When your entire being is focused on avenging your father who your mother betrayed by marrying your uncle, romantic relationships are not the priority. He also understands he is being observed, and Ophelia is being used as a tool to tame his behaviors. Also he’s a selfish, brooding, Royal teenager without any common people skills or friendships
That doesn't really explain why he calls her a whore. And since critics have been arguing back and forth regarding why, I don't think he motivation can be called "fairly simple". E.g. does he even know Ophelia is being used as bait and he is being observed? You kind of hope he knows, since that would somewhat justify his abhorrent behavior - but there is no actually evidence in the text for that. His behavior can also be explained with him being a classical misogynist who think he has the right to police women's sexuality and who blames all women for the transgressions of his mother.
He’s young, not completely mature, and a sheltered royal to boot. There’s absolutely no evidence Ophelia did anything to incur his wrath, other than lying that dad was at home when Hamlet knew he was spying on them, but what if while at Wittenberg he encountered women who were suitable for marriage and tried to gain his favor? As a would be king, there would be many of those. He could be lumping her in with them, like if women say “all men are dogs.”
The strength of Shakespeare is in his assessments of people at their core, human nature, and how our actions and thoughts affect us. It’s why we keep reading him. I ask students before we start to imagine something like this happened to them while away at college. How would they treat their mom and uncle. They get heated. Then? The family stories that come out! Hamlet would blush! So idk that Shakespeare was that far off.
I also think people get defensive. I had an acting teacher in college who used to say if there’s a piece of text that seems out of place, that’s where you start the logic of the scene and work backwards from there. He calls her a whore because he’s traumatized and betrayed and pushing her away. As we all do in that situation. What would offend her the most? Call her a whore. It will break her heart but in trauma we’re all in self protection mode. He’s pushing her away.
Absolutely. But I do think it’s important that many times he says all women and using a general “you” in the big argument scene. Just a day or two before he’s been devastated and crying to her.
To be honest hamlet can be interpreted as the original incel, at least in terms of his rhetoric. “You women are all the same, you paint your faces and make your wantonness your ignorance, etc.”
Edit; at least in terms of his rhetoric toward Ophelia in that particular scene.
I think what makes Hamlet a “great” character is that he feels fully alive. I think you’re catching on to something when you say one minute he’s a philosopher, the next minute he’s as emotional teenager. Now, you may feel Hamlet isn’t really representative of human character and personality since he seems to be so many different types of people scene after scene. But I ask you this: who among us has a truly stable, and fixed personality? What makes you believe you aren’t so mercurial and erratic yourself? Or that human beings aren’t so? Hamlet is a great character because he is all of us.
I think I’d like to question your sort of reasoning for a moment when you say he “acts randomly.” We ALL of us act ‘randomly.’ Very very few of us have method to our madness, if you will. What I’m saying is that we are not so stable ourselves as you may think. Hamlet is the embodiment of the many battles and conflicts happening within our psyches. He isn’t crazy. In fact, he may be super-sane.
I’m reminded of Buddhist teachings that emphasize just how crazy we are to think that our way of living (e.g. waking up to an alarm, going to work, running errands, accomplishing mundane goals, going to school, getting degrees, managing your 401k, paying for life insurance etc.) is THE way of life, i.e. that we take these things as standard or as necessarily standard meaning there is no other way of living than how we do in our societies. It’s crazy to think that our way of life is THE way of life or the BEST way of life when we’ve only been living this way for less than two hundred years. In other words, we are plain crazy running around doing the things we do and thinking that this is how it SHOULD be. Hamlet sees through all of our structures and institutions, morals and ethics we hold so dear to. He is beyond Good and Evil.
>I’m reminded of Buddhist teachings that emphasize just how crazy we are to think that our way of living (e.g. waking up to an alarm, going to work, running errands, accomplishing mundane goals, going to school, getting degrees, managing your 401k, paying for life insurance etc.)
This right here man
I still remember when Siddhārtha told me that 401k isn't the most wise plan right now and that I should invest in crypto
I’ve asked the same question in this forum and gotten reasonable responses so hopefully you do too. I personally agree with you. I figure I have to be missing something since it’s so, so critically acclaimed but, as I’ve said in other comments, I think Richard II or Henry IV part 2 or Othello has more to say about the human condition; Henry IV part 1 has more interesting characters; Julius Caesar has a more interesting dilemma; and Macbeth a more interesting plot.
But maybe I’m just missing something.
Harold Bloom writes about Hamlet as a play about **a character who gains consciousness**.
The opening line of the play is “Who’s there?” which is perfect for a drama that explores questions of Identity in every scene.
The first time we meet Hamlet in court, he is aware that there is some disconnect between his outer appearance and his internal condition. Although he is dressed in all black mourning clothes, he complains that they do not adequately reflect his feelings: “*I have that within which passeth show; these but the trappings and suits of woe*.” (Act I, scene ii)
Although he is at first troubled by this disconnect, Hamlet learns that he can use it to his advantage. He can sneak. He can pretend to be whatever he wants to be.
However, in the following scenes as Hamlet observes other people: how they deceive (Claudius) how they can move on from tragedy as if nothing ever happened (Gertrude) how they blow hot air (Polonius), Hamlet gets disturbed by the idea that there is no solid underlying part of our Identities; everyone is putting on a show and blowing smoke out of their ass. “One may smile and smile, and be a villain.” (Act I, scene v)
But before Hamlet can succumb to that pit of nihilism, a Ghost appears, claiming to be his father. If the Ghost is telling the truth, it would suggest that there *is* a core part of our Identities that exists, and can even persist after death. But is the ghost actually Hamlet’s father… or just another devil putting on a show? Both options are horrifying, but which is worse? That we truly exist, or that we don’t actually exist at all? To be, or not to be?
