Talk:Hamlet/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

FAC

Well, I've been bold and nominated Hamlet for FA in the closing hours of the dying year. Let's see what the groundlings community makes of it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think we're FA, even if there are a few small things here and there that can be improved. Perfection isn't a requirement. Wrad (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much my feeling :) Plus I expect that you and the others have a head full of the article right now, having all just come from a week of very intensive editing, which will make shepherding Hamlet through FAC, while it's all still fresh, much easier. (Very nice work on 1345, by the way.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Groundlings! I just got it! Wrad (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:) Last time I went to the Globe, I went with a friend. She kept referring to them, in all seriousness, as the Earthlings!? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

nunnery slang for brothel?

This is an uncited bit in the language section. Is there a source for this at all? Wrad (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, OED. I'll deal. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. It sounded like whoever wrote it knew what they were talking about, so I brought it up here before taking it out. Wrad (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the translation of "nunnery" to brothel in this context. The usual direct translation of nunnery is a convent and, whilst Shakespeare did use the convent / brothel comparison satirically in some texts, in this scene it makes more sense as an actual convent. Hamlet says, "Get thee to a nunnery, why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?" which I would take at face value to be a reference to refusing motherhood (which Nuns do) and later "Or, if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool; for wise men know...what monsters you make of them. To a nunnery, go..." implying that she shouldn't marry (which Nuns don't) - before he goes on to rail about marriage. In that period, women of that class either married or became nuns. Sorry for the essay - usually find it easier to be specific the first time, though. (Mrsdapcs (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

disambig

Great article! Here are the links that need disambig:
-Indo-European
-Quarto
-Repression
-Richard III
-Winter Garden Theatre

Randomblue (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've sorted the first three and removed them from the last two. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro: Hamlet's desire for revenge

This sentence has been the subject of several very recent recastings:

1. The play starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge and ends, more than three hours later, with its fulfillment.
2. The play starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge; and it ends, more than three hours later, with the fulfillment of that desire.
3. The play starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge, and ends more than three hours later with the fulfillment of that desire.
4. The play starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge, and ends three hours later with his desire fulfilled.
5. The play starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge, and ends three hours later with the fulfillment of his desire.

Can further changes be discussed here first? Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like any of them. Branagh's version is four hours long. Others are shorter. Is there any research delving into how much time is taken up in the world of the play? I would guess things get a little fuzzy timewise once Hamlet gets kidnapped by pirates. Wrad (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I. I'll take it out. It doesn't add anything of substance to the preceding or succeeding sentences and the flow of the paragraph, if anything, is improved by its ouster. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Actually reads better without. AndyJones (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

On the question of time, that's always difficult to measure in Shakespeare's plays because (with rare exceptions, e.g. Comedy of Errors or The Tempest) Shakespeare isn't very explicit about time: some plays are said to have "double time": two different and contradictory timescales, and other plays "don't contain enough time for their action" (e.g. Othello). In the case of Hamlet there are several breaks in the narrative: the first is between Hamlet seeing the ghost and the court agonising over the fact that he has gone mad. Is that happening the next day, or some weeks later? Our only clue may be the "twice two months" reference in the play scene suggesting it is now four months from Old Hamlet's death - but that begs the question how far into that period we were when the play started. The next break is when Hamlet is sent to England. There's clearly enough time for Hamlet to meet the Captain, Polonius to be buried, Ophelia to go mad, Laertes to return from France and Hamlet to escape with the pirates: but we cannot know how long that is. AndyJones (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

When the play starts Hamlet dates the marriage of Claudius and Gertrude as occurring roughly a month after his father's death, and Claudius' address to the court suggests the marriage had just occurred. A logical assumption would be the marriage is the cause for the appearance of the late King's ghost (two nights prior to the opening scene). During the play within a play Hamlet seems to place the death of his father two months in the past. This gives us at least a month between Act I and Act II. We also know that in the time between the acts the ambassadors sent to Norway at the beginning of the play have since concluded their business and returned to Elsinore. At the beginning of Act II the elapsed time is indeed ambiguous, and I believe Shakespeare intentionally plays with this ambiguity and gradually lets on that a good deal of time has transpired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.90.3 (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Active contributors

I added a little active contributors box to the top of this page after the wikiproject templates. Feel free to add yourself if you think you could help if someone had a question about a source. Wrad (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet & Skull images

Two candidate images have turned up, one found by Indopug and the other by our very own AndyJones.

• 
  Hamlet with Yorick's Skull (c. 1868) by H C Selous
• 
  Sarah Bernhardt, and a skull.

Comments? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Following objections to the Ethan Hawke DVD cover at FAC, and following Andy's advice, I've replaced the Hawke image with Sarah Bernhardt. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

External links

What do we think of them? Do we want to change anything? I'm fine with the way they are, though we've had an objection to the blog on the FAC page. Wrad (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A link that might be appropriate
Here is an interesting link I think you all might like. It is to a site with lots of public domain literature, including Hamlet, Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, etc. along with a really innovative hypertext linking engine. Anyone can read and anyone can also contribute to the commentary of the texts on the site. Check out the Hamlet page: <a http://www.thefinalclub.org/work-overview.php?work_id=5. I would have posted the link myself, but I'm beginning to learn that such edits tend to be deleted immediately. In my estimation, the commentary on the site, thefinalclub.org, is interesting as well as accessible to the average reader. If you agree, I'd encourage someone with more Wikipedia clout than myself to post on the Shakespeare page or just the Hamlet page. Let me know what you all think. I'd love to hear your thoughts.--Andrewmagliozzi (talk)

Please let me know whether I can post this
I posted a link that I believe was unfairly deleted. It is a non-commercial website (free of charge and no advertising) and it has a huge section on Hamlet - including stuff on Shakespeare, synopsis, analysis, characterisation, literary/political/social/philosophical context, language, etc. The link is [1] - please let me know whether I can add the link, I genuinely think it is useful.

Celebration corner

Great job, all! One down, 37 to go! :) Wrad (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How about a comedy next? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the closest article to FA now is Romeo and Juliet. The closest to GA is The Tempest. Wrad (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Romeo & Juliet. Now that appeals. Maybe with Dream, or Merry Wives or Twelfth Night (which is one I've seen most), on the backboiler? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done, all!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations, peeps! AndyJones (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I know I sort of dropped out when we reached GA (I realized I was in waaay over my head), but I'd just lime to congratulate everyone who contributed...Well Done!

As for what article to do next, I second A Midsummer's Night's Dream, as it has 1280+ edits. Participation is usually the hardest thing to get in an FA drive. Once again, congrats to all! Bardofcornish (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations to you all on such a wonderful article of a great play. Now please can we get that to The merchant of Venice? It is his best play IMO. Samuel Sol (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section needs some attention, especially the (current) third paragraph. The first sentence is very strange, and in my opinion not very encyclopedic. I think the key to this is the word "mean". Furthermore, the paragraph does not give a good summary of the sections "Analysis and criticism" and "Context and interpretation". In the passage "For centuries, commentators ... and thwarted desire." it is suggested that the analysis and interpretation are generally about "Hamlet's hesitation in killing his uncle" alone, which I think is incorrect. – Ilse@ 18:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'm not sure it's possible to accurately summarise the entire analysis, criticism, context and interpretation sections, which are far and away the most complex, within the compass of the lead. Instead, the lead tries to bring out some of the key points and draw people into the body of the article. As a great deal of the scholarship focuses on delay, and the nature of the personality that delays, it obviously needs not only prominence but also sufficient explanation to be accessible to the general reader. I've added a "for instance" to generalise that a bit. That said, there are several other things that, in my view, need looking at but as the Dane has been at the forefront of my thoughts for two months now, I propose to take a wiki-break from Hamlet and return to it afresh later. Other editors will probably feel differently :)--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Gertrude and the wine

In the interests of keeping the synopsis short and to the point, I don't think we should say this. However the question of Gertrude's motivation in drinking the wine has been raised here before, and here's a link to the previous discussion. In my view the point is far too unimportant to mention on the page (although if we do, this is a featured article so we'd insist on a good source). However we might consider phrasing that sentence of the synopsis so as not to exclude the minority interpretation. Does anyone else have any thoughts? AndyJones (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I forgotten entirely about this and agree that what we have is too interpretative. The simplest solution is smoke and mirrors: "Amid the tumult, Gertrude drinks the poisoned wine and dies". --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've asked ANON to join this conversation. Roger's suggestion works for me. AndyJones (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I instigated the change a while back. I agree that it is overly convoluted and think it should be changed to "Gertrude drinks the poisoned wine and dies" without mention of various views. Marty Donakowski (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Weighing all of the evidence and the comments, I agree that "Gertrude drinks the poisoned wine and dies" is best.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice article

In case the editors of the article hadn't realised, here are two links to show what the article was like when it started (July 2001) and what is was like around 2 years later (September 2003). Congratulations! As for the next Shakespeare play, why, it has to be Macbeth! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodness me! Hamlet on screen is very impressive. And I was rather stunned to read at Shakespeare on screen that there have been more than 420 feature length films. And I'm ashamed that I didn't pick up on the connection between Hamlet and The Lion King. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me just add to the chorus of praise for this article. The extensive references, the various approaches to interpretation, the clear, concise exposition---Hamlet almost demands a new category above the level of "Featured Article." Nice article, indeed. Congratulations to all its authors! Gnixon (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ye gods! This is great! Congratulations to all who worked on this article!! The Drama Llama (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

New spinoff article (?) for comment

Hi, congrats on FA.

