Shakespeare is an adept poet and master of the language. He layers on jokes, puns, and references everywhere. He has a massive output of work, and a number of different plots. When we compare him to other authors, it is difficult to find anyone who stacks up--but then, we're often comparing him to the wrong people.

Shakespeare didn't write books or pamphlets or epics, he wrote plays: short pieces of drama that were meant to be fast-paced and exciting. That they are mainly experienced today as bound books and not theatrical productions does not change their origins. If one wants to look at the achievements of Shakespeare, he should be compared to someone of a similar bent.

He should be compared with prolific writers known for catchy jokes and phrases. Writers who reuse old plots, making fun of their traditions. Writers of work meant to be performed. Writers who aim for the lowest common denominator, while still including the occasional high-minded political commentary. He should be compared to the writers of South Park; or the Simpsons; or MAD Magazine.

Shakespeare was meant to be lowbrow and political, but now it only reads that way to those who are well-educated enough to understand his language, reference, and the political scene of the time. If you do know the period lingo, then his plays are just as filthy as any episode of South Park.

For example, the word 'wit' refers to a fellow's manhood (this one comes up a lot), here's an example from Much Ado About Nothing:
n  

Don Pedro: I said that thou hadst a great wit. Yay, said she, a great gross one. Nay, say I, a fine wit. Yay, said she, a fine little one. Nay, said I, a good wit. Just, said she, it hurts nobody.

n
Plus there's the title of that play, which references the fact that 'nothing' was slang for a woman's maidenhead, which occurs also in Hamlet:
n  

Hamlet: That's a fair thought to lie between a maid's legs.
Ophelia: What is, my lord?
Hamlet: Nothing.

n
He was also not one to pass up a good cunt joke.

Shakespeare often refers to mythology because that was the standard pool of reference for authors at the time. Family Guy references 1980's pop culture. Is that any less esoteric? How esoteric will Mr. T be after 400 years (assuming he doesn't find his way into the latest testament of the bible anytime soon)?

Additionally, all of Shakespeare's magnificent plots were lifted, sometimes whole cloth, from other books and histories, just like how sit coms reuse 'episode types' or borrow plots from popular movies. Shakespeare was not quite as visionary or deep as he is often given credit for. Rather, he was always so indistinct with the motives and thoughts of his characters that two critics could assign two completely different and conflicting motives, but find both equally well-supported.

Is Shylock evil because he's a Jew, evil despite the fact, or evil because of the effects of racism on him? You can make a case for all three. Marlowe (the more practised and precise writer) never left interpretation to chance, and where has it gotten him?

Shakespeare was an inspired and prolific author, and his effect on writing and talent for aphorism cannot be overstated. I think he probably wrote the King James version because it is so pretty. However, he is not the be-all and end-all of writing.

His popularity and central position in the canon comes mainly from the fact that you can write anything you like about his plays. Critics and professors don't have to scramble, or even leave their comfort zone. Shakespeare's work is opaque enough that it rejects no particular interpretation. No matter your opinions, you can find them reflected in Shakespeare; or at least, not outright refuted.

His is a grey world, and his lack of agenda leaves us pondering what he could possibly have been like as a person. His indirect approach makes his writing the perfect representation of an unsure, unjust world. No one is really right or wrong, and even if they were, there would be no way to prove it.

I don't know whether this makes him the most or least poignant of writers. Is the author's absence from the stories the most rarefied example of the craft, or is it just lighthearted pandering? Either way, he's still a clever, amusing, insightful, and helplessly dirty fellow.

I feel like an heretic saying this, for since the first time I read this play I didn't like Hamlet much. And after this reread, it's still true. It's the story that fails to enthrall me, not so the characters, not the prose, not the stagecraft either.

