بين العبقرية و الجنون شعرة. فهل ادعى هاملت الجنون ليثأر لمقتل أبيه أم أنه جن فعلا و تصرفاته بعد ذلك هي قمة الجنون؟
في مسرحية لم ينج منها أحد من السيف أو السم أو الغرق ... هل خسر الجميع و فاز الجمهور؟

تبدأ الحكاية بموت الملك و عودة ولده هاملت إلى الدنمارك لتولي العرش فيجد أن أمه قد تزوجت عمه الذي اعتلى العرش فيصاب بالإكتئاب الشديد حزنا على والده و أمه و عرشه. يتصور طيف أبيه الذي يصرح له بأنه مات بالسم صريع مؤامرة من زوجته و أخيه و يطالب ابنه بالثأر فتتصاعد الأحداث الدرامية ذات النكهة الفلسفية كعادة العبقري وليام شكسبير حتى النهاية في مشهد ميلودرامي مؤثر يموت فيه هاملت بعد أن انتقم لوالده و أراق بركة من الدم بها من الضحايا اللذين لا ذنب لهم أكثر مما بها من الخونة المستحقين للقتل.

هل تستحق الحياة الموت من أجلها؟ فماذا سيبقى بعد الموت؟ و هل الشرف في لذة العيش أم في الاستغناء عن الملذات في سبيل تحقيق الذات؟

عندما هتف هامل�� بعبارته الشهيرة أكون أو لا أكون .. تلك هي المشكلة. هل سلك الدرب الوعر الذي أفضى إلى حل المشكلة أم أنها ازدادت تعقيدا؟ ما جدوى الحياة أصلا و هي مليئة بالشر و المطامع و لن ينج منها أحد مهما اقترف من خير أو شر؟

مسرحية تم تقليبها على كل الوجوه منذ عدة مئات من السنين و ما زالت طازجة حتى الأن حتى أن دم هاملت ما زال ينزف و صوته يتردد بالأسئلة التي ليس لها أجوبة.

“Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.”



Not sure how many times I've read or watched William Shakespeare's Hamlet. The writing is fantastic! It's amazing to me how much of this play now exists in the realm of well-known quotes (more so than in any other Shakespeare play I'm aware of). Still, and I'm sure this is owing to Shakespeare's great talent, it feels fresh and I'm engaged in the story. And it is a story that works on so many levels. One of my favorite Shakespeare plays!

"Para definir la locura, ¿no tendría uno que estar loco?"

Una maravilla! No puedo explicar lo mucho que me gusto este libro. Quedé enamorada de la escritura. Era una delicia leerlo.
A Shakespeare le encantaba el drama eso queda reflejado en cada libro suyo. Pero tenía un don para la escritura que pocos tienen.

Leyendo en mi tablet quedó con un monton de citas marcadas. La verdad una obra de arte!
Incluso me gustó mucho mas que Romeo & Julieta.


"Hamlet refleja la incapacidad de actuar ante el dilema moral entre venganza y perdón"

"La lección de la locura: ajusta el pensamiento y el recuerdo"

"La culpa no sabe fingir su recelo y al fin se traiciona queriendo esconderlo".

Well, I’m an English literature student and I absolutely love Shakespeare’s plays. This is nothing unusual or exciting. Most English student’s live for Shakespeare. So far I’ve enjoyed reading, and studying, everything of his that’s popped up on the reading list until this came along. My reaction surprised me most of all, I never expected to find something of Shakespeare’s that I not only dislike, but also detest. This is also one of his most revered plays, and it’s also considered one of his greatest tragedies. So I’m somewhat dumfounded at my reaction. This play was frustrating, annoying and damn right revolting.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: ‘who has the right to actually criticise this masterpiece?’ Well no one does. Objectively speaking it is, of course, a work of sheer brilliance. But, that doesn’t mean I have to like it or enjoy reading it. Today I sat through three hours of my lecturer praising this and calling it one of Shakespeare’s most important plays because it marked an important change within his career as dramatist and development as a writer. That’s all well and good, I can see that; and I appreciate that. However, Hamlet is one of the most idiotic and self-obsessed characters in creation. His inaction defines him as a tragic character, but to my mind that’s just silly. He caused his own death and the death of everyone in the play; yes, again, this makes his inaction tragic but it was also completely self-defeating; it boarded upon the absurd. The man needed a slap and a reality check, I just find him so unbearably frustrating.

I’m not arguing against the play’s literary merit, so please don’t get defensive with me in the comments section. It is an iconic piece of literature; it can’t be denied. However, I am going to lay down three points of reasoning as to why I disliked it so.

1. A crap idea for revenge



Hamlet’s revenge makes no sense; it is completely illogical. His uncle has killed his farther; he has personally murdered his own brother by pouring poison into his ear. This man, Claudius, has no empathy; he has no conscience. If a man can so callously kill his own brother, then, surely, logically speaking, trying to appeal to his sense of regret is almost pointless. He’s murdered his brother and has taken his place. He’s filled that role; he doesn’t care who he’s killed in the process. But, yet, somehow, this cold hearted man is deeply affected by his deed that is manifested in Hamlet's mock play. The idea for revenge shouldn’t have worked, but it did. Claudius admits his guild, in prayer, and sets Hamlet into a more crazed state. How is this revenge?

