YouTube kanalımda Shakespeare'in hayatı, mutlaka okunması gereken kitapları ve kronolojik okuma sırası hakkında bilgi edinebilirsiniz: https://youtu.be/rGxh2RVjmNU

KİŞİLER
Oğuz - Yaşıyor.
Oğuz'un ölü hali - Yaşanacak olan.
Anneannem - O artık bir ölü.
Dedem - O artık bir ölü.
Hamlet - Eski kralın oğlu.
Yaşama sevinci - Hepimizin istediği.
Ölüm - Hepimizin yaklaştığı.
Kader - Hepimizin bağlı olduğu.
Amaç - Hepimizin boşluğu.
Baba spermi - Hepimizin geldiği.
Anne karnı - Hepimizin doğduğu.

PERDE I
SAHNE I
(Hamlet ve Oğuz sahneye girer.)

Hamlet: Kim var orada?
Oğuz: Önce sen konuş, kimsin söyle.
Hamlet: Benim ben. "Olmak ya da olmamak işte bütün mesele bu." cümlesiyle tanınan. Monologlarıyla yürüyen. Ölümle savaşan. Babasının ölümünü aklından atamayan.
Oğuz: Tamam, tanıdım seni. Ne işin var burada? Ne arıyorsun benim kitaplığımda?
Hamlet: Bu soruyu sana sormak lazım Oğuz. O kadar Shakespeare kitabı okudun sonuçta. Mantıken Shakespeare'in tarihi oyunlarında iktidarlar arasındaki iç savaş ile benim ruhum ve bedenim arasındaki iç savaşın ne kadar benzer olduğunu fark etmiş olman gerekirdi.
Oğuz: Haklısın Hamlet. Sen de ölümle savaşıyorsun benim gibi. Ölümle savaşıyor olma ihtimalini seviyorsun. Ölüm senin için bir kaçış değil, tam tersine zamanı gelince yaşanması gereken bir deneyim. Laertes adlı karakterin isyan edip seni alt etmeyi istemesi gibi senin de yazarının tarihi oyunlarında anlattığı şey iktidarların iç mekanizmalarındaki isyanların, insanların içlerindeki isyanlara ve beyin adı verilen kontrol mekanizması tarafından bastırılmasına benziyor olmasıydı. Ama bu da nedir?

(Oğuz'un ölü hali girer.)

Oğuz'un ölü hali: Sen bana dönüşeceksin Oğuz. Bundan hiçbir kaçarın yok. Öleceksin. İntikamımı alacağım senden bütün o güzel günlerin. Donuk ve gözlerin kapalı bir şekilde yatıracağım seni bir mezara, oradan geliyorum zaten. Benden kaçamazsın Oğuz, ben zaten senim ve geleceğindeki şimdiki zamanım.
Oğuz: Aman Allahım! Bu da neyin nesi Hamlet?
Hamlet: Ona iyi bak, o senin geleceğin. Hepimizin kaçamayacak olanı. Benim de babam bana böyle görünmüştü. Sonrasında ölümden intikam almam gerektiğini anlamıştım. Ölüm hakkında ne düşünürsün Oğuz?
Oğuz: Ölüm, öldürmek istediğimdir Hamlet.
Hamlet: Peki, ölümü öldürseydin ortada yine bir ölüm olmaz mıydı Oğuz?

SAHNE II
(Hayat adlı bir savaş alanında yaşama sevinci ve ölüm kıyasıya çarpışıyordur.)