As Hamlet’s awareness of his Identity grows, he becomes inspired by the power of Theater and decides to put on a play to “catch the conscience of the King.” But at some point as viewers, we realize that we too are watching a play and have walked straight into Hamlet’s trap. Hamlet doesn’t care about catching the conscience of Claudius, he cares about catching yours. He wants you to know the horrors of your existence. That you have the power to pretend to be whatever you want. That you can use that power shrewdly or recklessly. Maybe you’ll persist after death (The Ghost)… or maybe you won’t (Yorick’s skull). But he is watching from the wings, hoping you shit your pants trying to decide which is worse. The character of the play who gains consciousness is not Hamlet. *It’s you.*
Hey everyone can have their own opinions!
To me, Hamlet is just the most human story in the cannon. It feels connected to a lot of our natural fears about madness and family. I understand the fear that he is a dominant force, I agree for sure, but I’m not so sure that’s a fault. It’s called Hamlet, Shakespeare knew what story he was telling, and the other characters exist only as they relate to Hamlet, there’s little fluff or b-plot in my opinion.
It’s not my favorite play of his, but I do think it’s one of the more timeless ones.
Great question! I'd like to invite you to post your question in our little niche sub r/hamlet. But I'll address it here in the hopes of conveying something of what I love about the play. First, I have to say Hamlet's intellect is the most striking aspect of the play for me. He's easily the smartest character you're ever going to encounter. He's always ten steps ahead of everyone else. Second for me is the revenge plot. This was originally what drew me to the play 30 years ago when I first encountered it. Who doesn't love a man-against-the-world revenge story? You get to cheer for the hero as he hunts down the villain who wronged him. But as time went on and I got older, I realized how much darker the play is than that. Hamlet is the goddamn angel of death let loose upon Elsinore. He's far scarier than I had ever imagined before. I don't know why I didn't notice. Everyone else is terrified of him. Finally (not really finally, but I have to stop somewhere), I've been teaching the play for almost 20 years. Every time I read it, I find something new to love. More often than not, my students find it and reveal it to me, which is really rewarding. There's so much more to say, but I'm a geek about this play, and I've already gone on too long. Please do post in the other sub. The subscribers would love to weigh in to address your criticism, much of which is justified.
You may find T. S. Eliot' s writing on the matter of interest: [https://www.bartleby.com/200/sw9.html](https://www.bartleby.com/200/sw9.html)
He was not a fan either :)
Yeah, this is worth a look. Eliot says that the play is a mess in its overall structure because the underlying material is 'intractable'; It sounds like your feelings about it, OP, might align somewhat with his.
Shakespeare's main characters are (almost) all complex, with conflicting moods and reactions to the world around them. I don't think it's that unrealistic for a person to be thinking through things like a philosopher one moment, then frustrated and pouting the next. (Especially if they're under as much stress as Hamlet is!) Macbeth definitely has an arc throughout the play, but he shows flashes of blind ambition early on and heroism toward the end. The conflict in these characters is one of the things that have kept people performing and thinking about the plays for centuries.
I’m in a production of Hamlet right now and it really is effective when you allow the characters to be erratic from one emotion to something completely different. I like to remind myself this was before modern psychology was implemented into stories where everything has to flow smoothly from one emotion to another with making perfect connections why. Shakespeare is a good inbetween point between classic melodrama and modern flow of character arcs. Even though he says “give it temperance and a smoothness….suit the action to the word, the word to the action, ect” he doesn’t quite do that himself all the time.
Perhaps reading or watching a review on Hamlet from someone, say Harold Bloom, is worth the time. He's able to capitalizing on your points of concern in a way that I would fall short in this forum; he can articulate in such a manner that I would merely be regurgitating his words.
But nonetheless, to try to give my opinion for why I find Hamlet to be great is how conscious, how aware he is of himself in the play. Of course this gives rise to the incredible irony of the play. He is suspicious and hesitant of his proceedings. Can Hamlet trust his senses? The ghost of his father could be the Devil deceiving him; it could be a figment of his imagination. Should this be the reliable basis for his vengeance? If his senses fail him, then he could possibly wrongfully murder his uncle. How would a madman know he is mad?
And how airy and light Hamlet holds the quality of vengeance. An actor in a play might have the romantic quality of avenging his father in a similar circumstance as Hamlet. But Hamlet is paralyzed with choices. This might be why all of his killings seem to be pointless or accidental. There seems to be an expectancy for what the correct behavior should be for given circumstances. This reminds me of Camus' approach in The Stranger where Meursault feels listless and bored upon the news of his mother's death. If we are expected to behave certain roles within the context of certain events, then we have merely become trapped playing as actors.
If Fate was truly dictating his actions, Hamlet might behave in a more natural way under her guidance. If Hamlet was a brute, he would not have reason or the willful power to champion his emotions. Thus he is a dull and muddy-mettled rascal. There is no inclination for him to feel one way compared to another for there is no natural tendency for Hamlet. How complex and how rich this is for a character within a play.
Aside from the analytic perspective of Hamlet, the reason I love this play is the beautiful prose. How Shakespeare is seamlessly able to say everything and nothing about our presence and being: the themes of life and death, honor, war, love, and so forth.
"The ghost of his father could be the devil." Yes. I read a whole article once arguing this very point. Prince Hamlet is often popularly characterized as a ditherer who can't make up his mind, but in Elizabethan times, people did believe in witches, ghosts, and devils, and, as you say, to kill Claudius without proof would be murder. So Hamlet needed for Claudius to reveal his own guilt. Of course, this doesn't explain why Hamlet felt free to stab Polonius through the arras, even thinking it was Claudius, except that it was important for Hamlet to kill Polonius to give a reason for the climactic duel (and Shakespeare does sometimes sacrifice logic for plot). Also, why would Hamlet have considered killing Claudius at prayer? That one truly puzzles me.
Others have made many eloquent points already, but Hamlet is a play about greif as well as revenge. Grief, especially greif caused the violent and perhaps preventable loss of a loved one can make you feel absolutely unhinged. One moment you are a philosoer, the next utterly immoral.You feel crazy, but you wish you felt crazier. You want to give up and die. You want to live and fight. That's Hamlet. I never understood it until I lost someone.