iki yıl önce moda sahnesi'nin meşhur hamlet'ine bilet bulmuşken kitabı okumaya vakit bulamadan gittim. tabi hamlet'i canlandıran onur ünsal'ın oyunu tekrar çevirdiğini biliyordum, iyi ki de öyle yapmış. oyuna o kadar bayıldım ki (gitme imkanı olan herkese şiddetle tavsiye ederim) geçen sene ankara'dan gelen arkadaşlarımı götürme kisvesi altında tekrar gittim. sıkılırım diye korktum ama aksine, bilerek izlemek de ayrı güzeldi. sonra devlet tiyatrolarının kapalı gişe oynayan, bülent emin yarar'ın tek kişilik hamlet'ine oyundan on üç gün önce sabah 10'da gişenin kapısına dayanarak bilet buldum. bu hamlet de bambaşka bir güzeldi. tabi bu tek kişilik olanı kitabı okumayan ya da en azından başka bir hamlet görmeyen kimseye tavsiye edemem, biraz kafanız bulanabilir. bu sene hedefim bu kitabı okumaktı ama bizim büyük challenge'ımız maddelerine uyduramadım bir türlü, challenge biter bitmez aldım elime o yüzden. iyi ki de almışım. sabahattin eyuboğlu çevirisinde yer yer yapay kalan yerler olsa da şiir çevirmenin zorluğuna veriyorum, genel olarak harikaydı. defalarca okuyup ezberlemek istiyorum, öyle güzel, öyle dolu bir eser. ve tabi ki moda sahnesi'nin hamlet'ine bir kez daha bilet aldım. çünkü çürümüş bir şeyler var danimarka krallığında ve ben bunu izlemeye doyamıyorum.

One of the most beautiful lines ever written:

Doubt thou the stars are fire;
Doubt that the sun doth move;
Doubt truth to be a liar;
But never doubt I love.

It’s a cliché, I know, but Hamlet's Soliloquy in Act III Scene I is also a favourite:

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.—Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.

Revenge and madness is what takes the theme throughout. Hamlet is eager to take revenge from his uncle, who killed his father - King of Denmark and mother who married his uncle later on.

Yet in his revenge he himself dies along with many others. Madness in great ones must not go unwatched or else it leads to turmoil and failure.

Blog | YouTube  | Instagram | Facebook | LinkedIn

I have a theory if a character's name is the title of a Shakespeare play, he or she's going to die. Also, Hamlet's a misogynistic, emo asshole.

Now let me ruin your childhood:

As this is a reread, and I can't remember now how many times I have read Hamlet, I could just silently move on to other reading.

But then I thought that I would like to bow to Horatio - the storyteller, the last man standing to tell the tale. Each time I read Hamlet, something else catches my unruly imagination. Setting out to find traces of systematic madness versus other madness (which in my world is what we call reality), I was sidetracked again and again by the brilliant sidekicks of the main actors. Yorick, the man of infinite jest, whose skull is such a wonderful costume prop and artistic motive, is well worth his own book title. And he got it. The gravedigger, who digs himself deeper and deeper into the pun of lying, he deserves another review. But most of all, it is to Horatio that I bow this time. For he makes tragedy of the confusing deeds in the rotten state of Denmark.

He lives to tell the tale. So Horatio, this one's to you! Cheers, you mourning madmen. In England they wouldn't be able to tell you apart from other people. They're all mad there, you know. Same goes for Sweden. The rot has spread, and there are tales to tell everywhere.

There is something wrong in the state of humanity. And storytellers know how to ease the pain.

چه کسی پدر هملت را کشت؟
یادداشتی بر نمایشنامۀ هملت بر اساس نظریۀ هنری فروید

فروید و هنر
فرويد بر اساس نظريات روانكاوى خود، ديدگاه جالبى راجع به هنر و اسطوره دارد. از نظر فرويد هنر و اسطوره مختص افراد روان‌رنجور است که نتوانسته اند به طور کامل امیال دوران کودکی خود را سرکوب کنند، در نتیجه همچنان نفرت به پدر و میل جنسی به مادر در آن‌ها وجود دارد، اما از آن جا که نمی‌توانند این امیال را به طور مستقیم ابراز کنند، از ابزار هنر و اسطوره استفاده می‌کنند، تا با همذات‌پنداری با قهرمان، لذت كشتن پدر و جمع شدن با مادر را هر چند به صورتى خيالى و ناقص، بچشند. هنرمند شرايط داستان را طورى مى سازد كه قهرمان به دليلى موجه پدر هيولا صفت خود را بكشد و با مادرش جمع شود، هر چند نه فيزيكى. چرا كه هنرمند مى خواهد بدون بر هم زدن اخلاقيات مرسوم، با قهرمان خود همذات پندارى كند.

