Talk:Hamlet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of Wikipedia's Elizabethan theatre coverage, and has come to the attention of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, an attempt to create a comprehensive and detailed resource on the theatre and dramatic literature in England between 1558 and 1642. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (just like any other article!), or visit WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] Spoiler warning

Shouldn't this have a spoiler warning? I mean, even though Hamlet's pretty popular, we can't assume everyone has read it, so there should be a spoiler warning before giving away the ending. Keenanpepper 00:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are correct sir. Has been added below the "Main Characters" header. Ellsworth 00:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The spoiler warning is gone again St.Awesome 17:51, 21 August 2006

I've seen increasingly that discussions are resulting in deletion of spoiler warnings in articles with fairly wide support. I, personally, think they should stay but from what I've seen I'm in the minority. Marty Donakowski 04:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations

How about adding a "famous quotations" section?

  • To be, or not to be: that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler . . ."
  • Dead for a ducat! (killing his girlfriend's father behind the arras)
  • greater things than you have dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio
  • May I lie in your lap? . . . I meant country matters (you are merry, my lord)

etc.

It might help if these famous quotations were accurate! There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in (y)our philosophy.

--- Agreed. The line is "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt (not dreamed as the previous poster had it*) of in (y)our philosophy."

However, give the guy credit. I could see an issue though.. there being so many famous lines.. we could have a whole article on "To be or not to be".

  • it could be dreamed as we pronounce it today, but not dream-ed with the stress on Ed. I know no edition that uses this variation, you are welcome to point it out to me.

Good comparative editions include Folger's and Arden's. I only own the Folger's at present.

Please see Wikiquote - we are trying to make a list of accurate quotations there, rather than have them all in the Wikipedia itself. Not just for Hamlet but for everything and everybody. Come and join us.

[edit] Avenge and Revenge

I edited the article according to the usage rule "avenge only the victims, revenge only the harms" (which i continue to advocate). However, i find that my M-W Collegiate ca. 1970 is outside the current consensus in supporting me as strongly as it does. I'm thus not imitating that edit elsewhere (unless i'm editing something else in the same section for some other reason), and anyone who said "Huh, who says so?" on reading my edit-Summary was IMO justified. --Jerzy 17:02, 2003 Oct 17 (UTC)

Well, I think you're right and I was wrong, so you won't see any reverts from me. Dandrake 19:17, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)
[Big grin] Tnx for saying so. --Jerzy 19:50, 2003 Oct 17 (UTC)

"then waxes philosophical on why people choose to live on despite the hardships of life." Am I missing something, or is this bad grammar? Shouldn't we say "philosophically"?


No, one should interpret "waxes" as "becomes". Or becomes while declaiming. Anyway, the idiom takes an adjective. If I try to imagine waxing philosophically, I think of the monk whose job is to polish the invisible statue of Buddha. Dandrake 18:13, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Hamlet

Not complaining bitterly, but just wondering about some edits you make to my Hamlet additions. I agree with some removes (just purple prose - forgive me, I am not Shakespeare) -- but why the removal of the end sentence (ought to be rephrased maybe but important, at least as a concluding statement; otherwise the section sounds clipped) and the beginning phrase "the Dane"? You clipped the "shedding additional light..." after "all their own special insights", missing the point (probably through my English), that each critic adds on and augments to a more complete understanding of the character. After deleting it, the point of the sentence is lost.

PS You can come to my talk page to discuss if it's better. Mandel - May 12, 2004.

The last sentence I think is not NPOV- there are plenty of philistines like me who think Hamlet's an overrated, two-dimensional character. If you could attribute the statement to a specific critic or actor, I'd have no problem though, or I'd have no objection to another concluding sentence.
"shedding additional light" seems to me to mean the same as "all with their own special insights"- the point is already made that they are saying different, but often compatible things.
"the Dane"- we've already that he's Danish several times, so I don't think we need to repeat it. In any case, I don't think it's relevant to his character, specifically. Markalexander100 01:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm surprised: Hamlet, two-dimensional? Everyone has his own opinion, but I think to a certain extent a commentary has to be an appreciation; you can't write extensively, esp in literature, about something you don't enjoy. There are many books which I think overrated, but if a section of an Wikipedia entry draws euphoric comments, I won't be the first person to excise them; I may simply be lukewarm about it, but it could be relevant. The statement isn't that non-NPOV you know; why, for instance, are there more written about his psychology than many others who actually lived is a point to note. If this doesn't point to the fact that critics treat Hamlet like a real person with inner motivations etc, I don't know what it is. It's pretty similar to what I say.

The important word in the second para is "additional", meaning each view adds on, augments and enlarges to a more complete understanding of Hamlet. It is strictly not being the same. Merely "own special insights" gives one the idea that each opinion is mutually exclusive and incompatible; in fact, some of them are built on previous criticisms.

