Bloom Vs.

Florian: The Critical of the two

It has been argued that in order for one to be a critical thinker, they must have a
higher outlook that questions all assumptions. Critical thinking requires more than just looking
at the surface of any topic, but examining all elements of that topic, from purpose to the
problem, reasoning and consequences, etc. Harold Bloom, a literary critic, is author of the book
Till I end my song and is known for his articles and essays that criticize different literary
works. His purpose as a literary critic is to engage his audience in thinking outside the box, and
having them literally read in between the lines, allowing for a more critical and deeper
understanding of what the author of a certain work is conveying. Sandy Florian, an independent
writer, is popular for her book On Wonderland and Waste. Her style of writing is abstract, and
she has a unique way of critically analyzing a literary work. Instead of breaking down the work
as Bloom does, she takes it in and summarizes the story, creating her own version of it. Both
authors have critically analyzed Hamlet, the famous play written by Shakespeare. In Harold
Blooms essay called An essay by Harold Bloom, he critically analyzes Hamlet, and writes his
views on the development of the character throughout the play. Sandy Florian takes the story
of Hamlet and writes her abstract version called Dumb Show and Noise which causes her
audience to be subject to a completely different adaptation of the story; looking at the story
from another point of view, which is believed to be Ophelia, Hamlets love. Although both
writers have their interesting takes on the play, when compared to each others approaches,
Harold Blooms analysis and breakdown of Hamlet is much more critical than Florians, as his
take allows the audience to fully understand the different aspects of Hamlet and all the
influences and themes in the play.

Sandy Florians Dumbshow and Noise is an interesting take, as her use of abstract
writing and view point brings readers to a crucial and critical outlook of the story of Hamlet.
Hushed at the heart, unfolding the underwater O, I unfold myself to better understand your
calamity (Florian 17). The breakdown of her opening line is the most critical point, as it
underlines her approach on Hamlet. Hushed at the heart is referring to the loss of love
throughout the play, which is one of the main themes Shakespeare tries to portray to his
audience. Love and its power over the characters show what lengths a person may go to prove
their love. The audience can see throughout the play how love loses its power, and leads to
death, another one of Shakespeares favorite topics. Whether armed with her dead father's
coat and boots or shredding Hamlet's letters, Bradshaw didn't convey any particular nodes of
obsession; this Ophelia's soul was far too small for agony (Levin). Florians approach on Hamlet
can be misleading without the proper breakdown of her story. Florians critical approach on
Hamlet was through the point of view of Ophelia, Hamlets so called love throughout the play.
Her story revolves mainly around Ophelias character through which she brings out into the
open, and allows for a different approach. Unfolding the underwater O must be critically
analyized in order to understand Florians point of view. The constant use of O brings the idea
that Florian will be writing in the point of view of Ophelia. Her use of underwater is referring to
Ophelias demise, as her fate was met at the bottom of the lake. Whether or not she had
committed suicide was beyond the point. Florians use of underwater confirms that she is
speaking as Ophelia during her final moments while she was alive. The O she was referring to
may also be the last air bubble that would leave the character and make its way up to the
surface. Florian proceeds to writing I unfold myself to better understand your calamity

(Florain 17). This quote can be interpreted as Ophelias last thoughts during her decent to the
bottom of the lake. Unfolding herself may be the moment when she comes to the realization of
reality, and the cruel side of life, as her father who forced Ophelia to return the love letters to
Hamlet, was murdered by her love; which has her go mad and undoubtedly end her life by
jumping into the lake. If the love letter textualizes the Hamlet of the dumb show, it also signals
his acquiescence into print and brings to the fore the issues that will beggar him until act 5
(Cary 792). The love letters are a symbol of his devotion to Ophelia, and in fear of her father she
returns the letters, which was a critical moment for Hamlet, as his heart is once again broken. In
Carys quote, one can use the argument that Hamlet put his thoughts of love on those letters,
and the return of them shows the loss of love, as explained earlier. He realizes that the love he
had for the people that revolved in his life was an act and was a false love. This fuels Hamlet
into the behavior he presents throughout the rest of the play. His encounter with Ophelia put
her in a sensitive position, as her fathers request broke the heart of her only love. Her madness
begins to grow and her only way to find calamity was through death, and can only find it
through death because of the chaos that was revolving around her. This also brings up the topic
of suicide, another one of Shakespeares underlying themes of the play, and shows how
Hamlets compilation of suicide was overcome by his drive to end his uncles life and avenge
the deceased king which was his father. However, Ophelias love for her father and Hamlet and
the sudden reality of things drives her to the point of madness, allowing herself to commit
suicide. Florain tries to lead into this approach of death bringing the characters closer to the
reality of their lives. Although Florians approach on the play Hamlet is critical, she does not
fully explain the events of the main characters life and the breakdown of the play itself. She