It happens that I've been working for the last few days on a section on the bibliography of Hamlet--as a subject in itself.

I don't yet know how to work this out--if it could be worked into the (already fine) references section--but which seems to lack some detail and context of the cited works importance--particularly in light of the Megabibliographic issues with Hamlet that I discuss.

Could people go to User:Shlishke/Sandbox and

• hack away at it
• suggest how and if it could be worked into Hamlet.

Frankly, I don't see why we couldn't make the a new Hamlet (bibliography) entry, Wiki-ref it in Hamlet, and let the dupe of the two big-ass on-line sites HyperHamlet and hamletworks stay, because in the piece I wrote they're given more detail, which I think is important given their scope and promise. Plus, of course, doing the separate entry thing would make life much simpler all around. Best, Shlishke (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Disambig

Indo-European still needs disambig. Also, First Quarto and Second Quarto redirect to First quarto and Second quarto, maybe the capitalization is inadequate. Randomblue (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hamnet

I added a reference to Stephen Greenblatt's argument that Hamnet's death likely was a significant influence on Shakespeare's writing of the play. (Since the names Hamlet and Hamnet were virtually interchangeable, more then than now, and since Shakespeare wrote this play about death and the father-son relationship only four or five years after his own son died, it would be amazing if it were otherwise, although of course Hamlet was based on a pre-existing story.) Greenblatt himself cites the following in his bibliography:

On the impact on Shakespeare of the death of Hamnet, see the sensitive psychoanalytic account by Richard P. Wheeler, "Death in the Family: The Loss of a Son and the Rise of Shakespearean Comedy," in Shakespeare Quarterly 51 (2000): 127 - 53.

I don't have access to Shakespeare Quarterly. Can someone take a look and see if there's anything there worth adding? John M Baker (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Wrad (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I took a look. It's a good article, but it represents the view of a very small minority (by its own admission). I think some of it may belong on Sources of Hamlet or Hamnet Shakespeare, but not here. Wrad (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

inconsistent notation

All over the text, First Quarto is abbreviated as (Q1). However, in 'Texts', First Quarto is abbreviated as (Q1.) (Bolded and dotted). Randomblue (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't see anything wrong with bolding on its "defining" appearance, to be honest. Dot seems unnecessary, though, I suppose. AndyJones (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Do other sources put periods after these abbreviations? I doubt it. Wrad (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, most of our sources just talk about F (or F1) and Q1 and Q2 without punctution. AndyJones (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Authorship Activism rears its head again...

I'm somewhat concerned with the alteration exhibited in this set of changes by P pinkerton. It marks a radical departure from the original and skews the article much in the direction of a controversial point of view. Even if one feels the point of view advocated in the changed text is correct, the way it's done here seems unbalanced and awkward, to me, from a purely textual standpoint.

I'm of the opinion that this set of changes should be reverted in its entirety, and then each individual change can be brought up here and, if warranted, integrated into the text properly. Experience shows that any changes related to the Authorship Question are controversial and divisive, so I think treading carefully around it (by not making unilateral and wholesale changes like this or its reversion; and discussing the changes to achieve consensus first) is the prudent course of action.

Opinions? --Xover (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am no expert, but I would say revert it all. The author uses dashes wrong: who knows what else he or she did wrong.--Dchmelik (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree and reverted. It's inappropriate to make sweeping changes to a featured article, which reflects broad consensus after considerable review, without pre-discussion. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. In fact, I nearly reverted, but hesitated because others had edited the article in the meantime without reverting (other than to remove Pinkerton's signature from the actual article), and I took that to be a tacit acceptance of the edits. I was intending to have another look later. But yes, it's controversial, and it weighs the article too much in the direction of non-mainstream scholarship. (However, a newcomer can't be expected to know what's considered appropriate, or even what a featured article is.) Cowardly Lion (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well - we all have to play by the rules here. I also agree with Cowardly Lion about newcomers so I hope no one goes into attack mode against P pinkerton - but rather informs him of some basic Wiki rules. I'm not sure I agree with Dchmelik though. Use a dash wrong and everything else may be wrong? Perhaps that was a joke and I missed it. Smatprt (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend to imply anything but good faith on P pinkerton's part. His edits simply appear to reflect his best understanding of the topic, and if reasonable people may disagree that does not invalidate the opinion. I simply wanted to avoid straying from the hard won balance achieved in the article(s) in connection with FA and the discussions here over the last year and more. I have left a comment on his talk page inviting him to view this thread and comment on it.--Xover (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said and well done. And I didn't think you implied anything but what you expressed. As they say - you are a "gentleman and a scholar" (or maybe a gentlewoman and a scholar - one never knows here on Wiki). My hope is that others will be as kind as you. Smatprt (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"philosophy"

I think that this section is a bit poorly written, and that it just seems to be chucking ideas in and making them fit, rather than actually attempting any kind of investigation or real point. Whilst I think there's certainly very wide scope to talk about the philosophical ideas in Hamlet, I don't think that this is doing them justice, or is even particularly useful at all. Andyroo g (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Main Picture

I removed the follow part that was recently added to the article.

The photo shows the characteristic contemplative pose of Booth, one of the most famous Hamlets of all time, and called "the best known works of the dramatic age", whose portrayal became virtually synonymous with a brooding Hamlet throughout the 19th Century.

I sincerely think, even with the biography reference that it does not belong here, but on the Edwin Booth article. Samuel Sol (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Also it seems a bit PoV, also. I assume the ref halfway through the sentence only sources the quotation. I have trouble accepting that Booth's performance of Hamlet became synonymous with Hamlet for anyone other than New York audiences. London certainly had other perceptions. Besides, as a performer of the second half of the century, it's impossible to accept this as his reputation "throughout" it.

Just goes to show, really, how difficult it can be to introduce a sentence into a featured article!!! AndyJones (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, too. Good removal. Cowardly Lion (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Innovative ghosts

I'm currently translating the article for another Wikipedia and seem to have hit a snag:

From the text ("Critical history"): the play was famous for its innovative ghost

Does this mean the use of a ghost in a play was innovative, the use of this specific ghost was innovative (unlike other ghosts) of that the ghost was an innovative character? Anrie (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically that's trying to say that in Shakespeare's day the play was noteworthy for it's ghost. "Innovative" may not be the right word. It's just that when people wrote about the play back then, the ghost is among the first things they mention. It sticks out to them. Wrad (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The ghost was an innovation in the sense that the sources don't have one. I didn't write that bit, but that's how I understand it when I read it. AndyJones (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the Spanish Tragedy have one? Or was that written after? Wrad (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, and it's usually said to have been in the ur-Hamlet. Paul B (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean, yup it had one, so I don't think the ghost was S's innovation. Paul B (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Originally, I think that line said: "These allusions suggest that by the early Jacobean period the play was famous for the ghost and for its dramatization of melancholy and insanity." I think it got changed during a copyedit somewhere. Wrad (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree Ur-Hamlet definitely had a ghost. AndyJones (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Um..Ur-Hamlet is only a theory, so I'm not sure we can be definite about anything having to do with it.Smatprt (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough: but I don't think we need to disagree. The evidence upon which the existence of an Ur-Hamlet is based refers to a ghost, so if there was an Ur-Hamlet then it had a ghost in it and if there wasn't an Ur-Hamlet then the whatever-it-was (presumably, in your view, Oxford's Hamlet, as we know it from Q2) had a ghost in it. AndyJones (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said! Smatprt (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up. Anrie (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Introductory page

Since the edit page says the article is too long, it could be improved by placing introductory comment on a separate "Introduction to Hamlet" page. That would allow the intro on the main article page to be brief, while still giving scope to the kind of extensive introduction that the play deserves. JeffJo (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a bit of info on this. According to WP:LENGTH:

> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided

> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)

Because this article is still under 100KB, I'm not sure we should jump right to cutting it down., since the "scope" of Hamlet certainly justifies "the added reading time."