Yaşama sevinci: Hayat ne güzel! Hiçbir derdim yok. Karnım o kadar tok ki göbeğim ve enerjimle istediğim her şeyi yapabilecek bir durumdayım. Yaşamı seviyorum!
Ölüm: Hayat ne kadar soğuk. Berzahtayım, beni iki dünyaya da bağlayan şey yine kendimim. İnsanların gözlerini kapatırım. Ruhlarını çekip alırım.
Yaşama sevinci: Herkes beni görmek istiyor!
Ölüm: Hiç kimse beni görmek istemiyor.
Yaşama sevinci: Yarınlar için umut kaynağıyım!
Ölüm: Her geçen gün yaklaşanım.
Yaşama sevinci: Hayatı yaşanılır kılan benim!
Ölüm: Sen olmasaydın olmazdı hiçbir albenim!
Kader: Hop, hop, hop... Durun bakalım, nedir böyle alıp veremediğiniz şey? İkinizi de ben belirliyorum, nedir arzuladığınız?
Ölüm: İlk o başlattı.
Kader: İkiniz de zıttınızla anlamlısınız. Ben yaşama sevincine derim sevindir şu insanı, sevinir, yaşama tutunur o insan. Ben ölüme derim öldür şu insanı, ölür o insan. Hatırlasanıza... Hamlet'in monologlarında da siz yok muydunuz? Babasının ölümü üzerine intikam almak istememiş miydiniz? İnsanın kimliği de bir arkeoloji değil midir ve sizler de o kimliğin arkeologları değil misiniz?

SAHNE III
(Oğuz, Hamlet ile sohbetinden sonra yaşama sevinci ve ölümle birlikte yaşamayı öğrenir.)

Oğuz: Gelin bakalım, gelin. İkinize de yer var burada. İkiniz de çektiniz kolumdan bugüne kadar. Biriniz dedi, hayat ne güzel, hiçbir dert yok. Diğeriniz dedi, hayat ne kadar soğuk, her yer berzah. Nereden geliyorum ve ben kimim? Neden sizlerle birlikte dünyaya geldim? Neden atıldım buraya seçimim sorulmadan? Nedir bu her insanın başarı isteği hiç yorulmadan? Hamlet'i hala okumayan insanlar görüyorum. Fakat Hamlet okumadan önce Shakespeare'in tarihi oyunlarının ve Bir Yaz Gecesi Rüyası gibi büyülü gerçekçi ögeler içeren kitaplarının da okunması gerektiğini söylüyorum. Nedir bana Shakespeare'i okutan? Nedir bu kader tanrıçalarının ipliğini bana dokutan?

(Anneannem ve dedem sahneye girer.)

Anneannem: Biziz.
Dedem: Biziz.
Oğuz: Ben sizi hiç görmedim bugüne kadar. Ben doğduğumda siz yoktunuz. Yoksa doğum düşmanı mıdır ölümün? Peki ölüm hangi safhasındadır bu hayat bölümünün?
Anneannem: Eğer biz olmasaydık annen ve baban da olmazdı değerli torunum. Biziz senin varlığının nedeni. Fakat bizden de yüksekte bir Allah vardır seni baştan sona var edeni. Bak, istersen konuş geldiğin yerle. İnsanın gittiği yeri öğrenebilmesi için geldiği yeri bilmesi gerekir derler...

(Anne karnı ve baba spermi sahneye girer.)

Anne karnı: İşte! Biziz varlığının sebebi.
Baba spermi: İşte! Biziz varlığının sebebi.
Oğuz: Nedir bu hengame? Nedir bu bana sorulmayan her şey? Hamlet, nedir bu seçemediklerimizin karşımıza sonradan bir seçim olarak çıkması? Ey ölüm, eşitsizliklerimizi eşit hale getiren, sen söyle madem. Nedir elimdeki seçenekler? Hiç doğmamış olmayı istemek, sen söyle, sırf "Keşke doğmasaydım" cümlesine karşı bir "İyi ki doğmuşum" cümlesini söyleyebilmek için mi Şahane Hayat filmini izledim? Verin bir balta, keseyim bu spermin yolunu ve her şey uçsun havaya! Gösterin bir yol, anlaşayım kader denen tefeciyle ve biriktireyim hiç olmayacak borçlarımı. Olmak ya da olmamak işte bütün mesele bu deyip de yaşam çelişkisini çözebilmek mümkün mü Hamlet? Peki seni yaratanın oğlunun adı Hamnet olduğu için ve onun ölümünün acısından dolayı mı senin adın Hamlet?
(Oğuz'un ölü hali girer.)

