping actors to explore their physicality. On the other hand, Vietnamese actors had their dancing and singing training. There was an exchange of knowledge and expertise. One example of theatre difference was, in America, we kiss on the stage, and the audience expects it. We could have had a super intimate kissing scene without ever touching the actors’ lips in Vietnam. But we chose to have a kissing view, and the actors were “okay” about it. The more significant issue was Kristen didn’t want to act “a sweet little girl” and “stylized stereotype.” She tried to play a “real person” and a “woman” who is “down-to-earth and does things to get what she wants.” Eventually, we came together and found a place between our interests by compromising without losing our beliefs. 

Aside: Methodology

I interviewed the American members of the production and wrote down notes by hand. I could not write down what they told me precisely. I wrote down notes to remind me of the crucial points mentioned in the interview. In this paper, I wrote what the production members said in my words to convey what they told me, giving keen attention to keeping the words that I wrote down in the notes.

Reference

1. Weidlinger, Tom., and F. Murray. Abraham. A Dream in Hanoi. Bullfrog Films, 2002. 

2. Weidlinger, Tom. Personal correspondence. May 31, 2020.

3. Brown, Kristen. Personal correspondence. Jun 6, 2020.

4. Mulligan, Stephanie. Personal correspondence. Jun 7, 2020. 

5. Nause, Allen. Personal correspondence. Jun 7, 2020.

6. Weidlinger, Tom.Thirty year of Public Television films by Tom Weidlinger. Retrievable from https://www.moiraproductions.com/about/

7. Google Books. The Restless Hungarian. Retrievable from https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Restless_Hungarian.html?id=kRbPtwEACAAJ

8. Laura Paull. When the international man of mystery is your own father. Oct 2019. Retrievable from https://www.jweekly.com/2019/10/30/when-the-international-man-of-mystery-is-your-own-father/

9. Oland, Dana. Longtime Idaho Shakespeare Festival actor dies after a short battle with rare cancer. May 2018. Retrievable from https://www.idahostatesman.com/latest-news/article211135234.html

10. Weidlinger, Tom. Profiles of the principal artists. Retrievable from https://www.adreaminhanoi.com/people/artists.html

11. Laukkanen, Wanda. Experiences shape professor’s viewpoints. May 2014. Retrievable from https://nanopdf.com/download/experiences-shape-professors-viewpoints-by-wanda-laukkanen-pacificuedu-inside_pdf

12. Lang, Joe. Professor Lorelle Browning Receives Second Fulbright Research Scholar Grant. Apr 2014. Retrievable from https://www.pacificu.edu/about/media/professor-lorelle-browning-receives-second-fulbright-research-scholar-grant

13. Bullfrog Films. A Dream In Hanoi. Retrievable from http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/catalog/adih.html

14. Obituaries. Dr. Lorelle Browning. The Oregonian. Jun 2015. Retrievable from https://obits.oregonlive.com/obituaries/oregon/obituary.aspx?n=lorelle-browning&pid=175056574

1. Sullivan, Julie. The Oregonian. Portland's KBOO Veterans' Voice show bonds two vets of different eras, same politics: Story of Marvin Simmons, husband of Lorelle Browning. Apr 2011. Retrievable from https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2011/04/kboos_veterans_voices_radio_sh.html

2. Bag&Baggage Productions. Lorelle Browning Memorial Lounge. Retrievable from https://bagnbaggage.org/capital-campaign/browning-memorial/

3. Townsley, Nancy. Vietnam expert, 'loving colleague' dies at 64. May 2015. Retrievable from https://pamplinmedia.com/fgnt/36-news/259486-130633-vietnam-expert-loving-colleague-dies-at-64

4. The Pacific Index. Professor leaves strong impact on Pacific. May 2015. Retrievable from https://www.pacindex.com/news/2015/05/07/professor-leaves-strong-impact-on-pacific/

5. Eisner, Ken. A Dream in Hanoi. Jul 2002. Retrievable from https://variety.com/2002/film/reviews/a-dream-in-hanoi-1200547135/

