キーちゃん
1Hamlet is perhaps the most notoriously enigmatic character in all of Western literature: we want to like him, we want him to find peace, and yet there are always the facts that he callously destroys Ophelia without reason -- certainly, antagonizing Polonius's daughter does not fall under the umbrella of his "antic disposition" -- and that he remorselessly murders Polonius, and even later gratuitously orders the deaths of his former school-friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. We therefore cannot connect with him in the same way that we connect with other tragic heroes like Brutus. But along the same lines, Hamlet is certainly no hero-villain: he is no Macbeth, for instance. So how should we think about Hamlet? Perhaps the best advice is to give up trying to categorize him and instead just listen to him: he thinks so well that our own thinking can only improve from exposure to his. Many people fuss over Hamlet's inaction, his inability to follow through with his vengeance against Claudius, but the more you listen to Hamlet, the more you begin to realize that perhaps fulfilling his dead father's revenge-wish is not what he wants, and THAT is why he does not act. I firmly follow Nietzsche in his observation that Hamlet does not think too much, but rather thinks too well. Like all of the Folger Library editions of Shakespeare, this text includes useful notes on every left-hand page and a reasonable consolidation of all versions of the play on every right-hand page. Thus, the book is ideal for any classroom- or individual-based study of Shakespeare's most engimatic personage. Highly recommended. 4His interactions with the other characters in the play, and his ability know in advance the corrupt plans of so many of his enemies at Elsinore, demonstrate Hamlet's sensible thoughts that would not go through his mind had he gone mad. There are also considerable distinctions between the actions of Hamlet in his "mad" state of mind and the few other characters that undoubtedly lost sanity. Hamlet is a smart, scholarly man, and faking a mental disability could certainly a part of his plot to revenge his father's death, which was a command of his father. Hamlet gives a warning to Horatio and others that he might act strangely at times, which would put whatever "mad" tendencies other may he displays into perspective. He unmistakably informs his mother, the queen Gertrude, that she was not to reveal to Claudius that he was "not in madness, but mad in craft" (3:4:9). She is not convinced that her son is okay, however he is