Suicide in Hamlet

[Redzeppelin]

Taking Hamlet's words on their face, yes, he speaks of suicide. But these are words of an immature mind that convey more a desperation and hopelessness than intent or ideation.

I'm sorry - to call Hamlet's mind "immature" is beyond what I can accept. The play reveals in every word of Hamlet a virtuoso intellect of devastating insight, irony and perception. He's emotional, but immature? I don't buy that. There's not a character in the play whom he does not tie up with words and then have his way with. No character in the Shakespeare canon can stand toe-to-toe with Hamlet in terms of intellect.

I'm aware of the Richard II similarity - its a nice tie in.

[Jim58]

I'm sorry - to call Hamlet's mind "immature" is beyond what I can accept. The play reveals in every word of Hamlet a virtuoso intellect of devastating insight, irony and perception. He's emotional, but immature? I don't buy that. There's not a character in the play whom he does not tie up with words and then have his way with. No character in the Shakespeare canon can stand toe-to-toe with Hamlet in terms of intellect.

Let's take a look at Hamlet from a different perspective for a moment. He is a teenager, 16 17 years old. His wit is what I would expect from educated nobility but its use is cocky, disrespectful and juvenile. Our initial impression of Hamlet in 1.2 is not mature behavior. Setting aside for a moment Claudius' view of Hamlet as immature, look at Hamlet's response when Claudius and Gertrude ask Hamlet to stay at Elsinore. "I shall in all my best obey you, madam." That's a childish statement. Hamlet says he will listen to his mother just to slight Claudius even though they both say the same thing.

His appearance, dressed in black, is selfish. Even though the day is one of happiness for mom and uncle, Hamlet isn't going to respect the occasion. Is he showing a duty to his father's memory or is he just being difficult? I think he is just trying to creat a scene. This is further confirmed as the play advances because Hamlet's diligence to his father's memory wains in spite of a heightened duty occasioned by his knowledge of the murder.

Two things in his first soliloquy that follows shows immaturity. Hamlet has no sense of proportion. As is typical with teenagers he sees events as personal to him and verging on the fatal. "Oh my god, I could just die, my life, my world is falling apart." He is particularly poetic (and unrealistic) in his view of death. Melting, thawing and resolving into dew. There is purity in the imagery and the sentiment. By the end of the play Hamlet sees death more realistically attended as it is with dirt and worms.

Second, Hamlet's statement about the frailty of women drawn as it is from one observation, his mother, is faulty inductive reasoning. It draws broad conclusions from very narrow observation. To him the conclusion makes sense. He uses this same faulty reasoning to condemn himself and Ophelia to a life like his mother and father in the nunnery scene.

Hamlet has not a kind word for Polonius through the whole play. He takes the good old man's "senility" as a license to be openly rude.

Hamlet's youthful impetuousness has him chase after the ghost and stab Polonius. It also has his mouth run ahead of his head as when the Ghost tells him of the circumstance of his death or when he is so caught up with celebrating his own cleverness in catching the conscience of the King, he celebrates with the players rather than following Claudius and finish him off.

I think Hamlet's real dynamic is his transition from the fantasies of youth to the realities and burdens of adulthood. Gertrude is a queen and mother who is also a sexual being. These are things that are a part of growing up. That's how I see Hamlet.

[Redzeppelin]

Let's take a look at Hamlet from a different perspective for a moment. He is a teenager, 16 17 years old. His wit is what I would expect from educated nobility but its use is cocky, disrespectful and juvenile. Our initial impression of Hamlet in 1.2 is not mature behavior. Setting aside for a moment Claudius' view of Hamlet as immature, look at Hamlet's response when Claudius and Gertrude ask Hamlet to stay at Elsinore. "I shall in all my best obey you, madam." That's a childish statement. Hamlet says he will listen to his mother just to slight Claudius even though they both say the same thing.

No - this is flat-out wrong. First, if you wanted textual evidence, the conversation with the grave-diggers in 5.1 would put Hamlet at about 30 years old.