6. Johnson, Barry. The Inveterate Traveler Allen Nause. May 2013. Retrievable from https://www.americantheatre.org/2013/05/01/the-inveterate-traveler-allen-nause/

7. Johnson, Barry. Jon Kretzu looks back fondly at his Artists Rep years. Jan 2013. Retrievable from https://www.orartswatch.org/jon-kretzu-looks-back-fondly-at-his-artists-rep-years/

8. Arts Rep. Allen Nause. Retrievable from https://artistsrep.org/artists/allen-nause/

9. Hughley, Marty. Artists Rep's Allen Nause announces plans to retire as producing artistic director. Jan  2012. Retrievable from https://www.oregonlive.com/performance/2011/12/artists_reps_allen_nause_annou.html

10. Frochtzwajg, Jonathan. Artists Rep Picks New Artistic Director. Jun 2012. Retreivable from https://www.pdxmonthly.com/arts-and-culture/2012/12/artists-rep-picks-new-artistic-director

11. Bartels, Eric. Hurts so good all over again. Dec 2006. Retrievable from https://pamplinmedia.com/component/content/article?id=107035

12. Vondersmith, Jason. Staging a bold move. March 14, 2013. Retrievable from https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/11-features/129947-staging-a-bold-move

• ​could you change the world through culture and culture only? meaning: by bringing people together and letting people get exposed to each other's humanity in their private life rather than exposing the reality through the public/political life. 

Agamemnon appears to be a mean king when he takes Achilles's wife after he learned that he had to give away his younger wife to her father, Apollo's priest. It doesn't even bother him to lose his people's favor. It is mind-boggling to understand how he ended up being the leader in the first place. Regardless of the time the text is being read, Homer must have understood that Agamemnon was not a good king. He seems to lack the virtue of considering others' pain. Achilles hates him for it, and they argue.

After Kalchas explains that Apollo's curse of epidemic and dying affects the Danaans, Agamemnon says, "Still I am willing to give her back, if such is the best way. I myself desire that my people be safe, not perish."[1.115] This shows that he considers his people's wellbeing as a leader. But then he shoots himself in the foot at showing his people that he is a good leader like a father watching out for them and sacrificing for them and doing things for them. He straight out says, "Find me then some prize that shall be my own, lest I only among the Argives go without, since that were unfitting."[1.118] Is not the role of being a ruler and king and leader to be the fatherly figure who sacrifices their happiness for the happiness of their children? The original reason Apollo sent arrows to kill his people and bring black death to his people was that he didn't give Chryseis back to her father in the first place. He doesn't even show any sorrow when his people died for no reason because he gives back the girl eventually. This is a world where the leader's actions when badly done are not accounted for and the king is to be king regardless of competency. But Agamemnon acts like a young child who is fighting over candy with his sibling behind the car.

After Achilleus scolds him for being "greediest"[1.122], he argues saying "What do you want? To keep your own prize and have me sit here lacking one?"[1.133] Even though Achilles suggested they will give him bigger gifts after they win the Trojan citadel. From Achilles's depiction, Agamemnon never fought with his soldiers, had a dog's eyes with his eyes always on the profit. Was Homer depicting the harshness of having to deal with those in power who have no reason but their own interest?

Right when Achilles is contemplating whether to kill Agamemnon, "Athene descended from the sky. For Hera the goddess of the white arms sent her, who loved both men equally in heart and cared for them."[1.195] to calm Achilles down. The most mind-boggling part is that the Gods who should be able to decide what is right and wrong seem to still love him regardless of his faults as a leader. The question that I wonder is why the Greeks don’t rebel and kill this leader?Achilles says, "You wine sack, with a dog's eyes, with a deer's heart. Never once have you taken courage in your heart to arm with your people for battle, or go into ambuscade with the best of the Achaians." [1.225] 

But here are a few good things mentioned and observed about him. "With eyes and head like Zeus who delights in thunder, like Ares for girth, and with the chest of Poseidon … conspicuous … and foremost among the fighters"[2.476]. Maybe the reason he deserved to be a leader is because he looked noble and fear- and awe-inspiring. His charisma could scare people and his air made sure that he was above them by blood by being the son of Atreus. 