The current 89KB also includes images and source text, which as I recall, are not to be counted in article length. Anyhow, I would be against a separate article just for the introduction. If spitting does occur at some point, I would look elsewhere. Just my humble opinion. Smatprt (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Smatprt. If the article is ever split, the basic introductory material has to be here, on this page. (Incidentally, note that the article has already been split a few times, per WP:SS). AndyJones (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ophelia

This excellent fact was just added: An additional possible historical source is the story of Katherine Hamlet, a young woman who fell into the Avon river and died in December 1579. Though it was eventually concluded that she had overbalanced while carrying some heavy pails, rumors that she was suffering from a broken heart were considered plausible enough for an inquest to be conducted into whether her death was a suicide. It is possible that Shakespeare - sixteen at the time of the death - recalled the romantic tragedy in his creation of the character of Ophelia.[23]

I'm wondering, though, if it shouldn't be moved to Ophelia's character page... Wrad (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Good idea. Also, does anyone have a more up-to-date source? Ms Stopes was writing in 1927: also I'm aware that her ideas have been subjected to criticism by later sholars in other areas (whose haven't, I suppose??) although I've not previously heard of this story. AndyJones (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • FWIW I've found what I was looking for regarding Charlotte Stopes. Although a respected researcher (and a Stratfordian) herself, she had some controversial views about the Stratford Monument, which were seized on by the Baconians as supporting their position. Not remotely relevant to this Katherine Hamlet story, though. AndyJones (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

inconsistent linking

The wikilinks with " 's " at the end aren't linked consistently. For example, the link for "Royal Shakespeare Company's" doesn't contain the 's whereas the link for "Owen's" does. Randomblue (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Language

I added an item in the Language section concerning Hamlet's partiality to puns. I thought it wortwhile to point out that he even introduces himself with a pun. Ojevindlang (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Romans

Following up this edit, I now think this was just vandalism, by anon. The [big] thing was bizarre, and I've just checked: Romans 12:19 is correct. There is no Romans 12:29. AndyJones (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Bernhardt

Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes when I added the restored portrait of Sarah Bernhardt the other day; I simply didn't anticipate an unrestored version of the same image would be at screen adaptations. Is there a reason for including a pre-film era portrait there? Seems more appropriate at nineteenth century stage productions, which had no illustration. Should have checked more carefully, I suppose, but this was unexpected. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 06:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, don't worry, no toes stepped on. I see your point, but the reason for its placement isn't so much where it might be most appropriately placed, more the need for a pic to illustrate the screen section. Few images taken directly from films are in the public domain, so we used an image of the first person to play the role on screen. AndyJones (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Work on the Horatio article

I believe work should be done for this article, mostly because, well, Horatio's a favorite character in fiction of mine - a character who's not of major importance, but who lasts throughout the movie even when other, more important characters die. I think there is probably enough to make this article a GA if we really work on it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you planning on pushing for that? Wrad (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to give it a try, at the very least. It's just an unfortunate article that should be a lot bigger and more informative. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Title of this article

Has anyone proposed moving this article to Hamlet, Prince of Denmark? AFAIK, that's the full title of the play, and the name used over at WikiSource. This would be more consistent—but not, I think, foolishly consistent. Webbbbbbber (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm vigorously opposed to this suggestion, for the reasons given at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare/Archive 3#Titles of the plays. AndyJones (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Heroic section and undue weight

This was recently added by an anon:

Paul Cantor, in his short text called simply Hamlet, formulates a compelling theory of the play that places the prince at the center of the Renaissance tension between Ancient and Christian notions of heroism. Cantor says that the Renaissance signified a “rebirth of classical antiquity within a Christian culture”. But such a rebirth brought with it a deep contradiction: Christ’s teachings of humility and meekness (“whoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also”) are in direct conflict with the ancient ethos that is best represented by Achilles' violent action in the Iliad (“I wish only that my spirit and fury would drive me to hack your meat away and eat it raw for the things that you have done to me”).

For Cantor, the character of Hamlet exists exactly where these two worlds collide. He is in one sense drawn towards the active side of heroism by his father's legacy (“He smote the sledded Polaks on the ice”) and the need for revenge (“now could I drink hot blood. And do such bitter business as the day/ Would quake to look on”). Simultaneously though, he is pulled towards a religious existence (“for in that sleep of death what dreams may come”) and in some sense sees in his father's return as a ghost as justification for just such a belief.

For Cantor, the Heroic interpretation gives a believable account of Hamlet's hesitation and this paralyzing conflict is perhaps most evident in 3.3 when Hamlet has the opportunity to kill the praying Claudius. He restrains himself though, justifying his inability to act with the following lines:

“Now might I do it pat, now ‘a is a-praying;/

And now I’ll do it- and so ‘a goes to heaven,/

And so am I reveng’d. That would be scann’d:/

A villain kills my father, and for that/

I, his sole son, do this same villain send/

To heaven.".

At this moment it is clear that the prince's single mind and body are being torn apart by these two powerful ideologies.

Even in the famous 3.1 soliloquy, Hamlet gives voice to the tension. When he asks if it is “nobler in the mind to suffer”, Cantor believes that Shakespeare is alluding to the Christian sense of suffering. When he presents the alternative, “to take arms against a sea of troubles”, Cantor takes this as an ancient formulation of goodness.

Cantor points out that most interpretations of Hamlet (such as the Psychoanalytic or Existentialist) see "the problem of Hamlet as somehow rooted in his individual soul" whereas Cantor himself believes that his Heroic theory mirrors "a more fundamental tension in the Renaissance culture in which [Hamlet] lives".

It clearly violates undue weight, since it is all cited to one person. I moved it here to decide what, if anything, we want to keep. Wrad (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

stichomythia as comic/satirical device

Hello,

I noticed that Shakespeare is lauded in this article for his 'highly developed' use of stichomythia. I had always been under the impression that, for Shakespeare, stichomythia was a comic or satirical device he used to gently mock contemporary playwrights; he didn't necessarily see it as an earnest form of poetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheoBee (talk • contribs) 16:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There is a proposal at the Hamnet Shakespeare AfD to merge that article into this one. Please comment at the AfD. Thanks. Wrad (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

New Image

Found a nice, colourful one (same series as the lead image for Othello, though not as well-scanned by the Library of Congress) and have put it in as a colourful, engaging lead image. Booth got dropped down a bit, I hope noone minds. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's nice, but what about cropping out the billing of Thomas W. Keene at the top for the purposes of this article? In my opinion, it's a bit distracting. My eyes were immediately drawn to that big red text, causing me to wonder who this Thos. W. Keene was, instead of immediately feasting on the beautiful scenes. BuddingJournalist 01:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could, but I'm a little uncomfortable cutting up a historic document. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; if it were done, obviously the caption should reflect that the image is part of a poster. BuddingJournalist 02:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a featured article and should follow the MOS. Use thumbs throughout and let users set their own preferences as to how big they want their images to be. Besides -if someone wants to see the large image, they need only click on it.Smatprt (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There are certainly exceptions to the rule that MOS lays out (see here). (I have a feeling that the number of people who view the article and actually set their image preferences to something other than the default is rather small). I would argue that 320px was pushing it though. BuddingJournalist 02:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a nice poster but I agree that the size of Thomas Keene's name is distracting so it's not really appropriate for the lead image. Othello article has same problem. Downstage right (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

While this conversation continues, I have restored the Booth image that was in place when this article achieved FA status. As I recall, there was much discussion over the lead image, and the Booth image seemed to satisfy all the relative criteria the best. I do think the Keene image is lovely, but his name is quite distracting, and as such, it probably belongs down in the section where Keene is mentioned, as it is now.Smatprt (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, I just wanted to help out. I didn't expect to suddenly have people upset at me because I tried to find a decent image for a major Shakespeare play, spent a couple hours restoring it, and put it into the article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No-one's upset. It's just a discussion. And it can still go in the article, even if it's not the lead image. Downstage right (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No one is upset, so you might want to relax. I, for one, already said it was a lovely image, which you either missed or simply ignored. And the image is still in the article. Please don't take a little honest (and calm) feedback as a personal insult, which it wasn't.Smatprt (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh... sorry, I've been a little stressed out of late - a lot of little things have been coming together in ways that get really frustrating, and I'm probably a little bit hyper-sensitive. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