"The Dane" is important (at least to me) in that we're talking about Hamlet as a person (not as the play), calling him the Dane is not factual but draws attention to him as a character. Hamlet refers to himself as the Dane in the play before; it has symbolic reveberations in the play. For variety's sake, I can't keep saying "Hamlet as a character" all the time.

Seriously I've no complaints about removing the purple prose, but the standing version seems garbled. My purpose of adding the para is to draw people to add more, clarify the points through edits, but an axed version which leaves out the conclusive points does make the entry more difficult for others to understand. Mandel

On Hamlet as a real person, I don't mind mentioning that many critics treat him as a real person- that's a fact. I do mind us saying that he's like a real person- that's a POV. Give me a quote from a critics saying he's like a real person and I'd be happy.
additional- how about "have written articles on him, each adding his own special insights"?
Hamlet is possibly the most discussed and contentious character seems pretty unambiguous to me- no-one will think that we mean the play there!

Markalexander100 01:29, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

All literary criticism is subjective. Bradley probably thinks as much about Hamlet that you or I disagree with; but he's famous, so his words are liable to carry more weight. A survey of historical criticism ought to be NPOV, but for criticism so long as a critic substantiates what he says from the literary text, and makes sense, he's entitled to his individual POV. Which brings to question whether Wikipedia allows criticism, or merely surveys of criticism, in the main. I think saying something radical about a literary work is alright, so long as you give evidence about it from the text and is not unduly wayward.
"Give me a quote from a critic saying he's like a real person and I'd be happy." -- I think there're, though I can't find it (not well read enough).
Finally...yes, I didn't do enough homework...forgive me...
It'll be good if you (or anyone else) add something to the article. Seriously I'm already beginning to sound too old. - :)Mandel

Not at all!

Surveys of criticism are fine, but not original research. I agree that some critics must have said he's like a real person, and I'd be happy to see them quoted if we can track them down. Markalexander100 02:04, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Just as an afterthought. I'm not sure if I wholly agree with the author on the abovementioned policy esp with regards to literature. If the literary text is considered a primary source, shouldn't criticism be taken as a secondary source? I've seen encyclopedias - even Britannica - adding what can be taken as criticism to literary entries. But I agree it must be used discretely, or else the encyclopedia's tone will sound strange and disjointed. - Mandel 17:00, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I remember, but I must admit I'm a philistine and that I've never seen the 'real' version, that Horatio wants to commit suicide at the end of the play but Hamlet stops him and tells him to pass on this story. If this is so it should be added to the text. --Dyss 22:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

It's been a while since anyone commented this page...anyway what you recommended has been done. Ellsworth 00:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] To be or not to be

I have heard from a person I trust that the line "To be or not to be" is the most recognizable phrase in the English language. Before that amusing tidbit gets added to the page, is there anyone who can confirm or deny it? --Reediewes 21:50, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I would love to know the method behingd the analysis taht led to such an assertion—which I guess to be anecdotal.—Theo (Talk) 23:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At the beginning of the article, there's this sentence:

"Hamlet's "To be, or not to be" soliloquy (Act Three, Scene One), the most popular passage of the play, is so well known that it has become a stumbling-block for many modern actors."

I found this ambiguous - how does the passage being well known create a stumbling-block for modern actors? This should either be explained or removed... --Oracleoftruth 18:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Why won't anyone explain it?67.67.120.228 03:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
The line is difficult to deliver because it is so famous and well-known that the actor may be somewhat awed or embarrased at being the one to deliver the line. The actor may not feel "worthy" to deliver the line and in his or her anxiety may be more likely to flub it. Some actors are also intimidated by the fact that the second part of the line will doubtless be mouthed or whispered by a large part of the audience as they of course will recognize it. Some guy 00:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Also very nervewracking because of the huge number of possible interpreations of "To be or not to be" whatever interpretation you take whilst performing or as a director, there will be someone, an actor or an audience member, who will disagree wholeheartedly, two contradictory interpretations for examples are the 'suicide' theme of the speech opposed to the 'I've just had sex with Ophelia' interpretation (it exists!). Although I agree totally with the whispering along, so distracting. An actor 195.195.14.1 10:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fishmonger

Though it is not discussed here, at pimp and fishmonger it states that fishmonger in Skakespearian times was a euphemism for pimp. I did a little research and found that this is disputed.