Later, the old Priam asks Helen from the castle who Agamemnon is. He observed him to be: "man who is so tremendous” and asked, “who is this Achaian man of power and stature? Though in truth there are others taller by a head than he is, yet these eyes have never yet looked on a man so splendid nor so lordly as this: such a man might well be a royal." [3.161] It proves again that on the outside he inspired fear and awe in his enemies, and his fortune and favor from the gods made him a deserving king, as his spirits and favors from the gods meant favor for his people regardless of his failings.

His biggest problem is the desire to dominate and be on top and win. He has no other goal in life, and his goal is to "win to the end of [his] quarrel" [3.291]. If you are smart like Odysseus, you stay loyal to him and do what he asks, or if you are brave like Achilles, you tell the truth and suffer the greedy and powerful king's wrath, as "he still keeps his bitterness that remains until its fulfillment deep in his chest" [1.82].

you, misfortune, I am your creator.

Every time I create you, I ask what went wrong?

Fear and cynicism, Give me answers. 

I beat myself, I bit myself, I curse myself 

Chin up, I asked, but, I surrender like Poor Tom

Life -Please! 

Friends give me, Affirming voice.

With my limited senses on, How exactly I created you, I think of simple diagnoses 

Source of you, Is within me? 

Or, source of you, Is out there?

Either way, A mistake is a mistake; You! I will suffer.

Aspiration for justice, Aspiration for life, Aspiration for better time, Now, please!

King Lear starts with Lear running a love test on his daughters. He mistakes giving away his power to Goneril and Regan by enjoying their lying flatteries and disowning Cordelia by despising her true words about her love. 

Goneril laughs with Regan at Lear, "He always loved our sister most, and with what poor judgment he hath cast her off appears too grossly" (I.i). In King Lear, due to this mistake, Lear gets thrown into the wilderness and poverty without comfort, goes through great distress, and eventually sees the death of all of his children and loses his life in misery.   

The assistant character next to Lear in King Lear, Edgar, makes a similar mistake by listening to his bastard half-brother Edmund's false caring words without analyzing to understand Edmund's objectives. Their father, Gloucester, makes Edgar's mistake twice: first by trusting Edmund's lie that Edgar wants to kill him, and second by again trusting Edmund and sharing the plot to struggle against Goneril and Regan. Gloucester loses his estate and both of his eyes. 

Edmunds laughs at Gloucester and Edgar, "A credulous father and a brother noble Whose nature is so far from doing harm. That he suspects none; on whose foolish honesty My practice ride easy" (I.ii). 

In King Lear, whereas Lear had the worst of the tragedies, Edgar turns into a mature character who knows what matters and does things for the right reasons. He pulls himself from misery, saves his father from self-despise, and kills Edmund in hand-to-hand combat. Shakespeare reserved a glorious end for Edgar. 

Edgar's character develops from trusting Edmund's lies, turning himself into Poor Tom, encountering Lear in the wilderness, and learning from Lear's faith. There is a turning point of Edgar's character from Poor Tom to a mature one that I will analyze below. The opening quote illustrates faith man endures through different times. First, let's discuss the sources of our misfortunes quickly. 

EDGAR (Act IV, Scene i):

Yet better thus, and known to be contemned, 

Than still condemned and flattered. To be worst,  

The lowest and most dejected thing of Fortune,

Stands still in esperance, lives not in fear 

The lamentable change is from the best;

The worst returns to laughter. 

[Welcome, then, 

Thou unsubstantial air that I embrace. 

The wretch that thou hast blown unto the worst 

Owes nothing to thy blasts.] 

But who comes here?

Enter Gloucester and an old man.

My father, poorly led? World, world, O world, But that thy strange mutations make us hate thee, Life would not yield to age.

I read the speech like below: 

It is better to be condemned than condemned but flattered. 

The base, tossed out by the universe and unluck, still lives in hope 

He doesn't fear anything because he has nothing more to lose. 

Fortune changes hands

The decline is done by the privileged himself. 

The base goes through a full circle and takes his fortunate place back. 