clear in his point. A mad man would certainly not care about the other's thoughts and opinions of him. Horatio would probably have notice if his friend was acting out of the ordinary without a reason, and brought it to someone's attention, had it been serious enough. The first time the king and queen become aware of his "madness" is when Polonius announces it to them and tells them of Hamlets love for his daughter, Ophelia. Your noble son is mad: Mad call I it; for, to define true madness, What is't but to be nothing else but mad? But let that go...At such a time I'll loose my daughter to him..."(2:2:99). If any of Hamlet's 'madness' is based on his talk of ghosts, the accusation is a blunder. Hamlet did not do a bad thing by frightening his uncle, but it certainly did make an impact. Claudius's startled state after the player's performance is proof that Hamlet is correct in his accusations. The Ghost of his father was the one that informed Hamlet of this ill deed. If the spirit were simply a fabrication of his imagination, than there would be no explanation for Hamlet's knowledge of his father's murder. He was the one that instructed the players to put on the show; therefore he must have gotten the information about the characters from some source, namely his dead father. If the ghost were there in the beginning, what would keep him from checking on his son from time to time? Young Hamlet was asked to seek revenge on his uncle, and the ghost is depending on him to do that. The spirit would have no choice but to be frequently watching his son, to know that he intends to do the job. There is so much evidence the specter is not just in Hamlets mind, that it is certain that the Ghost can not be considered when deciding that Hamlet is insane. Most of the "trustworthy" characters in the play recognize the ghost. Hamlet informs Horatio and Marcellus (1:5:190) that he will "put an antic disposition on", and might mutter strange phrases and demonstrate other acts of insanity. There is no doubt that others think he is unwell, but it could just be a statement used to back up the idea of sending the prince away. Claudius is opposed to Hamlets presence from the beginning, but chooses to let him stay for his own purposes. Though Prince Hamlets insanity is the main focus of distress for most, other individuals are mad as well, and for the first time quite genuinely. When Ophelia is seen as mad for the first time (4:5:28) she is openly singing and chanting- things that Hamlet never did. He talks of Polonius as a "fishmonger", and often makes