Michael D. Bristol's essay on Carnival and Carnivalesque in Hamlet seems to be comprised of two strong pieces of evidence surrounded by several very weak supporting examples. Bristol tries to interpret the actions in Hamlet using the Carnivalesque ideas and imagery presented by Mikhail Bakhtin. Although this approach is original, it only meets with limited success. I feel that Bakhtin's theory of Carnival is simply not relevant to the events in Hamlet.

Bristol chooses to interpret the play chronologically. In many ways, the first scene has the most in common with Carnival. The carnival atmosphere is one in which social and moral norms are flauntingly cast away, and the celebrant atmosphere rules. Claudius' combination of the funeral of old Hamlet and his marriage ceremony is a decidedly Carnivalesque gesture. Bristol also claims that by declaring this festival, Claudius is appealing to the popular concept of Carnival, which Claudius seeks to control, but does not fully understand. Bristol doesn't convince the reader that Claudius' actions are inspired any more by carnival than by simple politics. After all, everybody loves a party, and this festival is a way to keep people happy and prevent a revolution, rather than the other way around as this paper would suggest. The flaw in Bristol's paper is that the examples that he chose are either not readily linked to Carnival, or can be easily explained away.

Bristol's next example is the scene in which Hamlet accidentally murders Polonius, thinking that he is Claudius. Bristol makes a very good point about this scene's contribution to Hamlet's development:

Although this is an insightful point, it is not linked to the notion of Carnival in a satisfying way. A further point made by Bristol is that Hamlet's dialog concerning Polonius and is fate as wormfood is carnivalized. However, it could also be seen as an acceptance of the realities of death. It is the beginning of a process later continued in Hamlet's final soliloquy, which ends in the resolution: "From this time forth/ My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!" (4.5.9.55).

Bristol's strongest textual evidence comes from the beginning of act five. The dialog between the two clowns is clearly Marxist, but not really Carnivalesque. The clowns make the point that money and birth give you access not only to rights and privileges in this world, but can also buy spiritual rights, such as the right to commit suicide and receive a Christian burial afterward.

This concept of the distinction between the privileged few and downtrodden many is at the heart of Marxist criticism, but the tie to Carnival isn't clear. There is a tie between Carnival theory and the middle part of the scene, however. This is the second of this Bristol's strong supports. Hamlet's dialog with the clown, and especially his monologue involving Yorick's skull seem very Carnivalesque. Bristol explains the imagery suggested by Hamlet's contemplation of the skull, that of "Memento Mori", a traditional icon used to remind people of mortality. This image has been Carnivalized by the comic relief provided by the clown, and the fact that the skull is that of Yorick, a jester.

Bristol continues to support the Marxist interpretation by theorizing about the clown's further role when the coffin of Ophelia is brought onstage. He says that if the director allows the clown to remain, he can act as a sort of "Plebian Chorus" (363), adding a new dimension to the scene and the relationship of the characters. Bristol does not really attempt to tie this Marxist notion to carnival theory in any satisfactory way.

Bristol's treatment of the resolution seems to be neither Marxist nor Carnivalesque. He tries to explain Hamlet's concern about how his story will be told as relating to the eternity of Carnival, and the coming of Fortinbras as a return to normal "pre-carnival" order. This connection is not clear, and the theory seems to collapse under it's own weight. In fact, there is just as much, if not more, counter evidence in the play, which Bristol chooses not to deal with. For example, Bristol does not speak of the relationship of the Ghost to Carnival theory.

Bristol says that carnival "constitutes a second world… outside the world of official culture and political authority"(353). He also claims that Hamlet uses Carnival to move against Claudius, and Bristol even compares Hamlet and Claudius to "two murderous clowns attempting to gain strategic advantage over the other" (350). Bristol claims that Claudius' attempts to control the action, such as exiling Hamlet are futile, because "Carnival cannot be controlled 'from above'"(356). However, he fails to take into account the fact that Hamlet is taking his orders from "above", in the form of the Ghost of his father, or the notion of divine justice, as seen in Hamlet's orders regarding the treatment of his mother.

Bristol's theory of the Carnivalesque in Hamlet is a broad, sweeping theory that should apply to all of the events in Hamlet, but fails to. In fact, many of those instances chosen by Bristol as evidence simply don't hold water when applied to Carnival theory, and Bristol's theory applies to few of the others. This paper did make many good Marxist points about Hamlet, and those have aided my understanding quite a bit. I don't feel that I really gained anything special from this paper, though, and feel that another paper dealing with a straight Marxist criticism of Hamlet would have covered the same points and many more.