[Okay, the universe, then I will embrace what has happened to me and try to make the best out of it 

instead of crying about my fall.]

The miserable person you have thrown to the worst owes nothing to you, but it was his own doing. Wait, who is coming? 

My father, helped by a poor man?

Destiny and universe, and life!

Your unexpected and uncontrollable weird, strange changes make us hate you. 

Your harshness is not defeatable with life experiences. 

You hit everyone down. 

The happiest moments of our lives derive from other people. It is vital to surround ourselves with true-loving friends. Edgar laments his inability to discern the true hearts of people, "Yet better thus, and known to be condemned, Than still condemned and flattered." How do we discern who is true and who is not? I wanted to ask this question because the worst mistake we can make in our lives is to let go of people who are true and love us. Lear did that by dropping Cordelia, and Gloucester did that too by dropping Edgar. 

Complete understanding of another soul is not possible. Lack of sympathy and awareness of the situation causes our misery. Like Lear, Gloucester, and Edgar, we assume what others are going through and what they want. 

What it seems on the surface is usually not what it is. It is true especially for human interactions. When there is an argument, we assume what people meant instead of asking and taking the time to investigate. Edgar didn't confront his father when Edmund told him Gloucester wanted to kill him. Gloucester didn't confront his son, Edgar, when Edmund lied that Edgar wanted to kill him. Like them, we misunderstand the situation with half of the story and don't do the work to understand the situation and let that control our actions. 

When we want to focus on what matters, we get distracted by mundane tasks like a career from resolving the misery of losing the true people. So we don't get to think and reflect on the incentives of others. It seems what we see in others is reflections of who we are. In pessimistic times, we think of the causes of their actions out of pessimism and cynicism. In optimistic times, we think the actions of others are coming from good nature. Notice both cases are not the reality. 

Edgar lost a father partly because of his own doing at the beginning of the play. In short, we create our misfortune. Practically speaking, we have to express how we feel and ask how others felt instead of assuming the worst-case scenario or hoping for the best-case scenario. Confront, speak up and take the responsibility in this life we share with others. Say sorry and express how we wished things had gone on issues where the problems were our fault. Let others know if we were hurt so that others would know what they might have missed.*

Let's go into analyzing the character change Edgar went through from Poor Tom into a more mature one. 

EDGAR (Act III, Scene vi):

When we our betters see bearing our woes, 

We scarcely think our miseries our foes.

Who alone suffers suffers most i' th' mind, 

Leaving free things and happy shows behind. 

But then the mind much sufferance doth o'erskip

When grief hath mates and bearing fellowship. 

How light and portable my pain seems now 

When that which makes me bend makes the King 

   bow!

He childed as I fathered. Tom, away. 

Mark the high noises, and thyself bewray 

When false opinion, whose wrong thoughts defile

   thee,

In thy just proof repeals and reconciles thee. 

What will hap more tonight, safe 'scape the King!

 Lurk, lurk.

The speech above was given right before the speech in the opening of this paper from Act IV, Scene i. I believe the above sets the stage for Edgar's mentality about misfortune and how he acts about it. I read it like below: 

When we see people whom we look up to suffer the same misfortune

We almost forgot our suffering

The person who suffers alone suffers the most in the mind

Stopping to be carefree, we miss the happy scenes

Now that I see a person with the same grief and realize that I am with an enduring company

I feel my pain less heavy and manageable

The misfortune that made me only bend made the King even bow.

His children and my father drove our lives away.

I turned myself into this poor Tom. Now I choose not to be Tom anymore!

Pay attention to ideas and noises in your mind and be wary of yourself.

When wrong ideas and opinions destroy what we hold dearly to ourselves

our diagnosis for the failure nulls the just and correct truth and enables harmonic coexistence with the misfortune, which was the life of Poor Tom for me

Whatever more happens tonight, may the king escape safely. 

