Goodreads reliably informs me that I first read Hamlet a decade ago, in 2012. I am not sure what I was thinking then – I doubt I understood much, but I seem to have liked it. I gave it 4 stars. That’s a lie… I remember some of what I was thinking, and a lot of it was confusion. 10 years later, I have gained that naïve confidence that tells me I have understood a lot more, but I will be looking back and laughing at this instance too, hopefully sooner than in 10 more years.

This time around it’s a 5. Hamlet is undoubtedly my favourite Shakespeare character that I have read or watched. I am not sure I ever wholly aligned with his nihilistic sentiments, but boy are they fun to read. A particularly powerful scene remains the prince’s musings at the grave of Yorick. I can only assume that the squeezing of the heart that I felt on reading the scene will grow in pain and magnitude as the years roll on.



Upon seeing the skull dug up by the gravedigger and asking for its identity (ha), Hamlet learns that it belonged to Yorick. He knew Yorick. The memories dredged up are so known to us all. We have all forgotten someone who, at a moment in our lives, meant the world to us. It’s truly an adaptive function of the mind to allow us to forget these reminiscences, else the day would be spent in a miserable and melancholy fog. “Alas, poor Yorick!” says Hamlet, “I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy; he hath borne me on his back a thousand times.” And here is that portrayal, a work by Philip H. Calderon which I found recently called The Young Lord Hamlet:



The renewal of a beautiful relationship with this play. I hope to catch it in a theatre this summer.

shakespeare when pitching this play, probably: this is my OC hamlet. hes a prince. hes bisexual. hes moody, brooding, and is anywhere between the ages of 16 to 30 years old. and no, i am not taking constructive criticism.

well, let me tell you what. im sold! i love hamlet. i love his angsty monologues. i love his sassy remarks. i love that he cant seem to shut up. i love his relationship with horatio. i love everything about him avoiding osric and his hat. i love that hes OTT and i seriously cant get enough.

also, for those of you who have read this, watch this. its great.

↠ 4.5 stars

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.

3.5

I don't think I can rate this, I will need to sit on it for a while.
What I will say though is... Hamlet is definitely queer.

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

According to reports, Gillian Flynn is set to release a retelling of Hamlet as part of the Hogarth Shakespeare project in 2021, so this felt like the right time to reread this delightful Shakespeare play. Enjoyed all over again!

بیاین می‌خوام یکی از اون آثار کمتر دیده شده‌ی ادبیات رو بهتون معرفی کنم
هملت داستان یک دراما کویین همجنس‌گراس که از زن‌ها متنفره. پدرش که شاه بوده دو ماه پیش مرده. معشوقه‌ی هملت، هوریشو یه شب می‌بینه که یه روح با ظاهر پدر هملت خودش رو نشون می‌ده. با هملت این موضوع رو در میون می‌گذاره. هملت خودش هم می‌ره تا ببینه قضیه چیه. با روح ملاقات می‌کنه و روح بهش می‌گه عموت شب که خواب بودم توی گوشم زهر ریخت و من رو کشت و پادشاهی و مادرت رو از چنگم در آورد. برو انتقامم رو بگیر
ولی هملت باهوش‌تر از این حرف‌هاس. می‌دونه ارواح معمولاً سادیستیک هستن و از آزار بقیه لذت می‌برن. پس فکر می‌کنه و تصمیم می‌گیره بهتریـــــــن راه حل برای راست‌آزمایی حرف روح و گرفتن مچ پادشاه اینه که یه نمایشنامه بنویسه و تئــــــــــــــــاتری بر اساس داستانی که روح بهش گفته راه بندازه و همه رو دعوت کنه و به هوریشیو هم می‌گه حواست به عکس‌العمل عمو باشه که طبق اون بفهمیم واقعا این اتفاق افتاده یا نه
باقی ماجرا رو دیگه خودتون بخونید
----------------------