فروید و هملت
اما فرويد به شكل عجيبى در تحليل هملت از اين نظر خود عدول مى كند (بدون اين كه ادعا داشته باشد از نظرش برگشته) و "هملت" را انسانى روان رنجور مى داند، نه شكسپير را. او هملت را قهرمان روان رنجوری معرفی می کند كه نمى تواند عموى خود را بكشد، چرا كه با عمویش، كه آرزوى روان رنجورانۀ هملت را برآورده كرده -كشتن پدر، جمع شدن با مادر- همذات پندارى مى كند.

تحلیلی جدید از هملت
سه كليد در نظريۀ تحليل هنرى فرويد هست که ما را به تحلیل درست روانکاوانۀ هملت راهنمایی می کند:

کلید اول
از نظر فرويد "هنرمند" روان رنجور است، نه قهرمان. قهرمان از لحاظ عقده هاى جنسى، به ظاهر سالم تصوير مى شود. هنرمند اصرار دارد كه قهرمان را سالم و موجّه و مطابق اخلاقيات مرسوم تصوير كند، تا به اين شکل ميل جنسى روان رنجورانۀ خود را بپوشاند.

با در نظر گرفتن این کلید، اين "شكسپير" است كه روان رنجور است، نه هملت. هملت كاملاً سالم است: نه از پدر خود نفرت دارد، و نه هیچ میلی به مادر خود دارد. يا حداقل شكسپير اصرار دارد او را اين گونه بنمايد.

کلید دوم
از نظر فرويد اين "قهرمان" است كه پدر خود را مى كشد، و با مادر جمع مى شود. قهرمان اصلى اثر هنرى، پدركش است. نه ضدقهرمان يا شخصيت هاى فرعى.

با در نظر گرفتن این کلید، اين "هملت" است كه پدركش است، نه عموى هملت يا هر كس ديگر. اما هملت كى و كجا پدر خود را مى كشد؟ اين ما را به كليد سوم مى رساند كه مهم ترين كليد نظريه فرويد است:

کلید سوم
از نظر فرويد هنرمند نمى خواهد و اگر هم بخواهد، به دليل روان رنجورى نمى تواند اخلاقيات مرسوم را زير پا بگذارد، در نتيجه از تصريح به "كشتن پدر" و "جمع شدن با مادر" – که آرزوی درونی خود او هستند – توسط قهرمان طفره می رود و آن را در لفافه مى گويد، یا به گونه اى موجّهش می کند كه اخلاقيات مرسوم را زير پا نگذاشته باشد.

با در نظر گرفتن این کلید، باید دید شكسپير روان رنجور چطور هملت را به كشتن پدر و جمع شدن با مادر وا مى دارد، بدون آن كه اخلاقيات مرسوم را زير پا بگذارد؟ چطور از تصريح به "پدركشى" هملت طفره مى رود؟

اول: به جاى پدر، مى گويد "عمو". عموى هملت، با خصوصيت شاه بودن، با گفتن اين عبارت كه "ما را پدر خود بدانيد" كسى نيست جز پدر هملت، كسى كه شكسپيرِ روان رنجور با كشتن او به دست هملت مى خواهد آرزوهاى روان رنجورانۀ خود را ارضا كند. اما از آن جا كه نمى تواند به صراحت بگويد "هملت پدرش را مى كشد"، به ظاهر مى گويد: هملت نمى خواهد پدر خود را بكشد، تا او را از "پدركشى" مبرا كند، بلكه حتى بيشتر، هملت را تقديس مى كند و مى گويد: هملت مى خواهد انتقام پدرش را بگيرد. يعنى نه تنها تلاش مى كند او را از اتهام نفرت به پدر مبرا كند، بلكه از او چهره اى پدر دوست مى سازد.
اما اين عمو همچون پدر فرویدی در ديد هملت منفورترين شخصيت است، و چرا؟ چون با مادر او جمع شده، چون مرتكب "زناى با محارم" (اين واژۀ پر بسامد در سرتاسر نمايشنامه) شده. درست همان دليلى كه كودك را به نفرت از پدر مى كشاند: چون او مى تواند با مادر جمع شود، و من نمى توانم.
و براى اين كه كسى از اتهامى (زناى با محارم) مبرا شود، چه راهى ساده تر از آن كه آن را به ديگران نسبت دهد، و به اين ترتيب خود را در صف مقدم منتقدان آن قرار دهد؟ فرويد اين نوع تطهير را، "فرافكنى" مى نامد. شکسپیر نیز برای تطهیر هملت، دست به فرافکنی می زند و عموی هملت را پی در پی زانی با محارم می خواند تا فراموش شود که این خود هملت است که آرزوی زنای با محارم در سر دارد.