MAybe I should just move on. Would this Tempest image [2] be better? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

For this article on Hamlet? BuddingJournalist 02:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Gunpowder plot

It has been said that Hamlet was inspired by the Gunpowder plot. What about mentioning it in the article? For example, the BBC series IN SEARCH OF SHAKESPEARE talk about it. --Betomg88 (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC) I believe you are talking about MacBeth. The Gunpowder plot is mentioned in that article. Hamlet was written pre 1605, when the Gunpowder plot occurred.Smatprt (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

En-dash damage

From 17 May until today, two illustrations failed to display at this article because someone converted the hyphens in their filenames to en-dashes, thus corrupting the files.[3] It's a bit surprising that no one noticed or corrected that for so long at a featured article. _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark^{bugs and goblins} 17:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There's one more, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Wrad (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Revenge Tragedy genre vs. Category:Hamlet

Category:Hamlet is itself a category within Category:Revenge Tragedy genre. — Robert Greer (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Tamil movie

This was added last night:

"In 1972 released Tamil movie "Rajabhat Rangadurai", that film depicts the life of one stage artiste acted by late "Chevaliar Sivaji Ganesan". In the film he portraited the small role of "Hamlet" in stage. Those days Sivaji's marvelous dialogue(To be or not to be) delivery widely appreciated and got applaused."

Sounds like an interesting film. Can anyone verify it? Wrad (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Claudius elected?

I changed the beginning of the synopsis from that Claudius was "elected" King to that he "ascended" the throne.

The text is silent on the exact goings-on at the court when King Hamlet was murdered by his brother, but there is no indication that kings in general were (or are to this day) "elected" in any way we would understand in a mostly republican world. Nor that Denmark chose kings by election nor that their was an election to install Claudius. Who were the candidates? Who were the voters?

What Claudius did was assume the throne in his nephew's absence. C was obviously very popular in the court, as they all seem delighted by his elevation (and wonders what this says about the dead K. Hamlet). Many a King has been elevated to a throne by war, by stealth, by politics over a more "natural" successor; that is why thrones have pretenders.

That Claudius is well aware that he could be viewed as a usurper is exhibited, in the text, by his soft reactions to Hamlet's anger, by his quick marriage to Gertrude, by his open designation of young Hamlet as his rightful successor after his own death.

Why doesn't Hamlet simply call Claudius a usurper and demand the throne? To paraphrase King Vultan in Flash Gordon: "Maybe [Ming] should consider his current situation, and surroundings." Hamlet found himself returning to Denmark to find his father dead, the Queen married to his uncle, and the entire court pretty pleased with the situation. -- Cecropia (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm changing it back. The text of the play says he was elected, which is unsurprising since Denmark was an Elective monarchy. Obviously kings were not elected in a way that 'we would understand in a republican world". They were elected in a different way, but election is election nontheless. Paul B (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

As it seems to be key to the disagreement, where in the text is the election mentioned? (John User:Jwy talk) 22:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Act V scene 2. Here's an essay explaining the context [4]. Paul B (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ya learn something new... (John User:Jwy talk) 00:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, at one point when Hamlet is bitching and moaning about Claudius, he complains that Claudius "popped in between the election and my hopes." So there was an election, although it's not specified by what council and how constituted. Also, Hamlet says "my hopes" and not "my rights." ---Tom

Adaptation

In 2006 Hamlet was adapted in the Chinese film The Banquet (also known as Legend of the Black Scorpion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.224.123 (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hamlet's Divided Self

'Nunnery' as having the secondary meaning of 'brothel' is glossed in The RSC Complete Works eds. Jonathan Bate & Eric Rasmussen (2007); The new Complete Pelican, eds Stephen Orgel & A R Braunmuller (2002); and The Norton, Based on the Oxford Edition, eds. Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E Howard, and Katherine Essman Maus (1997). - In 'Filthy Shakespeare', I was suggesting that the duality of the word's meaning was employed by Shakespeare here as a dramatically effective device to demonstrate, with his characteristic acute pyschological realism, Hamlet's divided feelings about Ophelia. Two diametrically opposite emotions are being expressed with one word: he is painfully torn between his love for Ophelia, urging her to enter a convent to preserve her chastity so she will not breed sinners like him; the other part of him, the part that is revulsed by her because she is a woman, like his mother, is treating her like a whore - "You jig, you amble and you lisp... and make your wantonness your ignorance". ²

This sense of Hamlet's divided self in this scene acts to powerful dramatic effect in the layering of his psychological state throughout the play. We are reminded of the impossible injunction of his father's ghost to avenge his death but not harm his mother, so that he is gripped by a paralysing duality of purpose. Our awareness of his continuing 'divided self', questioning the ethics of revenge, is reinforced by his painful double consciousness in being with Ophelia. Further support for Hamlet's salacious treatment of Ophelia comes in a later scene, at the play within a play, when he talks to her in obscenities.

Shakespeare was the consummate dramatist. It's how he made his drama work, in all its profound psychological insight, and expressions of complex emotional states that he makes his meaning.Ceyx (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC) (The RSC Complete Works eds. Jonathan Bate & Eric Rasmussen (2007)p.1958; The new Complete Pelican, eds Stephen Orgel & A R Braunmuller(2002) p.1367; and The Norton, Based on the Oxford Edition, eds. Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E Howard, and Katherine Essman Maus (1997)p. 1707. Pauline Kiernan, Filthy Shakespeare: Shakespeare's Most Outrageous Sexual Puns, Quercus, 2006,pp. 188-191.)

Yes, we know. The passage is already discussed quoting Kiernan in the "Language" section. Paul B (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Succession

One thing that I have always wondered is why was King Hamlet succeeded by his brother, Claudius, rather than his son, Prince Hamlet? Last time I checked, sons usually succeed before brothers. Emperor001 (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Hamlet/Archive2#Why_doesn.27t_Hamlet_become_King.3F. Paul B (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I had thought of the election possibility mentioned on the talk page, but if election did prevent Hamlet from becoming king, why is he called the Prince of Denmark. Last time I checked, there were no princes of Denmark until the monarchy become heredictary. Emperor001 (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't really researched this, but the first thing that comes to my mind is that Shakespeare isn't known for being breathtakingly accurate on historical issues. It might be the case here. Wrad (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet specifically refers to the election in Act 5 Scene 2, so there's no debate on whether that was the problem. I suspect "prince" is there because in English usage "prince" meant "son of a king", without any reference to whether the term was strictly accurate in Denmark. AndyJones (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet's called the Prince, because in fact he is. Although not the biological son of Claudius, he's Claudius's stepson and the heir to the crown. Claudius states explicitly in the play that Hamlet is his heir.JeffJo (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Succession in Hamlet seems to go to the brother before the son: in the play's antecedent action, Fortinbras the elder has been succeeded by his brother in Norway, not by the younger Fortinbras —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyvarsity (talk • contribs) 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The death of Fortinbras' father occured 30 years prior to the action of the play and young Fortinbras would have been indeed much too young to assume the crown at that time. Hamlet, who is thirty when his father is killed, claims he would have won election to the throne had his Uncle not interposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.90.3 (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Age played little part in respect to the Crown. If Fortinbras had been heir and considered too young to rule, a regent would have been appointed to rule in his stead until he was mature enough. Succession is not ignored because of the heir's age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyvarsity (talk • contribs) 15:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit

This was recently added without a full reference. Just bringing it up in case the regular experts around here missed it. BuddingJournalist 08:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the unsourced addition: Most recently, Cockroft has proposed that Hamlet suffers from bipolar disorder. This can be seen in his extreme mood swings between deep, suicidal depression ('oh, that this too too solid world would melt') and his 'antic disposition'. Wrad (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone re-added this with a nice source, but it was removed as "nonsense". Why is it nonsense? Even if it isnt, though, I'm not sure it should be on the same level as Freud and Lacan, and probably isn't quite notable enough to be in this article. Possibly the Prince Hamlet article? Wrad (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just noting that the most recent addition has been reverted by Thingg (talk · contribs) (with a rather odd edit summary of "nonsense"; why is it nonsense?). It looks as if the editor may have a conflict of interest though, as evidenced by the username. It may be that the insertion is somewhat self-promotional. BuddingJournalist 17:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But "too too solid world isn't right". Solid can be interpretted as Sullied, but the world following it surely is Flesh--TimothyJacobson (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Year set

Does anyone know in which year(s) Hamlet is set, and (if so) should this be mentioned in the article?--TimothyJacobson (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't come across any studies on this myself, no. Wrad (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Having looked into it further I now think there is purposely no answer--TimothyJacobson (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad Synopsis

The synopsis has serious problems, both factual and interpretive. In the following I first provide a quote from the synopsis, then a description of the problem that appears there.