reference to other seemingly ridiculous things, which could, and do at times, have deeper meaning. He was generally just talking sharply about some of his enemies. The strange behavior is probably a way to distract Polonius, Claudius, and perhaps the Queen, while Hamlet seeks revenge for his lifeless father. The most suspicious aspect of the "madness" is that his moments of visible mental uneasiness go on and off. One moment he will be talking nonsense to the King and his advisor, and within minutes he is talking in a perfectly understandable tone to his old childhood friends. He questions issues of humanity often, especially towards the close of the play, which would explain his hasty choice to fence with this dangerous rival, that is plotting to take away the only thing Hamlet has, his life. Much unlike a truly insane person Hamlet does not act spontaneously. There is never a significant doing on his part that was not well thought out in advance The "madness" that Hamlet portrays in the tragedy, though believed to be true my many, is false. It possibly allowed Hamlet more time to plot the revenge for his father's death by Claudius, or was just an example of the young prince's love of drama. Either way, their were many flaws in his "act" that go unnoticed by the other characters, but can be picked up on by the reader. Hamlets frequent switching from sanity to madness, are obvious clues that he is pretending. The ghost of his dead father, and the play that proved his existence outside of Hamlet's mind are convincing confirmation that he was not hallucinating. All the characters that used Hamlets "disability" as a tool could be merely forcing themselves to believe that Hamlet is mad. He could just be going along with their unfortunate thoughts to convince them he is mad. Shakespeare's Masterpiece, Hamlet draws in so many people because of these debatable arguments. The question of Hamlets madness is reasonable, and after re-reading all the textual evidence, one must lean towards the fact that Hamlet is sane, for whatever reasons he chooses. It is a marvelous plan on his part, and should be noted as such.
健康是福83
中文：《雾都孤儿》读后感 --------肮脏的世界,纯洁的心灵 《雾都孤儿》是一部十分著名的小说，作者狄更斯，是英国的一位非常著名的作家。 这部小说的主人公是一个叫奥里弗的孤儿，他的童年是在济贫院里度过的。后来，他被送到一个棺材铺里当学徒。因不堪忍受老板娘的压迫，他向伦敦逃去。路上，他遇上了一个外号机灵鬼的人，把他骗进了贼窝，在两次偷盗中，他都遇到了好人，把他留在家里抚养，但又一次次的被抓回去。终于，由于南西变好，告诉了他们偶然听到的一个秘密，说奥里弗的同父异母哥哥为了财产，要杀他，于是逮捕了贼窝的人，但出于同情，奥里弗放过了它的哥哥。奥里弗的灾难终于结束了，他被他第一次偷的那位老绅士收为义子。奥里弗才知道，他偷的两次，被偷的竟然是他父亲的好友和他的亲姨妈。 整部小说曲折惊险，让人不仅为奥里弗的身世叹息，为坏人说愤怒，被善良人所感动，为奥里弗最后的幸福生活而高兴。而我最喜爱的人物，是在两次奥里弗陷入危难时，没有计较他偷了东西，而是十分同情他，并帮助了他的两个人。