Next - there is nothing juvenile about Hamlet's responses to his mother and Claudius; not only have they disrespected the dead by marrying within two months of Hamlet Sr.'s death, but they are committing incest as per medieval canon law. He has a right to be extremely angry. His jab at Claudius is less a childish statement than a clear message that his kingship holds no authority over Hamlet (who later speaks of Claudius' essential "usurping" of the throne). It's your interpretation that the comment is childish. You seem to forget that Claudius spent 20 lines telling Hamlet how unfit he is:

KING CLAUDIUS
'Tis sweet and commendable in your nature, Hamlet,
To give these mourning duties to your father:
But, you must know, your father lost a father;
That father lost, lost his, and the survivor bound
In filial obligation for some term
To do obsequious sorrow: but to persever
In obstinate condolement is a course
Of impious stubbornness; 'tis unmanly grief;
It shows a will most incorrect to heaven,
A heart unfortified, a mind impatient,
An understanding simple and unschool'd:
For what we know must be and is as common
As any the most vulgar thing to sense,
Why should we in our peevish opposition
Take it to heart? Fie! 'tis a fault to heaven,
A fault against the dead, a fault to nature,
To reason most absurd: whose common theme
Is death of fathers, and who still hath cried,
From the first corse till he that died to-day,
'This must be so.'

I'd be angry too if told this by a man committing incest with my mother who'd taken a position as ruler that was rightfully mine.

His appearance, dressed in black, is selfish. Even though the day is one of happiness for mom and uncle, Hamlet isn't going to respect the occasion. Is he showing a duty to his father's memory or is he just being difficult? I think he is just trying to creat a scene. This is further confirmed as the play advances because Hamlet's diligence to his father's memory wains in spite of a heightened duty occasioned by his knowledge of the murder.

His dressing in black may very well be a visual rebuke to his mother, who should have mourned far longer for her dead husband than two months. You speak as if selfishness is some sort of age indicator. It's not. Look at the behavior of most of the people in the play.

Two things in his first soliloquy that follows shows immaturity. Hamlet has no sense of proportion. As is typical with teenagers he sees events as personal to him and verging on the fatal. "Oh my god, I could just die, my life, my world is falling apart." He is particularly poetic (and unrealistic) in his view of death. Melting, thawing and resolving into dew. There is purity in the imagery and the sentiment. By the end of the play Hamlet sees death more realistically attended as it is with dirt and worms.

None of this lends weight to the idea that he's immature. He's lost his father and his mother and his uncle are married in violation of canon law. You act as if he's supposed to just intellectualize away some significant pains.

Second, Hamlet's statement about the frailty of women drawn as it is from one observation, his mother, is faulty inductive reasoning. It draws broad conclusions from very narrow observation. To him the conclusion makes sense. He uses this same faulty reasoning to condemn himself and Ophelia to a life like his mother and father in the nunnery scene.

No - he uses his mother as the primary example of his claim. Hamlet's claims are made from his broad understanding of life and human nature.

Hamlet has not a kind word for Polonius through the whole play. He takes the good old man's "senility" as a license to be openly rude.

Polonius is not senile; Polonius is a spy, a meddler, a manipulator and a gadfly. Remember, as well, that Hamlet was faking insanity for much of the play during his interactions with Polonius. As adivsor to Claudius (and assumably Hamlet Sr. before), it's reasonable to assume that Hamlet resented Polonius' support of the incestuous marriage and saw him as a threat (since anything said to Polonius went straight to Claudius).

Hamlet's youthful impetuousness has him chase after the ghost and stab Polonius. It also has his mouth run ahead of his head as when the Ghost tells him of the circumstance of his death or when he is so caught up with celebrating his own cleverness in catching the conscience of the King, he celebrates with the players rather than following Claudius and finish him off.

One can be impetuous and be a mature adult. You seem to ignore the high emotional content of these scenes and what they would mean to any young man. None of the things you're using to argue your point are unequivocally the behaviors of an immature youth; adults do these things too.

I think Hamlet's real dynamic is his transition from the fantasies of youth to the realities and burdens of adulthood. Gertrude is a queen and mother who is also a sexual being. These are things that are a part of growing up. That's how I see Hamlet.

Well, you're free to keep your interpretation, but I cannot agree with it. His dialogue reveals immense maturity, intelligence, complexity and understanding. Nobody in the play can keep up with him. He outsmarts all. That he gets emotional or distraught or acts impetuously is more a function of his tragic flaw than his youth.

[Jim58]

I find your view too idealized but I hope it works out for you.

For now I'll just point out two errors. First your reliance on the gravedigger scene to establish Hamlet as a 30 year old isn't as textually grounded as you suggest.