ببخشید ولی واقعاً دست خودم نبود که اینطوری به چشمم نیاد ماجرا
یعنی واقعاً سر چندین سکانس و دیالوگ داشتم حسابی می‌خندیدم
مخصوصاً اونجا که هملت گفت این یارو تو بچگی حتی سر مک زدن سینه مادرشم خسیس بازی در میاورده داشتم اشک می‌ریختم از خنده
همیشه فکر می‌کردم احتمالاً اونقدرا از هملت خوشم نیاد ولی خیلی دوستش داشتم و لذت بردم از خوندنش. بنده معمولی‌ترین خواننده و بیننده‌ی ممکنم و بعد از مکبث این دومین اثر شکسپیر بود که می‌خوندم و می‌خوام بگم که حتی منم می‌فهمم چرا آثار شکسپیر از فیلتر زمان اینقدر راحت عبور کرده و احتمالاً تا پایان عمر بشریت زنده می‌مونه
جوری می‌نوشته که آدم نسبت به شخصیت‌ها و سکانس‌ها وسواس پیدا می‌کنه
هدف هر شخصیت چیه؟
چرا یه شخصیت همچین حرفی زد؟
منظورش از حرفی که زد دقیقاً همون بود یا یه چیز دیگه که ما شاید هیچوقت ندونیم؟
واقعاً چه اتفاقی بین این شخصیت‌ها افتاده؟
این ترجمه هم با اینکه فقط اون قسمت بودن یا نبودن رو تغییر داده بود و کم اثرترش کرده بود، خیلی پانوشت‌ها و توضیحات خوبی داشت. البته عجیب بود که توضیح نداده بود چرا بودن یا نبودن رو به ماندن یا نماندن تغییر داده
ترجمه‌ی به آذین رو هم داشتم و اونم خوب بود ولی پانوشت کمی داشت. از تهامی رو هم چک کردم ولی به نظر زیادی سخت کرده بود خوندنش رو
برای بار اول خوندن به نظرم این ترجمه‌ی بهتریه

در الگوى "سفر قهرمان" كه جوزف كمبل ادعا مى كند در تمام اسطوره ها تكرار مى شود، آخرين مرحله از سلوك جسمانى-روحانى قهرمان اسطوره تبديل شدن به "ارباب دو جهان" است، كه بر خلاف ظاهر اسمش، به معناى به دست آوردن همه چيز نيست، بلكه درست برعكس، به معناى دست شستن از همه چيز است: قهرمان به نوعى خلسه مى رسد كه ديگر هيچ چيز برايش مهم نيست، و خود را به دست تقدير مى سپرد تا هر چه مى خواهد با او بكند. با رها كردن همه چيز است كه قهرمان به مرحله نهايى سفر خود مى رسد، سفرى كه با قصد به دست آوردن همه چيز شروع شده بود. در عرفان ما، اين مرحله را "فنا" مى نامند.

هملت، نماد اراده معطوف به انتقام، در طول نمايشنامه درگير است، با خود و با ديگران به يك اندازه، افكار مختلفى كه به سرش هجوم مى آورند و نمى گذارند دستش به خون برود. پيوسته با حرارت و شور عهد مى بندد كه ديگر كار عمويش را يكسره خواهد كرد، و پيوسته قدم سست مى كند و تعلل مى ورزد. انگار هنوز رشته اى ناپيدا او را به دنيايى پيوند زده كه نمى خواهد با قتل، از آن دنيا ببرد.

اما درست پس از آن كه ناگاه مى فهمد معشوقش، اوفيليا خود را غرق كرده است، پس از آن كه در كمال حيرت در برابر چشمانش او را بدون اجراى مراسم مذهبى چون فردى ناپاك به خاك مى سپرند، انگار آن تنها رشته پاره مى شود. ناگهان رفتارش تغيير مى كند؛ ديگرى خبرى از خشم ها و مسخرگى ها شور و حرارت نيست، ديگر همه چيز برايش يكسان مى شود. وقتى او را وادار مى كنند در دوئلى شركت كند كه هم خود و هم دوستش هوراشيو مطمئنند به منظور كشتنش طراحى شده، با آرامش كسى كه دست از همه چيز شسته خود را به دست جريان مى سپرد و مى گويد: «حتى سقوط يك گنجشك هم در دفتر قضا ثبت است. اگر قرار باشد مرگ برسد، مى رسد، و اگر الان هم نرسد، بالاخره خواهد رسيد. وقتى كسى نمى داند چه چیز از خود به جا می گذارد، دیگر زود مردن معنایی ندارد. بگذار هر چه مى خواهد بشود.»
و وقتى از همه چيز دست مى شويد، وقتى ديگر برايش اهميتى ندارد، به همه چيز دست مى يابد: عمويش را مى كشد و خود هم در سكوت مرگ كه اين همه خواهان آن است فرو مى رود.