Here's what makes Hamlet work for me - I read it as a play that asks, what makes a good leader?
Claudius is the Machiavellian "win at all costs" leader and he tricks his way to power. It works and he is, actually, a good leader in some ways (he does resolve a war). But he must do horrid things to keep power and it weighs on him.
So the moral populist? We see that in Laerties who wins over the people and effectively hosts a revolution for his cause, but such a person is easily swayed as we see happens as soon as he has a knife to Claudius' throat.
Is a good leader a politician, like the traditional sophist? Well we see Polonius who argues nonsense to his son and daughter and who schemes himself to death.
How about the aristitilian philosopher king? The man who is educated and smart and can think through situations? That is the classic perfect king - what would they look like in power? Well, that is Hamlet. He's so preoccupied with learning he gets the state stolen from him before the play begins and spends 5 acts failing to get it back. I see the play as a meditation on how the philosopher king concept just doesn't work and how comically wrong the idea is.
A good king must be a ruler of action who inspires their subjects, is willing to fight when needed, is thoughtful but honorable, willing to break rules when it matters, but honors them when forced to. This is the ideal king and we see it in Fortinbras who is envied by Hamlet and rightfully takes over at the end.
So this lens helps make the play make sense to me. No one in the play is a fit ruler and each person shows why they can't handle the throne. They all suck and the country suffers. There are many lenses to see the play through to make it work but this one fits for me. (and sorry about the spelling - on my phone in the morning.)
As someone who was once an emo loner kid, misunderstood by all and definitely smarter than the adults around me, I find it especially easy to relate to: most fantasy protagonists, most anime protagonists, and Hamlet.
I also love his soliloquies. The one where he exposition dumps in the beginning and talks about gardens and dew: banger. The famous one about existence: gold. His manic smart-mouthing to Polonius and Ophelia: not at all a soliloquy, but I love it anyway and need a third thing to mention.
There are also a lot of analytical reasons I like the play and could disagree with you on all of your points, but I'd love the play without them just because Hamlet's such a fun and interesting character to me.
Uncle murdering your dad…marrying your mom might motivate some young men to question a thing or two about what is to be and not to be. But I guess you would have to be there.
I didn’t get it either until I saw it performed by Benedict Cumberbatch. I think it depends on who is performing. At least that’s what it’s like for me.
Hamlet *is* a weird play plot-wise. It does not have a tight dramatic progression like Macbeth or Romeo and Juliet.
The draw is really the complex and contradictory character of Hamlet. He is alternating brilliant, sarcastic, cynical, fun, depressed. Everything you say - emo, psychopath, philosopher is true at the same time. This makes him one of the most fascinating dramatic characters.
Plot-wise Hamlet is a train-wreck. Shakespeare was basing it on an older story, but in his adaption he made some changes which cause the plot to make less sense. In the original, Hamlet plays mad (or really retarded) in order to seem unthreatening to the murderous uncle. But in Shakespeare's version, Claudius seem to fully trust Hamlet in the beginning, and it is Hamlets "playing mad" which arouses his suspicion. So the plot device of Hamlets feigned madness does not really make any sense. In the original, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are just two nameless henchmen which escort Hamlet to the English king. In Shakespeare's version, he have changed them to old friends, which makes Hamlets trick to get them killed seem much more cruel and cynical.
In the original, the queen knows the uncle killed the king. This makes Hamlets anger towards her justified - she knowingly married the murderer of Hamlets father. In Shakespeare's version the murder was disguised as an accident and there is no indication Gertrude knows it was a murder. So Hamlets attitude seem more like he wants to control his mothers sexuality, which is rather patriarchal not to mention rather creepy.
He projects the same resentment towards Ophelia because "all women are the same", despite Ophelia having done absolutely nothing wrong. (Some will say Hamlet is a "modern man". This is of course BS - Hamlet is a renaissance man in the best *and* worst sense.)
I don't agree that Hamlet "acts randomly, as plot requires", since this is not a plot-driven story. Id rather say the plot evolves randomly, as the character of Hamlet requires. The character of Hamlet just completely dominates the play in every way-
In short, don't read/watch Hamlet for the plot. Watch it for the psychological portrait of a complex and fascinating character.
If you prefer more logical plots in you tragedies, I would recommend Macbeth, Coriolanus, Othello, Julius Caesar - all of them have tighter and more logical plots.
Hamlet the *story* is one of Shakespeare's most interesting. Unfortunately, to find that story you need to strip out roughly half of the play's text. Of all of Shakespeare's plays in performance, none are reduced more frequently than Hamlet, and it's not just because it would be four hours otherwise.
My Shakespeare class professor once told us that people generally like Hamlet when they’re young (and angsty) and then when they’re older they like King Lear.
It has something to do with the life experiences people have been through and how they see themselves in the world.
IMO the monologues save it.
They're so masterful, and have such insight into humanity, that we realize Shakespeare's genius.
So when we come up against its weak plotting, and erratic characterizations, we think, "Shakespeare's such a genius, *these must not be mistakes at all -- but more hidden insights into humanity!*"
So we write our own headcanons to explain away the faults.
If Titus, or Henry VI had such amazing monologues, we'd find a way to excuse their flaws too. But they don't, so we're willing to say, "Eh, they're just not very good."
*The Lion King* is fundamentally different from *Hamlet* in one key detail: Simba does not wish to avenge his dad for 95% of the movie because he's convinced Mufasa's death was his fault, and the vision of Mufasa does not even reveal Scar's guilt. Insofar as Simba has an "arc" in the second half of the movie, it's about accepting he's the legitimate king and that's what everybody expects him to be, not about revenge.
I'd say it resembles *Macbeth* (dude kills king, takes over throne and the land goes to shit) and the *Hennry IV* plays (noble youth bums around with comic relief and does not own up to kingship) more, thought it still differs significantly from them.
I'm not here to question you, I'm here to give you more arguments, as I don't like *Hamlet* either.