In the graveyard scene (5.1) we are told that Hamlet was born, "that day that our last King Hamlet overcame Fortinbras." The problem is determining when that was. The Gravedigger ties three events together, his employment as a gravedigger, young Hamlet's birth and Fortinbras' defeat by King Hamlet. The Gravedigger then tells how long that has been.

Let's digress a bit about what the Gravedigger is going to tell us. The play as it is published today is edited from three basic texts that survived from Shakespeare's time, none of which are in his handwriting. There is the First Quarto published at about 1603, the Second Quarto published about 1604 and the Folio published in 1623. All versions of the play are based in some combination of these three texts.

Now to the Gravedigger. The Second Quarto has the Gravedigger say following (as it is printed): "I haue been Sexten heere man and boy thirty yeeres." The Folio text though recites the same passage as, "I haue bin sixeteene heere, man and Boy thirty yeares." This fairly clearly puts Hamlet's age at 16 plus. The first Quarto does not reference the passage. As you can see, today's editions of the play modernize the language abandoning those archaic spellings.

The only other time reference from the Gravedigger is the amount of time Yorick's skull has lain in the earth. The Folio oddly says, "Heres a Scull now: this Scul, has laine in the earth three & twenty years." The second Quarto says, "heer's a scull now hath lyen you i'th earth 23. yeeres." But the first Quarto is different relaying the skull's age in the ground as follow: "heres a scull hath bin here this dozen yeare,"

These 400+ years since Hamlet was first published has failed to clarify these points beyond speculation. If you want to say Hamlet is thirty in 5.1, I won't have much of a problem with that. There is no way he is thirty at the start of the play. Hamlet, Laertes, and Fortinbras are not middle aged men.

Second, the "tragic flaw" analysis from Aristotle's Poetics really has no place in Shakespeare, see, http://www.jsu.edu/depart/english/gates/shtragcv.htm This idea really has its genesis in academics from A. C. Bradley's, Shakespearean Tragedy, http://www.clicknotes.com/bradley/ where Bradley created the idea of the "tragic trait" a character based concept. Aristotle's "tragic flaw" (which is a misnomer anyway) or hamartia is a plot element not a character element appearing as it does in the Poetics in the plot chapter not the character chapter.

The notion that Shakespeare would model plays on the musings of a 2,000 year old philosopher (not a playwrite) is insulting.

[Jim58]

there is nothing juvenile about Hamlet's responses to his mother and Claudius; not only have they disrespected the dead by marrying within two months of Hamlet Sr.'s death, but they are committing incest as per medieval canon law. He has a right ...

This is a non sequitur. Whether Hamlet was justified in acting with immaturity doesn't change the nature of the conduct.

His jab at Claudius is less a childish statement than a clear message that his kingship holds no authority over Hamlet

You have no textual support for this. And yes, Claudius' asessment of Hamlet is consistent with my reading.

I'd be angry too ...

Of course, whether Hamlet is justified in his feelings is beside the point. The question is his behavior. One difference between adults and juveniles is that adults recognize societal norms and acting appropriately. Hamlet's display simply gives Claudius' claim credibility.

His dressing in black may very well be a visual rebuke to his mother, who should have mourned far longer for her dead husband than two months.

Perhaps she should have but you can't justify bad behavior with someone elses bad behavior.

he uses his mother as the primary example of his claim. Hamlet's claims are made from his broad understanding of life and human nature.

Hamlet's conclusion, "Frailty thy name is woman" is a generality drawn from one specific example - Hamlet's mother. That is faulty inductive reasoning. There is no textual support and there is certainly no basis in reality that women as a gender are inclined to act like Gertrude. Quite the contrary.

Polonius is not senile; Polonius is a spy, a meddler, a manipulator and a gadfly. Remember, as well, that Hamlet was faking insanity for much of the play during his interactions with Polonius. As adivsor to Claudius (and assumably Hamlet Sr. before), it's reasonable to assume that Hamlet resented Polonius' support of the incestuous marriage and saw him as a threat (since anything said to Polonius went straight to Claudius).

I did put quotes around senility. Though Hamlet doesn't say it, he suggests as much and I think his assessment is valid. Polonius is a "foolish prating knave" with a "plentiful lack of wit." Polonius is also duplicitous and morally ambiguous. He is wrong in his assessment of Hamlet and his language can be comical. But again, this doesn't give Hamlet license to be rude.