Oğuz'un ölü hali: Bırak şimdi Hamlet'i, Hamlet'ten sana ne! Sen bensin, ben de senim. Mezardayken yanında Hamlet olmayacak. Sadece ben olacağım. Bak anneannene, o artık benle. Bak dedene, o artık benle. Herkes bir gün burada olacak. Bak ölüme! Nasıl da kıkırdıyor arkandan, nasıl iç çeviriyor sen yaşama sevinci ile doluyken. Bak Hamlet'e, nasıl okutuyor sana kendini içindeki bütün kelimelerle. Odur sana bir hayaletle barışık olmayı öğreten. Odur senin içindeki iç savaşları sana tanıtan. Hamlet'in kendisi gelsin, o söylesin sana bütün bunların niye olduğunu...

Hamlet: Ben değilim beni esas ben yapan. İntikamımdır benim tek isteğim. İntikam alınınca kimliğim de tamamlanır ve çıkarım hayat denen bu sahneden. Hayat bir sahnedir ve kadınlar da erkekler de onun oyuncuları demiştir Jaques, Nasıl Hoşunuza Giderse'de. Neresidir bu sahnenin bulunduğu bina? Neden ve niçin intikam alıyorum ben?

SAHNE IV

(Amaç sahneye girer.)

Amaç: Heheyyt, çekilin hepiniz önümden! Hepinizin sebebi benim. Benim ölümü anlamlı kılan. Benim yaşama sevincini sevindiren. Benim Oğuz'u anneannesiyle ve dedesiyle konuşabilme bilincine eriştiren. Benim ona Shakespeare'i okuması gerektiğini söyleyip Hamlet'i ona ulaştıran. Izdırari ve ihtiyari kader dostlarımla birlikte çalışırım bu yolda. Ölümü öldürmek istedi Oğuz, oyunun başında. Fakat ölümü öldürmek de bir ölümdür Hamlet'in dediği gibi.

Ey insanlar, benim hepinizin boşluğu ve doldurulması gereken! Benim bu hayat denilen oyunun tek perde oluşunun sebebi! Dostoyevski, içinde ben ve ben isteği olmadan kimse yaşayamaz dedi, haklıydı! Montaigne, bana bağlanmayan ruh, yolunu kaybeder, her yerde olmak, hiçbir yerde olmamaktır dedi, haklıydı! Hamlet de onlarla birlikte işte şimdi. Her yerde olmayı isteyip hiçbir yerde olan, benimle birlikte intikam alan ve Oğuz'a da bunları yazdıran.

(Herkes çıkar, sadece Oğuz kalır.)

This play made me wish that I had drowned in a river instead of Ophelia.

Update: I've been messaging with an academic who wants to quote this review in a scholarly research article! They liked that this review was so "pithy," LOL. I'm kind of tickled.

My favorite Shakespeare play! Murdering throne-usurping uncle, Hamlet's ghost father demanding revenge, pretend insanity, death, real insanity, everyone plotting against each other, death, play within a play, more death, all wrapped up with insanely good poetry. And death. But the revenge comes first, so it's all good.

I’ve always meant to talk to my mate George about Hamlet and I guess this is as good an opportunity to do so as any.

There are different things I would say to different people about Hamlet – and as this is the near perfect play I guess there ought to be many and various things one could say about it.

The oddest thing about Hamlet is that people always tend to say the same thing – they always say, “Oh yes, Hamlet, the man who hesitates”. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I don’t believe in capital punishment, but I do think that corporal punishment is much maligned and if one does not deserve a slap for saying Hamlet hesitates, it is hard to see what one should be slapped for at all.

Aristotle was a top bloke, one of my favourites. In his poetics he says what he thinks makes a good tragedy. The first thing is that you needed a fall from grace. It is hardly a tragedy if the tragic figure is already at the bottom of the heap. There has got to be a fall or there really is no tragedy. So, tragedies are about kings and such – not (excuse my French, but I’ve just finished reading Simenon) ‘shit kickers’. Miller’s Death of a Salesman is famous as a modern tragedy, not least as it breaks this Aristotelian requirement for the tragic figure to be from the upper classes.