因为他们的善良，奥里弗才得救，也因为他们的善良，才使世界上少了一个受苦的孩子，是将来少了一个贼，多了一个好人。如果世间的人都想他们一样的话，我想，世上便不会有受苦的人，不会有那么多的孤儿。正如一首歌中所唱的：“只有人人都献出一点爱，世界将变成美好的人间。”而我也为其中的南西所感动，她是贼窝得一分子，但她没有被贼窝染黑了心，她知道悔改，知道去怜悯一个孤儿。但她也是被那个善良的人所感动了，可见如果多一个善良人，也许可以多感化一个在贼窝里的一刻还有一点点人性的心。但是，我也为南西所悲哀，她最后的结局十分惨，她被打死了，而打死她的人，确是她一直不舍得离开的人。南西曾有许多机会逃离那个肮脏的世界，但她放弃了，就是舍不得最后那个打死她的人。 奥里弗，南西，善良的绅士和小姐，贼窝里的人以及《雾都孤儿》中的所有人，都使我知道了许多东西。《雾都孤儿》，一本好书。英文：To Regain the Nature of Goodness —— Review of ‘Oliver Twist' Oliver Twist, one of the most famous works of Charles Dickens', is a novel reflecting the tragic fact of the life in Britain in 18th century. The author who himself was born in a poor family wrote this novel in his twenties with a view to reveal the ugly masks of those cruel criminals and to eXPose the horror and violence hidden underneath the narrow and dirty streets in London. The hero of this novel was Oliver Twist, an orphan, who was thrown into a world full of poverty and crime. He suffered enormous pain, such as hunger, thirst, beating and abuse. While reading the tragic eXPeriences of the little Oliver, I was shocked by his sufferings. I felt for the poor boy, but at the same time I detested the evil Fagin and the brutal Bill. To my relief, as was written in all the best stories, the goodness eventually conquered devil and Oliver lived a happy life in the end. One of the plots that attracted me most is that after the theft, little Oliver was allowed to recover in the kind care of Mrs. Maylie and Rose and began a new life. He went for walks with them, or Rose read to him, and he worked hard at his lessons. He felt as if he had left behind forever the world of crime and hardship and poverty. How can such a little boy who had already suffered oppressive affliction remain pure in body and mind? The reason is the nature of goodness. I think it is the most important information implied in the novel by Dickens-he believed that goodness could conquer every difficulty. Although I don't think goodness is omnipotent, yet I do believe that those who are kind-hearted live more happily than those who are evil-minded. For me, the nature of goodness is one of the most necessary character for a person. Goodness is to humans what water is to fish. He who is without goodness is an utterly worthless person. On the contrary, as the famous saying goes, ‘The fragrance always stays in the hand that gives the rose', he who is with goodness undoubtedly is a happy and useful person. People receiving his help are grateful to him and he also gets gratified from what he has done, and thus he can do good to both the people he has helped and himself. To my disappointment, nowadays some people seem to doubt the existence of the goodness in humanity. They look down on people's honesty and kindness, thinking it foolish of people to be warm-hearted. As a result, they show no sympathy to those who are in trouble and seldom o