One can be impetuous and be a mature adult. You seem to ignore the high emotional content of these scenes and what they would mean to any young man. None of the things you're using to argue your point are unequivocally the behaviors of an immature youth; adults do these things too.

Your argument that Hamlet has, " immense maturity, intelligence, complexity and understanding" and yet frail to the " high emotional content of these scenes " is contradictory. I am merely reading the character consistent with the text.

[Redzeppelin]

This is a non sequitur. Whether Hamlet was justified in acting with immaturity doesn't change the nature of the conduct.

Recheck your Latin - my comments do logically follow. First, there is not critical agreement that Hamlet's behavior is "immature"; second, even if we grant the behavior "immature" that does not in and of itself mean that the speaker is immature age-wise.

You have no textual support for this. And yes, Claudius' asessment of Hamlet is consistent with my reading.

It's an interpretive comment - like yours that Hamlet is some sort of angry and immature teenager. That's your interpretation. My comment is mine.

Of course, whether Hamlet is justified in his feelings is beside the point. The question is his behavior. One difference between adults and juveniles is that adults recognize societal norms and acting appropriately. Hamlet's display simply gives Claudius' claim credibility.

It is not beside the point; even the legal system makes allowances for "crimes of passion" (as opposed to "in cold blood"). Your argument wishes to ignore that people in the midst of powerful emotions do illogical, immature, rash, hasty, reactive things - essentially, you argue that Hamlet's failure to be a model of emotional stability or social appropriateness somehow denies him the age of adult? All of Shakespeare's tragic heroes act in a similar manner - Lear, Othello, Macbeth, Romeo - all demonstrate acts, behaviors, attitudes, responses and choices that do not always reflect wise, mature, logical choosing.

Perhaps she should have but you can't justify bad behavior with someone elses bad behavior.

There's nothing morally reprehensible or immature about wearing the clothes of mourning; if I recall correctly, in the medieval period women were required to mourn for one year before removing the black and taking a new husband. Hamlet's ironic nature would certainly see the value in his wearing black compared to her "lack of black."

Hamlet's conclusion, "Frailty thy name is woman" is a generality drawn from one specific example - Hamlet's mother. That is faulty inductive reasoning. There is no textual support and there is certainly no basis in reality that women as a gender are inclined to act like Gertrude. Quite the contrary.

As if people who are contemplating traumas in their life are supposed to exercise syllogistic/logical accuracy in their statements; your arguments suggest that you don't really want "human" characters - you seem to want those who obey certain "laws" of behavior and that violation of these "laws" suggests a problem with the character. Not always.

I did put quotes around senility. Though Hamlet doesn't say it, he suggests as much and I think his assessment is valid. Polonius is a "foolish prating knave" with a "plentiful lack of wit." Polonius is also duplicitous and morally ambiguous. He is wrong in his assessment of Hamlet and his language can be comical. But again, this doesn't give Hamlet license to be rude.

The world of Hamlet, according to the critic William Main, is a world "tapestries" behind which all the characters are hiding. Polonius' physical concealment behind the arras is a physical enactment of what he, Claudius and Hamlet are all engaged in during the drama. If one is to pretend insanity, politeness is contrary to the intended effect. I can't believe you're quibbling about "rudeness" on Hamlet's part when his father has been betrayed in multiple ways by both Claudius and Gertrude, as well as Polonius. Polonius - as councilor to Claudius - was more than likely Hamlet Sr.'s councilor - as such, his clear support of the marriage makes him an accomplice in Hamlet's view. He is justified in his hostility towards a man who is tyring to "probe" him in numerous ways.

Your argument that Hamlet has, " immense maturity, intelligence, complexity and understanding" and yet frail to the " high emotional content of these scenes " is contradictory. I am merely reading the character consistent with the text.

Intelligent, mature and complex people have emotions too - that's what makes them human. Nothing contradictory there. Your "consistent" reading is simply you deciding that a particular set of behaviors is ONLY enacted by a particular age group in society. That is fully incorrect.


In terms of the grave-diggers: you spent a lot of effort to argue a point that wasn't a cornerstone of my argument; I simply noted that speculation of age has to give place to the information the play explicity gives.