does go into the main themes and points, however, she lacks in clearly explaining why all the
events that took place during the play has different effects on every character in the play.
Harold Blooms approach to Hamlet in his essay brings up these topics and gives his audience
room to take the information that is given to them and interpret the play in their own way.
Harold Bloom begins his essay by recognizing and asserting that the Hamlet of
act 5 is different from the Hamlet in previous acts; no longer distressed or in mourning. He
believes that Hamlet has matured rather than remained youthful in regards to how he thinks,
and that there is a certain calmer feature he presents to the audience. Perhaps the truth is
that he is at last himself (Bloom229). It may be that the desire for revenge is fading in him
(230). Blooms critical way of thinking shows that the obsessed, angry, revengeful Hamlet were
all the pre-critical characteristics that were part of him, and as Hamlet matured, he let go of his
lust for revenge and finally able to handle the situation that has haunted him since his
encounter with the ghost of his father and the truth of his uncles rise to power. Bloom breaks
down Shakespeares Hamlet very critically in his essay, as he goes beyond by describing the
roles death and love play and how it has afflicted our hero. When Hamlet matures, or
returns fully to himself, he transcend the love of authority and ceases to love at all, and perhaps
he can be said to be dying throughout all of act 5, and not just in the scene of the duel (Bloom
236). Hamlets loss for love is Blooms critical approach to his death, but not his actual death.
Bloom believes that Hamlet was already dead before actually dying in the final scene because
those around him who had gained his love had soon lost it. Instead, a mysterious and beautiful
disinterestedness dominates this truer Hamlet, who compels a universal love precisely because
he is beyond it (Bloom 230). The mature Hamlet realizes that those he loved, he did no longer,

and that was his way of dying. His universal love as Bloom describes it is his acceptance of the
events that has occurred his in life. His ascension down his dark path was the direct result of
the illusion of love that played a big role in the pre-critical Hamlets life. The message is that
without love, what is the point of living? Bloom would agree with Florian that the immature
Hamlet showed his love to his mother, Ophelia, his dead father, but in Act 5, he shows no love
for any of them, and makes it clear that he has gained some crucial knowledge of himself. The
hint is that Hamlet could tell us something he has learned about the nature of representation,
because he has learned what it is that he himself represents (Bloom 235).
Blooms breakdown of Hamlet is a critical approach on how the events in his life shaped
him on how to discontinue his pre-critical behaviors, and in turn, become critical before he met
his end. Bloom dives into all the aspects that revolve around Hamlet, and argue that Hamlet
matured through the experience and finally found his true self. His views Hamlet losing the
desire for revenge, and becoming more attune with who he had lost in his descent. In Dennis
Sansoms introduction to Ethics and the Experince of Death, he purposes that in order to
learn about the significance of life, ethics help put our lives into a fulfilling perspective and
learn through the experience of death. Can the experience of death teach us something
about the importance of life and how to formulate an ethic to live meaningfully while alive
(Sansom 18). In his final speech, Hamlet utters the words I am dead which Bloom argues
that no other figure stands on the threshold between the worlds of life and death in
Shakespeares play. Hamlet finds his true self, and with that accepts his fate, persuading the
audience that he has gained some sort of crucial knowledge of life during his death. In the
middle of the play, he gives the unforgettable soliloquy, To be or not to be, that is the

