Hamlet. Was he really mad?

I don't know if people are still visiting this thread (I literally just joined so that I could post on here - seems to be a theme of this thread. And yes this is the first forum I've ever joined too) but thought I'd give it a go anyway. If this comes out a bit mixed up it's partly because I'm on my second glass of red wine and partly because I can't really remember what I was going to say now that I've joined. Oh well here goes.

So for one thing - I don't understand why everyone keeps mentioning the Oedipus theory. I didn't get that from 'Hamlet' at all! I just thought he was a bit pissed off for his Dad because his Mum jumped into bed with his uncle so soon after his Dad died. Am I missing something?

Also I am writing an essay for University at the moment and although I mainly concentrate on Ophelia in my comments on Hamlet I do say in passing that I thought Hamlet did reaaly go insane after feigning it. Now, however, I am reconsidering that stance after reading this but just for arguments sake couldn't you say that it seems that some people gain the most clarity in insanity? After all going crazy is supposed to be very liberating so isn't possible that it is because of that fact that Hamlet can be so insightful?

And finally - someone said something about Hamlet not seeming thirty and I just wanted to say that I read a very convincing website about the different versions of 'Hamlet' and how originally there was no reference to him being thirty whatsoever.

If anywhere out there reads this - thank you for your time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “Dark Lady”

I don't understand why everyone keeps mentioning the Oedipus theory. I didn't get that from 'Hamlet' at all! I just thought he was a bit pissed off for his Dad because his Mum jumped into bed with his uncle so soon after his Dad died. Am I missing something?

---

I don’t think there has been much mention of Oedipus in this thread – perhaps your impression that there has been is itself the result of some subconscious Freudian desire (coupled with the wine). Whether or not you’re missing something is up to you. Some critics focus on the Freudian aspects of Hamlet’s relationship with his mother (in Olivier’s film she was played by Eileen Herlie, who was only a few years older than Sir Larry - she might even have been younger) and some don’t.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “Dark Lady”

Also I am writing an essay for University at the moment and although I mainly concentrate on Ophelia in my comments on Hamlet I do say in passing that I thought Hamlet did reaaly go insane after feigning it. Now, however, I am reconsidering that stance after reading this but just for arguments sake couldn't you say that it seems that some people gain the most clarity in insanity? After all going crazy is supposed to be very liberating so isn't possible that it is because of that fact that Hamlet can be so insightful?

---

The wisdom of the fool/madman idea recurs throughout Shakespeare’s works as well as throughout the works of his contemporaries. Whether or not you believe Hamlet is mad is up to you but as you are writing for university, why not explore the need for such a debate in the first place? What difference does it make to you if he is mad? For me, the belief that he’s mad detracts from my sense of his plight as that of a sensitive, thinking person caught up in a corrupt world (and unavoidably corrupted by it). Perhaps that’s because that’s how I like to see myself. :D I think the reasons go deeper though – why has the issue continued to arouse interest over the years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “Dark Lady”

And finally - someone said something about Hamlet not seeming thirty and I just wanted to say that I read a very convincing website about the different versions of 'Hamlet' and how originally there was no reference to him being thirty whatsoever.

---

It was me – I think of him as mid-twenties at most – yet very few films or even stage performances have a Hamlet as young as that. I know that the different versions of the texts conflict but students usually ask me how old I think he is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lady

...
I don't understand why everyone keeps mentioning the Oedipus theory. I didn't get that from 'Hamlet' at all! I just thought he was a bit pissed off for his Dad because his Mum jumped into bed with his uncle so soon after his Dad died. Am I missing something?

---

No, you're not missing anything. There isn't any real Oedipus Complex in Hamlet. It's an idea that some people have gotten, but it isn't really there. Of course the Freudian people like to think it is. Hamlet is so famous (most quoted writing in English after the Bible, etc.) that people always try to use it, in support of their own specialty, somehow. They usually do that without a good understanding of the play, itself, tho.