Next - I'm aware that Shakespeare doesn't follow Aristotle - I did not imply that he did; however, Shakespeare's plays reveal an awareness of Aristotle's discussion of the tragic flaw, and the tragic heroes do (in general) follow that model. Shakespeare's primary deviation from the classic dramatists was his abandonment of the "three unities."

[Andrea2007]

I was just wondering about some of the instances in Hamlet where any character demonstrated suicide. I know some of the main parts, but i was just wondering if theirs some things that i missed.

There are many instances in Hamlet that demonstrate suicide. One of the most famous occurs in Act III Scene I Lines 57-91. It start, 'To be or not to be, that is the question.' What Hamlet is asking himself is, to live or not to live. Is it worth living if life is so terrible, or would it be better to just die. He suggests that death is like dreaming when you are asleep, you just don't wake up. In this scene, Hamlet makes death seem welcoming and better than living. We can see how depressed and unhappy Hamlet its from this speech, you understand what he is going through.
In act three scene three, King Claudius is upset after watching Hamlet's play, The Mousetrap. The play reveals that he killed his brother, King Hamlet. In this scene Claudius is praying about his sins. He is feeling guilty about what he has done. However this is not contemplating suicide. Claudius is too selfish to even think about harming himself. Continuing on to act four scene five, starting on line 171, we see Ophelia is going mad. She is deeply saddened and depressed. Hamlet, her lover, has gone crazy, killer her father, and told her that he doesn't love her any more. Ophelia goes around singing songs and passing out flowers. She is not mentall stable and it is obvious she could kill herself. At the end of the play, act five scene two, starting on line 347, Horatio wants to take his own life. He feels like he has failed Hamlet, not protecting him. He wants to drink the rest of the poison and die with Hamlet. Hamlet tells him not to, but to go and tell of his story. Horatio listens and lives.

[Zirkle2007]

At the risk of contradicting the entire thesis of this thread, may I suggest that a wish for death may not necessarily mean that Hamlet desires to actively kill himself (which is the definition of "suicide"). Hamlet wants to be done with the pain of life - that is true, but I think he is more likely looking at life as tedious and difficult, and death as release from these things. But as to an actual desire to kill himself? I think many people in dire circumstances wish for the release of death, but if you offered them a chance to kill themselves they'd say "no - I don't want to instigate my death - I just wish I weren't here anymore, dealing with this pain."

But perhaps I'm just hair-splitting here).

I would have to agree with Red. I believe Hamlet is looking and waiting for an escape from life. I don't think he actually would have killed himself. Look at all the chances he could have taken his own life. It would have ruined the play, but I think that character of Hamlet would had not committed suicide.

"To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?"

To me, Hamlet's speech here isn't saying he wants to kill himself. I take it as a debate on life and death. I think Hamlet is deciding which is better. To suffer life, or dream in death. This makes sense because he has had a pretty bad life recently. He has had to suffer through many trials and has a lot of things to deal with. This is telling me that he is just entertaining the thought of death. The same way people would rather be dead than doing something, or similar to that, but they would never actually kill themselves.

[zmichael47348]

At the risk of contradicting the entire thesis of this thread, may I suggest that a wish for death may not necessarily mean that Hamlet desires to actively kill himself (which is the definition of "suicide"). Hamlet wants to be done with the pain of life - that is true, but I think he is more likely looking at life as tedious and difficult, and death as release from these things. But as to an actual desire to kill himself? I think many people in dire circumstances wish for the release of death, but if you offered them a chance to kill themselves they'd say "no - I don't want to instigate my death - I just wish I weren't here anymore, dealing with this pain."

But perhaps I'm just hair-splitting here).

I do agree with the fact that Hamlet does indeed want to be done with the pain of life. He is obviously sick and tired of the way it is treating him. I mean, let's face it, he lost a father, his mother married his father's brother, he learns that his father's brother killed his father, his girlfriend (if you can call her that) kills herself (or at least that is the way I took it), and eventually his mother drinks poison and dies. What more could go wrong? Honestly, who wouldn't want to just end life after all this happened?