دوم: هملت به طور فيزيكى با مادر خود جمع نمى شود. اما نشانه هايى از "نزديكى" هملت و مادر در نمايشنامه هست. اولاً از بين پدر-عمو و مادر، مادر تنها كسى است كه هملت با او جدى و به دور از اهانت و مسخرگى سخن مى گويد و حرف دل خود را به او مى زند. ثانياً، اصلى ترين گفتگوى هملت و مادر جايى است كه هملت مادر را به خاطر "زناى با محارم" محكوم مى كند، و او را متقاعد مى كند كه ديگر با پدر-عمو به بستر نرود. مى توان حدس زد كه شكسپير روان رنجور تا چه اندازه از اين پيروزى قهرمانش لذتى ممنوعه و روان رنجورانه برده است: كودكى كه بالاخره بر پدر پيروز مى شود و نمى گذارد با مادر جمع شود.

هر چند نبايد در اين راه افراط كرد، چون نشانه هاى كمى از جمع شدن هملت با مادر هست، و محور اصلى نمايشنامه، بر "پدر-عمو كشى" است، و نه جمع شدن با مادر.




در انتها تذکر این نکته ضروری است که مطالب این نوشته، از جمله روان رنجوریِ شکسپیر، الزاماً مورد باور من نیست. من تنها از دیدگاه فرویدی به نمایشنامه نگاه کردم، و تحلیل فروید از هملت را که به نظر با دیدگاه خودش متناسب نبود را اصلاح کردم.

“All that is amiable and excellent in nature is combined in Hamlet, with the exception of one quality. He is a man living in meditation, called upon to act by every motive human and divine, but the great object of his life is defeated by continually resolving to do, yet doing nothing but resolve.”
Lecture XII, STC.

As much as I admire Coleridge and with the boldness of having read Hamlet only once and therefore being aware I haven’t even managed to scratch the surface of the Paragon of Tragedies, I dare to antagonize the poet and proclaim that I resist the idea of linking Hamlet’s moral idealism to reprehensible inaction.
The Prince of Denmark’s obsession is to think, not to act, and in spite of having been dethroned by his duplicitous uncle, he seems to count with the favor of the common people. But Hamlet can’t help being haunted by the sickness of life and he retreats into the abyss of his inwardness. He is plagued by endless questions that paralyze him in meditation: “What a piece of work is a man!... And yet to me what is this quintessence of dust?”.
In the opening scene of Act I, a melancholic dejection has already taken hold of The Prince and, whether in self-preservation or in fear of foul reality, he engages in deluded gibberish easily attributable to a man whose reason has abandoned him.
And yet his inquisitive soliloquies are infused with the elucidating sharpness of a genius, someone with great intellectual capacity who taunts with puns and riddles that contain receding depths and layers and layers of meaning in them.

“The widow being oppressed, the orphan wronged,
The taste of hunger, or a tyrant’s reign,
And thousand more calamities besides,
To grunt and sweat under this weary life,
When that he may his full quietus make,
With a bare bodkin, who would this endure,
But for a hope of something after death?”

Spontaneous philosopher or irredeemably insane?
The world of Hamlet is phantasmagorical, in constant disruption with the burdens of the past, the betrayals of the present and the falsehood of the future. Everybody around him seems to have hidden agendas. He observes, he ponders, he pretends not to see the King’s debasing lust and murderous greed, Polonius’ machiavellian maneuvers, the Queen’s disgusting shallowness, Ophelia’s gullible innocence. Yet his keen eyes discern it all…but at what cost?

“Great wit to madness nearly is allied"

The afflictions of life require greatness of spirit and Hamlet meets his fate fully aware that logic, reason and justice are not enough to disentangle the quandaries of existence. In the course of the action though, a transformation has taken place in him, the doubtful Prince has grown in wisdom and is ready to submit to providence without repudiating the world. The welfare of the Kingdom, the sense of honor, the corroding lust or ambition, all dissolve in the spectacle of beholding the spirit of man blossoming and most triumphant… in defeat.

