A comparison essay between A Man For All Seasons and Hamlet and I am having difficulty coming up with a thesis statement and for that matter I'm not even too sure of what to compare. I can't really find anything that seems to stick out that is similar in both of these please help me.

Similarities
Both have a major dilemma to "solve":
revenge his father's death | challenge the values of the autocrat
both fought unscrupulous autocrats
neither chose the issue; it 'came' upon them
issue tested the characters
both died in the effort
both centre on court and matters of state
both dragged on
both dragged the protagonists down in spirits
both ended in a decisive event the trial the sword fight
both courageous
both find motivation in supernatural agents: ghost and God
role of moderation no panic no extremism talk to the players on
extravagance, quiet and determined
 
Dissimilarities
determined vs vacillation
More never in doubt out his stand
Meg and Ophelia - advisers
More no mother confused loyalties
no madness (or feigned madness) in More or his family
role of friends Horatio
false friends Rosei and Gildie, conventional friend Norfolk
More did it alone; cold turkey
Hamlet and immediate equal Laertes embroiled in other side plot fight
false father in Claudius (poisons his stepson)
true father in King Hamlet point of reference
Fool in Polonius; role of fool in Chapuys (foil for humour, silly old
man, conniving courtier)
Cromwell and Laertes antagonists?
 
Theses you might argue:
  • "Every character's life is tested in the cauldron of experience, but for some called to practise heroic virtues some lives are tested against a sea of troubles."
  •  
  • "Dealing with the contrived unpredictable forces of evil can consume the lives of good people."
  •  
  • "Elinsore and Hampton writhe with conniving forces to shape the destiny of good men. Why can't good arrive easy?"
 
Further comments

 

1. Jesus, Socrates, Hamlet, More all died for their cause. Their deaths sealed their issues in history, mark their lives in history.
All write scripts for the moral imagination: what could be is better than what is.
Question: Does a clash of personalities makes a man a hero; it is in dialectics that moral progress is achieved
see discussion at http://home.pacific.net.au/~greg.hub/thanks.html#monte
http://www.abacci.com/books/book.asp?bookID=2265
 
 
2. "A man takes an oath only when he wants to commit himself quite
exceptionally to the statement, when he wants to make an identity
between the truth of it and his virtue, he offers himself as a guarantee."
 
More as guarantee of his message
Hamlet as blood guarantee of his father's justice
 
3. Are they mavericks?
prepared to break ranks
not mediocre indecision vs relativism
relative vs absolute
personal agendas interfere with the agendas of court
Why be an individual?
 
4. "Courage in reasserting a principal of justice requires giving up
comfortable social relationships. Crisis tests true friends even to the
extent of having none."
 

This is page 7 of the A Man for All Seasons website student discusions: seasons
Author and webmaster G Smith Brusbane Australia
Posted: 26 May 2003.