Hamlet. Was he really mad?

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). Anyway.
My tutor raised an interesting question during a recent lesson. 'Was Hamlet actually mad?'
What I mean is, was Hamlet just acting mad :confused: , did he actually go mad :banana: or both; did he act mad at first and then go mad?
We know he states that he is going to act mad, but, did he snap and go mad for real? That is the question. I'd love to hear what other people think about this question.

It's a vexed question.
Read more essays about this theme...

google can help :)

See 'Similar Threads' below

This is what I wrote about it last year :


I belive that Hamlet doesn't just act mad, in fact I believe he IS mad. Let me explain. I read the play for class a couple of years ago and as I was going over it before an exam I came up with this theory with a friend. Throughout the play there are two groups of characters, those who see Hamlet's ghost (Horatio, Bernardo, Marcellus...etc.) and those who don't (Claudius, Polonius...etc.). This is where it gets interesting; these two groups of characters never interact with eachother until the final scene of the play. It's as if Horatio & co. are as inexistant to the others as is the ghost. Hamlet interacts with all the characters and this leads me to think that the ghost and all the characters who see the ghost are just a fragment of Hamlet's imagination, his madness.
Of course, this is all very Freudian which may seem anachronic, but there is also quite a strong allusion to the Oedipus complexe, Hamlet hates his (step) father who stole his mother's love and he now wants to kill him. To sum it all up; I think the ghost is Hamlet's way of persuading himself that it is right to kill his step father.
This is a little far fetched but it did get me a great grade for the exam, heh.


http://www.online-literature.com/for...ead.php?t=7649 that's the full thread

It's been a while since I read Hamlet, but it was my impression that he was reasonably sane, although somewhat depressed, throughout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

It's been a while since I read Hamlet, but it was my impression that he was reasonably sane, although somewhat depressed, throughout.

---

This is what I think too. But, I'm keeping an open mind to other theories, both sides of the arugment, if you will.
One has to wonder, seeing the ghost of your dead father, being told that your uncle; now step father murdered him, knowing that you must avenge your father's death and have people telling you to stop grieving. Surely this could drive anyone mad, perhaps to the point of destruction :rage:.
And all of the people that die, because you've either killed them yourself, or they've died because of you. Couldn't the guilt drive you mad?

Like I said, I myself believe him to be sane throughout, just a little slow; and it seems that many people agree. But I wonder, could it be possible for the character to have actually gone mad?
That is a matter of opinion.
And people always have opinoins, which I'd love to hear. We are already getting an interesting view of opinions on this thread. The more, the better ;)

I never thought Hamlet was insane. I really didn't noticed any signs of it, I believe it's understood that acting that way is beneficial for the task of avenging his father, albeit he doubts throughout the entire play. Maybe Shakespeare made him so good at it that he even misleads readers. ;)

As Polonius said:

Quote:

---

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

---

Woah, Mark, my mind is blown by your theory. I never noticed that or thought about it. It's fascinating, but personally I think it's a bit far fetched. Not that I'm knocking the whole 'Hamlet-is-a-nutcase' thing. Horatio says something very interesting when the ghost is trying to speak with Hamlet:

"What if it tempt you toward the flood, my lord, or to the dreadful summit of the cliff that beetles o'er his base into the sea, and there assume some other horrible form, which might deprive your sovereignty of reason and draw you into madness?" (Act I scene V)

Of course, Horatio can see the ghost himself, so he doesn't believe Hamlet is mad. But the idea of follow the ghost and risk madness could be a nice little bit of forshadowing.

I agree with you Oedipus complex comments. Hamlet seems more bitter about the king and queen's romance than hateful towards his uncle on any really personal level. And when he talks with the ghost, it certainly seems that he's looking for justification for revenge. After all, the spectre shows up and tells Hamlet "I'm your dad, you're uncle's evil, avenge my death, blah blah", and while everyone else is muttering about fiends from hell, Hamlet doesn't take a lot of convincing.

However, like Bluebiird, I like keeping an open mind. Hamlet DOESN'T act mad for most of the play, and then, the whole play's pretty damned depressing already. Maybe my subconscious doesn't like the idea of Mad Hamlet.