Aristotle then thought that if the play was going to work as a tragedy the person about to undergo a tragic fall should have some flaw that was pretty ‘human’ and therefore something that would make sense to the audience. The feeling the writer of a tragic play wants to convey to his audience is pretty much, ‘there but for the grace of god go I’. The flaw needs to be fairly easy to identify – pride, for example, or lust – something easy to spot and it needs to be the reason for the downfall.

Well, Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark, so he has a long way to fall. But just what is his tragic flaw? And this is where so many rush in and say, “He hesitates.” But I beg to differ.

I think Hamlet is an enlightenment figure in an age only just (and even then, not quite) casting off the last remnants of the dark ages – and Shakespeare is an enlightenment figure doing much the same. It is important to remember that Shakespeare is writing at a time when King James is king. James was a very interesting King – not simply because he was homosexual and spent a lot of time chasing young men around the castle. But for me the most illuminating story of him – and he is mostly remembered for the Bible that bears his name – is to do with his new bride’s little trip over from Norway. On her way to England a storm blow up and made her crossing incredibly dangerous and frightening. James was not impressed. He decided that the storm was caused by the ill-will of local witches (as one does) – so a goodly number of old women were gathered together and killed for daring to cause such an irritation for his new bride. Like I said, the Enlightenment hasn’t quite taken hold, but we are getting there.

In my view the people who say that Hamlet hesitates are dark age types. What happens in the story? Hamlet is called by his best friend to see his father’s ghost wandering around at night – his father’s ghost tells him that he has been killed by Hamlet’s uncle and that Hamlet should kill his uncle in revenge. In the dark ages this would have been enough.

However, Hamlet decides to test what the ghost has told him by putting on a play in which the circumstances of the murder are acted out in front of his uncle to see if he gives himself away – he does and Hamlet almost immediately tries to kill him (deciding against it on religious grounds the first opportunity that arises – interestingly) and then mistakenly kills the Prime Minister about five minutes later.

So, does he hesitate? Well, yes. But only in the sense that trying to confirm the advice presented by a ghost before killing your uncle is a bad idea. The fact that pausing is anything but reasonable after the enlightenment should give us pause to think (which is about all that Hamlet does – hardly a ‘tragic flaw’).

I love this play – I think it is one of the greatest things ever written in our language. I love the way Shakespeare plays with Hamlet’s madness and compares and contrasts with Ophelia’s true (and horrific) madness. Imagine your lover killing your father – what a complete nightmare. I’ve never understood why there is no such thing as an Ophelia complex. Not least as it would seem to me that many women must feel that being with their husband / lover must feel like killing off their family.

There is so much in this play to talk about – it is truly endless. That people go on and on about it being about hesitation really is saying just about the dullest thing about it. Hamlet is playing with forces greater than himself – he is trying to understand those forces, as he is a thoughtful, rational person, but sometimes we are too close to what is going on in our lives to really get to see – even if we are incredibly clever. Sometimes only those outside can see and understand. There are some interesting Oedipal themes going on here too.

The only thing that bothers me about this play is that at the end everyone ends up dead – I mean, if it wasn’t for Hamlet, even Horatio would have snuffed it. I’m not sure that really is the most satisfying end to a play – where the only way things can go on is for everyone affected to be dead. Lear is much the same, but worse in so many ways. Death always seems the easy way out in these things – the real tragedy of human existence isn’t death, but being forced to live on. As Oedipus must go on, even after plucking his own eyes out. Ah, but you know what those bloody Greeks are like, George. ‘Unrelenting’ is the word I’m struggling for.