2. Hamlet is a fool




Hamlet needed to step and truly consider his situation; yes, he does this in five soliloquies, but he never considered one angle; he never considers that his inaction could lead to a worse result that acting directly. He stages a play for the King to get revenge after much indecisiveness. The most direct action of revenge would have been to simply run the King through with a sword in the throne room or to poison him in kind. This would have made him a murderer, so it was off the table. He could have clenched his fists, and grinded his teeth, and just got on with the situation. But, to do so would be to ignore his father’s spirits’ request for revenge. So he could not really go down either route, but to do neither is worse than simply ignoring one. It leads to the bloodbath that is the final scene, which forced his hand. On a character level, I think of Hamlet as a coward who, ultimately, causes his own fate. This isn’t why I dislike him; he makes the play a tragedy, but it’s the illogical nature of his actions that condemns him in my estimation. He has two roads before him, and instead of taking either he forces a third road that is more detrimental than either.

3. He is too self-obsessed



Hamlet barely considers anyone else. To his mind, his uncle marrying his mother is incest. In renaissance England this was as bad as full blown incest. Claudius and Gertrude were only in-laws: siblings by marriage. So by today’s standards it’s not that immoral. Regardless, though Hamlet doesn’t consider how his mother feels about this. He is repulsed by the notion, but she could be in love or she could be in the more likely eventuality of a forced marriage. Hamlet doesn’t consider her feelings; he is just repulsed by the idea of their marriage rather than the emotions and bond that may or may not be involved. This doesn’t make him a bad person, but, when considered with my other two points, I think it make him somewhat idiotic, selfish and frustrating.

I simply dislike this play because I’m practically repulsed by its “tragic hero.” I recognise that this is an unpopular opinion, and I cannot help but think that I should have liked the play. But, Hamlet just infuriates me far too much for me to overlook my dissatisfaction with him and admire the play's formal features. I just cannot personally like it.

i am not sure of many things, but there's one thing i know with the utmost certainty and it's that hamlet and horatio explored each other's bodies. multiple times.

خب فکر کنم برای خوندن سومین نمایش‌نامه زندگیم، زیادی متن سنگینی داشت، هنوز باید بین نمایش‌نامه‌های فعلی تاتی تاتی کنم :((

پ.ن۱: Greate british theatre قسمت سومش
نمایش‌نامه هملته با بازی جذاب بندیکت قشنگ‌تر از جانم ( به اینگیلیستان حسودیم میشه بندیک کامبربچ دارن)
پ.ن۲: سرورم چه عیب و ایرادی داره که خداوندگار من ترجمه شده به‌جاش؟!

The first time I read this book I was in highschool. It was an 80-page book. The story was so short and simple, so I wondered "Why so many people say this is such a complex play/book?". A couple of years later, I bought a special edition of 592 pages: Too much? No! Why not? Because the play was written in Shakespearean English, and every single word that was not in standard English was explained at the bottom of the page, it explained the context, the uses you can have from that word.
Ok, so I read that version and it was a pain in the ass. Not because it was a bad story at all, but now I truly understand people who say that Shakespeare was such a special writer, and I agree!
Well, about the story... Fascinating! I loved how Shakespeare made of Hamlet such a special character. It was very difficult for Hamlet to take action, it was like "almost, almost!"
I feel Shakespeare wanted to express himself on Hamlet. His multiple personalities during the play reminded me of Shakespeare's life a bit.
On the other hand, I really LOVED how this play ends... What a bloody and violent ending, Terrific!
Recommended? Absolutely, but a simple version, because the original might be too difficult and slow to read.

Shakespeare at his best!

Updated review February 2017:
This is my third time reading Hamlet and, like a fine wine... you know the rest. I read the same copy I've had lying around for years with one page of notes on the left and the play on the right. This time I was able to read most of the play without notes which was pretty awesome. Just had to glance over to figure out what some of the words meant, but I actually got the story this time. It's taken me three tries with a book that helps me cheat, but boy oh boy I finally got this down.

It's beautiful! I loved it! It really hits a variety of genres and kept me turning the pages. It was weird... I read it pretty slowly to breathe in the language and take my time with it, even reading it out loud at times until my wife made me shut up. I tried to get her to play the female parts, but she wasn't feeling it. I guess she really just had the Queen of Ophelia so her options were limited. But yeah, I read it slowly but it also seemed to fly by at the same time.

Hamlet is a very complex guy who goes through a range of emotions as the story unfolds. His monologues are just really great poetry that I wish I could memorize and just belt out randomly on a street corner or while I'm in the grocery store contemplating another unhealthy snack. To be or not to be... I loved the monologues. I loved when things just went nuts at times. The ending was just crazy and awesome. It's just a daggum fantastic story, and you should give it a shot if you haven't already. Find a copy that helps you and breaks down the language and all that. It's good.

I've got Macbeth on the shelf, too. Might be time to revisit it and then tackle more Shakespeare. I've gotta be in the right mindset though. Can't just be reading all this nonsense all the time. I have real books waiting to be read, too. Books with real words and stuff.



Previous review:
I once asked a friend of mine if he liked Shakespeare to which he responded, "I don't dislike Shakespeare". That's exactly how I feel about him, too.

In high school I was forced to read Romeo and Juliet and Julius Caesar. My thoughts on Shakespeare haven't really changed much in the past 15 years. His stories are great, but they were written so long ago that it's not always fun to read. I appreciate the hell out of the guy, but he will never be my first choice (or second or third) when I'm looking for something new to read.

That being said, this was my favorite play to read through. Maybe I'm older now and find it easier and more enjoyable to read this stuff for pleasure rather than because I may have a pop quiz over the third act. I thought the story was fantastic and was surprised by how many lines I recognized from just being a human and dabbling in a little bit of culture every now and then.

Would I have ever read this if it wasn't being read in a group to prepare for Infinite Jest? Nope. But, I did and I'm glad I took the time to do it.

oh yeah, I read Hamlet again… on LIVE, out loud, in its entirety…because of course I did

1 like = 1 cookie for Lila Bard

«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.»