"The protagonist of Hamlet is Prince Hamlet of Denmark, son of the recently deceased King Hamlet and his wife, Queen Gertrude. After the death of the King, his brother Claudius proclaims himself King ..."

Serious factual error. "Election" is explicitly stated in the play, by Hamlet in Act 5 scene 2: "Popped in between the election and my hopes." Claudius DID NOT "proclaim" himself King, he was elected. The synopsis is factually wrong, obviously.

"... and hastily marries Gertrude. In the background is Denmark's long-standing feud with neighbouring Norway, and an invasion, led by the Norwegian prince Fortinbras, is expected."

Unfounded assertion. There is no statement in the play that Fortinbras is "the prince" of Norway. It is stated only that he is old King Norway's nephew. That relationship, by itself, does not make Fortinbras "the prince." That characterization of Fortinbras is only editorial presumption (which does not belong in a synopsis.) Editorial interpretations belong elsewhere, and required a cited source.

Now, it is true that Hamlet refers to Fortinbras as "a delicate and tender prince," in the course of the dialogue. However, that is generally agreed to be the inclusive use of "prince" as a term to refer to royalty and high aristocracy in general, in Shakespeare's day. Calling somebody "a prince" was not the same as calling him "the prince" (of the nation.) Observe that Fortinbras, in the last scene, speaks of "so many princes" being struck down, when he refers to the group that includes the King and Queen, and Laertes, in addition to Hamlet. The word refers to nobility in general, obviously, and does not identify "the prince."

"The play opens on a cold winter night ..."

Unfounded assertion. There is no statement in the play that it is "winter." Northern Europe (and also England) can easily have cold nights well into springtime, of course, as anybody who has been there knows. (And by the way it was colder in Shakespeare's day, during the Little Ice Age.) The assertion of "winter" is speculative, an editorial interpretation with no direct support in the play. The word "winter" should simply be dropped.

"Busy with affairs of state, Claudius and Gertrude try to avert an invasion by Prince Fortinbras of Norway. ..."

Again the factual error of "Prince Fortinbras." There is no support in the play for calling Fortinbras that. The NEPHEW of a king is not automatically "the prince" of the nation.

Further, Gertrude takes no part in sending the diplomatic mission to Norway. Claudius does that, while she remains silent at the time, and she takes no part in dispatching the diplomats. It's Claudius's mission to Norway, clearly. Gertrude does not speak until Claudius and Hamlet talk, later.

"... When she returns his letters ..."

Factual error. Ophelia says "repel" his letters, and we see later in the play that Polonius has at least some of Hamlet's letters. It is wrong to say Ophelia "returns" the letters. It is factual to say she refused them, but not factual to say Hamlet got them back, especially since, as noted, Polonius has at least some of them, as an explicit fact in the play. We never see that Hamlet got any of his letters back.

"... Claudius, fearing for his life, banishes Hamlet to England on a pretext, ..."

Factual error. It is explicitly stated in the play that Claudius supposedly sends Hamlet as the Danish ambassador to England, to collect the tribute which England owes Denmark. So, it is the pretext of a diplomatic mission. A diplomatic mission is not a banishment. And of course, far from banishing Hamlet, Claudius secretly intends for him to be killed.

"... In the bedchamber, ..."

Factual error. The location is Gertrude's closet, it is not her bedroom. "Closet" is explicitly stated in the play, and in fact, that scene is famously called the Closet Scene. The idea of it being her bedroom is a modern editorial imposition. As Professor Harold Jenkins pointed out in the Arden2: "It is hard to know why producers nowadays put this scene - so incongruously - in the Queen's bedroom." (Arden Shakespeare 'Hamlet' second series, Jenkins, page 318.) What Professor Jenkins was saying, of course, is that there is no textual support for the "bedchamber" notion, and he was quite right.

Further, the Arden 3, cited as a main reference for this article, agrees with Jenkins: "a private room but not a bedroom, which would have been referred to as her 'chamber.'" (Arden 3, page 333.) In other words, if Shakespeare had intended "bedchamber" he would have written "chamber," not "closet." And of course the Arden 3 is right; that is, indeed, the language usage in the playtext.

So, the "bedchamber" idea is purely editorial imposition, (or alternatively I suppose one could call it "original research" by whoever wrote the synopsis,) and that idea should not be stated as a fact in the synopsis.

"... Prior to embarking for England, Hamlet hides Polonius's body, ultimately revealing its location to the King and Gertrude."

Obvious factual error. Gertrude is not there, when Hamlet tells Claudius where Polonius's body is (and the Arden 3 expressly points out that the Queen is absent, which is correct, of course.)

I could mention more, but will refrain. Further, the synopsis has the play events badly out of order. It is a poor, incompetent synopsis.

It seriously undermines the value of the article that those who are doing it are obviously so unfamiliar with 'Hamlet' that they can't even get explicit facts of the play right - and even when the facts are not only explicit in the play, itself, but are also noted in the Arden 3, cited as a main reference. Not good. I can only suppose this must have status as a Featured Article merely because Wikipedia management doesn't know any better, and couldn't spot the rampant mistakes. But yes, it's true that although many write about 'Hamlet', or try to, only very few have made the effort to learn it in detail. However, I do suggest that at least the errors mentioned should be corrected. I will not bother to do that myself, since it seems inevitable that any error correction I provide will only get swamped later, by new errors introduced by enthusiastic incompetents, who "like" 'Hamlet' but who have never taken the time and made the serious effort to learn it. So it goes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.52.34 (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Many of your points are extremely trivial and pedantic, and some are in error. For example calling Fortinbras "the Danish prince" is a description of his social status, not an assertion that he is the heir to the throne, just as "the French Duke..." does not imply that the perdon in question is the sole or pre-eminent duke. Your list of point do not justify wild assertions of "rampant" mistakes. If you see errors it is better correct them than to use them as an excuse for ranting. Paul B (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You are obviously wrong, Paul. The article, as it stands, actually says "Prince Fortinbrasse," as anybody who reads it can see. Are you over your snitty little rant now, and do you have the honesty to admit you're wrong? My other points are all valid as well, of course. And I certainly won't put any effort toward the article as long as some ignorant, snotty, lazy, semiliterate, juvenile like you can undo my efforts and make it only a waste of time. You're a perfect example of why serious academics consider Wikipedia to be only a piece of shit, and won't even allow it to be mentioned. Have a nice day.

Hi anonymous editor at IP address 68.118.52.34 (talk). Thank you for your attempt at constructive criticism.
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and we always welcome anyone willing to help. While we happily acknowledge that the quality of many articles is far below adequate, we do strive to make sure all information is accurate, verifiable, and neutral (see also the Five Pillars of Wikipedia). Any article that falls short of these goals is merely a sign that the volunteer effort needed to achieve that has not, yet, appeared.
If you are inclined to help us improve the quality of this article, I would be quite happy to help you navigate the peculiarities of Wikipedia. In particular, I would encourage you to start by registering a user account so that it's possible for other editors to communicate with a person (and not an IP address), leave messages on your user talk page, and enable you to easily track changes to articles you are interested in.
PS. As a practical matter, if you suggest specific ways in which we can improve the article (including providing the relevant citations for those changes), corrections, new text, etc.; it will be much easier for our limited number of volunteers to address the issues you have brought up. Thank you. --Xover (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the tone, the anon is correct saying the synopsis is full of mistakes. A bunch of them, in fact. I corrected about a dozen, but the whole thing reads like it was written by a child. I'm not being mean, but it was really bad and still needs more work. Synopsis writing is not my forte, and I've tried to at least correct all the mistakes, but it would be nice for someone with some real writing skills to rework it. I am truly surprised this reached FA status. We spend our time arguing over which pictures to use, or whether or not to include a cast list, while ignoring perhaps the most important element of the article. Shame on all of us. Smatprt (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Relax. It was promoted over a year ago and lots of people have come by and changed the synopsis. Wrad (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Fortinbras' army really is closing in on Elsinore at the end. That wasn't a mistake. Wrad (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite the scene and line number please that say his army is "closing in"? (And please don't tell me to relax - you have no idea of my state. It's a bit insulting to hear your parental attitude. The fact remains that you and the regular editors of this article have let the synopsis fall into an embarrassing state. As the creator and oft time leader of the Shakespeare project, you need to be more diligent.) Smatprt (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Final Scene, right after Horatio contemplates suicide:

"[March afar off, and shot within.]
Hamlet: What warlike noise is this?"