Una de las piezas más importantes de la literatura inglesa nos fue legada por la aclamada e inimitable pluma de William Shakespeare. El que es considerado como el más influyente autor anglosajón, construyó en Hamlet una oda de la venganza pero también de la duda. Una tragedia emocional y moralmente compleja que se apoya no tanto en la brutalidad de sus hechos sino en el tormento espiritual de su protagonista.

Dividida en cinco actos, esta obra concebida en 1603 y que no logró ser representada hasta 1609, nos expone la historia de Hamlet, un joven príncipe que tras la muerte de su padre se ve sumido en una honda melancolía. Este letargo del espíritu cobra, sin embargo, un cambio abrupto cuando tras verse en presencia del espectro del padre muerto y tras revelarle éste las fatídicas circunstancias de su deceso, alteran irremediablemente el corazón de Hamlet volcándolo de la tristeza al rencor.

Nuestro protagonista ve su moral comprometida cuando comienzan a gestarse en su corazón ansias de venganza y devastación. Su tío, hermano de su padre, fue capaz de matarle para quedarse con su reino y su esposa. Lo vicioso y perverso de tales actos dejan a Hamlet corroído, desestabilizado y lleno de rabia. En su recorrido por desnudar la verdad y reclamar justicia, inicia un trayecto con la locura como arma para acabar sometido ante ella arrastrando consigo a inocentes y culpables.

Shakespeare crea una pieza capaz de capturar las disputas gubernamentales, los conflictos entre reinos, la ambición y mezquindad humanas y la frágil línea entre la cordura y la demencia cuando juegan agentes capaces de perturbar los corazones y amedrentar las conciencias. Y lo hace, por supuesto, con un dominio exquisito de la palabra.

"Un sueño no es en sí más que una sombra."

“Hamlet” forma parte de esa tríada perversa escrita por Shakespeare junto a “Macbeth” (mi preferida de todas) y “El Rey Lear”.
Ninguna de sus otras obras alcanzan este nivel de perversidad y traiciones (tal vez, “Otelo”, aunque no la leí).
Hamlet tiene las mismas dudas y contradicciones que Macbeth con la diferencia de que utilizando su supuesta locura pelea contra todas las adversidades incluyendo la presión que el fantasma de su padre le impone cuando ya en el primer acto le advierte que fue asesinado por su propio hermano quien a su vez desposa a su viuda, la reina Gertrudis para ocupar el trono.
El planteo de la trama nos acerca potencialmente a otra tragedia impecable, la mejor de todas según Aristóteles, llamada “Edipo Rey” de Sófocles. Aquí como en la tragedia griega los lazos parentales afectan negativamente al personaje principal quien debe resolver “todos los problemas del mundo” como confiesa Hamlet por allí por sí mismo para llegar a la verdad.
La maldad inherente de Claudio ejercida sobre su tiránica manera de gobernar mancha, complica y condiciona a Hamlet, quien debe luchar desde lo más bajo para conseguir la descubrir la verdad y en medio de toda esta mezcla de odios y traiciones van apareciendo personajes que tironean al rey y al príncipe para bien o para mal, tal es el caso de Polonio, Laertes y Horacio.
El papel de Ofelia no es menor, no va en zaga de lo que sucede y será el detonante del final que como en toda obra de Shakespeare incluye una serie de enfrentamientos, regueros de sangre y muerte por todas partes.
El lenguaje, los coloquios, los monólogos y las disertaciones de los personajes elevan lo poético y lo bello de esta obra de Shakespeare (que si no me equivoco es una de las más extensas) a niveles de una brillantez y perfección sin precedentes y que sentaron las bases para todo lo que vino después.
William Shakespeare logró generar en Inglaterra y en la literatura un punto de inflexión y un camino a seguir y dejar su literatura en lo más alto y a punto tal de que hoy sigue siendo insoslayable su importancia.
“Hay cosas en el cielo y en la tierra, Horacio, que exceden lo que ha soñado tu filosofía” dice Hamlet en una escena.
Esa frase está dedicada a nosotros los lectores, quienes de una u otra manera estamos muchas veces destinados a aprender de la sabiduría de grandes como Shakespeare que la literatura es la más completa de las artes.
Siempre deberíamos recordar esto.

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.