I hold my life seriously and think what I would lose is unbearable. It builds inaction within me. I fear: What if what I asked for is not what I should be asking for? It leaves me without a stick to stand on in this viral of experiences. I fall. I crawl. I feel destined to fail whatever direction I take. I am covered by distrust for my feelings and my gullibility, fear from the scars of my past, and inaction that gives me a sense of standing. Edgar taught me, 

"Mark the high noises, and thyself bewray 

When false opinion, whose wrong thoughts defile thee,

In thy just proof repeals and reconciles thee. " 

The book has translated "mark the high noises" as paying attention to the news in high places. I read it such that "high noises" are the voices in our minds, and we have to be wary of them. It is not the false opinion of others that we suffer. Our false opinion leads us into becoming a Poor Tom at making sense of our experience. 

I know what I want. I know what is important to me. Is what I feel not true? Can I trust my heart? I must take the responsibility to fight for it and protect the things that matter to me. 

A lesson I learned from Poor Tom is that I have to remind myself that what I consider as a problem could be a blessing for others. What I am going through is nothing compared to what others might be going through right now. It gives me gratitude and reminds me of my responsibility. It is the attitude we approach the problems in our lives that matter. If we give up on our responsibility, we turn into Poor Tom, getting lost in our mind with assuming and thinking rather than fact-checking and confronting the reality. 

References

[1] Shakespeare, W; Mowatt, B.A; Werstine, P.(2004). King Lear. Folger Shakespeare Library. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 109780743482769.

[2] Snyder, C.R.; Ford, C.E.(2013). Coping with Negative Life Events: Clinical and Social Psychological Perspectives. Springer Science. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-4757-9865-4.

[3] Wikipedia. Blind men and an elephant. Retrievable from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

A new dog eats the man who fed it, should it be punished?

 A justice will heal the beast's rotten soul, shouldn't Hamlet help? 

The world is changing, could Hamlet understand it all without taking action? 

Hamlet's character willing, he chooses to find “direction through indirections”

“Who is there?”

In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet Act II, Denmark's “most immediate to the throne,” Prince Hamlet* is not his former self under the watchful eyes of the court (II.2.51, II.2.58). Hamlet explains his change to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, friends from university, “I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises, and indeed, it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the Earth, seems to me a sterile promontory.” (II.2.318) He could be saying these words premeditatedly (I.5.187, II.2.402, II.2.386) to deceive the court. Recently, he had to reconcile with his mother Gertrude’s hasty marriage to his uncle Claudius, now King, (I.2.161) unfortunately a month after his father’s funeral. He also experienced an unnatural event of conversing with a ghost that asked him to take revenge, claiming it was his father’s soul and his father was murdered by his uncle (I.5.29). Hamlet is in the process of finding out the truth and figuring out what his true will is.

As a result, the court finds Hamlet distempered, lunatic, and mad. For example, Ophelia, Hamlet’s lover, finds him in her closet, “with his doublet all unbraced, No hat upon his head, his stockings fouled, Ungartered, and down-gyvèd to his ankle, Pale as his shirt, his knees knocking each other, And with a look so piteous in purport” (II.1.87). It is true that he walked into her private closet, and it could have been due to a madness for her “love,” but it is not a shape any prince of Denmark would usually portray, especially “The glass of fashion and the mold of form, Th’ observed of all observers” (III.1.167) as Ophelia used to know Hamlet.

“Get thee to a nunnery” 

Not only is Hamlet personally frustrated with his inaction about the request of the ghost to avenge his father’s murder, but he also finds himself not delighted with the people in Denmark (II.2.386). Everything around him seems “Most foul, strange, and unnatural” because of his mother’s marriage to his uncle, and change of people’s attitude once his uncle became king. In other words, the world is not working the way he thought it did, and especially, the people are not showing moral character or virtue. This lack of delight in people explains his treatment of Ophelia and Polonius, a counselor to the King and Ophelia’s father. Therefore, he claims Denmark is the worst prison with “many confines, wards, and dungeons” (II.2.265).