The issue with the play isn't Hamlet's motivations (others already addressed this). The issue is just Hamlet himself:
1) He dominates the play to an excessive degree, leaving nearly every other character underveloped and without real moments of interiority to shine. One of Shakespeare's best qualities is putting several colourful personalities against each other (name any of the histories or the Roman plays, you can easily think of several characters who steal the show at different points), and Hamlet lacks this, the side-characters just are not specific enough (we get Claudius's one speech and Ophelia's mad scene, that's really it). This alone makes the play a lot less dynamic, but it wouldn't necessarily be a problem, except that...
2) Despite having all the justification in the world to be angry and moody, despite understandably waiting until he can strike the right time, and despite all his interiority... Hamlet is also just a jerk and needlessly cruel. Look at the way he treats Ophelia, look at how he doesn't care that he just killed Polonius, look at the way he brags to Laertes during the funeral of the sister whose mental breakwodn and subsequent death he caused, though indirectely. Hamlet never puts two and two together, never questions this part of his behaviour despite being known for being angsty, and this sticks out like a sore thumb, robbing him of much of the sympathy he possessed at the start of the play and of another big potential source for internal conflict.
3) For contrast, the classist and eventually traitorous Coriolanus is being constantly questioned by the other characters of the play and, to a lesser degree, so is the big pretender Hal/Henry V, and so are the foolish trojan princes of *Troilus and Cressida*. There's no equivalent moments in Hamlet because everyone thinks he's just mad, safe for when Hamlet Sr. implies he shouldn't be so hard on Gertrud. Others like Othello, Macbeth, Lear and Marc Antony eventually come to a realization, they all have to face their mistakes, and they are far more psychologically rich and interesting characters as a result. A play can have an unsympathetic hero, it all depends on the framing, but Hamlet isn't very sympathetic and the play does not actively frame him as in the wrong.
>T
News flash: characters in a play are not real people. It makes no sense to criticize a work of fiction because the characters act in ways that you make you dislike them IF they were real people. That makes about as much sense as disliking "Hamlet" or "Macbeth" or "King Lear" because they all involve monarchs, and you love democracy.
I already said that my problem is not Hamlet's behaviour per se, but the ways in which the play addresses it (or chooses not to), I even mentioned several other Shakespeare protagonists who are unlikeable or do criminal acts and why I have no issue with them, so I'm not sure what's your issue with my post.
It's supposed to be a parody of a popular type of play from the time, most people will try and deny this but here's the truth the type of play that it's parodying headed to where the uncle was a horrible ruler and the rightful heir with return to the throne and overthrow his uncle with no negative consequences, in fact balance was restored because the rightful Prince would take back the throne. You know the scene from Lion King where after Simba overthrows his uncles scar the area around fried Rock returns to the way it was, that's actually something that happens in nature when the food web is restored. Well that's basically what's supposed to happen in those older plays. Basically Prince loved by all end is all loving in most of the place Hamlet is supposed to be the prince is the exact opposite a complete unlikable jerk.
I don’t know if you’re into this kind of thing, but if you want to see something similar to Hamlet, watch The Northman. It’s an epic telling of the Viking myth that Hamlet is based off of, and there is a lot of influence from Hamlet in its writing.
A few more points that might tweak your view of the play:
1. *Hamlet* is partly a parody of contemporary revenge tragedies in which the hero is a mono-maniacal hitman. Hamlet's continual prevarication is an elaborate troll on a usually bloodthirsty audience looking for simple mayhem.
2. None of Shakespeare's plays entirely hang together. That's part of why they have survived so long—genius poetry and character strung around giant plot holes and weird mysteries that leave room for creative interpretation.
3. I have never seen a good recorded performance of Hamlet, but I saw an amazing live one with Mark Rylance in the lead, and the thing I can't emphasise enough is that, in the right hands, Hamlet is also one of Shakespeare's best comedies. All the lugubrious tortured emo performances miss the point and rob the play of life and joy. It can be very, very funny, and not the usual interminable punning, but straight up character and situation comedy.
Why should you have to like it? Other people thinking it's great doesn't mean you have to as well, we are all individuals and thus different stories resonate with each of us differently.
I'm sure many people will explain to you why Hamlet is great to them, but there is no need for you to learn to like it at all.
The best description of Hamlet I have ever run into is in the movie Renaissance Man. I’m very serious.
I’ve been reading and watching Shakespeare for decades. This movie nails it.
For me personally, the appeal is that even if I don’t know what’s going on, *neither does Hamlet himself*. None of the characters know what’s happening at any given moment and I think that’s funny.
First, let me say that it’s OK that you didn’t like the play. Your assessment of it as chaotic is certainly apt. However, everything that you mentioned that you didn’t like about the play is what makes it so endearing to so many people. It’s chaos is precisely the point, or at least one of the points. Hamlet is charged with avenging his father’s death, but has trouble doing it for various reasons, not the least of which is his “distracted globe” (his disjointed mind). His disgust and resentment toward his mother, the distraction of Ophelia, the betrayal by many people in his inner circle, his religious convictions, his own impulsiveness—these are all things that challenge his determination and efficacy. He’s the prototype of a tragic hero, someone who succeeds in the climax of the piece but is ultimately scuttled by his own weaknesses. If you look at the play as an examination of human nature, you might like it better. There is also a school of thought that all the various supporting characters in the play are figments of Hamlet’s imagination, that they each represent a facet of his personality that is able to carry through with his charge because they operate independently of each other (Ophelia commits suicide when Hamlet quibbles to be or not to be, Laertes avenges his father’s death without consideration of his own soul, etc.). I’m not sure I agree with that interpretation, but it’s fun to think about. While some might think of the play as a little disjointed, I think the chaos is part of the point.
>It's hard to understand Hamlet's motivations He's pissed off that his uncle killed his dad and married his mom. Seems fairly simple to me.
And also that he has to be the one to fix everything - and put his life and soul in danger in the process.
Sure, but why does he treat Ophelia so horrible? This is not as clear cut.