A Young Lawyer’s Guide to "Hamlet":

Head Note

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark – Young Hamlet still mourns his father’s death – doesn’t like King Claudius marrying his mother, Queen Gertrude, so soon

Ophelia's brother, Laertes, warns her not to fall in love with Young Hamlet - her father Polonius fears she will be hurt

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern investigate Young Hamlet’s strange behavior – Polonius believes he loves Ophelia

Ghost of Hamlet tells Young Hamlet he was poisoned by King Claudius – wants Young Hamlet to avenge his death, but not to punish Gertrude

Hamlet wants to kill Claudius - Claudius realises his crime cannot escape divine justice - fears Hamlet

Hamlet offends King Claudius with lines he adds to play – after performance, Gertrude promises Hamlet she will leave Claudius

Hamlet unwittingly kills Polonius who is hiding behind a tapestry – hides body - Hamlet finally tells Claudius where body is – Claudius sends Hamlet to England, so Laertes can avenge his father's death

Ophelia goes mad with grief and drowns – Hamlet believes he loved her more than Laertes did

Claudius accidentally kills Gertrude with poison intended for Hamlet

Hamlet fights Laertes – Laertes stabs Hamlet with poisoned sword – before dying, Hamlet kills Laertes and Claudius with same sword – Horatio lives to tell Hamlet's story


Ratio Decidendi:

O, that this too too solid flesh would melt, thaw, and resolve itself into a dew.

This above all — to thine own self be true.

There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

The play's the thing, wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king.

To be, or not to be — that is the question.

To sleep, perchance to dream — ay, there's the rub.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Alas! Poor Yorick. I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

There's a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will.

Now cracks a noble heart. Good-night, sweet prince; and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.

The rest is silence.


Judgment:

Preface

It is customary for this Court to preside over disputes between citizens of the realm or actions between the Crown and perpetrators of crime.

This is impossible in this case, because all of the chief protagonists together constituted the Crown in one way or another and now they are dead, one and all.

Any dispute between the parties has therefore died with them.

While the people await the Coronation of a Successor, it falls upon this Court to conduct a Coronial Inquiry.

The Court derives no gratification from this etymological curiosity.

Counsel assisting the Inquiry cited a passage from a soliloquy apparently spoken by Young Hamlet:

“To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them.

We shall never know the answer to this question, for in taking arms against the sea of troubles, both Young Hamlet and his antagonist have perished in battle.

Neither could nor would bear their ills.

One wonders whether either one would reverse the actions dictated by their will, if given half a chance.

They sleep no more, nor do they dream. What dreams would otherwise have come have paused.

The protagonists have shuffled off this mortal coil, and find themselves, if that is possible, in an undiscovered country from which no traveller has returned.

In their mortal absence, they have escaped the jurisdiction of this Court.

The Court can ascertain the Truth, but it cannot dispense Justice.

King Claudius

While this Court finds that Claudius did slay our once mighty King Hamlet, it can do nothing but state its finding.

Claudius must go unpunished in this world, except to the extent that Young Hamlet’s revenge might contain a sliver of Justice.

The Court does not find it necessary to deal with the argument that the King’s actions were immune from prosecution pursuant to any doctrine of Royal Prerogative.

Young Hamlet

In his quest to avenge the death of his father, Young Hamlet has sucked the life out of Polonius and Laertes.

In the former case, Counsel submitted that this unfortunate death was a result of mistaken identity.

This argument does not sway the Court.

It finds that Hamlet did not witness one person and mistake him for another.

Instead, Hamlet must not have known the identity of the person ensconced behind the tapestry.

While it is common ground that Hamlet believed the secreter was Claudius and wrongfully intended to murder the King in an unlawful and heinous act of regicide, this Court finds that he had no reasonable grounds to believe that the victim was any one particular person or identity.

Therefore, it is logically impossible for his mistake to have been made in good faith.

If you have no idea, you may not assert in your defence that your idea was wrong.

By not discovering the truth, you must be responsible for your own error and its consequences.

Laertes

Counsel is on safer ground, although to no avail, in the case of the death of Laertes.

Whether Hamlet acted in self-defence or under extreme provocation, the Court finds that Laertes intended to kill Hamlet (and, indeed, was successful in his enterprise).

It must follow, in the opinion of the Court, that Hamlet’s response was not disproportionate to the fate he apprehended for himself.

Again, Laertes acted in the belief that Hamlet had intended to kill his father and his sister.

While it is perhaps true that both deaths were caused by actions of Hamlet, the Court has already found that Hamlet did not know the identity of Polonius.

Thus, in the absence of any intention to murder Polonius qua Polonius, the Court finds that Hamlet had done no wrong to Laertes personally that would have justified or excused his killing.