I think you have to take the commonly-discussed theme of "appearance vs. reality" into account here.

Hamlet says to Horatio etc. that he will "put on" an "antic disposition," meaning that he will be adopting the suit of madness. This recalls his speech to Gertrude where he defends his long period of mourning for his father, saying that he "know[s] not seems" she had told him previously that "suits of solemn black" were to be cast off as an actor would a mask.

Now that all that is out of the way; I think that Hamlet is faking his craziness and that very shortly after he adopts this "disposition" the people around him begin to get wind of that idea. Act II sc 2 has Polonius (usually played as the most bumbling character in the play) figure out a hint of this when he says to the audience "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't." I must say, if POLONIUS can catch wind of this, then there must be SOME grounds to it.

The problem with this idea is that Hamlet actually says to Laertes just before their duel that what he did to wrong him (ie kill Polonius) "was madness" and he can take no responsibility for it because it wasn't him who performed the act. (Act V, scene 2) Well, there's a couple of ways to look at this: One, Hamlet was mad for the instant that he killed Polonius (temporary insanity). Or Two, Hamlet wants to fool himself into believing that he did no wrong and cannot be held responsible for Polonius' death (self-deception).

Just some thoughts...hope they came out clearly. This is my first post on a forum, so be gentle :nod:

In the film "The Colditz Story" (and in an episode of the "Colditz" TV series) there is an officer that feigns madness in order to be released, resisting all attempts to prove that he is shamming. The irony is that when he is finally released, he is genuinely insane, having played the part for too long and too well.

This is always the way that I see Hamlet.

I am amazed at the amount of people giving their views on this topic. I expected it to be a case of ''yes'', ''no'', ''right, let's get on with other posts now''. I am absolutely loving reading everyone's views. It gives us all different views of the play, through other people's eyes.

Remember, there is no right or wrong answer, I want to know what you believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gsingle33

Just some thoughts...hope they came out clearly. This is my first post on a forum, so be gentle :nod:

---

Well, I'm honoured that you've chosen my thread for your first post 'gsingle33'. Welcome. And I look forward to reading some of your posts in the near future :)

I have never considered Hamlet to be mad (except in the sense of ‘angry’, as in his attack on women with Ophelia). In fact, I think he’s the sanest character in the Literature I’ve encountered so far (with the possible exceptions of Tom Sawyer and Richard III ). I suppose he must appear odd to the great and good of Elsinore. He questions his world in the kind of detail his world deserves. He sees more than anyone else in the play. How can anyone doubt the sanity of someone who gives that ‘What a piece of work is a man!” speech?

For me, the nearest he comes is in the scene with his mother (Act 3 scene iv), when he confronts her over having married Claudius, so much his father’s inferior. He simply cannot understand why she can’t see things the way he does. It’s the only time in the play when Hamlet looks so passionately to someone else to provide answers. She simply concludes, “Alas, alas, he’s mad.” I think the scene shows how young he is (I can’t believe he’s the thirty of the text). His advice to his mother has an almost childlike simplicity about it. Only someone relatively inexperienced in life could believe this:

“Refrain to-night,
And that shall lend a kind of easiness
To the next abstinence: the next more easy;”

I think part of his behaviour can be ‘explained’ by often overlooked lines from Act 5 scene i, when he says to Laertes:

“I prithee, take thy fingers from my throat;
For, though I am not splenitive and rash,
Yet have I something in me dangerous,
Which let thy wiseness fear:”


Perhaps we should heed Hamlet’s warning to Guildenstern:

“Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of
me! You would play upon me; you would seem to know
my stops; you would pluck out the heart of my
mystery; you would sound me from my lowest note to
the top of my compass: and there is much music,
excellent voice, in this little organ; yet cannot
you make it speak. 'Sblood, do you think I am
easier to be played on than a pipe? Call me what
instrument you will, though you can fret me, yet you
cannot play upon me.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gsingle33

This is my first post on a forum, so be gentle :nod:

---

Ah, I remember my first post to this very forum. It was a balmy evening in the Valleys. I’d been chopping wood all day. Sipping vermouth, I let the monitor light and the hypnotic strains of Debussy entice me into a state of gay abandonment. The blood was banging in my ears. I knew I wanted to. I’d been thinking about it for longer than I’d ever admit. By the time you reach a certain age, you feel you have to, but I was worried that I’d do it wrong somehow. What if my efforts weren’t appreciated? What if I picked up a virus? I mean, they always seem to know what to do in the movies but this was real life. Once I’d made up my mind though, I knew that I’d see it through. Taking a deep breath, I softly eased my cupped hand around the mouse and pressed gently with my right index finger, “Submit”. It must have shot it into cyberspace at the speed of light because my creation appeared on the screen before me in an instant. The sense of release was overwhelming and I shuddered over and over. Then I sighed and lit up a cigarette.

I think it depends on your definition of madness. I mean, clearly Hamlet does not have schizophrenia, or MPD.

In my English class, we define madness as emotion overpowering reason. By this definition, you realize, we are all a little mad, sometimes.

Hamlet certainly is. In the Nunnery Scene, for instance, he is certainly mad. However, in the scene where Hamlet calls Claudius his mother, he is obviously not mad, despite what his words might suggest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empress Kat

In the Nunnery Scene, for instance, he is certainly mad.

---

Why do you think Hamlet is mad in the ‘nunnery’ scene? I would agree that he is vicious and desperate but does that make him mad? The fact that Polonius, Claudius and Gertrude all assume that he’s mad makes me even less likely to believe it. I think it’s easier to consider Hamlet mad than it is to see him as I do – a ‘perpetual witness’.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

I think it’s easier to consider Hamlet mad than it is to see him as I do – a ‘perpetual witness’.

---

Hmmmm....could you elaborate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gsingle33

Hmmmm....could you elaborate?

---

I’ll try but I don’t think it’ll do much good because I don’t share the belief, very well represented in many contributions on Hamlet here on the forum, that he’s a miserable ditherer who needs a good slap to make him quit his moaning and appreciate what he’s got.

The phrase, ‘perpetual witness’ comes from Saul Bellow – used to describe Moses Herzog. It conveys his sense of seeing with great clarity, yet not being able to switch off from, the endless parade of viciousness, evil, banality and crassness that is the life going on all around us.

On another thread, Hamlet’s so-called delay in killing Claudius is offered as evidence of one of his ‘tragic flaws’. In that thread, I asked, “Hamlet doesn’t act? What should he do? Kill someone? Why?”

It’s as if they believe that had Hamlet simply taken a sword to Claudius, the questions he raises would go away.

I think there seems to be an assumption that anyone with any sense would just get on with it, presumably like Laertes, who is prepared to kill someone without any thought. He’s prepared to kill Claudius simply on the basis of initially assuming that he’s responsible for his father’s death. The fact that Hamlet thinks profoundly about the meaning and implications of such actions (and I’m not simply saying that he considers the morality of murder by saying this) makes him ‘wet’ for a lot of people. The one time he does act without “thinking too precisely”, he ends up killing Polonius. A number of my students over the years have complained that ‘he thinks too much’, preferring such an explanation to admitting that it’s they who don’t think enough. Hamlet exposes aspects of our behaviour and asks questions that many would prefer to ignore, or simply don’t see. They distract us from the real business of life, whatever they assume that to be.

Hamlet’s ‘problem’ is that he thinks and feels. No one in the play can see the beauty, splendour and grandeur of life as he can (“this majestical roof fretted with golden fire”). However, no one is so paralysed by the other side of the coin, either. I love the idea that a mere character who thinks more than anyone on this entire forum could benefit from the homespun advice of those with all the answers.

It’s easier to consider him insane than it is to address his observations.

Bertrand Russell said that most people would die rather than think. Most people do.

I agree with most of what you said. Just a couple of points to fire back...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Hamlet’s ‘problem’ is that he thinks and feels. No one in the play can see the beauty, splendour and grandeur of life as he can (“this majestical roof fretted with golden fire”). However, no one is so paralysed by the other side of the coin, either. I love the idea that a mere character who thinks more than anyone on this entire forum could benefit from the homespun advice of those with all the answers.

