In an in-class essay, respond to Farnham’s characterization of Shakespearean tragedy—“a civil war of goods, in man’s noblest nature”—as it applies
to Hamlet’s “To Be or Not to Be” soliloquy (Act III, sc.i.).
If you would like, extend the discussion of Farnham's vision of Shakespearean tragedy by considering how useful it may be to elevate the "civil war of
goods" paradigm in understanding contemporary social crises such as climate disruption and wealth disparity.
If wrapping your thoughts around the critical framing of Willard Farnham seems too highbrow for the stressful closing days of a semester and the
hectic approach of a major holiday, then consider an alternative, more personal point of approach. Focusing on Hamlet's key conclusion, "Thus
conscience does make cowards of us all," discuss the meaning of the soliloquy in terms of an experience you have had, or know about, in which
thinking through the complex contingencies of a course of action led to delay or avoidance altogether of acting on something, such that exercise of
keen conscience created a kind of paralysis of action.
In either approach to the topic, be sure to begin your response with an introduction to and an overview of Hamlet's "To Be or Not to Be" soliloquy,
followed by either a response to Farnham's paradoxical framing of Hamlet's tragic condition or a discussion of a personal experience with how
thought paralyzes action.
Sample Solution