He was motivated by revenge, pure and simple, albeit accompanied by grief.

As to the argument that Laertes was acting on the instructions of the then King Claudius, the Court finds that such instructions had no legal force and it was incumbent on Laertes to disobey them and avoid the iniquity.

It matters not that King Claudius might have taken the life of Laertes.

The Court finds that Ophelia’s death was the result of misadventure.

Young Hamlet was not directly and proximately responsible for her death.

Therefore, the Court finds that Laertes could not use her death as the basis for any excuse or justification for his actions.

Conclusion

Counsel assisting the Coronial Inquiry prefaced his remarks by stating that something is rotten in the State of Denmark.

With all due respect, the Court finds that this is an understatement.

The Court wishes to express its gratitude to Horatio for apprising it of as many of the facts with respect to this sorry tale as it is possible to glean from the circumstances.

It is to be hoped that, while Justice remains constant, Law and Order will be restored by the Coronation of an appropriate Successor.

However, in expressing this sincere wish, it is mindful of Horatio’s wise but cautious advice that not every Succession is a Success.


Citations:

Film Adaptation

Baz Luhrmann is in pre-production on a modernised film version of the play that will follow the completion of "The Great Gatsby".

In order to avoid confusion between the two Hamlets, the King's son will be known by the stage name, M.C. Hamster.

Legal Citations

Young Lawyers interested in copyright issues might wish to investigate the case of Estate of William Shakespeare v. Anthony Hicks and Agatha Christie.

This case involved Miss Christie's play, "The Mousetrap", which was also the name of the play in "Hamlet".

Mr Hicks suggested that Miss Christie's play bear the same name, prompting Mr Shakespeare's Estate to sue for breach of copyright.

The defendants successfully argued that the play was in the Public Domain.

Shakespeare's lawyers tried to argue that copyright subsisted, because the play had only ever been performed in the Private Sphere.

The Times Law Reports mention that the Judge dismissed the Plaintiff's argument on the evidence, glibly remarking that the play had actually been performed all around the Globe.

Apparently, a little titter ran through the court room, but the guards were unable to detain him.

Hamlet teaches us all an important lesson. If you keep your head down, stay doing gay shit with your friends at college and never come home you'll be okay

in all seriousness, Hamlet insisting on wearing black all the time and frequently monologuing about how every decision is too hard and he's a mess is Relatable TM so I love him

“Madness in great ones must not unwatched go.”
― William Shakespeare, Hamlet



Still one of my favorite Shakepeare plays. I've probably read it 3-5 times and probably watched just as many film productions: 1996 - Kenneth Branagh; 1990 - Mel Gibson; 1948 - Laurence Olivier; 2000 - Ethan Hawke; 1990 - Kevin Kline. I love it. Every read gives me a chance to channel something else.

This is also my first exposure to the play since visiting Hamlet's castle in Denmark last summer (2016) on the 400th anniversary of the Bard's death. While we were walking through it, they were doing a "Hamlet Live" at Kronborg Castle and the Hamlet flirted with my daughter. It was definitely worth the time and the blustery weather. I saw cannons and tapestries, but alas no ghosts or floating virgins. Sad!

I also learned THIS summer while I was in Malta, reading about Samuel Taylor Coleridge, that it was Coleridge who largely propelled Hamlet to the top of Shakepeare's heap. According to Jonathan Bate, "the Romantics' reinvention of Hamlet as a paralyzed Romantic was their single most influential critical act." It seemed popluar among Romantics, after Coleridge, to show a strong antic disposition for Shakespeare's psychologically complex, young Prince.

❂"We love Hamlet even as we love ourselves." - Lord Byron
❂"Hamlet's heart was full of such Misery as mine is when he said to Ophelia 'Go to a Nunnery, go, go!' Indeed I should like to give up the matter at once -- I should like to die. I am sickened at the brute world which you are smiling with." - John Keats
❂"I have a smack of Hamlet myself, if I may say so...." - Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Favorite Lines this read:

“O God, I could be bound in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space – were it not that I have bad dreams.” (Act 2, Scene 2)

“Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words.” (Act 2, Scene 2)

“Our wills and fates do so contrary run.” (Act 3, Scene 2)

“For some must watch, while some must sleep
So runs the world away” (Act 3, Scene 2)

“If your mind dislike anything obey it” (Act 5, Scene 2)