Hamlet... Sane or Insane?

[Saturnalia]

Hamlet is completely sane, the problem is that he has become intoxicated with the thought of revenge. If anything he is a mad man using logic. He knows who he is. The Ghost of his father appeared to the guards as well and anything that may have been an hallucination was witnessed by the guards too, except for the occasion with the Queen. The fact that he unrelentlessly had his 'friends' executed is not something I would condemn or call insane, they had already stabbed him in the back with glee.
The problem comes in when he calously manipulates Ophelia, driving her further into madness, and unknowingly kills her father. These are not things a less reckless man would do. He commits these acts with only one thing in mind, revenge. Thus I would have to say on the whole sane, but vicariously insane.

[toni]

Hamlet is completely sane, the problem is that he has become intoxicated with the thought of revenge. If anything he is a mad man using logic. He knows who he is. The Ghost of his father appeared to the guards as well and anything that may have been an hallucination was witnessed by the guards too, except for the occasion with the Queen. The fact that he unrelentlessly had his 'friends' executed is not something I would condemn or call insane, they had already stabbed him in the back with glee.
The problem comes in when he calously manipulates Ophelia, driving her further into madness, and unknowingly kills her father. These are not things a less reckless man would do. He commits these acts with only one thing in mind, revenge. Thus I would have to say on the whole sane, but vicariously insane.

Hamlet is a very clever man. He was always aware of his actions (his feigning of insanity).
I really abhorr Ophelia. I always thought she was a terribly weak character.

[Saturnalia]

Hamlet is a very clever man. He was always aware of his actions (his feigning of insanity).
I really abhorr Ophelia. I always thought she was a terribly weak character.

Yes, weak indeed. Yet unfortunately a victim of circumstance. Women usualy are already weak in character, the fact that man has the balls to think he is any stronger and thus have the right to subjugate women willy nilly only works to exasterbate the situation. No? And a weaker character is one who cannot put themselves in others perspectives.

[msdirector]

Women usualy are already weak in character, the fact that man has the balls to think he is any stronger and thus have the right to subjugate women willy nilly only works to exasterbate the situation. No? And a weaker character is one who cannot put themselves in others perspectives.

I look at Ophelia differently. I also used to find Ophelia the weakest link in the play, but on closer study, there are interpretations that can contradict that view.

Saturnalia, you say that women are usually already weak in character. I'm hoping that you are refering to the way the Elizabethans perceived women. If so, that's generally true. But if you are talking about the way Shakespeare portrayed women, I beg to differ. Shakespeare wrote many, many strong, independent and vibrant women in his plays: Katherine in The Taming of the Shrew, Beatrice in Much Ado About Nothing, Cleopatra, Cordelia in King Lear, Rosalind in As You Like It, Olivia and Viola in Twelfth Night, even Juliet.

The most common interpretation of Hamlet treats both Gertrude and Ophelia as though they were doormats, simply tools for the men in the play - Claudius, Polonius, even Hamlet, to use in pursuit of their own desires. But I find it inconceivable that the Shakespeare who wrote all those strong women intended for the women in arguably his greatest play to be the sad, wimpy creatures that they appear to be by our modern interpretations.

I could go on for ages (it's the subject of my Master's dissertation), but here's a few things to consider about Ophelia...

1) She openly defied her brother in her relationship with Hamlet.
2) She more subtley defied her father by arguing with him about Hamlet and then continuing to keep Hamlet's keepsakes and seeing him after being forbidden to (although she tells her father that had refused him her favors.)
3) When she is coerced into acting as bait for Hamlet by her father and the King, she clandestinely indicates to Hamlet that her father is NOT at home, but rather is spying on their confrontation in the nunnery scene (and if you think she says nothing and does nothing, why is it that every director has Hamlet realize that they are being spied on at approximately the same moment?).
4) After being "verbally abused" by Hamlet, she then comes back to sit "docilely" at the play with his head in her lap exchanging sexual double entendres with him. Is she uncomfortable with Hamlet at that moment? She should be if his abuse was genuine. Many productions show her to be. But her dialogue certainly doesn't make her seem so - it seems far more playful than fearful to me.
5) Finally, the mad scene(s). She certainly acts mad. But there appears to be, as is said of Hamlet, method in her madness. Some believe she is pregnant (some say by Hamlet, others by Claudius). Others believe she knows more than she lets on and hints at guilt and complicity by Gertrude and Claudius. Is this about her father's death? Doubtful - that's clearly Hamlet. Is it about Hamlet's banishment? She seems to know nothing about Claudius' plot to kill Hamlet. And the complicity she implies seems to be for something more than simply sending Hamlet out of the country. So what then? Could Hamlet have told her about his suspicions? Is she really mad or putting on an antic disposition like Hamlet? How did she really die? We have only Gertrudes report for evidence of her death.