I further agree with the part about Hamlet not really wanting to kill himself. Somebody who talks about suicide that much very much wants to end the pain of life, but given the opportunity, they probably wouldn't take it. In Act V, Scene 2, Hamlet says “Thou livest; report me and my cause aright/To the unsatisfied.” (5.2.346-347) Hamlet is asking Horatio to stay alive and tell his story to others. Look closely at the “To the unsatisfied” part. I think he is talking about people who are in similar situations. He wants Horatio to speak to them so they don't fall into the same trap that Hamlet did. The trap being revenge, suicide, and death. A few lines later, Hamlet says “If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart,/Absent thee from felicity awhile...” (5.2.353-354) He is telling Horatio that if he really cared about him, he would not kill himself and tell everybody his story. Both of these instances show that Hamlet is not happy that he is dying, but is glad that the pain of life is over. This just backs up that Hamlet wants to end the pain of life, but killing himself or being murdered doesn't seem like such a great thing when it actually happens.

The suicide theme is VERY present in this play. I think it is important, however, for people to realize that most of this is simply talk by one or two characters and the thought of actually carrying out their own suicide doesn't seem like such a great idea when they get closer to actually doing it. I think Hamlet is too wishy-washy to actually kill himself. He can't make up his mind whether it would help or hurt things.

[PolarTucan]

There is some question as to whether Ophelia commits suicide. Gertrude describes her death as an accident, but one grave digger announces that her death was "doubtful" (possibly suicide), and she is denied full burial rites by the church on the suspicion of suicide--possibly merely "passive" suicide in that she did nothing to prevent her death once she is in danger.

To add to the theme of death as I stated earlier that I believe that when Hamlet and Laertes jumped into the grave of Ophelia it foreshadows their eminent death. The two struggle with one another over who loves her more and then end up dying due to one another's bickering. Perhaps Hamlet is so caught up in avenging his father's death, he doesn't realize the King's plot for Hamlet's death. Laertes dies due to his own tricks. He states “It is here, Hamlet. Hamlet, thou art slain. No med'cine in the world can do thee good. In thee there is not half an hour's life. The treacherous instrument is in thy hand, Unbated and envenomed. The foul practice Hath turned itself on me. Lo, here I lie, Never to rise again. Thy mother's poisoned. I can no more. The King, the King's to blame.” (5.2.321-328) In a way, the blame for Laertes death can be taken by many people, 1.) the King for coming up with the idea to poison the blade, 2.)himself because he went along with the trickery, 3) and obviously Hamlet for slashing him with said sword. The King contributes to many deaths. Old King Hamlet with poisoning, Laertes with his own sword, Hamlet with that sword, the Queen with the poisoned cup, and in a very round about way Rosencrantz and Guildenstern by sending them with the letter that Hamlet turned into their death sentence.

Hamlet is sort of fascinated with death in my mind. He follows the ghost when he was warned not to do so. He also kills Polonius and drags his body away to hide it and is rather morbid when asked of the body's whereabouts. He also ponders the death of Yorick while holding the skull. Shakespeare toys with the idea that life is frivolous with Hamlets to be, or not to be speech and when he talks of Alexander having the same fate as a peasant. He says, “ No, faith, not a job; but to follow him thither, with modesty enough and likelihood to lead it, as thus: Alexander died, Alexander was buries, Alexander returneth to dust: the dust is earth: of earth we make loam: and why of that loam whereto he was converted might they not stop a beer barrel?” I think a common theme is the pursuit of truth and he states the truth so well with this line. Rank does not matter in the end.

[Layka]

I was just wondering about some of the instances in Hamlet where any character demonstrated suicide. I know some of the main parts, but i was just wondering if theirs some things that i missed.

Ophelia demonstrated suicide more for her own saving. She was so confused and broken that she doesn't know what to do. In the book Ophelia, she tells how she wants Queen Gertrude to be a mother-like figure to her. She does have feelings for Hamlet, and those are part of the reason why she kills herself. I don't think that she can handle the madness of Hamlet-him pulling her towards him and shoving her away. She looked in the stream before she killed herself, and she saw something that caused ain to herself. It was her- only it was the “mad Ophelia.” She started out so pure and as ruined and she saw that. She saw how terrible she looked. I also think that she was grief stricken, with the loss of her love and father; plus the madness of Hamlet put upon her.