But we also see that he didn’t lose his pride and his best (V.2.224, II.2.593). Hamlet wrote his heartfelt wish to Ophelia; he said, “Doubt thou the stars are fire, Doubt that the sun doth move, Doubt truth to be a liar, But never doubt I love” (II.2.124). That love might have been towards her, but the mere fact that he really loves implies that he is a believer of some sort of ideal truth. In other words, he doubts everything, but he doesn’t doubt he loves. Through that love, he wants to see life as what it is and lead a life for something worthy and in a serious manner, like a priest (I.5.187) seeking to understand the God, or a Socratic scholar questioning his will**, or a scientific statistician modifying the likelihood of the truth after a new piece of information becomes available (I.2.23).

“Mark me!”

One of the things Hamlet loves is theater. For example, when Hamlet shared with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that he had lost all his mirth, that life seemed empty, and that men no longer delighted him (II.2.318), they knew that Hamlet would enjoy the players coming to Elsinore by smiling at Hamlet’s melancholic speech. Moreover, his respect and reverence for the theater can be seen when Hamlet defines theater as “the abstract and brief chronicles of the time” (II.2.549) and encourages Polonius to treat the traveling players with honor and dignity (II.2.555). Furthermore, Hamlet might have performed in a play at the university, as his acting skills shine in his recital of Aeneas’ tale about Priam’s slaughter. Not only did he know a part of the play by heart, but he was also able to give advice and coach the players. 

“Adieu, adieu, adieu. Remember me”

To enjoy the theater, Hamlet asks the players to perform the Murder of Gonzago, and he requests them “for a need, study a speech of some dozen or sixteen lines, which [Hamlet] would set down and insert in ’t.” What was the need? I argue that Hamlet hoped to grasp the ultimate guiding principles in the chaos he finds himself in. Once the players came to the Elsinore, he found an even better way to observe human life, including his by “adding some dozen or sixteen” lines to the Murder of Gonzago, the play he requested. By adding lines, Hamlet wanted to make it even more similar to his own struggle in his mind to let theater do what it does—to reflect nature, and especially the nature from his perspective—to understand himself, and possibly to remember (I.5.89). Hamlet’s advice for theater players was that the best theater should “Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special observance, that you o’erstep not the modesty of nature” (III.3.18). This philosophy of theater supports the argument above that he wanted the players to resolve his own struggle to understand what is going on within and outside of him, and to allow himself to see as the observer as his understanding of the world is changing. If the theater did its best depicting nature from his perspective, he might have understood it fully picking up on something he might have missed. 

The Murder of Gonzago must have been very similar to Hamlet’s own experience. The request to play modified version of The Murder of Gonzago came right after Hamlet’s and the First Player’s recital of Aeneas’ Tale about Priam’s slaughter, which depicts old Priam being slaughtered by Pyrrhus, and Priam’s wife, Hecuba, showing devotion to him after his death. The speech that Hamlet recited right away shows that the play was in his mind as he struggled with what to do about the ghost’s request. From this, we might formulate the theme of the Murder of Gonzago. Priam’s slaughter is quite similar to the story that the Ghost depicted, except that old Hamlet was poisoned in his ear during his nap time and Gertrude married Claudius. The Murder of Gonzago might have also depicted a similar story of a righteous king in his old age getting killed by an unworthy person who claimed his fortunes (III.4.63) even though the play doesn’t fully disclose what the play might have entailed; therefore, The Murder of Gonzago could have depicted the nature and experience that Hamlet was going through in his head. 

“Do it, England”

Ultimately, Hamlet decides to trap Claudius with a play that reflects the story of his father’s murder to acquire a data point that would be crucial for making a decision. Remembering was not enough for Hamlet. The First Player’s recital of the slaughter of Priam, and how the player was moved by Hecuba’s devotion to her husband Priam and her loss of everything, shook him to realize that he has a duty to take action not just understand—to show character, not just share what he found as existence and observe what he already knew. He didn’t want to continue existing as “a dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause, and can say nothing” (II.2.593), which equaled being self-absorbed and having no courage to act. In order to say something, he needed more information about Claudius’s true form and decided to trap Claudius with his play The Mousetrap, the play-within-play, to trap his confession with the help of the players (II.2.617), changing his focus from understanding his experience to seeking more information important for taking the right action (II.2.630).