Osric: Young Fortinbras, with conquest come from Poland,
To the ambassadors of England gives
This warlike volley"

--I'm not trying to be condescending. It's very difficult to keep this article maintained. We did the best we could. Wrad (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your are interpreting it incorrectly. To say that an army is "closing in on Elsinore" implies a hostile action. The lines say "with conquest come from Poland" and do not say anything about hostility or "closing in" on Elsinore. And the stage direction is "Enter Fortinbras and English Ambassadors, with Drum, Colours, and Attendants." It does not say that his army enters, although some directors stage it that way. But again - that would be directorial license - not what Shakespeare wrote, which is consistant with these lines from IV, 4:

Go, Captain, from me greet the Danish king. Tell him that by his license Fortinbras Craves the conveyance of a promis'd march Over his kingdom. You know the rendezvous. If that his Majesty would aught with us, We shall express our duty in his eye; And let him know so."

Act IV was Fortinbras' clever lie in order to get into Denmark without raising a ruckus. Hamlet and Horatio both say the noise is "warlike". Osric says that Osric is coming "with conquest". Horatio hears a "March within" the castle and is shocked, saying, "Why does the drum come hither?" It can be interpreted both ways, but as the last paragraph of the synopsis now stands, Fortinbras is just suddenly there. There is no explanation as to how he got there or where he came from and that needs to be fixed. Wrad (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

the quote is "With conquest come from Poland" (There is NO comma after conquest). You really need to stop interpreting. "Clever lie?" Where in the text is that denoted as a "clever lie?" Where does the text say that Horatio is "shocked"? Osric says plainly the volley is to the ambassador of England. Follow the text! The text says this (Voltemand's speech to Claudius) "...On Fortinbras; which he, in brief, obeys, Receives rebuke from Norway, and, in fine, Makes vow before his uncle never more To give th' assay of arms against your Majesty." We can ONLY go by the text here in the synopsis. Interp would go in another section. Come on, man, when you argue over every little point like this, it makes it really hard, Wrad. Please understand the difference between textual reading and interpretation. Jeez. Smatprt (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, do whatever you want. If all you want to do is insult me and make me out as an incompetent in your edit summaries and comments, then I don't want to have anything to do with you. I'm sorry I'm such an embarrassment to you and the rest of the project. I am ashamed of my obvious ineptitude. I guess you don't really want me around anymore, so goodbye. I wish I could have done more. You win. Feel free to leave me reminders of how worthless and embarrassing I and my work are on my talk page every once in a while. If, on the other hand you ever want to talk to me in a civil way, leave a message on my talk page in that regard. Otherwise, you can fix all the Shakespeare articles on your own. You've driven away everyone else in the project after all (I know. They've told me you're the reason they left) so being alone is quite obviously what you want. Congratulations. You have gotten what you want. I refuse to work with someone who constantly puts down my volunteer efforts to make this site better. Wrad (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

outdent Oh man, you two really shouldn't be allowed in a room together, huh? People, get a grip! So Smatprt was a bit hoity-toity in how he presented his argument. So what? You go all defensive and read stuff into what he wrote that just isn't there. (which, incidentally, also merits a “So what?”). I appreciate that you two have butted heads over difficult and controversial issues in the past, but to me you look like you've been fighting dragons so long you now find them in any lamb with a slight pigmentation problem. You know what frustrates me? Having to point people in this project at WP:COOL every two edits. Really, I feel like I should have it as a keyboard macro or something. Wrad, try a different reading of what Smatprt wrote: he singles you out as a founder of the Shakespeare WikiProject, calls you the oft-time leader of it (and since WikiProjects don't have formal leadership, that can only be a compliment), and it's implicit in the high expectations from his last parenthetical that he thinks your contributions historically have been of above average quality and value. From the stuff quoted here his argument appears a cogent one (that's not necessarily to say I agree with it, just that the argument is valid and internally consistent): the text itself doesn't support any hostile act or intent, it requires interpretation to read that into it. On the other hand, if it is the more or less standard reading, then it'd be perfectly appropriate to say that in the synopsis. From where I'm standing, you're both guilty of making a mountain out of a speck of dust here: this is a valid question, with room for reasonable editors to (respectfully) disagree, and where constructive discussion and willingness to compromise are the ways to a better article. Please try to put your past conflicts behind you and work together to improve the article: I'm not sufficiently familiar with Hamlet to go it alone. --Xover (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a standard reading, but even considering that, I tried to compromise by pointing out that as the last paragraph stands now, Fortinbras just appears. That needs to be fixed. That's all I'm asking. Before I "snapped" in this exchange, I was trying really hard not to be inflammatory or accuse him of anything, and all he can do is put the blame of all of our arguments on me (Smatprt: "when you argue over every little point like this, it makes it really hard"). I was trying to compromise! Am I allowed to do that? I care too much about myself to deal with this. He's gonna have to return the favor and bite his own tongue from time to time. About the most inflammatory thing I said before my "snap" was "Relax", which for some reason really irks him. What more can I do? What exactly did I "overinterpret" when he said "you and the regular editors of this article have let the synopsis fall into an embarrassing state. As the creator and oft time leader of the Shakespeare project, you need to be more diligent." I say "Relax", and I'm the one with a parental attitude, yet he can accuse me and all the regular editors who have worked on this of incompetence and says "you need to be more diligent." Where exactly was Smatprt while this article was falling into a sorry state? Maybe, like me, he had better things to do. I respect that and so should he. This is a volunteer project. If I was the only one upset about this, then maybe I would back off a little, but Roger Davies, another of the "regular editors" Smatprt accuses of letting this article become "embarrassing", left his work around here because of Smatprt (see [5]). Nobody wants to work with this project anymore because nobody wants to have to deal with that. Nobody should have to deal with that in a volunteer project. I'm not the leader of the project. I don't want to be and I never asked to be. Wrad (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly. To a T. Precisely. Voilà! Presto!
None of you actually did or intended anything wrong here! You just both keep reading past conflicts into new exchanges, and “snap” in various ways. For example, the immediate reason for this discussion is an anonymous IP editor that seems quite free with the sarcasm and vitriol (and I'm personally quite offended at how he chose to speak to Paul B), and ridiculing the project as a whole and this article in particular; and yet you two manage to overlook that in favour of actually improving the article. But then one of you says “Relax” and the other speaks a bit too soon (makes an assumption without all the facts) and phrases himself a little clumsily… and all hell breaks loose. Why would the fairly innocuous comments you two made to each other rile you so, while characterizations of the Hamlet editors as “ignorant, snotty, lazy, semiliterate, juvenile”, and of Wikipedia itself as “only a piece of shit”, leave you both able to bite your tongue?
I'm not pointing fingers here. I'm not saying either of you is at “fault”; but neither am I saying either of you are without fault. Hell, I'm not saying I am without fault. If you want to sum up my argument in a single point, it is this: the constant conflicts and arguments are counterproductive, scare away existing and potential contributors, and take the fun and pleasure out of working on the Shakespeare articles; and it has got to stop! (sounds familiar, doesn't it? ;D)
The only way this can happen is if we, all of us, make an effort to avoid them.
Elsewhere I've suggested that part of this will have to fall on Smatprt's shoulders: he does need to let some points go even when he disagrees. While entirely within his right to !vote either way in a FAC, to object on a single point where he is deeply involved (in conflict of interest terms) is not conductive to good collaboration (irrespective of who is “right” or “wrong”). On the other hand, I was quite dismayed to see how the Authorship stuff was dismissed summarily and out of hand on William Shakespeare; and note that it took a very long, very drawn out, process to arrive at the current compromise (which most editors are now pretty happy about, give or take). This stuff just goes on and on in a vicious circle; the more people are met with dismissal and assumptions of bad faith, the more confrontational they get and the harder they fight for their point of view, and the harder they fight the more dismissive everyone else gets, and so forth and so on. As with most vicious cycles, the only way out of it is to deliberately break it. It's hard work, and there's no guarantee one will succeed; but it's pretty much the only way out of it, and it requires good faith efforts from all involved.
In particular, it requires all parties to assume good faith: not because it's a policy, but because when we fail to do so we create a toxic environment where these sorts of vicious cycles can proliferate.
PS. Wrad, when we frame you as a leader of the project it's just recognition that you've been instrumental in gathering editors together to work on the Shakespeare articles, and the many valuable contributions you've made both in terms of the articles themselves and in terms of the many many types of administrativa, technicalities, process, and so forth. Since WikiProjects have no formal leadership, it can only be that; there's no obligation or expectation implied. Just consider it a compliment and a recognition of all your hard work. --Xover (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

