Talk:Hamlet/Archive 7

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

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

(edit conflict) Just noting that the most recent addition has been reverted by

Journalist

17:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi anonymous editor at IP address

citations for those changes), corrections, new text, etc.; it will be much easier for our limited number of volunteers to address the issues you have brought up. Thank you. --Xover (talk

) 13:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Final Scene, right after Horatio contemplates suicide:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

outdent Oh man, you two really shouldn't be allowed in a room together, huh? People, get a grip! So Smatprt was a bit hoity-toity in how he presented his argument. So what? You go all defensive and read stuff into what he wrote that just isn't there. (which, incidentally, also merits a “So what?”). I appreciate that you two have butted heads over difficult and controversial issues in the past, but to me you look like you've been fighting dragons so long you now find them in any lamb with a slight pigmentation problem. You know what frustrates me? Having to point people in this project at

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

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

assume good faith: not because it's a policy, but because when we fail to do so we create a toxic environment where these sorts of vicious cycles can proliferate.
PS. Wrad, when we frame you as a leader of the project it's just recognition that you've been instrumental in gathering editors together to work on the Shakespeare articles, and the many valuable contributions you've made both in terms of the articles themselves and in terms of the many many types of administrativa, technicalities, process, and so forth. Since WikiProjects have no formal leadership, it can only be that; there's no obligation or expectation implied. Just consider it a compliment and a recognition of all your hard work. --Xover (talk

) 08:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• done

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

• done

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

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

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

• done

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

• done

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

• done

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just read this:

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

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

Hamlet was really a fictional character in a play.

welcome page. Thank you for the notice. Aladdin Sane (talk

) 22:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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