请叫我癸小亥
哈姆雷特读后感 一： 在沙翁所有的作品里，《哈姆雷特》或许是最受争议的一部，也是最受注目的一部。你在16岁时或许会被《罗米欧与朱丽叶》感动得潇然泪下，却觉得《暴风雨》不知所云；当你60岁时，又可能深深地被后者所带有的神秘主义色彩所打动而对人生有所感悟，而前者却已经无法再次激起你心中的波澜……但是无论你在人生的哪一个阶段，当你经历了一场丰富而深刻的精神生活，当你提升了自己的人格，重新发现了一个全新的自我，你总是能在〈哈姆雷特〉里找到一些你会觉得那似乎应该是属于永恒与不朽的东西。因为它谈到了人生的抉择，谈到了一个生活在特定的历史与生活环境下的人在对他个人来言是独特的，而对于全人类来说又是普遍的的命运面前，在只有从过去所积累的有限的经验可以凭借与依托的情况下，所选择的人生之路。从某种意义上说，他的经验也代表了我们自己的经验，他所面对的命运在我们人生的某个阶段里也是我们所要面对的。我们面对绝望的存在，在矛盾中摸索真理，在迷雾中找寻真相，在两难问题里作出行动，在一个失去标准与可以衡量标准的尺度的世界里重建价值的体系与精神大厦…… 哈姆雷特是不完美的，有时他的抉择是非理性的，相当冲动的，比如当他在激怒之下一剑刺死他误以为是国王的波洛涅斯时，然而或许正是他这种不理智的抉择，这种人性的弱点的表现，让我们打心底里接受和认同他的艺术形象，因为我们常常可以在自己身上看见他的影子…… 哈姆雷特又是极其珍视感情的，在他以装疯来躲避国王的迫害时，他依然抑制不住对奥菲丽亚的思念，不忍心让她由于自己装疯而痛苦，而冒着受到国王怀疑的风险给她写了一首小诗：'Doubt thou the stars are fire；Doubt that thesun doth move ；Doubt truth to be a liar；But never doubt I love. 就是这样，哈姆雷特在对命运的抉择中构造了自己的悲剧，原来他完全可以屈服于自己的命运，不去探询父王死去的真相，但哈姆雷特的性格不允许他带着一个疑问生活在庸庸碌碌之中，所以他毅然走上了找寻真相的道路，此后，只要他所做出的任何抉择稍有不同，他和其它人最终的命运都会改变，但是他的经验促使他一次次作出在他认为是正确的而实际上是致命的抉择，最后，哈姆雷特并没有为自己的抉择感到遗憾，他只是希望霍拉旭能为他"in this harsh world draw thybreath in pain， to tell my story." 因为每一个人的每一个抉择都是在特定的历史情况下唯一而不可重复的，所以在这里假设如果哈姆雷特能回过头去重新作出抉择，会是怎样一种情景就毫无意义；我们每一个人也是这样，可以说，在我们每一个人心中都有一个哈姆雷特，我们所做的每一个抉择都是唯一的不可替代的，它将直接影响到我们未来的命运，没有什么标准可以衡量我们的抉择是否正确，我们也必然要接受自己的抉择所引起的一切后果，就象哈姆雷特所说的"Thingsstanding thus unknown ， shall live behind me ！" 或许我们要面对的问题不是象"to be， or not to be"这么严重，然而，要想在这个充满风险的混沌的世界里做好??而不是做对??每一个抉择都不会容易。在一个除了目标，再也没有任何尺度可以衡量其善恶的世界里，勇敢地作出抉择，然后坦然地接受自己的命运，……这就是哈姆雷特永恒的魅力之所在吧？ 哈姆雷特 读后感二： 命运这种东西是怎样的一种存在?他既像影子一样和我们形影不离,又似阳光一样温暖人心,但更多时候,,像梦魇一样深邃而可怕。“上帝的意旨支配一切”（霍拉旭，第一幕、第五场 露台的另一部分），这句话，无疑，相当精辟。创作于1600~1601年的剧本《哈姆雷特》整整被推崇了几个世纪。就是到现在，依然感觉他震撼人心。而这一切不是情节的因素，也不仅仅是出色的文学手法，是它所体现出来的问题。在很大的层面上，它描写的是一种极其原始的悲剧，人的悲剧。剧中的人物，地位不同，性格鲜明，但都遭受了同样的东西的摧残，那就是摆布自己的欲望，还有被称之为命运的伟大的囚笼。这样的情形，也许自从有人以来，便不曾消失过。他们是与人共生共在的。 主人公哈姆雷特首先面对的是自己的原先的理想世界的破灭。一开始的哈姆雷特处于某种意义上的“童年时期”，他没有经历过什么巨大的挫折，生活的环境也比较单纯。一直学习西方正统思想的他认为“人类是一件多么了不得的杰作！多么高贵的理性！多么伟大的力量！多么优美的仪表！多么文雅的举动！在行为上多么像一个天使！在智慧上多么像一个天神！宇宙的精华！万物的灵长！到头来，高贵的令人崇拜的父亲死了，而贞洁的母亲一个月不到就改嫁了篡夺了王位的叔父。这使他对世界产生怀疑。而这种怀疑直接促成了他后来的彷徨。他见到了鬼，得知了原来是叔父杀死了父亲，这加重了他对现实社会的失望，对它的原先的天真进行了再次否定，使他不信任，“我所见的幽灵也许是魔鬼的化身”。后来，通过戏中戏发现了叔父的罪大恶极之后，他依然没有终止他的彷徨？为什么？哈姆雷特并不是那种高喊口号的人，怀疑使他思索。原先完美的东西原来并不存在，贞洁抵不过欲望，道德战胜不了贪念。他认为他也许应该去复仇，可是那道德败坏的人是他的母亲，他有她的血。可是杀死他父亲的叔父和他一样是人，拥有的是人的思想。可是就算复仇成功，一切还会回来吗。为此他说：“生存还是毁灭，这是一个值得思考的问题”活着是一种痛苦，但是对死又怀有那么绝对的恐惧。