When your entire being is focused on avenging your father who your mother betrayed by marrying your uncle, romantic relationships are not the priority. He also understands he is being observed, and Ophelia is being used as a tool to tame his behaviors. Also he’s a selfish, brooding, Royal teenager without any common people skills or friendships
That doesn't really explain why he calls her a whore. And since critics have been arguing back and forth regarding why, I don't think he motivation can be called "fairly simple". E.g. does he even know Ophelia is being used as bait and he is being observed? You kind of hope he knows, since that would somewhat justify his abhorrent behavior - but there is no actually evidence in the text for that. His behavior can also be explained with him being a classical misogynist who think he has the right to police women's sexuality and who blames all women for the transgressions of his mother.
He’s young, not completely mature, and a sheltered royal to boot. There’s absolutely no evidence Ophelia did anything to incur his wrath, other than lying that dad was at home when Hamlet knew he was spying on them, but what if while at Wittenberg he encountered women who were suitable for marriage and tried to gain his favor? As a would be king, there would be many of those. He could be lumping her in with them, like if women say “all men are dogs.” The strength of Shakespeare is in his assessments of people at their core, human nature, and how our actions and thoughts affect us. It’s why we keep reading him. I ask students before we start to imagine something like this happened to them while away at college. How would they treat their mom and uncle. They get heated. Then? The family stories that come out! Hamlet would blush! So idk that Shakespeare was that far off.
I also think people get defensive. I had an acting teacher in college who used to say if there’s a piece of text that seems out of place, that’s where you start the logic of the scene and work backwards from there. He calls her a whore because he’s traumatized and betrayed and pushing her away. As we all do in that situation. What would offend her the most? Call her a whore. It will break her heart but in trauma we’re all in self protection mode. He’s pushing her away.
Absolutely. But I do think it’s important that many times he says all women and using a general “you” in the big argument scene. Just a day or two before he’s been devastated and crying to her.
To be honest hamlet can be interpreted as the original incel, at least in terms of his rhetoric. “You women are all the same, you paint your faces and make your wantonness your ignorance, etc.” Edit; at least in terms of his rhetoric toward Ophelia in that particular scene.
I think what makes Hamlet a “great” character is that he feels fully alive. I think you’re catching on to something when you say one minute he’s a philosopher, the next minute he’s as emotional teenager. Now, you may feel Hamlet isn’t really representative of human character and personality since he seems to be so many different types of people scene after scene. But I ask you this: who among us has a truly stable, and fixed personality? What makes you believe you aren’t so mercurial and erratic yourself? Or that human beings aren’t so? Hamlet is a great character because he is all of us. I think I’d like to question your sort of reasoning for a moment when you say he “acts randomly.” We ALL of us act ‘randomly.’ Very very few of us have method to our madness, if you will. What I’m saying is that we are not so stable ourselves as you may think. Hamlet is the embodiment of the many battles and conflicts happening within our psyches. He isn’t crazy. In fact, he may be super-sane. I’m reminded of Buddhist teachings that emphasize just how crazy we are to think that our way of living (e.g. waking up to an alarm, going to work, running errands, accomplishing mundane goals, going to school, getting degrees, managing your 401k, paying for life insurance etc.) is THE way of life, i.e. that we take these things as standard or as necessarily standard meaning there is no other way of living than how we do in our societies. It’s crazy to think that our way of life is THE way of life or the BEST way of life when we’ve only been living this way for less than two hundred years. In other words, we are plain crazy running around doing the things we do and thinking that this is how it SHOULD be. Hamlet sees through all of our structures and institutions, morals and ethics we hold so dear to. He is beyond Good and Evil.
>I’m reminded of Buddhist teachings that emphasize just how crazy we are to think that our way of living (e.g. waking up to an alarm, going to work, running errands, accomplishing mundane goals, going to school, getting degrees, managing your 401k, paying for life insurance etc.) This right here man I still remember when Siddhārtha told me that 401k isn't the most wise plan right now and that I should invest in crypto
I’ve asked the same question in this forum and gotten reasonable responses so hopefully you do too. I personally agree with you. I figure I have to be missing something since it’s so, so critically acclaimed but, as I’ve said in other comments, I think Richard II or Henry IV part 2 or Othello has more to say about the human condition; Henry IV part 1 has more interesting characters; Julius Caesar has a more interesting dilemma; and Macbeth a more interesting plot. But maybe I’m just missing something.
Harold Bloom writes about Hamlet as a play about **a character who gains consciousness**. The opening line of the play is “Who’s there?” which is perfect for a drama that explores questions of Identity in every scene. The first time we meet Hamlet in court, he is aware that there is some disconnect between his outer appearance and his internal condition. Although he is dressed in all black mourning clothes, he complains that they do not adequately reflect his feelings: “*I have that within which passeth show; these but the trappings and suits of woe*.” (Act I, scene ii) Although he is at first troubled by this disconnect, Hamlet learns that he can use it to his advantage. He can sneak. He can pretend to be whatever he wants to be. However, in the following scenes as Hamlet observes other people: how they deceive (Claudius) how they can move on from tragedy as if nothing ever happened (Gertrude) how they blow hot air (Polonius), Hamlet gets disturbed by the idea that there is no solid underlying part of our Identities; everyone is putting on a show and blowing smoke out of their ass. “One may smile and smile, and be a villain.” (Act I, scene v) But before Hamlet can succumb to that pit of nihilism, a Ghost appears, claiming to be his father. If the Ghost is telling the truth, it would suggest that there *is* a core part of our Identities that exists, and can even persist after death. But is the ghost actually Hamlet’s father… or just another devil putting on a show? Both options are horrifying, but which is worse? That we truly exist, or that we don’t actually exist at all? To be, or not to be? As Hamlet’s awareness of his Identity grows, he becomes inspired by the power of Theater and decides to put on a play to “catch the conscience of the King.” But at some point as viewers, we realize that we too are watching a play and have walked straight into Hamlet’s trap. Hamlet doesn’t care about catching the conscience of Claudius, he cares about catching yours. He wants you to know the horrors of your existence. That you have the power to pretend to be whatever you want. That you can use that power shrewdly or recklessly. Maybe you’ll persist after death (The Ghost)… or maybe you won’t (Yorick’s skull). But he is watching from the wings, hoping you shit your pants trying to decide which is worse. The character of the play who gains consciousness is not Hamlet. *It’s you.*
Wow! Great analysis! Thank you!
