The Self as a Context: Violence as a Nihilism in Hamlet and Watchmen
It is probably best to begin an essay about violence – in the context of the self as a context – by noting that my life has, fortunately, been almost entirely free of it. The same cannot be said, most unfortunately, for the rest of humanity; nor can it be said for the superhero genre, which has been marked and in many ways defined by it ever since Beowulf tore off Grendel’s arm circa 600 A.D. I think this makes it significant. I would illustrate this in a longer essay by relating it more fully to Hamlet; I might illuminate popular fiction, even comic books, through the greatest English playwright of all time. Yet my reading of Hamlet has been colored by the superhero genre as well.
About a month ago, I tore through a graphic novel (kids call them comic books) called Watchmen. It was, in short, a superhero comic critiquing superhero comics. It’s cover proudly notes that it is among “Time Magazine’s 100 best novels”, and it deserves the spot. I was inspired to read it through the buzz surrounding the impending film release, and I was surprised to find just how deeply into the human story the narrative cut. In its simplest form, it raised questions about vigilantism and our glorification of it. More deeply, it raised questions about the use of violence as a means to curtail violence – not the stuff of kids’ books, to be sure. To be critical of the superhero, then, we must be critical of violence, particularly revenge, and if Hamlet is not a critique of vengeful violence, I do not know what is.
Before Watchmen, I saw The Dark Knight, and around the same time that I saw the film and read the comic, I was also pushing my way through Affliction, by Russell Banks. These three works have been in dialogue with each other about violence, in my mind, ever since and particularly as pertains to its justification and prevalence. Sound familiar? I have begun to develop a sort of thesis about violence, and it is that thesis to which Hamlet now speaks.
It is hard to pinpoint one moment from the play that struck me as being in dialogue with my superhero-inspired thesis on violence. My relationship with violence as a theme throws a veil of critical context over the entire play. Perhaps it is the moment when Laertes cries, “The King! The King’s to blame” (5.2.351)! I am not sure I believe him. If Watchmen has taught me anything, it is to question how simply we can reduce the blame. Certainly Claudius did, by and by, poison Hamlet, Gertrude, and Laertes – adding three bodies to his already-kingly total of one. Then again, to which King does Laertes refer? Could it also be Hamlet’s father? “So art thou [bound] to revenge” (1.5.12); returned from the grave, the first meaningful thing he has to say to his son is, “Avenge me. Kill for me.” Had Claudius remained pure of heart, the tragedy would not have happened, but had Hamlet’s father left well enough alone, his body alone would fill the graves of Denmark by the play’s end.
Violence, it turns out, is a rather complicated animal, and the notion of justice through violence is even stickier. Shakespeare is clearly aware of this, and coming to his play, so am I. “Who watches the Watchmen?” cry the citizens of the graphic novel. “What right do they have to wreak their violent vengeance upon criminals?” they ask. I ask the same of Hamlet and his father. The latter’s blood is no right, or, if it is, it is a dubious right to cash in on. No less than eight people are killed during Hamlet’s quest for vengeance. Shakespeare shouts, “Is this justice?”
If I had to present an early version of my thesis on violence, it would be to say that violence is a nihilism. In Watchmen, one of the heroes realizes that the only way to prevent a world war is to stage mass murder. “I did the right thing, didn’t I?” he asks another hero, after the fact. “It all worked out in the end.” His interlocuter replies, “Nothing ends. Nothing ever ends” (Moore, 27). The reader is left to wonder if war really was prevented; one or the other will surely have to be repeated.
I imagine Hamlet asking the same question. “I killed Claudius. Fortinbras took the throne. I did the right thing, didn’t I?” The body count suggests otherwise. The violence will not end. Nothing never does.
furrp said,
September 19, 2008 at 8:52 am
I probably didn’t totally get your point, but I’m gonna reply anyway. I thought this was an interesting topic. To ultimately question whether or not Batman, for example, is justified in his violence towards Gotham’s criminals is a debate that never ends. On one side, violence is bad, no matter what. On the other, violence is sometimes necessary for the greater good.
I tend to side with the latter. Batman saw the rampant crime in Gotham, and he understood that no criminal would respond to anything other than violence. This is portrayed nicely by Lt. Hooks in the Police Academy movies. Her soft whispers never got any notice, but when she switched to bitch mode, people took notice. She wanted to do things nicely without violence, but every time it took violence to get things done. Was she right or wrong for resorting to violence? In essence, it helped to clean up the streets.
I submit that violence in and of itself is not wrong. It it the motives of the violent person and the end results that dictate whether it’s right or wrong. In the case of Batman, I think we can all agree that his violence was to make Gotham a safe place to live, therefore it was good. Hamlet, on the other hand, utilized violence to seek vengeance, which in normal societies is considered a selfish motive, thus wrong, even if the end results were good.
And as far as the citizens griping about the Watchmen, I say, “Why are you complaining?” Who cares what right they think they have if they’re taking it upon themselves to clean up the city’s crime. As long as they aren’t doing it for fame or fortune, both selfish goals, then I see nothing wrong with it. Of course, I know nothing about the Watchmen, so my impression is blinded by ignorance.
Violence is a part of Human nature. It cannot be stripped out. That is why it will never end. You can’t have the masses without the asses.
mikebbetts said,
September 19, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Yet Batman’s violence, arguably, did nothing more than escalate the issue. Sure, he took out the criminals. But then came the Joker, who was decidedly worse. Nolan brought to life some real questions, which makes The Dark Knight more than a comic book adaption. It’s also why I mentioned it here.