Quote:

---

... someone said something about Hamlet not seeming thirty and I just wanted to say that I read a very convincing website about the different versions of 'Hamlet' and how originally there was no reference to him being thirty whatsoever.

---

Hamlet is 23.

The Gravedigger has gotten his numbers mixed up. A person has to keep in mind that the Gravedigger is a *clown.* That isn't the same as a "Fool" in Shakespeare. A Shakespeare Fool is a character who speaks the truth, in a witty way. But a Clown misuses words, and makes mistakes.

As soon as the Gravedigger mentions "thirty years," Hamlet asks him:

~~~
How long will a man lie in the earth ere he rot?
~~~

It connects right back to the "lie" wordplay at the beginning of their conversation, where Hamlet accused the Gravedigger of "lying" in the grave. Hamlet is saying that again.

Hamlet means, if the Gravedigger has been at work for 30 years, he's been "lying" in the earth for 30 years, so how come he hasn't rotted away yet? Hamlet is actually asking the Gravedigger, facetiously, why he, himself, hasn't rotted.

In other words, Hamlet is saying that the Gravedigger is "lying" when he implies Hamlet is 30. He's not.

The Gravedigger doesn't catch that it's a personal reference to him, and he starts talking seriously about buried bodies. He missed the "lie" joke, at his own expense.

On the numbers, the Gravedigger is just mixed up.

Gertrude and Hamlet Sr were married for 30 years.

Hamlet is 23.

Yorick has been dead 16 years. The early spelling of "sexton" (the Gravedigger's job title) was "sixteene," if I recall correctly. It's spelled like "16." The Gravedigger has confused his own job title with how long Yorick has been dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lady

So for one thing - I don't understand why everyone keeps mentioning the Oedipus theory. I didn't get that from 'Hamlet' at all! I just thought he was a bit pissed off for his Dad because his Mum jumped into bed with his uncle so soon after his Dad died. Am I missing something?

---

Some people think that there's an Oedipal complex between Hamlet and his mother, in that he wants to sleep with his mother and that he is jealous of his uncle. However, some people don't. It all depends on how you picture it and/or how you have seen it played. I hear that in some versions, Gertrude is shown as an alcoholic while in others, she shows an interest in Hamlet of a more mature nature and in others she is just a concerned mother. It really all depends on how you picture it. Being a play, there are no set roles on how the characters should act, they are for you to inturpret however you wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebiird

We've just started studying Hamlet in english lit. I've already read it once and found it brilliant (I read a version in modern language, so I didn't need to get my head around the Shakespearian langauge, if I had, I probably wouldn't have liked it as much)

---

STOP RIGHT THERE! Shakespeare's language is difficult at first - but the language is the thing! You need to make an effort with the language, or you are wasting your time with Lit matey! Perhaps get a version with exp[lanations of some of the language - but MAKE THE EFFORT. The magic of Shakespeare - and it is magical, life changing, brain expanding stuff - is in the language. If you can't be bothered, drop English Literature and do English Language. You can analyse the language on a crisp packet or whatever it is they do.

I read an essay recently called 'Dying as an Art' by Fintan O' Toole (In 'Shakespeare is Difficult, but so is life'- not wholly related to this question, but a great read, and I am meant to be working at the moment, so can't get into this question right now! Will probably post later if I get time. A difficult question - as Harry Levin says: "Hamlet is the most problematic play ever written by Shakespeare or any other playwright". Don't look for easy answers - get stuck into the language and you'll find some. Without looking at the language, your answer will be worthless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinaski

STOP RIGHT THERE! Shakespeare's language is difficult at first - but the language is the thing! You need to make an effort with the language, or you are wasting your time with Lit matey! Perhaps get a version with exp[lanations of some of the language - but MAKE THE EFFORT. The magic of Shakespeare - and it is magical, life changing, brain expanding stuff - is in the language. If you can't be bothered, drop English Literature and do English Language. You can analyse the language on a crisp packet or whatever it is they do.