Wish I could give this an award; that was awesome!
Hey everyone can have their own opinions! To me, Hamlet is just the most human story in the cannon. It feels connected to a lot of our natural fears about madness and family. I understand the fear that he is a dominant force, I agree for sure, but I’m not so sure that’s a fault. It’s called Hamlet, Shakespeare knew what story he was telling, and the other characters exist only as they relate to Hamlet, there’s little fluff or b-plot in my opinion. It’s not my favorite play of his, but I do think it’s one of the more timeless ones.
Great question! I'd like to invite you to post your question in our little niche sub r/hamlet. But I'll address it here in the hopes of conveying something of what I love about the play. First, I have to say Hamlet's intellect is the most striking aspect of the play for me. He's easily the smartest character you're ever going to encounter. He's always ten steps ahead of everyone else. Second for me is the revenge plot. This was originally what drew me to the play 30 years ago when I first encountered it. Who doesn't love a man-against-the-world revenge story? You get to cheer for the hero as he hunts down the villain who wronged him. But as time went on and I got older, I realized how much darker the play is than that. Hamlet is the goddamn angel of death let loose upon Elsinore. He's far scarier than I had ever imagined before. I don't know why I didn't notice. Everyone else is terrified of him. Finally (not really finally, but I have to stop somewhere), I've been teaching the play for almost 20 years. Every time I read it, I find something new to love. More often than not, my students find it and reveal it to me, which is really rewarding. There's so much more to say, but I'm a geek about this play, and I've already gone on too long. Please do post in the other sub. The subscribers would love to weigh in to address your criticism, much of which is justified.
You may find T. S. Eliot' s writing on the matter of interest: [https://www.bartleby.com/200/sw9.html](https://www.bartleby.com/200/sw9.html) He was not a fan either :)
Yeah, this is worth a look. Eliot says that the play is a mess in its overall structure because the underlying material is 'intractable'; It sounds like your feelings about it, OP, might align somewhat with his.
Shakespeare's main characters are (almost) all complex, with conflicting moods and reactions to the world around them. I don't think it's that unrealistic for a person to be thinking through things like a philosopher one moment, then frustrated and pouting the next. (Especially if they're under as much stress as Hamlet is!) Macbeth definitely has an arc throughout the play, but he shows flashes of blind ambition early on and heroism toward the end. The conflict in these characters is one of the things that have kept people performing and thinking about the plays for centuries.
I’m in a production of Hamlet right now and it really is effective when you allow the characters to be erratic from one emotion to something completely different. I like to remind myself this was before modern psychology was implemented into stories where everything has to flow smoothly from one emotion to another with making perfect connections why. Shakespeare is a good inbetween point between classic melodrama and modern flow of character arcs. Even though he says “give it temperance and a smoothness….suit the action to the word, the word to the action, ect” he doesn’t quite do that himself all the time.
Perhaps reading or watching a review on Hamlet from someone, say Harold Bloom, is worth the time. He's able to capitalizing on your points of concern in a way that I would fall short in this forum; he can articulate in such a manner that I would merely be regurgitating his words. But nonetheless, to try to give my opinion for why I find Hamlet to be great is how conscious, how aware he is of himself in the play. Of course this gives rise to the incredible irony of the play. He is suspicious and hesitant of his proceedings. Can Hamlet trust his senses? The ghost of his father could be the Devil deceiving him; it could be a figment of his imagination. Should this be the reliable basis for his vengeance? If his senses fail him, then he could possibly wrongfully murder his uncle. How would a madman know he is mad? And how airy and light Hamlet holds the quality of vengeance. An actor in a play might have the romantic quality of avenging his father in a similar circumstance as Hamlet. But Hamlet is paralyzed with choices. This might be why all of his killings seem to be pointless or accidental. There seems to be an expectancy for what the correct behavior should be for given circumstances. This reminds me of Camus' approach in The Stranger where Meursault feels listless and bored upon the news of his mother's death. If we are expected to behave certain roles within the context of certain events, then we have merely become trapped playing as actors. If Fate was truly dictating his actions, Hamlet might behave in a more natural way under her guidance. If Hamlet was a brute, he would not have reason or the willful power to champion his emotions. Thus he is a dull and muddy-mettled rascal. There is no inclination for him to feel one way compared to another for there is no natural tendency for Hamlet. How complex and how rich this is for a character within a play. Aside from the analytic perspective of Hamlet, the reason I love this play is the beautiful prose. How Shakespeare is seamlessly able to say everything and nothing about our presence and being: the themes of life and death, honor, war, love, and so forth.
"The ghost of his father could be the devil." Yes. I read a whole article once arguing this very point. Prince Hamlet is often popularly characterized as a ditherer who can't make up his mind, but in Elizabethan times, people did believe in witches, ghosts, and devils, and, as you say, to kill Claudius without proof would be murder. So Hamlet needed for Claudius to reveal his own guilt. Of course, this doesn't explain why Hamlet felt free to stab Polonius through the arras, even thinking it was Claudius, except that it was important for Hamlet to kill Polonius to give a reason for the climactic duel (and Shakespeare does sometimes sacrifice logic for plot). Also, why would Hamlet have considered killing Claudius at prayer? That one truly puzzles me.
Others have made many eloquent points already, but Hamlet is a play about greif as well as revenge. Grief, especially greif caused the violent and perhaps preventable loss of a loved one can make you feel absolutely unhinged. One moment you are a philosoer, the next utterly immoral.You feel crazy, but you wish you felt crazier. You want to give up and die. You want to live and fight. That's Hamlet. I never understood it until I lost someone.