Hamlet demonstrates the thought of suicide quite often. I think he does it more for attention than anything. He does talk about it to himself though. His famous "to or not to be" (Act 3 Scene 1)speech is all about suicide. I don't think Hamlet would have actually done forth with it, because he would not have let himself before he had the chance for revenge. I know a big part of his depressed suicide thoughts were to do with the death of his father, but I don't think he would have killed himself unless he would have known he could bring Claudius to hell with him.

Queen Gertrude may have thought about it after the talk with her son. I think Hamlet had “shone her the light”, by telling her of his pretend madness. She did vow not to sleep with Claudius. I do think that she caught on to the poison drink during the dueling. She offered Hamlet a drink of course, but I do think she caught on though. The question is, did she do it for Hamlet? She could have dumped it out; or was the reason about her guilty feelings for marrying her husband's brother.

Leartes was a special case. I think he put himself in a position of suicide. What if he knew the risk he had of losing. He knew he had to get Hamlet pretty good with his sword in order to not get in trouble for the tipped sword. If Hamlet got a hold of his sword- which he did- Leartes would parish, for Hamlet was the better swordsman. Not really a reasonable argument, but it had risk.

[Jim58]

It's an interpretive comment - like yours that Hamlet is some sort of angry and immature teenager. That's your interpretation. My comment is mine.

You see, Shakespeare goes to great pains at the top of the show to emphasize the youth in the play. In 1.1 there's "young Fortinbras, Of unimproved mettle hot and full", the son of the deceased norwegian king and "young Hamlet". In 1.2 Claudius mentions, "young Fortinbras" twice. Laertes is presented as the son of Polonius, who like Hamlet needs his parent's consent to leave Elsinore. Then in 1.3 after his talk with Ophelia Laertes is the object in the fatherly advice scene. And then right after Hamlet has his time with his father's ghost, Laertes again (in 2.1) becomes the focus of a meddlesome father. Again there is consistancy in my position.

If one is to pretend insanity, politeness is contrary to the intended effect. I can't believe you're quibbling about "rudeness" on Hamlet's part when his father has been betrayed in multiple ways by both Claudius and Gertrude, as well as Polonius.

Intelligent, mature and complex people have emotions too - that's what makes them human. Nothing contradictory there. Your "consistent" reading is simply you deciding that a particular set of behaviors is ONLY enacted by a particular age group in society. That is fully incorrect.

You operate under the notion that these characters are real individuals with internal motivations. In fact these characters are constructed out of Shakespeare's mind. Shakespeare doesn't give the characters actions so that you can extrapolate all sorts of human qualities. Hamlet is given as much as is needed to fulfill Shakespeare's play. To that end Shakespeare fills out Hamlet with various behaviors that scream out immaturity. I keep pointing these out to you and you keep arguing concepts outside the fiction of the play.

In terms of the grave-diggers: you spent a lot of effort to argue a point that wasn't a cornerstone of my argument; I simply noted that speculation of age has to give place to the information the play explicity gives.

But, apparently you didn't read it or you wouldn't be operating under the misconception that the play says anything explicitly about age. Go back and please read my post again.

Next - I'm aware that Shakespeare doesn't follow Aristotle - I did not imply that he did; however, Shakespeare's plays reveal an awareness of Aristotle's discussion of the tragic flaw, and the tragic heroes do (in general) follow that model. Shakespeare's primary deviation from the classic dramatists was his abandonment of the "three unities."

You provide no support for this or any of your other statements for that matter. So then tell me, if Shakespeare has injected Hamlet with a "tragic flaw" I am keen to know what it is? Please tell me.

[Redzeppelin]

You see, Shakespeare goes to great pains at the top of the show to emphasize the youth in the play. In 1.1 there's "young Fortinbras, Of unimproved mettle hot and full", the son of the deceased norwegian king and "young Hamlet". In 1.2 Claudius mentions, "young Fortinbras" twice. Laertes is presented as the son of Polonius, who like Hamlet needs his parent's consent to leave Elsinore. Then in 1.3 after his talk with Ophelia Laertes is the object in the fatherly advice scene. And then right after Hamlet has his time with his father's ghost, Laertes again (in 2.1) becomes the focus of a meddlesome father. Again there is consistancy in my position.

"Young" does not mean "teenager." Middle-aged people refer to those in their twenties as "young." You're not going to move me Jim - sorry. To make Hamlet into a bratty kid totally dismantles the granduer of the tragedy.