---

Perhaps I should have mentioned. This version that I read had the old and modern text, on separate pages, side by side. And, I was only reading it (the first time) to understand what it was about, as I was in the process of repeating my GCSE's, when I had been expecting to move onto A-level. I decided that, if I couldn't study it that year, I'd get a head start and find out what it was about. Besides, I don't read stories for the language, I read them for the story.

Also, I know that Shakespeare’s language is difficult; I had to study Romeo and Juliet until it got so boring that I thought I'd explode, and I know that the language is the beauty of studying Shakespeare. But, when you're looking for a reasonably quick read you do not want to be trying to get your head around the language and thinking ''Wait a minute. What is that? Oh I hate this'' no, what you want is "Oh, so that's what it's about. Now I understand."
Reading it in a language that I could completely understand, I found myself unable to put it down. Had I read the old version, as it is meant to be read, I would have lost interest.

Sorry to go on matey - you're wrong! The story is not even his, and is an OK yarn. The language is what builds up the character, and the character is what makes the story what it is. Shakespeare's genius is in the language. It should get more and more intriguing, not more and more boring - but it may be hard going at first! I'm sorry to drone on, but you will get so much more from Shakes. if you realise this fundamental truth!

I think a better way to get a 'grasp' of Shakes. is to watch a film version; you can then follow the plot and start to get into the language. Have you seen Brannagh's Hamlet? Mel Gibson's is also surprisingly good for a Hollyood version. There is also a Keanu Reaves version set in contemporary US at the Denmark Corporation - but I haven't seen that yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinaski

I think a better way to get a 'grasp' of Shakes. is to watch a film version; you can then follow the plot and start to get into the language. Have you seen Brannagh's Hamlet? Mel Gibson's is also surprisingly good for a Hollyood version. There is also a Keanu Reaves version set in contemporary US at the Denmark Corporation - but I haven't seen that yet.

---

I've mentioned it before, but must say again, for a film version of Hamlet you cannot cannot beat Tony Richardson's savagely brilliant version filmed at London's Roundhouse. Don't know how easy it is to get on video/DVD, but it's worth going to some lengths. I hate Branagh's.

I don't tend to like filmed onstage versions. Brannagh 'doesn't do what I'd do' with Hamlet, but I think it's an interesting, worthwhile production. Not exactly high praise, but...!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amleth

Hamlet is 23....Hamlet is 23.

---

Japonica
Glistens like coral in all of the neighbouring gardens,
And to-day we have naming of parts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinaski

I think a better way to get a 'grasp' of Shakes. is to watch a film version; you can then follow the plot and start to get into the language. Have you seen Brannagh's Hamlet? Mel Gibson's is also surprisingly good for a Hollyood version. There is also a Keanu Reaves version set in contemporary US at the Denmark Corporation - but I haven't seen that yet.

---

We've been watching a version of Hamlet, on DVD, I don't know which one though. I think someone said that it was a BBC version, but I couldn't tell you any more than that. We've also seen it performed at the theatre.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with the language, okay, it can be a bit confusing at times, but that's not really a problem. I'm just saying that it was much easier for me to read the modern version so that I could understand the story, and, when I read it again, for the purpose of studying, I read it in it's proper form.

Each to his own I guess! I still reckon... As for the theatre - unbeatable. I just saw Richard III in Leeds - Northern Broadside, so nice gritty accents as it should be - none of yer poncy stuff. Conrad Nelson was an amazing Richard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinaski

Each to his own I guess! I still reckon... As for the theatre - unbeatable. I just saw Richard III in Leeds - Northern Broadside, so nice gritty accents as it should be - none of yer poncy stuff. Conrad Nelson was an amazing Richard.

---

Actually, in my case, it's each to her own but I won't bother with that. It's definately best to see a play performed, then you can really get into it, and I've found that it's far more memorable than if you just read it. So, is that one thing, at least that we agree on?

I'm sure we agree on many things. I have reverted to my old member name by the way - it's a long story!