---

I partially disagree . I think there are others in the play who think and feel (perhaps only because Hamlet incites them to it, and there is definitely less thinking than feeling is going on). For instance, Claudius feels remorse for his actions, but cannot force himself to relinquish the gains "for which [he] did the murder" and therefore must continue down the damned path knowing his end will be in Hell. Of course, this may not have come to pass at all if 'The Mousetrap' had not been put on. He may have gone about his business with the crown and the queen without much thought toward his actions in acquiring them. Another example that you brought up is Laertes. He obviously feels the loss of his sister and his father, so much so that his desire for revenge would prompt him to "cut [Hamlet's] throat i' th' church" without thought (or perhaps care) for his own damnation at such an act. He then quells his own emotions in order to exact his revenge and become the "organ" of Hamlet's death. If that is not an expression of thought, I don't know what to call it.

My theory (and I may be splitting hairs here) is that Hamlet's problem is his view of the wider issue, the wider world outside of his own circumstances. Everyone else in the play narrowly percieves their own lives, but do not necessarily connect to the larger picture. Personally, I trace that back to his education. Without Wittenburg, Hamlet might have been more like Fortinbras: seeing what he wanted and taking steps to acheive it. I doubt Fortinbras would have thought about all the soldiers who were to die for "a little patch of ground," but Hamlet probably would have considered their lives, their families, and their friends. This is not a flaw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

It’s easier to consider him insane than it is to address his observations.

---

I also think it is easier to consider him "a man who could not make up his mind" than to consider the possiblity of the human race reaching Hamlet's level of contemplation. Some would react with, "We would never get anything done if that were the case." Well, if 'anything' really means what we do without thought or care for the larger picture (war, consumption, blind acceptance, etc.), which is probably somewhere near 80% of what we do during any given day, then I'm quite alright with that scenario and frankly consider it something of an ideal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gsingle33

I agree with most of what you said. Just a couple of points to fire back...

---

Is this a duel? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gsingle33

I partially disagree . I think there are others in the play who think and feel (perhaps only because Hamlet incites them to it, and there is definitely less thinking than feeling is going on). For instance, Claudius feels remorse for his actions, but cannot force himself to relinquish the gains "for which [he] did the murder" and therefore must continue down the damned path knowing his end will be in Hell. Of course, this may not have come to pass at all if 'The Mousetrap' had not been put on. He may have gone about his business with the crown and the queen without much thought toward his actions in acquiring them. Another example that you brought up is Laertes. He obviously feels the loss of his sister and his father, so much so that his desire for revenge would prompt him to "cut [Hamlet's] throat i' th' church" without thought (or perhaps care) for his own damnation at such an act. He then quells his own emotions in order to exact his revenge and become the "organ" of Hamlet's death. If that is not an expression of thought, I don't know what to call it.

---

I didn’t say that no one else feels. I was simply pointing out that Hamlet is far more appreciative of the world around him than many readers/viewers seem to assume. Look at his ‘What a piece of work is a man” speech. He can see what few others either can or choose to.

HAMLET:
To what base uses we may return, Horatio! Why may
not imagination trace the noble dust of Alexander,
till he find it stopping a bung-hole?

HORATIO:
'Twere to consider too curiously, to consider so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gsingle33

I also think it is easier to consider him "a man who could not make up his mind" than to consider the possiblity of the human race reaching Hamlet's level of contemplation. Some would react with, "We would never get anything done if that were the case."

---

Of course they would – it’s part of our conditioning. I don’t think of Hamlet as “a man who could not make up his mind”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gsingle33

Well, if 'anything' really means what we do without thought or care for the larger picture (war, consumption, blind acceptance, etc.), which is probably somewhere near 80% of what we do during any given day, then I'm quite alright with that scenario and frankly consider it something of an ideal.