Jesus Christ what a year no way could this get worse now they're hacking away at each other with their swords and I'm supposed to look interested oh well done Hamlet despite everything he's still my son that was a lovely feint pretty worried about Laertes though he looks so crazy first his dad and then his sister wish I could do something to help oh come on who am I kidding it's Hamlet I'm worried about of course God what am I going to do that poor kid is totally fucked and he thinks it's all my fault I told Claudius it wasn't smart to hush up what happened to Kingy they'd only believe he'd done it was I right or was I right of course with the two of us carrying on it did look suspicious don't blame people for jumping to conclusions I wish he hadn't broken up with Ophelia she seemed like such a nice girl everything just got worse after that he was so mean to her takes after his father that way know how she felt there were moments I could have jumped in the river myself and then lecturing me on my sex life I couldn't believe it honestly teenagers all think they've invented sex they can't imagine anyone over twenty still does it I'm only thirty-six for crying out loud I'm in my sexual prime not that I was getting much before Claudius noticed me poor old Kingy completely hopeless in bed have to hand it to Claudius even if he is a bastard he's the first man who's ever given me an orgasm can't imagine what Hamlet would say if I told him that bad enough as it is oh for Christ's sake Laertes what do you think you're doing that's not a real sword you know sweet Mary mother of God I need a drink but if Claudius sees me he'll start going on again about my alcohol consumption I'll wait until his back is turned and grab a quick one before he notices right here's my chance one glass won't k---

I don't have any earth-shattering insights to share from this most recent of god-knows-how-many readings, but this time through I was struck by:

1) what a damn fine piece of stagecraft this is, from the suspenseful, moody opening on the castle battlements to the solemn dead march carrying the prince offstage, and

2) how Shakespeare seems to want Hamlet's personality--particularly the wellspring of his actions (and lack of action)--to remain an enigma, and that he achieves this by infusing the character with so much of himself--so much wit and poetry, so much despondency and savagery--that the result is that the audience simply bows before the great mystery of human personality, and that this reverence for the unknown lurking in the heart of an extraordinary man intensifies the sense of pity, horror and waste that fills us at the end of the play.

I have finally read what is known by many as Shakespeare's greatest work (and his longest), and also by some as the greatest play and piece of literature of all time. With that reputation, it had a lot to live up to, and in many respects it delivered.

Hamlet is a fantastic exploration of descent into madness, both as a play but also as the central figure, but this also places a lens on the philosophy of 'blood begets blood', as essentially it is pursuit of vengeance and an escalation of events that causes all to lose.

I think Hamlet, the King and the Queen, as well as Laertes and Polonius were very well fleshed characters, with their own worked out psychologies that brought life and a reality to this play. It created tension, and allowed that 'willing suspension of disbelief'.

As well as these characters, I thought every scene with Hamlet himself was fantastic. The crafting of his relationships and the contrast between how he talks to those such as Horatio, and ten Ophelia, revealed so much about his character and personality in a very accomplished and subtle way that was just classic Shakespeare.

On the flip side, I think that some of the supporting cast were weaker than those in Othello or Macbeth, and so these scenes without Hamlet sometimes pulled me out of this evolution of events. His 'friends' were an example of this in my opinion.

Hamlet is a play I would recommend all fans of Shakespeare to read. I do not know how it has taken me until now to finally read it, but I am glad that I have. It was very enjoyable, with some of Shakespeare's most quoted and iconic scenes, and the culmination of events in Hamlet is a fantastic crescendo.

«پس ادراك از ما يك مشت ترسو مى سازد.»

این جمله ایست که هملت در پايان تك گويى معروفش "بودن يا نبودن" می گوید؛ وقتى به خودكشى فكر مى كند، و اين كه آگاهى از احتمال مجازات پس از مرگ مردم را در خودكشى به ترديد مى اندازد، او را به این نتیجه می کشاند که «عزم در سایۀ اندیشه بیمارگونه می نماید.»
و همين جملات چه بسا كليدى باشد براى فهم تمام نمايش، و براى شناخت شخصيت هملت، مردى كه زياد مى داند، زياد فكر مى كند، زياد جوانب كار را در نظر مى گيرد، و به همين دليل مدام عمل را به تعويق مى اندازد تا جايى كه «حتی نام عمل را از دست مى دهد»، تا جايى كه انتقامش ديگر شبيه انتقام نيست و بيشتر به فاجعه اى خارج از كنترل شباهت دارد.