Shakespeare has left a great many ambiguities in Hamlet. That's one of the things that makes it such an intriguing play. And, for me, Ophelia's real role in the play is one of them. I see more to Ophelia than many do, and a very different relationship with Hamlet than is commonly played. Was it what Shakespeare intended. I have no way of knowing. But it certainly is fun to imagine... and there is textual evidence to support it and not alot to contradict it.

Just my opinion, of course... likely few will agree with me. But it is intriguing.

[Janine]

1. • INDENT]

When I read "Hamlet" at 24, I realised that I had staged a similar "insanity" before my mother when I was 18. My mother rather ungallantly tried to break my relationship with a girl that I loved. For some reason she wasn't able to bring herself to remonstrating with me about that relationship. Instead, my mother secretly met the girl's mother and made a scene which she thought would spur me to have it all out with her. The next day I found out about that terrible havoc my mother caused in my girl's family and it distressed me very much. Then, not knowing what to do, for I wished neither a row with my mother nor ignoring the matter altogether, I staged that "insanity" which in my case resulted in my very strange behaviour (in my mother's point of view) that lasted for at least a week. I never mentioned to her that I know about what she did. My mother was baffled and her plans for the upcoming row (I'm sure she had thought out the quarrel beforehand) got ruined. I also derived some satisfaction from my playing Hamlet (although I didn't know who Hamlet was at that time) because I saw that my behaviour was torturing her.

Hi, this is an interesting thought. I am a mother and I know how it was with my son when he was a teenager or in his early 20's. He would get back to me in similiar ways if he felt cornered or pressured. Pressure could have been a large element in the behavior of Hamlet. He was young - we must all remember that since oft times he is played by a 30 some actor; this being due to the fact that one must be really good to play this mature a role. Usually actors do not attempt the role until they are older and more experienced. It is the ultimate goal to play Hamlet sometime in your career. I have thought that Hamlet was not insane. He lived in a time of wars and violence when it was necessary for survival. I have often pondered his motives in having Rosencratz and Gildenstern executed. I think he was so angry that they would betray him, he felt justified in their killing. Still it did seem like an extreme thing to do. However, did he think they knew the contents of the orders from the king? We know they did not, but just maybe Hamlet thought they did. His accidental killing of Polonius also seemed rash, but at the time he was in a "passion" with his mother and thinking it the king he decided to act and eliminate him. He was pretty worked up talking to her. When he did see it was Polonius he did not show a lot of remorse, but he did remark that he would pay heavily for the death of the old man. He called him a pratting meddling (?) fool, or something close to that. He saw him realistically, since Polonius certainly was that in life even in regards to his own children. He should have minded his own business, but he tried to enter in on affairs of someone else's household. That alone would cause rage in Hamlet or disgust. I don't think Hamlet was insane. He might have had very temporary bouts of near insanity or distress, but mostly he was very clever in pretending to be insane to devert the attention and throw off the quilty. He certainly caused his uncle and the mother great upset. In someways he was passive-aggressive and that can be worse. They all diverted their attention on trying to find out why Hamlet was insane or acting that way. I think Hamlet was stalling and then setting a trap to determine if the ghost's story could be colaberated and proven, and thus Hamelt's revenge could proceed and be justified.

[english1122]

I would like to read your paper on hamlet sane or insane, is that ok????

[english1122]

I have noticed that the last log ons are years ago so my question is does any one have a paper on hamlet sane or insane?? If so please thread so i can read for ideas for my english paper. I wrote a paper and my instructor says that i need more sources on my opinion than just my book, what ever that means, so i am asking for help here. Thanks alot english 1122

[Hypnotized34]

i do agree with u that he was sane

[whiteangel]

Hamlet is sane as the play beings and that is quite evident for he claims to assume an antic disposition.
however as the play develops, his growing melancholia becomes entwined with his assumed madness....which perhaps leads to an unstable mind.