For me it's easier to deal with the IP because I know that it is User:JeffJo, who pops in here every year or so and says that sort of thing and then leaves us alone for a long time. Smatprt never goes away and never lets down. He's mad at me before he's even finished reading the first word I've typed. It's gotten so that I know he'll be mad and rude no matter what I say, so why bother trying to walk on eggshells? I've stayed away from authorship stuff for a long time because I hate arguing about it and it's no fun to me. I'm not interested in it. Wrad (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Wrad, be sure to slander everybody who tries to make factual corrections to the article. That's very smart and productive. Or at least, you seem to think so. The reasons why I only drop by once in a while are: A) I have a lot of other things to do, and B) my desire to be a babysitter is slight at best. "That sort of thing" I did, was to offer numerous factual corrections, which would make the article better. It's the same thing I've always done, whenever I've dropped by, despite your snotty attitude and juvenile resentment, and that same snotty, juvenile attitude from others, as well. But Presto! - I now have more constructive criticism to offer, which would make the article better, (whether you like it or not.) So, don't forget to engage in lies and slander about me, rather than thanking me, Wrad, as I offer things to make the article better. Without further ado, then, here are a few factual and editorial errors which now exist in the article, and how to correct them:

1) The article says, "While the young Hamlet is away at school the recently deceased King's brother, Claudius, is elected king and hastily marries Gertrude." That is obviously wrong. We know Hamlet returned for his father's funeral, since that fact is explicit in the play, and that was, of course, before those other events happened. Needs rewrite.

2) Re: "A minor subplot involves," the phrase "minor subplot" is redundant. Should be just "subplot."

3) Re: "the best friend of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark." The synopsis has already stated, in the first line, that Hamlet is the Prince. The needless repetition should be dropped.

• done

4) Re: "In the time of Shakespeare a ghost was merely a spirit that could take on any shape..." That is factually wrong, and is also editorially interpretive. Such editorial interpretation does not belong in the synopsis. As to factuality, see the theological doctrines of the Church of England at that time, and also, in particular, the writings of King James; the people of the time certainly did not take such a "mere" view of ghosts. One pertinent cite, for example, King James I, Dæmonologie, 1597. (Observe that the date significantly precedes Shakespeare's completion of 'Hamlet'.)

• done

5) Re: "Hamlet initially attests to the ghost's reliability, calling him both an "honest ghost" and "truepenny"." That is editorial interpretation. Hamlet's word "honest" can also be understood as "genuine," which is how "honest" is glossed in several publications (Signet Classic, Pelican, etc.) That editorializing should be removed from the synopsis. Hamlet is not necessarily calling the Ghost reliable.

6) Re: "Claudius receives the ambassador of Norway ..." That is a ridiculous blunder. Really, now. Claudius's OWN AMBASSADORS have returned from Norway. Again, really now. It is an unmistakably explicit fact in the play, that Claudius is receiving Voltemand and Cornelius, his own ambassadors, upon their return. There is no such person as "the ambassador of Norway." Anybody who is familiar with the play at all will notice that honker.

7) Re: "In the Elsinore churchyard, two gravediggers enter to dig Ophelia's grave ..." In point of fact, they are explicitly identified as "Clowns," and only one digs. In both Q2 and F1 they are "two Clowns" at entry, and their speech headings are "Clown" and "Other." Neither is actually identified as a "gravedigger" as such. The assumption that they are both "gravediggers" is only editorial, although common. Indeed, the second Clown is more likely the coroner's court bailiff, since his speech includes stating what the coroner's court has decided. The second Clown's first speech includes this statement: "the crowner hath sat on her, and finds it Christian burial." Because he is stating what the coroner decided, he is probably the coroner's court bailiff, or deputy, who has been assigned to tell the sexton about the coroner's decision. Interpretation is required, however. But in any event, the synopsis, to be true to the play, should simply identify both characters as Clowns, because that is how the original printings of 'Hamlet' identify them, in both Q2 and F1, and then the synopsis could state the fact in the play that only one Clown digs.

• done

8) Re: "In this scene Hamlet is revealed to be thirty years old." That is not correct. The sexton Clown does make a remark which IMPLIES that Hamlet is thirty, but that line is subject to other interpretations. The synopsis should be restricted to the point of the sexton implying that Hamlet is 30, and should not state it as a fact.

• done

9) Re: "Hamlet, at last, approaches and slays Claudius ..." That is extremely unacceptable. It makes Hamlet a murderer, which is exactly contrary to the facts of the play. Claudius, in fact, dies by his own poison. Claudius is not slain by Hamlet, he is killed as a result of his own poisoning scheme.

• done

I could say much more about the deficiencies of the synopsis, but, enough for now. Have a nice day. 66.241.88.64 (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• I made several of the recommended fixes and will work on the rest as time permits. The questions remains, though - Why don't you make your own edits instead of leaving a list and an attack? Come on. Smatprt (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Xover has hit the nail on the head in many ways. Due to past experiences, I fully admit to being "loaded for bear" as some of my park ranger friends say when referring to being trigger happy. Let me take this opportunity to apologize to Wrad for letting past experiences taint present discussions. Let me also add that I never called him an embarrassment. I said the article had reached an embarrassing state due to the regular editors not staying on top of it. The problem is that at the top of this talk page there are 3 regular editors listed as such. By being there in such a prominent way, it kind of sets you three up as the responsible parties, both for its FA status, as well as its current condition.

But more to the overall point raised by Xover, I admit that I am sick and tired of being attacked (even on non-authorship issues) simply because of my authorship stance. The constant edit summary lines regarding "authorship nonsense, drivel, crap, etc.", has simply gone on far too long with no one seeming to mind. And being accused after every edit that they all somehow have something to do with "authorship crap" has reached a ridiculous state. I've reached the point where these constant personal attacks have left me at the stage where I feel my only recourse is to fight a fire with a firetruck (meaning debating to an extreme). I mean, do I constantly refer to mainstream editors and their beliefs as Stratfordian "crap", Stratfordian "nonsense", "idiocy", etc.? No, I do not. And the unrelenting sarcasm wrought by Tom, and Paul's downright meanness, not to mention the silent condoning that has gone on since day one? This was my greeting (and worse) when I first came hear 3 years ago, and it has rarely ceased. So I fight back. These tactics have been used on most authorship editors, who have been bullied and insulted right off these pages. The fact that these tactics have not worked on me obviously infuriates the "mainstream" editors. I will say that Wrad, however, has refrained from most of this behaviour, so I am indeed sorry to have snapped at him. But I never called HIM an "embarrassment" or "incompetent". He's far too good and caring an editor for such a label.

However to come back to this page, I was truly shocked that after the anon left a lengthy and valid set of corrections, that the regular editors that were listed on this talk page (right at the top in the policy box) let those mistakes stand for over a month! Paul argued (correctly) on the issue of the Prince designation, but made no corrections. Wrad argued (incorrectly) about the army converging on Elsinore, but made no corrections. I am not a regular editor and only came across the talk page while revisiting various pages looking at the various images being used. Once I saw that list of corrections I quickly scanned the plot section and saw that 90% of the items listed by anon were dead on accurate. And I will admit, that when Wrad told me to "relax" it brought up past dealings, and when started arguing a point that is no where to be found in the text (Fortinbras' clever lie), I allowed myself to get further pissed off. Not as much AT Wrad, but at the fact that he and Paul simply ignored a quite detailed list of corrections that were asked to be made, choosing instead to pick apart the one (or two) items on the list that were not valid (by the way, there is no such thing as a "standard" reading of Fortinbras - and to be quite frank, if you want to know what is usually done with Fortinbras, the entire character is typically cut for the simple reason that most modern producers can hardly afford the additional actors for him, his captain, and an entire army [Act IV, Scene 4 - Enter Fortinbras with his Army over the stage], especially when they have so little to do with the actual story). But to say what a "standard" "is"... well, that is inaccurate at best, and simply impossible to verify (and completely disregards the variety of interpretations by both actors and directors when approaching the characters of Shakespeare).