Textual Evidence

1. (II.2.51) “the very cause of the Hamlet’s lunacy”

2. (II.2.58) “distemper” 

3. (I.5.187) “As I perchance hereafter shall think meet To put an antic disposition in That you, at such times seeing me, never shall With arms encumbered thus, or this headshake, Or by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase.” 

4. (II.2.402) “I am but mad north-north-west. When the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw.“

5. (II.2.386). “Gentlemen, you are welcome to Elsinore. Your hands, come then. Th’ appurtenance of welcome is fashion and ceremony. … You are welcome. But my uncle-father and aunt-mother are deceived” 

6. (I.2.161)“She married. O, most wicked speed, to post With such dexterity to incestuous sheets! It is not, nor it cannot come to good.” 

7. (I.5.29) “If thou didst ever thy dear father love-, Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder”

8. (II.2.386) “it is very strange: for my uncle is King of Denmark, and those that would make mouths at him while my father lived give twenty, forty, fifty, a hundred ducats apiece for picture in little. Sblood, there is something in this more than natural, if philosophy could find it out” 

9. (V.2.224) Hamlet has “been in a continual practice” of sword fighting since the first act

10.  (II.2.593) “I will have these players Play something like the murder of my father Before mine Uncle…The play’s the thing Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King”

11.  (I.5.187) “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” 

12.  (I.2.123) “I pray thee, stay with us. Go not to Wittenberg.”

13.  (II.2.318) “this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o’er hanging firmament, this majestical roof, fretted with golden fire-why, it appeared nothing to me but a foul and pertinent congregation of vapors.…. Man delights not me, <no,> nor women neither.”

14.  (II.2.555) “Use every man after his desert and who shall ‘scape whipping? Use them after your honor and dignity.”    

15.  (III.4.63) “Look here upon this picture and on this, The counterfeit presentment of two brothers See what grace seated on this brow…. This was your husband. Look you now what follows. Here is your husband, like a mildewed ear Blasting his wholesome brother. Have you eyes? 

16.  (II.2.617) “guilty creatures sitting at a play Been struck so to the soul that presently They have proclaimed their malefactions.” 

17.  (I.5.89) Adieu, adieu, adieu. Remember me. The play-within-play helps with remembering Ghost’s words: “Let not the royal bed of Denmark be A couch for luxury and damned incest” and to take earthly revenge for his uncle and heavenly revenge for his mother.

18.  (II.2.630) He doubts the ghost because the hell might be playing with him using “weakness” and “melancholy.”  

*Shakespeare introduces Prince Hamlet as a student from Wittenberg, a city known for its university that taught Renaissance humanism and was the world center of the Protestant Reformation. Prior to his return, Hamlet led the life of the first modern man, immersed in a world where multiple systems of thought clash: Catholicism, Protestantism, classical philosophy, Viking shamanism. During this time, Hamlet’s worldview was also influenced by the recently enabled international travels, technological advancements, and the rise of the bourgeoisie. Within this multicultural “globe,” Hamlet constantly modified his understanding of the world as new information became available, pursuing his true will rather than merely acting on whim. 

** The change of Hamlet's idea to stage modified the Murder of Gonzago, transforming it into "The Mousetrap" is an example of a Socratic process to understand his true will. After his encounter with the ghost, Hamlet went melancholic and could not take action, choosing to observe rather than act. Possibly he thought about Socrates' argument that it is better to be a victim than to commit evil without truly understanding one's will. This aligns with Socrates' question in Gorgias, "But does he do what he wills if he does what is evil?" Hamlet's inaction shows Socrates' teaching to clarify one's true will to avoid doing evil due to the perceived/apparent good. As Socrates states, "if the act is not conducive to our good we do not will it; for we will, as you say, that which is our good, but that which is neither good nor evil, or simply evil, we do not will." This philosophical teaching from Wittinberg explains Hamlet's inaction, but as an ethical struggle to align his actions with his true will in a morally ambiguous and multicultural world, where the soul of the wrongdoer might rot without justice, which Socrates preferred, while the pursuit of justice itself might lead to evil because we don’t have the full information.