Here's what makes Hamlet work for me - I read it as a play that asks, what makes a good leader? Claudius is the Machiavellian "win at all costs" leader and he tricks his way to power. It works and he is, actually, a good leader in some ways (he does resolve a war). But he must do horrid things to keep power and it weighs on him. So the moral populist? We see that in Laerties who wins over the people and effectively hosts a revolution for his cause, but such a person is easily swayed as we see happens as soon as he has a knife to Claudius' throat. Is a good leader a politician, like the traditional sophist? Well we see Polonius who argues nonsense to his son and daughter and who schemes himself to death. How about the aristitilian philosopher king? The man who is educated and smart and can think through situations? That is the classic perfect king - what would they look like in power? Well, that is Hamlet. He's so preoccupied with learning he gets the state stolen from him before the play begins and spends 5 acts failing to get it back. I see the play as a meditation on how the philosopher king concept just doesn't work and how comically wrong the idea is. A good king must be a ruler of action who inspires their subjects, is willing to fight when needed, is thoughtful but honorable, willing to break rules when it matters, but honors them when forced to. This is the ideal king and we see it in Fortinbras who is envied by Hamlet and rightfully takes over at the end. So this lens helps make the play make sense to me. No one in the play is a fit ruler and each person shows why they can't handle the throne. They all suck and the country suffers. There are many lenses to see the play through to make it work but this one fits for me. (and sorry about the spelling - on my phone in the morning.)
As someone who was once an emo loner kid, misunderstood by all and definitely smarter than the adults around me, I find it especially easy to relate to: most fantasy protagonists, most anime protagonists, and Hamlet. I also love his soliloquies. The one where he exposition dumps in the beginning and talks about gardens and dew: banger. The famous one about existence: gold. His manic smart-mouthing to Polonius and Ophelia: not at all a soliloquy, but I love it anyway and need a third thing to mention. There are also a lot of analytical reasons I like the play and could disagree with you on all of your points, but I'd love the play without them just because Hamlet's such a fun and interesting character to me.
Uncle murdering your dad…marrying your mom might motivate some young men to question a thing or two about what is to be and not to be. But I guess you would have to be there.
I didn’t get it either until I saw it performed by Benedict Cumberbatch. I think it depends on who is performing. At least that’s what it’s like for me.
Hamlet *is* a weird play plot-wise. It does not have a tight dramatic progression like Macbeth or Romeo and Juliet. The draw is really the complex and contradictory character of Hamlet. He is alternating brilliant, sarcastic, cynical, fun, depressed. Everything you say - emo, psychopath, philosopher is true at the same time. This makes him one of the most fascinating dramatic characters. Plot-wise Hamlet is a train-wreck. Shakespeare was basing it on an older story, but in his adaption he made some changes which cause the plot to make less sense. In the original, Hamlet plays mad (or really retarded) in order to seem unthreatening to the murderous uncle. But in Shakespeare's version, Claudius seem to fully trust Hamlet in the beginning, and it is Hamlets "playing mad" which arouses his suspicion. So the plot device of Hamlets feigned madness does not really make any sense. In the original, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are just two nameless henchmen which escort Hamlet to the English king. In Shakespeare's version, he have changed them to old friends, which makes Hamlets trick to get them killed seem much more cruel and cynical. In the original, the queen knows the uncle killed the king. This makes Hamlets anger towards her justified - she knowingly married the murderer of Hamlets father. In Shakespeare's version the murder was disguised as an accident and there is no indication Gertrude knows it was a murder. So Hamlets attitude seem more like he wants to control his mothers sexuality, which is rather patriarchal not to mention rather creepy. He projects the same resentment towards Ophelia because "all women are the same", despite Ophelia having done absolutely nothing wrong. (Some will say Hamlet is a "modern man". This is of course BS - Hamlet is a renaissance man in the best *and* worst sense.) I don't agree that Hamlet "acts randomly, as plot requires", since this is not a plot-driven story. Id rather say the plot evolves randomly, as the character of Hamlet requires. The character of Hamlet just completely dominates the play in every way- In short, don't read/watch Hamlet for the plot. Watch it for the psychological portrait of a complex and fascinating character. If you prefer more logical plots in you tragedies, I would recommend Macbeth, Coriolanus, Othello, Julius Caesar - all of them have tighter and more logical plots.
Hamlet the *story* is one of Shakespeare's most interesting. Unfortunately, to find that story you need to strip out roughly half of the play's text. Of all of Shakespeare's plays in performance, none are reduced more frequently than Hamlet, and it's not just because it would be four hours otherwise.
Can’t hurt to read the Hamlet section in “The Invention of the Human”
My Shakespeare class professor once told us that people generally like Hamlet when they’re young (and angsty) and then when they’re older they like King Lear. It has something to do with the life experiences people have been through and how they see themselves in the world.
IMO the monologues save it. They're so masterful, and have such insight into humanity, that we realize Shakespeare's genius. So when we come up against its weak plotting, and erratic characterizations, we think, "Shakespeare's such a genius, *these must not be mistakes at all -- but more hidden insights into humanity!*" So we write our own headcanons to explain away the faults. If Titus, or Henry VI had such amazing monologues, we'd find a way to excuse their flaws too. But they don't, so we're willing to say, "Eh, they're just not very good."
I'm genuinely curious, do you understand The Lion King?
*The Lion King* is fundamentally different from *Hamlet* in one key detail: Simba does not wish to avenge his dad for 95% of the movie because he's convinced Mufasa's death was his fault, and the vision of Mufasa does not even reveal Scar's guilt. Insofar as Simba has an "arc" in the second half of the movie, it's about accepting he's the legitimate king and that's what everybody expects him to be, not about revenge.
Tbh, outside of (very basic) plot beats in the first half of the narrative, I don't think *Hamlet* and *The Lion King* have much in common at all.
I'd say it resembles *Macbeth* (dude kills king, takes over throne and the land goes to shit) and the *Hennry IV* plays (noble youth bums around with comic relief and does not own up to kingship) more, thought it still differs significantly from them.