شكسپير هر چند گذرا، اما به تكرار به ما نشان مى دهد كه هملت شخصيتى تحصيل كرده، اهل مطالعه، و متفكر است: به هنگام گفتگو با اوفيليا او را مى بينيم كه كتابى در دست دارد، به هنگام گفتگو با پولونيوس او را باز با كتابى در دست مى بينيم، پس از ملاقات با روح پدر مى گويد: «از لوح حافظه ام همۀ مضامین کتاب ها را... خواهم زدود و تنها کلمات تو در کتاب مغزم زنده خواهد ماند.» و در نهايت اين نكته كه هملت دانشجوى دانشگاه ويتنبرگ بوده (احتمالاً دانشجوى فلسفه، با توجه به اشارات متعددى كه به فلسفه مى كند) هر چند كمى پس از مرگ پدر به السينور آمده، و عمويش مانع بازگشت به او به دانشگاه مى شود.

هملت، نمايندۀ ادراك و دانش است، همان ادراك و دانشى كه به گفتۀ خودش «از ما يك مشت ترسو مى سازد.» و اين "ترسو" بودن نيز، مشخصۀ اصلى اوست. او بارها خود را سرزنش مى كند كه قادر به انتقام از عموى خود نيست، پس از مشاهدۀ اجراى متأثركنندۀ يك بازيگر، خود را كبوتر صفتى مى خواند كه همچون كنيزان و روسپيان تنها بلد است ناسزا نثار زمين و آسمان كند، بدون آن كه جرئت اقدام داشته باشد. جاى ديگر خود را با سربازان نروژى فورتينبراس مقايسه مى كند كه به خاطر هيچ، به خاطر فتح قطعه زمينى بى ارزش، جان خود را بر كف دست گذاشته اند، اما او با بزرگ ترين انگيزه ها، حاضر به اقدام نيست. نه فقط به خاطر ترس، بلكه به خاطر بيش از حد فكر كردن، بيش از حد نقشه كشيدن. پیوسته در انتظار لحظۀ ایدئال است، و فرصت های مناسب را یکی یکی از دست می دهد.

اين ها، همه به دليل آن است كه بر خلاف آن چه معروف است، ادراک و اراده، دانستن و توانستن، رابطه اى معكوس با هم دارند. در هر عمل چيزى از جنون هست، زيرا تا زمانی که فکر هست، عملی نیست و آن كس كه مى خواهد عمل كند، بايد قيد انديشه و يقين را بزند. همان طور كه هملت هم مى گويد:
«پس ادراك از ما يك مشت ترسو مى سازد.»

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.

Isn't it always a delight to delve into one of Shakespeare's world-famous plays?

Like many others, I had been forced to read Shakespeare in school (Romeo & Juliet, as in my case), and unfamiliar with all the important literary classics as I was back then, I had a lot of troubles with the rather outmoded language. After finally finishing that play, not only was I relieved to have conquered it successfully, no, it had also raised my interest for other Shakespearian plays. Macbeth, Julius Caesar, A Midsummer Night's Dream - all of them are fantastic plays and an intriguing choice to spend some hours with. But none of them left me as enthralled, shocked and intrigued as Hamlet did.

Everyone is probably familiar with the basic storyline of Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark, and his story of revenge. You may call into question Hamlet's intelligence in the performance of his revenge, but this does not erase the way Shakespeare has so beautifully written one of his most well-known plays to engage readers of the original text as well as viewers of the stage performances alike. The play has been discussed and analyzed so many times already that it probably does not need yet another review, especially since I don't consider myself to be in the position to elaborately judge or even criticize the sophisticated language or the engaging storyline.

I'd recommend this tale to everyone, even (or especially) if you don't know Shakespeare yet or don't want to read anything else by him due to negative experiences with his other plays. Hamlet may be called a classic thriller in its essence, but it is also an exploration on themes like humanity or the worth of whether revenge as a reaction to certain deeds is truly appropriate. Read and judge it for yourself, but read it. Until now, I have been reading Shakespeare's plays mostly because I thought everyone has to at some point, but Hamlet turned out to be a compelling reading journey, even if you are already familiar with the basic concept of the story.

every now and then i think. maybe hamlet isn't actually that good. maybe it's overrated. i mean, it is one of the most famous works in the western literary canon, it can't actually be THAT good, surely i am just mentally ill. and then i reread hamlet and it's like. ok. never mind. why do i have this revelation annually? great question. you see, there's something wrong with me,