<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<P><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3>While I agree that it might be an
oversimplification, I don't think that Pynchon's description of Hamlet is
erroneous. At the begining of the play we find out that Hamlet has been
doing nuthin' since the old man died. Claudius (Act I, Scene II,
90-95): </FONT></P></FONT><FONT face=Arial>
<P><FONT size=3>"But you must know, your father lost a father, </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3>That father lost, lost his, and the survivor bound </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3>In filial obligation for some term </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3>To do obsequious sorrow; but to persever </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3>In obstinate condolement is a course </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3>Of impious stubbornness; 'tis unmanly grief, </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3>It shows a will most incorrect to
heaven."</FONT></P></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I don't think that the inaction resulting from sorrow has
to be absolute for it to be considered <EM>accidia</EM>. Hamlet only acts
proactively a couple of times in the play, "The Mousetrap" being the first,
and that comes in the third act. So mabye Hamlet gets it
together halfway through the play? I agree that Hamlet can be read as
not "necessarily" slothful, and that Pynch dropped Hamlet's name lightly, but I
hear 'unmanly grief is incorrect to heaven' as being analogous to
what you posted under 'Dante and Sloth':</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>>Sloth, according to <A href="">Damascene</A> (De Fide Orth. ii, 14) is
an oppressive sorrow, which, to wit, so weighs upon man's mind, that he wants to
do nothing;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Dedalus204@comcast.net href="mailto:Dedalus204@comcast.net">Tim
Strzechowski</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=pynchon-l@waste.org
href="mailto:pynchon-l@waste.org">Pynchon-L</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> 30 November, 2004 22:03</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> TPPM (9): Hamlet and Sloth</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>"As a topic for fiction, Sloth over the next few centuries after Aquinas
had a few big successes, notably <I>Hamlet,</I> but not until arriving on the
shores of America did it take the next important step in its evolution."
[...]</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Personally, I find this erroneous and oversimplified on Pynchon's
part. While the Danish prince is (or "seems") overcome with the
"melancholy" of his era, I do not read his character as necessarily
slothful. He may be an obsessive (and ultimately tragic) procrastinator,
but he struggles continuously with affecting the proper action and is far from
lazy when it comes to avenging the King's death: the conspiracy of "The
Mousetrap," the goings-on of his "antic disposition," even his willingness to
succumb to Claudius's two plans (i.e., the trip to England and the
concluding duel with Laertes) -- though seemingly passive -- demonstrate a
certain cunningness on Hamlet's part as he "acts" toward the final
vengeance.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>