In closing, however, I would like to reaffirm my apology to Wrad for allowing things to escalate in such a fashion, and for what I said being interpreted as calling him "incompetent" or an "embarrassment". This was not my wording and certainly not the intent behind what I said. I also want to express my thanks to Xover for attempting to intervene. A cooler head is often needed on these pages, and I am thankful for the mediation. Smatprt (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

ghost's credibility

The current synopsis of the play given in the wiki article states that Hamlet entertained doubts about the Ghost's reliability immediately after their meeting. This is contradicted by the actual text of the play. After meeting the ghost Hamlet tells Horatio that the ghost is "an honest ghost", and he also refers to the ghost as "truepenny" which was slang for "honest fellow". Hamlet's lines closing the scene also attest to his acceptance of the ghost's veracity. The first mention of any doubt on Hamlet's part occurs only after he has excoriated himself for failing to act a full month after learning of the murder of his father (or at least the time it would take for the ambassadors dispatched at the beginning of the play to arrive at the court of Norway, conclude their business, and return to Elsinore). 08-28-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.90.3 (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

While Hamlet does express belief in the ghost, he does express doubts as well, and sooner than you indicate. See the last passage of Act 2:

"The spirit that I have seen
May be a devil; and the devil hath power
T' assume a pleasing shape; yea, and perhaps
Out of my weakness and my melancholy,
As he is very potent with such spirits,
Abuses me to damn me. I'll have grounds
More relative than this. [6]

-- Wrad (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The passage you quote does not occur until after the ambassadors have returned from Norway. Between Hamlet's encounter with the ghost and his expression of any doubt concerning the ghost, the ambassadors have traveled to Norway, concluded their diplomatic business, and returned to Denmark. 66.213.90.3 (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In the play Hamlet is clearly unsure about the credibility of the ghost. Hence the play within the play that he uses to prove his uncles guilt. He uses the play to determine if his uncle was guilty. If he really believed the ghost, that would not have been neccesary. 71.196.166.120 (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Either that, or the ghost's credibility is just Hamlet's excuse for not immediately following through and enacting this revenge. 96.227.96.62 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Was Hamlet really gay?

I just read this:

...married Gertrude, Hamlet's mother. The play vividly charts the course of real and feigned madness—from overwhelming grief to seething rage—and explores themes of treachery, revenge, incest, and moral corruption. Hamlet is also known to be a gay homosexual. Despite much literary detective work...

Was Hamlet really a gay homosexual? Or have I just learned that Wikikpedia is fundamentally flawed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.176.150 (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hamlet was really a fictional character in a play. Wikipedia is fundamentally edited by 1.6 million people on the Internet. Factual errors in editing that often rise to vandalism can usually easily be reverted (and in this case, have been within 10-12 minutes of the occurrence). Learn more at the welcome page. Thank you for the notice. Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The terms "gay" and "homosexual" are modern classifications, and don't neatly fit into an earlier society, such as Elizabethan England. It HAS always struck me, though, that Prince Hamlet shows much more tenderness and kindness to his college friends, especially Horatio, than he does toward his former love interest, Ophelia. But to draw conclussions as to what this might indicate about Hamlet's sexual orientation would put one on thin ice. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's not spelled out that way in the text. PS: I am not a Shakespeare expert. PSS: At least the above mentioned phrase makes clear we're discussing a potential "gay homosexual"....as opposed to the STRAIGHT homosexual variety  : ) CodeNameMary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.65 (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

who is talking in the excert?to whom is he talking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.69.160 (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"To be, or not to be, that's the question: ....."

The first line of Hamlet's famous monologue about death and its consequences. The text continues as follows: "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. ................ " These lines describe the classical choice we have to make when we get into trouble: do we accept our fate because we see the suffering as a just punishment for our sins (mere fatality has no deep roots in western civlization), or, do we put up a fight and try to eliminate the problems and perhaps even those who threaten us. It makes you think of the biblical story about Job's submission to God's will. Perhaps it makes you think of how some historians have blamed the Jews for this same passive attitude of submission to their fate which in their view made the holocaust possible, or at least more easily feasible. In their opinion the Jews should have taken "arms against a sea of troubles".

Certainly in Shakepeare's day more than in ours this was a real dilemma. The medieval attitude of humble acceptance of suffering seen as God's will was still considered to be a morally elevated (noble) way of dealing with problems in one's life.

The fact that this dilemma gets so much emphasis at this point in the play is a bit unexpected. Hamlet has already promised his father "to take arms", that is, to revenge his father's murder, hasn't he? Is he having second thoughts on philosophical or moral grounds, then? The answer is clearly negative, his dawdling mainly results from his hesitation about who or what the ghost really is and whether it tells the truth about his uncle.

The four lines state a moral, a philosophical problem. The funny thing, however, is that Hamlet, distracted by intense emotions of sadness (his father's death), fear (the confrontation with his father's ghost) and hatred (his mother's behaviour and his uncle's crime), should bring up this philosophical discussion at all. Also, the wording is out of character: commentators have pointed out the stiffness of the language in these lines and the (very much unlike Shakespeare), mixed metaphor (arms against a sea of .... ). The lines just don't seem to fit in. On top of this there is the problem of logical continuity and coherence in the first six lines. I have not been able to find a clear and straightforward explanation, experts give a few more or less acceptable interpretations.

All in all, a confusing business. Maybe, just maybe, a look at a contemporary version of the play, the so-called "First Quarto" of Hamlet can be of some help. Even though this is recognizably the same play, it is radically different. It's much shorter and some of the names are different. So why look at it? Well, the part with the monologue in it is much like our accepted version. Here are some of the lines from this part of the play in the First Quarto:K King: See where he comes poring upon a book. Enter Hamlet Corambis: And here, Ofelia, read you on this book And walk aloof; the king shall be unseen. Exeunt the King and Corambis Hamlet: To be, or not to be; ay there's the point. To die, to sleep: is that all? Ay all.

Yes, the four lines we have just discussed are missing! And yes, Hamlet appears with a book on the stage here. In the commonly used version his mother mentions his being occupied with a book in the second act. Well, he is a student, isn't he. Students use books. But surely this isn't a time for him to be doing his homework? An explanation could be that he is trying to find advice on how to proceed in the tricky situation he finds himself in in a theological or philosophical work. After all, it is not an unnatural act for a student to try and find answers to problems in books. Once you accept the possibility that Hamlet is reading a book , a book in which he hopes to find good advice, when he appears on the stage just before his conversation with Ophelia, a new explanation of the first few lines of the monologue offers itself. The problems of coherence and style would vanish if the four lines did not express Hamlet's thoughts, but were read aloud by him from the book (a philosophical work)he is holding. Suddenly the passage becomes clear: in his search for an answer to his problems in philosophical literature Hamlet has come across the dilemma of the basic attitudes of acceptance versus resistance in life. Hamlet, however, rejects this dilemma outright. To be or not to be, to live or to die, that is what he sees as the real choice. He rejects the moral/philosophical authority of his book which gives him the choice of passive acceptance or active resistance. That just will not do in Hamlet's view. The real choice for him, at that point in the play, is the one between life and death, not between two different attitudes in life.

Looking at the text in this way, the first line does not explicitly mention suicide but the idea of suicide is implicitly there, of course. The remaining part of the monologue deals with the consequences of the choice for death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantar (talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What succession law?

I've read the play in high school, and seen various versions of the play. But one nagging question has always bothered me... why did not Hamlet become king after his father? If his father were king, wouldn't Hamlet as his son become king? Or, was it Grutrude who was the Queen, and her husband (either brother) was her king consort? So not until Grutrude passes would Hamlet become king? Hummmm ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 07:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In short, Denmark was an elective monarchy at the time. William Avery (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Read Act V scene 2. Here's an essay explaining the context [7]. Paul B (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you both! And that essey is excellent! An elective monarchy? It sounds strange. I like their current system.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)