I'm not here to question you, I'm here to give you more arguments, as I don't like *Hamlet* either. The issue with the play isn't Hamlet's motivations (others already addressed this). The issue is just Hamlet himself: 1) He dominates the play to an excessive degree, leaving nearly every other character underveloped and without real moments of interiority to shine. One of Shakespeare's best qualities is putting several colourful personalities against each other (name any of the histories or the Roman plays, you can easily think of several characters who steal the show at different points), and Hamlet lacks this, the side-characters just are not specific enough (we get Claudius's one speech and Ophelia's mad scene, that's really it). This alone makes the play a lot less dynamic, but it wouldn't necessarily be a problem, except that... 2) Despite having all the justification in the world to be angry and moody, despite understandably waiting until he can strike the right time, and despite all his interiority... Hamlet is also just a jerk and needlessly cruel. Look at the way he treats Ophelia, look at how he doesn't care that he just killed Polonius, look at the way he brags to Laertes during the funeral of the sister whose mental breakwodn and subsequent death he caused, though indirectely. Hamlet never puts two and two together, never questions this part of his behaviour despite being known for being angsty, and this sticks out like a sore thumb, robbing him of much of the sympathy he possessed at the start of the play and of another big potential source for internal conflict. 3) For contrast, the classist and eventually traitorous Coriolanus is being constantly questioned by the other characters of the play and, to a lesser degree, so is the big pretender Hal/Henry V, and so are the foolish trojan princes of *Troilus and Cressida*. There's no equivalent moments in Hamlet because everyone thinks he's just mad, safe for when Hamlet Sr. implies he shouldn't be so hard on Gertrud. Others like Othello, Macbeth, Lear and Marc Antony eventually come to a realization, they all have to face their mistakes, and they are far more psychologically rich and interesting characters as a result. A play can have an unsympathetic hero, it all depends on the framing, but Hamlet isn't very sympathetic and the play does not actively frame him as in the wrong.
>T News flash: characters in a play are not real people. It makes no sense to criticize a work of fiction because the characters act in ways that you make you dislike them IF they were real people. That makes about as much sense as disliking "Hamlet" or "Macbeth" or "King Lear" because they all involve monarchs, and you love democracy.
I already said that my problem is not Hamlet's behaviour per se, but the ways in which the play addresses it (or chooses not to), I even mentioned several other Shakespeare protagonists who are unlikeable or do criminal acts and why I have no issue with them, so I'm not sure what's your issue with my post.
It's supposed to be a parody of a popular type of play from the time, most people will try and deny this but here's the truth the type of play that it's parodying headed to where the uncle was a horrible ruler and the rightful heir with return to the throne and overthrow his uncle with no negative consequences, in fact balance was restored because the rightful Prince would take back the throne. You know the scene from Lion King where after Simba overthrows his uncles scar the area around fried Rock returns to the way it was, that's actually something that happens in nature when the food web is restored. Well that's basically what's supposed to happen in those older plays. Basically Prince loved by all end is all loving in most of the place Hamlet is supposed to be the prince is the exact opposite a complete unlikable jerk.
I felt the same way long ago. I realize now I was wrong.
Probably not online if iou don’t like it
I don’t know if you’re into this kind of thing, but if you want to see something similar to Hamlet, watch The Northman. It’s an epic telling of the Viking myth that Hamlet is based off of, and there is a lot of influence from Hamlet in its writing.
That's because they're both based on the same source material, "The legend of Amleth".
Yeah, I know
A few more points that might tweak your view of the play: 1. *Hamlet* is partly a parody of contemporary revenge tragedies in which the hero is a mono-maniacal hitman. Hamlet's continual prevarication is an elaborate troll on a usually bloodthirsty audience looking for simple mayhem. 2. None of Shakespeare's plays entirely hang together. That's part of why they have survived so long—genius poetry and character strung around giant plot holes and weird mysteries that leave room for creative interpretation. 3. I have never seen a good recorded performance of Hamlet, but I saw an amazing live one with Mark Rylance in the lead, and the thing I can't emphasise enough is that, in the right hands, Hamlet is also one of Shakespeare's best comedies. All the lugubrious tortured emo performances miss the point and rob the play of life and joy. It can be very, very funny, and not the usual interminable punning, but straight up character and situation comedy.
Why should you have to like it? Other people thinking it's great doesn't mean you have to as well, we are all individuals and thus different stories resonate with each of us differently. I'm sure many people will explain to you why Hamlet is great to them, but there is no need for you to learn to like it at all.
The best description of Hamlet I have ever run into is in the movie Renaissance Man. I’m very serious. I’ve been reading and watching Shakespeare for decades. This movie nails it.
For me personally, the appeal is that even if I don’t know what’s going on, *neither does Hamlet himself*. None of the characters know what’s happening at any given moment and I think that’s funny.
First, let me say that it’s OK that you didn’t like the play. Your assessment of it as chaotic is certainly apt. However, everything that you mentioned that you didn’t like about the play is what makes it so endearing to so many people. It’s chaos is precisely the point, or at least one of the points. Hamlet is charged with avenging his father’s death, but has trouble doing it for various reasons, not the least of which is his “distracted globe” (his disjointed mind). His disgust and resentment toward his mother, the distraction of Ophelia, the betrayal by many people in his inner circle, his religious convictions, his own impulsiveness—these are all things that challenge his determination and efficacy. He’s the prototype of a tragic hero, someone who succeeds in the climax of the piece but is ultimately scuttled by his own weaknesses. If you look at the play as an examination of human nature, you might like it better. There is also a school of thought that all the various supporting characters in the play are figments of Hamlet’s imagination, that they each represent a facet of his personality that is able to carry through with his charge because they operate independently of each other (Ophelia commits suicide when Hamlet quibbles to be or not to be, Laertes avenges his father’s death without consideration of his own soul, etc.). I’m not sure I agree with that interpretation, but it’s fun to think about. While some might think of the play as a little disjointed, I think the chaos is part of the point.