You operate under the notion that these characters are real individuals with internal motivations. In fact these characters are constructed out of Shakespeare's mind. Shakespeare doesn't give the characters actions so that you can extrapolate all sorts of human qualities. Hamlet is given as much as is needed to fulfill Shakespeare's play. To that end Shakespeare fills out Hamlet with various behaviors that scream out immaturity. I keep pointing these out to you and you keep arguing concepts outside the fiction of the play.

Shakespeare is largely famous for his ability to create life-like characters. My interpretations are perfectly in line with critical thought on the play. Yours are not.

But, apparently you didn't read it or you wouldn't be operating under the misconception that the play says anything explicitly about age. Go back and please read my post again.

You're hair-splitting; by the grave-digger's words, it is fairly easy to calculate that Hamlet must be near 30. Perhaps you need to re-read the scene.

You provide no support for this or any of your other statements for that matter. So then tell me, if Shakespeare has injected Hamlet with a "tragic flaw" I am keen to know what it is? Please tell me.

Do I have to explain this to you? Part of what makes a Shakespearean tragedy tragic is the fact that the death of the hero is ultimately necessary, but due to a flaw in the character; that flaw generally leads to a decision or action that results in the downfall of the character. Without a tragic flaw, we have plays that are missing the awful tragedy of a man paying the ultimate price for his choices; your idea of no tragic flaw means that tragic heroes become mere victims - which makes their deaths pathetic instead of tragic.

[Jim58]

"Young" does not mean "teenager." Middle-aged people refer to those in their twenties as "young." You're not going to move me Jim - sorry. To make Hamlet into a bratty kid totally dismantles the granduer of the tragedy.

Gainsaying really adds nothing to the debate. If you disagree with my interpretation, please be so considerate as to explain your interpretation. Further, I never said Hamlet is a bratty kid. It's just the immaturity of youth.

Shakespeare is largely famous for his ability to create life-like characters. My interpretations are perfectly in line with critical thought on the play. Yours are not.

You have offered one interpretation. Hamlet as "a virtuoso intellect of devastating insight, irony and perception." This is not only static it is wrong. I on the other hand see Hamlet as a dynamic character who grows through the play. He learns about the duplicity of the adult world. He learns that his father had his faults and his mother wasn't virtuous. He realizes the difficulty in turning resolution in action. Part of his growth is ushered by three adults in the play - the Ghost, the First Player and the Gravedigger. Hamlet realizes by the end of the play how wrong he was about Ophelia and himself. The play is marked repeatedly about Hamlet's fears and doubts. No, I think your interpretation is wrong.

As for critical thought you haven't offered any in your support. The William Main reference doesn't address your contention. I do agree that the world of Hamlet "is a world "tapestries" behind which all the characters are hiding." I would appreciate more detail in your cite. I am not familiar with him. Might I suggest reading Harold Jenkins, Arden Hamlet. He's very easy to find on Amazon, in book stores and libraries.

You're hair-splitting; by the grave-digger's words, it is fairly easy to calculate that Hamlet must be near 30. Perhaps you need to re-read the scene.

I think you fail to appreciate that all editions of Hamlet derive from the three surviving texts of Hamlet. On the age issue all three text differ markedly. Read Steve Roth's, Hamlet: The Undiscovered Country. I don't know if the whole book is still available on line but the age chapter is here.
http://princehamlet.com/chapter_1.html

Do I have to explain this to you? Part of what makes a Shakespearean tragedy tragic is the fact that the death of the hero is ultimately necessary, but due to a flaw in the character; that flaw generally leads to a decision or action that results in the downfall of the character. Without a tragic flaw, we have plays that are missing the awful tragedy of a man paying the ultimate price for his choices; your idea of no tragic flaw means that tragic heroes become mere victims - which makes their deaths pathetic instead of tragic.

I keep pointing out that your analysis is wrong. Shakespeare did not model his plays off the rantings of a 2,000 year old philosopher. Second, Aristotle's analysis is PLOT based and not character based. Third, a character based analysis didn't develop until 1905 when AC Bradley wrote Shakespearean Tragedy which has been misinterpreted and ill-applied by school teachers ever since. I ask you again, if Hamlet has a tragic flaw what is it?

[Dante Wodehouse]

Hamlet is probably younger than 30; he is called back from university to his father's death. His tragic flaw is his overbrooding. He thinks too much.