他遇到了一个无法回答的难题，却又无从逃避。 哈姆雷特的情形并不是唯一的，细细分析，我们可以发现，生活的大手对每一个人握得是如此之紧。 老国王横死，这和王后并没有关系。但是作为妇人的她面临着两种选择，那就是道德或者是欲望。是做寡妇保护自己的名声，还是嫁给新国王满足自己的需求。这可以理解为精神欲望和物质欲望的相分离。，她选择了后者。然而她遭到了哈姆雷特的蔑视和批评，道德的空虚带给她相当大的痛苦,其实王后是一个善良的人，她并不是道德败坏。那么，她灵魂里那些污点是什么？以前没有吗？就算她最初选择了道德她就幸福吗？国王死去的瞬间她的不幸就被决定下来。这种不幸从一开始她就无力改变。说到底，她是在选择哪种不幸，而不是在选择自己的命运。新国王，那个篡夺了王位的叔父，他是剧中最大的反派，是道德的败坏者。他一心想要王位，并且对王后怀有欲望。但国王是别人。是他的兄长，他注定得不到王位。我们可以把这种命运绝对不会给予他的东西称作失去。他和剧中所有人一样面临着自己心中的理想世界的消失。但他努力去争取，其实在此刻，他表现了一个英雄一般的气概，他勇敢地去争取绝对不属于自己的东西。而他的悲剧就在于此。他付出了代价，他的手上沾满了别人的鲜血。他无力地忏悔。在后来，他发现哈姆雷特得知了真相后，他又开始拯救自己的可能会失去的辛苦到手的幸福生活。他徘徊在罪孽和理性之间，最终都没有跳出来，死在自己淬了毒的剑下。 勒替斯和莪菲莉霞的命运和哈姆雷特惊人的相似。他们的父亲一样被人杀死了。在生存还是毁灭的选择中，莪菲莉霞选择了后者，逃避，她选择了自杀。在复仇与否的选择中，勒替斯完全是哈姆雷特完全相反的复仇者。尽管面对的哈姆雷特，这个丹麦的王子，人民拥戴的将来的国王，他依然斗志昂扬地喊出来“那么难道我的一个高贵的父亲就这样白白死去，一个好好的妹妹就这这样白白疯了不成？……我的报仇的机会总有一天会到来。这样的呼声代表的一种斗争精神。他和新国王是一样的。却最终死在了新国王为哈姆雷特设计的陷阱中。他们两个可以认为是对哈姆雷特这个人物的补充，在复仇这件事情上，在“不可避免”的死亡这件事情上，所有的选择都指向了同样一个终点。 我们发现了剧中所有的人物都面临着一个异常强大的势力，那就是外部世界。原本他们都像孩子一样比较快乐的生存在美好的上天为他们安排的温床里。直到他们有一天发现这个襁褓实际上是一个深渊一般的沼泽，而自己是多么的渺小。“这是一个颠倒混乱的时代，唉，倒霉的我却要负起重整乾坤的责任”。哈姆雷特最早发现了自己的无能。这不仅仅是他对复仇的无能，还在于复仇这种行为本身的无能。国王的篡夺王位，王后的改嫁，都不同意义上和这个行为有共同之处。他们全都没有达到自己想要达成的目的。反而陷入了另外的困境中。 这个剧本的又一个一名叫做《王子复仇记》。实际上这个王子并没有给老国王复仇，尽管他最后刺死了新国王，但这更大的意义上是为了行将死去的自己。他的复仇很失败，因为他一直在彷徨，他憎恨这个世界，也憎恨自己。他对别人冷嘲热讽，对自己则是不断地责备。他尝试着去做一些事情，但更多时候他一动不动。他的形象，和其他人的英雄般的鲁莽相比，更像是一位痛苦的智者。他更多的进行精神上的抗争。 与哈姆雷特的停滞不前不同，其他人进行了行动上的抗争。新国王杀死了老国王，并且尝试着忏悔来洗清自己的罪孽，并且妄图通过杀死哈姆雷特保住王位。勒替斯和国王一起实施了计划，企图让哈姆雷特为自己的父亲的死付出代价。莪菲莉霞投湖了。还有那个指示自己的孩子为自己报仇的鬼魂，他的情感悲痛，而又态度坚决。但是最后呢？新国王死了，他也许可以说被复仇了。勒替斯死了，计划失败了。哈姆雷特死在了别人对他的复仇里。鬼魂依然在地下，上不了天堂。 有人说哈姆雷特的剧情太过于牵强，怎么可能所有人都死了。但是这恰恰是现实所在。他向我们表现了一群对抗命运的人的最终的结局。他们尝试着改变命运，结果什么也没有解救。他们尝试着挽回过去，结果什么得到。这种无奈，依存于每一人身上，也许也就是人本身的最大的不幸。《哈姆雷特》式的悲剧伴随着每一个人，各个方面，并且无时不刻。哈姆雷特读后感 三：作为莎士比亚最著名的四大悲剧之一，在我看来《哈姆雷特》是其中最为经典的一部。他可谓是将世上所有的悲惨都聚集在了这位可怜的王子身上。父亲被自己的叔叔杀害，母亲改嫁，居然还下嫁给自己的轼父仇人，爱人发疯后不幸死去，最后连同自己，朋友，母亲都在这场悲剧中被完全吞噬了。这一连串悲剧都是源自欲望和仇恨。叔叔的贪婪欲望使他作出了违背天理伦常之事，也招致了自己亲侄子的无法泯灭的仇恨，同时也为自己的命运埋下了无法避免的祸根，直至最后家破人亡。而小王子呢，因为父亲的死而悲痛万分，又因父亲的鬼魂而萌生了复仇的念头。于是步步谋划，想要以自己的力量替父亲报仇，却又要想尽办法保护自己的母亲，却不曾想到意外之事不断发生，母亲、爱人、朋友、自己都一并失去了。莎士比亚仿佛在用这样的文字像世人揭示仇恨的可怕，它是一把双刃剑，一把锋利无比，还涂满了毒药的双刃剑。运用他的人就如同是将灵魂出卖给了魔鬼，在失去理智再刺伤别人的同时，也难免是使自己遍体鳞伤，血肉模糊。人类对仇恨的诅咒与排斥一刻也没有停止过，大仲马的《基督山伯爵》同样也向人们阐述仇恨比罪恶本身更罪恶。无论是怎样的理由，举起仇恨就是一切罪恶与不幸的开端。虽然了结这个道理，人类却又不曾摆脱这个幽灵，不断有人为了仇恨害人害己，即使是无尽的鲜血也没能洗刷掉它的存在。《哈姆雷特》不断的被人们以各种方式各种形式演绎，电影一部又一部，人们却百看不厌，源于《哈姆雷特》紧凑的戏剧情节，高潮迭起，惊喜不断，所有的紧张气氛都要等到故事的最后才会得到缓解。多种多样对大师作品的演绎不断给予我们新的惊喜和意外，对于仇恨的解释，对莎士比亚的解释。即使有一些并不太尽如人意，人们依旧对次充满好奇。因为莎士比亚，因为这位最伟大的戏剧作家和他最伟大的作品之一，无论从哪一个角度演绎都会让人对这一部经典再一次来一遍心灵对话，每一次的对话都是对人生新的体验，这就是《哈姆雷特》的魅力所在。作家们用他们的文字时刻提行这人们这把剑的冷酷和恐怖。仇恨的双刃剑，舍弃它比拿起他来捍卫自己明智得多。
优质英语培训问答知识库