question. He reflects on his mortality and becomes bitter and terrified of death (Sansom
21). Bloom would argue that this the pre-critical Hamlet, still afflicted my melancholia.
Although Hamlet is questioning life and death, he is afraid of the unknown, which is
forbidding him to move on with his life and focus on the tasks ahead of him.
Hamlet explores a notion the play treats more fully, namely the infinitely
decomposable and recomposible nature of language (784). Louise Cary uses this in quote in
the introduction of the article, as she tries to convey the message that in Shakespeares Hamlet,
the break down and collection of language is the most important notion of the play. She dives
into the article by first explaining where the name Hamlet is derived from, its history, as this is
crucial in understanding a deeper idea of Hamlet. She breaks down the name and believes that
it closely resembles the name Amleth, but that the H was brought to the front for a
purpose. The ghostly H, wandering from its assigned position (now you see it, now you dont
now it speaks, now it doesnt) miniaturizes several of the plays major tropes: activity/passivity,
seeming/being, circularity/linearity, action/delay, sound/silence, fathers/sons (785). Bloom
would argue that this is critical way of thinking as the breakdown of the name Hamlet would
show the thought process and power of Shakespeare, capable of coming up with a name to
embody several of the plays major tropes, as Cary states in her article. He would use evidence
from his essay to support this claim of force of Shakespearean representation, and its influence
over the illusion of figurative language.
Matthew Harkins begins his article by proposing the vital role of youth, and its critical
subordinate position in Hamlet. Rather than portray an archetypal contest between the young
and the old or portray Hamlets developmental progression from youth to maturity, the play

examines the production and application of these categories as political phenomena (Harkins
333). Harkins tries to argue that in Hamlet, the mystery of his age raises questions about social
constructions of youth, and that there are ideological assumptions about the propriety of age
controlling youth (Harkins 338). Harkins also tries to add that the age of Hamlet from the
beginning of the play has the audience introduced to the young Hamlet, something he is
referred to as in the first act, and his transition into an adult, as maturity plays an important
role on the decisions he makes and the experiences he undergoes. Bloom would find Harkins
thoughts to be critical, which he states in the beginning of his essay. Bloom found Hamlet to be
completely matured by Act 5, showing a collected side of him, no longer bickering like an
immature little boy. Hamlets age does make an impact on his character throughout the play, as
we see an immature Hamlet during his famous To be or not to be soliloquy, contemplating
suicide because he feels that he cannot handle the situation that is brought before him. Bloom
would argue that this is the young, pre-critical Hamlet because he is looking for the easy way
out instead of dealing with his problems. Hamlets situation may be overwhelming for any age
group, but his behavior would constantly be changing by showing signs of erratic, irrational, and
unstable actions cause other members of the play to persistently questioning him. These are all
signs of a youthful Hamlet, still trying to figure out who he is and what represents himself.
Hamlet is no longer judged for his behavior, which Bloom would argue that by act 5, we see the
pre-critical, youthful Hamlet changed into a more mature, attuned to his surroundings. He is
ready to finally avenge his father, which Harkins quotes If Old Hamlets commission sentenced
Young Hamlet to death before he gave his own character life, we assumed that was because of
the nature of revenge and the risks revengers run (Harkins 802). It was clear throughout the

play the toll that revenge took on the younger Hamlet, who was afraid of death. Bloom would
argue that in the final act of the play, the mature Hamlet had experienced enough in his life
that he had games knowledge of death and what represents him as a person, allowing death
into his life.
I believe that Harold Bloom is a fascinating critic, who goes out of his way to teach
people something they may not have noticed or overlooked. Sandy Florian is an amazing
writer and critical thinker, however her approach on Hamlet was not as critical as Blooms.
His job is to engage others in a new way of thinking; to be free in their thought processes and
not to be held back by societys views or other surrounding factors. Bloom makes strong
points about Hamlet in his essay and proves his points with supporting evidence. Florian does
a fascinating job taking the story of Hamlet, putting into her own words and perspective, and
adding the twist of Ophelias point of view to approach Hamlet in a much more diverse and
exciting way; however, she lacks making her points clear because her abstract language may
be difficult to follow at times. Blooms clear and concise way of writing, the topics he brings
up, and the evidence that is used to support his claims make his approach on Hamlet much
more critical than Florian as his take allows the audience to fully understand the different
aspects of Hamlet and all the influences and themes in the play.