---

I don’t understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that you accept that we don’t think most of the time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Why do you think Hamlet is mad in the ‘nunnery’ scene? I would agree that he is vicious and desperate but does that make him mad? The fact that Polonius, Claudius and Gertrude all assume that he’s mad makes me even less likely to believe it. I think it’s easier to consider Hamlet mad than it is to see him as I do – a ‘perpetual witness’.

---

I'm curious as to what definition of madness you are using. Clearly, it isn't the one I mentioned, but I am curious all the same.

Okay, so, as stated I define 'madness' as the state when emotion overpowers reason; when one let's their feelings get the better of them. I believe that, in the nunnery scene, Hamlet's emotions did get the better of him. He was fairly civil to Ophelia, at first. He begins to get angry, and asks her again, give her one last chance "Where is your father". When Ophelia answers the Claudius is at home- and I belive that Hamlet, of course, knew this to be a lie- Hamlet flips, gets angry, and yells at Ophelia more then he had intended to. It is temporary madness, true, but it is madness all the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empress Kat

It is temporary madness, true, but it is madness all the same.

---

So madness can be defined as 'losing one's temper under provocation'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empress Kat

I'm curious as to what definition of madness you are using. Clearly, it isn't the one I mentioned, but I am curious all the same.

---

When I hear Hamlet described as ‘mad’, I assume it to mean something more than extreme anger. I take it to mean that he has completely lost all reason and can no longer be viewed as having any legitimate claim to speaking sense. What most of my students mean when they describe him as 'mad' is that he asks questions that they consider irrelevant and meaningless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Is this a duel? :D

---

Sorry, don't think I came off very clearly before. I was mostly agreeing with what you said and expanding on it a bit. I thought perhaps you were insinuating that other characters in the play do not think.

And yes, I do accept that we do not think most of the time. It seems to be a sadly evident fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gsingle33

And yes, I do accept that we do not think most of the time. It seems to be a sadly evident fact.

---

Now it's my turn to aplogise for not making myself clear. By 'accept' I meant 'consider it okay' but your calling it a 'sadly evident fact' shows that you don't accept it in the sense I meant.

[COLOR=Royal Blue]Hey Guys...A few quick things-I'm new to this forum, I'm from Queensland Australia, I'm open-minded and I enjoy critically analysing shakespeare's work (especially 'Hamlet').
And I, like alot of the other people asking questions on this forum are studying Hamlet at school (yr 12), and I'm in the process of writing up an adaptation to Hamlet (That's how I came across the interesting forum)!

...This particular thread that I've been following, which talks about the subject of 'madness' and how well it correlates to Hamlet himself, has sparked my interest quite abit. I agree to the notion that Hamlet was not mad although he portrays being it brilliantly. I believe that he still has his wits about him, and I further believe that Hamlet himself takes a very critical eye to the world around him...which I find really cool.

So, MY question is...'Is it possible to position an audience to believe that Hamlet WAS actually mad?' This would be a hard thing to do I believe, but anyone who know's alot about 'Hamlet' and is able to deconstruct it, should be able to have the creative ability to argue that Hamlet WAS infact mad...mad as in 'lost in his own world', 'lost ability to reason', and in a more accurate case, perhaps 'paranoia' through thinking that the people around him are part of a filthy conspiracy.

To cut right to the chase though, I'm after someone who can willingly offer me some insite of what quotes, lines, or inferences I could perhaps use from Hamlet, to support IN FAVOUR of the idea that HAMLET IS MAD...

Can anyone help me? I'm very eager to hear any feedback.

Thanks

SIHAc


P.s pronounced 'Sigh-hack'...as in the 'periodic table of elements Si H and Ac'...lol....their atomic numbers' are 14 01 89..as in 14th Jan 89-my birthday!!

SIHAc,

This is very difficult – in my case you are asking me to offer evidence that supports a view of Hamlet I simply don’t accept. He isn’t any madder than I am (no, wait a minute, that’s not the best way to convince people here, is it?). I did see the Mark Rylance performance years ago –the one where Rylance’s Hamlet spent most of the play in his pyjamas. He was on the verge of a breakdown the whole time but this just added to my sense of his vulnerability as a sensitive, thinking human being stuck in a crass and vicious world. He’s not so much lost in his own world as lost in their world (which I’m sure most of us feel about ourselves at times).

