Funeral Bak D Meats: Carnival And The Carnivalesque

In his article "'Funeral Bak'd Meats:' Carnival and the Carnivalesque in Hamlet," Michael D. Bristol compares both Marxism and Bakhtin's notion of “double discoursed textuality” into an exclusive reading of Shakespeare's drama as a struggle between opposing economic classes. Bristol begins his argument immediately discussing Marxism. He begins by shining light on the fact that Marx “claims that he was not a Marxist, and in a sense that is a perfectly accurate description” (pg. 348. Bristol understood that Mar5x theories has several errors simple because he did not have the proper evidence during his time. While he acknowledges some of the flaws inherent in Marxist criticism, Bristol uses the introductory paragraphs to assert the "enormous importance" of "the theory of class consciousness and class struggle" which Marxist theory includes (349). Bristol recasts Hamlet as a class struggle.

Bristol utilized the act where Hamlet was grieving his father during the celebration of the new king and the

They present the idea and significance of Carnival. "practical consciousness of the common people" (359) is the argument I believe Bristol is trying to get at. The grave diggers give us another view of the play. They have a different take on death and wealth. The fact that social class matters so much is completely irrelevant, because once death has cast upon you then it will no matter who you were. Your body will decay and the worms will have at you not matter what walk of life you decided to take, its actually quite hilarious. The skull is the "blunt and fearless acknowledgment of death as a process of social leveling" (363). Although having money and status means something while you’re living, it isn’t everything. The "'funeral bak'd meats . . . which furnished the marriage tables'" (356). This is where Bristol began speaking about the union and burial of the king and his widow and