I agree that the Hamlet essay is not very useful. I only think the the idea of making images that evoke feelings instead of announcing how one feels works for students. Giving it that name is helpful.
As for Hamlet, by Eliot's own definition (did I say this here before?) I think a murdered father, a mother married to the murderer, a corrupt court, a fool following one around to spy on one and one's "friends" being treacherous in the same way might unhinge a lot of people. Hamlet has plenty of "objective correlative" to explain how he feels; it is hardly beyond the facts of his life.
The finest Hamlet I have ever seen was Derrick Jacobi when he opened in London: he made Hamlet so intelligent that he could not not know what was all around him, and he could not bear it. Nothing about being too passive to act or being mad or just pretending to be mad or any of the standard renditions. It was one of the few greatest performances I have had the great luck to see.
>>> Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]
> 11/15/12 12:03 PM >>>
John Angell Grant:
> I would love to know what was going on biographically between Shakespeare
> his mother; that Eliot said intruded into the play "Hamlet," causing the
> Hamlet/Gertrude scene to fail as an objective correlative....
"Objective correlative" is one literary issue that Nancy & I don't quite
agree on. It seems to me a fairly empty phrase.
In any case, even if _some_ meaning could be given the term, it has no
meaning in respect to the Hamlet-Gertrude scene. It connects to the rest of
the play rather than to some "emotion" which Eliot seemed to think it should
manifest. Eliot's essay on Hamlet was not one of his happier performances.