However, if you really want to suggest that he’s lost his ability to reason, you could look at the scene with his mother in Act 3 scene 4. His monomaniacal obsession with his mother’s sexual behaviour with Claudius takes him into areas that border on insanity, I suppose. His language does suggest that he has a rather unhealthy view of sex, to say the least:

“but to live
In the rank sweat of an enseamed bed,
Stew'd in corruption, honeying and making love
Over the nasty sty,--“


It is obviously significant that the Ghost returns at this point and reminds Hamlet that he’s straying ‘off topic’. :lol:

But then he is still rational enough to make the following point to Gertrude:

“Mother, for love of grace,
Lay not that mattering unction to your soul,
That not your trespass, but my madness speaks:”

A few lines later, he shows that he is almost like a child. The following argument is unconvincing to anyone with much experience. It’s a naivety similar to when a child asks, “why can’t we share all the food so that there would be no more starving people?”

“Refrain to-night,
And that shall lend a kind of easiness
To the next abstinence: the next more easy;”

Earlier in the play (Act 1 sc. 5), there is Hamlet’s behaviour after meeting the Ghost. Horatio is a good sort and even he is somewhat alarmed:

“These are but wild and whirling words, my lord.”

That’s about all I can manage for now.

The Unnamable,

Thanks for you reply. When I sent the message out in the first place, I realised that I would be challenging the views of many people, as you pointed out. But I appreciate the insite you gave me and I'm sure it would be very helpful in my upcoming play for English.

The context of my play is going to involve (hopefully) Hamlet visiting a shrink, where Hamlet argues that he is sane, where as the psychologist tries to convince Hamlet to see that he is actually mad-A tough thing to prove, but i like the challenge and the idea of going against the homogeny of thought (that hamlet was just feining madness).

Thanks again, and I hope we can consult eachother more often in time, on our shared notions of Hamlet's character.

Sihac.

Hamlet is human. Sanity is, in its entirety, a relative concept. In relation to you or me is Hamlet sane? Most people would believe no, though they may say otherwise, and even think otherwise, cosmetically. He acts like a lunatic in public. So have I, and no doubt so have you. He is ambivalent toward Ophelia. I have heard a number of arguments made to prove that he does indeed love her. The fact remains that he does not trust her, and whether this is neurotic paranoia or lucid caution has no impact on the meaning: there can be no love without trust. He balks at avenging his father. These misteps either occur before he has proof of his uncle's villainy, or at times he rationalizes as imperfect opportunities. Hamlet's perceived sanity or lack thereof is contingent on the audience and how he or she relates to Hamlet. A better question would be; are you sane? Explain why or why not. Define sanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leper

Hamlet is human. Sanity is, in its entirety, a relative concept. In relation to you or me is Hamlet sane? Most people would believe no, though they may say otherwise, and even think otherwise, cosmetically. He acts like a lunatic in public. So have I, and no doubt so have you. He is ambivalent toward Ophelia. I have heard a number of arguments made to prove that he does indeed love her. The fact remains that he does not trust her, and whether this is neurotic paranoia or lucid caution has no impact on the meaning: there can be no love without trust. He balks at avenging his father. These misteps either occur before he has proof of his uncle's villainy, or at times he rationalizes as imperfect opportunities. Hamlet's perceived sanity or lack thereof is contingent on the audience and how he or she relates to Hamlet. A better question would be; are you sane? Explain why or why not. Define sanity.

---

Leper,

Wow, you put forward a very interesting and thought-out point. And i see how it is very noticeable in the play with each of the characters. Your message made me think about another topic though too. How is it that Hamlet trusts this ghost with ownly minor questioning, and completely distrusts Ophelia when he thinks she's against him even though with her is where most of his trust should lie? He had more solid reasons for trusting her than this 'ghost who too the image of his father'.
It's odd to me. :confused:
A very complex character he is.

Thanks for your reply Leper

SiHac

It's ironic that I'm critcal analysing English, yet I only seem to be able to write like Yoda would speak. lol

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...!