Will He Die by Being Killed? “That Is the Question”: A Comparative Lacanian Reading of Patricide in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Amirhossein Allahyari’s Qorab Jendun

Informed by the Lacanian conceptualisation of “desire” and “the Name-of-the-Father,” this article investigates Amirhossein Allahyari’s Qorab Jendun and William Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The present study dialogically investigates the narrative of patricide, and offers insight into the mechanisms of the Name-of-the-Father. The present study sheds light on the role of the (m)other or mother figure in facilitating the removal of the father or father figure, and gives a psychological sketch of the mechanism through which Hamlet and KhanZadeh are already engulfed by the Name-of-the-Father. This study draws upon thematic textual analysis and Lacanian psychoanalysis to comparatively analyse the concepts of “desire” and the “Name-of-the-Father,” and their ramifications in the two works. This article concludes that Hamlet’s dilemma is about separating himself from the demand of the (m)other and realising his own desire. Along the same line, Khan Zadeh’s act of patricide, affected by Mah Baji’s toxic narrative, is in accordance with his unconscious conceptualisation of the desire of the (m)Other. This comparative study pinpoints their differentiation in Hamlet’s fantasised and superficial Catharsis through mourning and facing death; against Khan Zadeh’s firm belief in an afterlife where his (m)Other awaits him, which leads to self-destruction and demolition of his fatherland. However, despite the apparent fall of the father figure in two very different structures of narrative and society, the reign of the Name-of-the-Father remains intact.
 
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
This article investigates Amirhossein Allahyari’s Qorab Jendun and William Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The present study dialogically investigates the narrative of patricide, and offers insight into the mechanisms of the Name-of-the-Father. The present study sheds light on the role of the (m)other or mother figure in facilitating the removal of the father or father figure, and gives a psychological sketch of the mechanism through which Hamlet and KhanZadeh are already engulfed by the Name-of-the-Father. This study draws upon thematic textual analysis and Lacanian psychoanalysis to comparatively analyse the concepts of “desire” and the “Name-of-the-Father,” and their ramifications in the two works. Since these two authors hold different perspectives toward patricide in their works – at times complementary and at other times contradictory in relation to each other – this study aims to comparatively investigate these two works by drawing upon Lacanian psychoanalysis, particularly Lacan’s conceptualisation of the signifying system that helps the formation and progression of the subject within the so-called Name-of-the-Father.
2. Methodology
Adopting a comparative-psychoanalytical approach, this study dialogically investigates the narrative of patricide in Amirhossein Allahyari’s Qorab Jendun and William Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The Lacanian concepts employed in this psychoanalysis are “desire,” “Name-of-the-Father,” “Alienation,” “Separation,” “Loss,” “Mirror Stage,” and “Phallus.”
3. Theoretical Framework
Reading Lacan is difficult in the sense that once he introduces a concept, he retains the term but – gradually – changes its meaning throughout his writings. In other words, Lacanian terms possess different meanings in accordance with each of Lacan's realms – Imaginary, symbolic, and Real. In this regard, it is impossible to give an encompassing and well-rounded definition of Lacanian terms. The two Lacanian concepts that were able to withstand this process are “desire” and “Name-of-the-Father,” which comprise the centrality of the theoretical framework of this study.
4. Discussion and Analysis
Khan Zadeh’s foredoomed “separation” and his love-hate relationship with Khan can easily be framed into Hamlet’s situation. Hamlet’s dilemma is about separating himself from the demand of the (m)Other and realising his own desire. In this regard, Hamlet’s hesitation about whether to act or stay passive, the latter of which, has roots in sympathising with one of his own unconscious desires being finally embodied in the form of the uncle’s winning of Hamlet’s mother over his father is, according to Lacan, the manifestation of the desire of the Other. Along the same light, Khan Zadeh’s desire is the desire of the (m)Other who, in this case, was a metaphysical being and is informing his strong ties with the Semiotic and rejecting the transition to the symbolic order, which combined with Mah Baji’s definitive, though dubiously toxic, narrative results in Khan’s demise by the hand of his son. The difference between Khan Zadeh and Hamlet is that when Hamlet is mortally wounded, he restores the setting for a healthy formation of the later subjectivities; Khan Zadeh, on the other hand, pushes toward self-destruction along with the demolishing of healthy structures of relationship in his father’s territories.
5. Conclusion
Hamlet’s dilemma is about separating himself from the demand of the (m)other and realising his own desire. Along the same line, Khan Zadeh’s act of patricide, affected by Mah Baji’s toxic narrative, is in accordance with his unconscious conceptualisation of the desire of the (m)Other. This comparative study pinpoints their differentiation in Hamlet’s fantasised and superficial Catharsis through mourning and facing death; against Khan Zadeh’s firm belief in an afterlife where his (m)Other awaits him, which leads to self-destruction and demolition of his fatherland. However, despite the apparent fall of the father figure in two very different structures of narrative and society, the reign of the Name-of-the-Father remains intact.
Bibliography
Allahyari, Amirreza. (2024). Subjectification and Patriarchy in Caryl Churchill’s Top Girls and Amirhossein Allahyari’s Qorab Jendun: A Lacanian Study. M. A. Thesis in English Literature, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.
Boobani, Farzad. (1385). “The Story of O: An Exponential Analysis of Ophelia’s Role in William Shakespear’s Hamlet.” Journal of Faculty of Letters and Humanities. Year, 49. No, 198. 87-98.
Elliott, Anthony. (2019). Social Theory and Psychoanalysis in Transition: Self and Society From Freud to Kristeva. London: Routledge.
Freud, Sigmund. (1953). The Interpretation of Dreams: The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Vol. 4. James Strachey (trans.). London: Hogarth Press.
Fink, Bruce. (2017). The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Greenblatt, Stephen. (2005). Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare. London: Pimlico.
Homer, Sean. (2004). Jacques Lacan. London: Routledge.
Jacques Lacan. (1977). “Desire and the Interpretation of Desire in Hamlet.” Yale French Studies. Nos. 55.
Jacques Lacan. (2006). Écrits:  The  First  Complete  Edition in English. Bruce Fink (trans.). New York and London: W.W. Norton.
Jacques Lacan. (2013). On the Names-of-The-Father. Cambridge: Polity Press.