From http://www.clicknotes.com/hamlet/Pap.html:

Excellent well; you are a fishmonger" (2.2.174), says Hamlet, in response to Polonius' question, "Do you know me, my lord?" This is the first of a series of bitter jests that Hamlet directs at the uncomprehending Polonius. The basis of the jests is apparently Hamlet's intuition that Polonius forced Ophelia to dump him. In Hamlet's opinion, Polonius sacrificed his daughter's happiness in order to suck up to the King. Thus, "fishmonger" is often explained as slang for "pimp," despite the fact that there is no evidence that the word was used that way in Shakespeare's time. Hamlet then makes his insult sharper by wishing that Polonius were as honest as a fishmonger, which is to say that Polonius is lower than the lowest of the low. Hamlet goes on to say that "to be honest, as this world goes, is to be one man pick'd out of ten thousand" and then says what Polonius probably thinks is a very crazy thing: "For if the sun breed maggots in a dead dog, being a god kissing carrion--Have you a daughter?" The comment about the sun and maggots has at least two possible meanings. One meaning is that it's not surprising that Polonius is such a hypocrite, because the life-giving sun can produce all kinds of disgusting things, especially from other disgusting things. The second meaning Hamlet explains, though not so Polonius can understand. When Polonius says that he does have a daughter, Hamlet replies, "Let her not walk i' the sun: conception is a blessing: but not as your daughter may conceive" (2.2.184-185). In other words, if Polonius is going to keep Ophelia away from Hamlet for fear that she'll get knocked up, he better keep her out of the sun, too, because even the sun can produce bastard pregnancies.

But there are other sites that support the fishmonger=pimp theory. From http://www.princehamlet.com/QA.html#3:

Why does Hamlet call Polonius a fishmonger, and why does he prattle on about Jephthah? (And who is Jephthah, anyway?) From Chapter Three, “A Certain Convocation of Politic Worms.” Polonius: Do you know me, my lord? Hamlet: Excellent well, you are a fishmonger. Polonius: Not I, my lord. Hamlet: Then I would you were so honest a man. “Fishmonger” is Elizabethan cant for “fleshmonger”–a pimp, procurer, or bawd. In Hamlet’s view, Polonius treats Ophelia as so much flesh for barter–and rightly so, given Polonius’ “I’ll loose my daughter to him” 2.2.175, as if she’s a mare for the breeding. But Polonius is even less honest than a bawd; he manipulates Ophelia for political capital, not just time-honored pecuniary reasons. Later, in the scene when the players arrive, Hamlet confounds Polonius with his ramblings on Jephthah: 2.2.285 Hamlet: O Jephthah, judge of Israel, what a treasure hadst thou! Polonius: What a treasure had he, my lord? Hamlet: Why– “One fair daughter, and no more, The which he loved passing well.” Polonius: Still on my daughter. Hamlet: Am I not i’ th’ right, old Jephthah? Polonius: If you call me Jephthah, my lord, I have a daughter that I love passing well. Hamlet: Nay, that follows not. Polonius: What follows then, my lord? Hamlet: Why– "As by lot, God wot," and then, you know, "It came to pass, as most like it was"– the first row of the pious chanson will show you more, for look where my abridgement comes. Enter the players. Hamlet’s reference is to a story in Judges 11 (in the Geneva Bible version), and to a then-current ballad on the subject (and to a recently performed play on the subject; see Appendix B). Jephthah promised the Lord that if he would give Jephthah victory over the Ammonites, Jephthah would offer up the first person to come out his front door as a burnt offering. His daughter and only child is the lucky winner. Before she’s sacrificed, though, she begs leave for, and receives, permission to spend two months in the mountains with her “companions” to bewail her eternal virginity. She gets herself to a nunnery. Then Jephthah “did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she had known no man.” Hamlet is chiding Polonius for similarly sacrificing his own virgin daughter–barring her marriage and procreation (and ultimately sacrificing her life). And he is also jabbing an insult at Polonius (and commenting slantingly on his own situation): Jephthah was “the son of a harlot.” …

I think this will need to be reflected in the aforementioned articles and the quote should probably be aded to wikiquote if not also here. I'll do what I can.

Theshibboleth 04:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

who is shakespeare? it his identity well known or not? info about the auteur needed

The obvious allusion of Polonius as a fishmonger is sometimes overlooked. The person whose sold fish smelled. Polonius's covert actions are rank, including using his daughter Ophelia to engage Hamlet while he spies on them.

[edit] Source for number of translations

About this sentence:

Hamlet is one of the world's most famous literary works, and has been translated into every major living language.

Is this some kind of definition? I think we need a source for this. — Sverdrup 11:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting wording

Okay, I just thought this sentence was pretty funny... "...instead of the customary blunted and unpoisoned blade." Yes, indeed, it is customary to fence with a sword that's not poisoned!

[edit] Klingon

I don't understand this change. I think it is worthwhile to mention that Hamlet's appeal is such that someone efforted the likely-no-so-easy translation into Klingon.

- Eric 00:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why such efforting should be excluded, though whether translating into a made-up language is or is not likely-no-so-easy I can't say. Paul B 00:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It was me who co-efforted it, and I thought it was non-trivial work, anyway. :-) Opoudjis 14:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the 'sources' section to near the top of the page, since that's a more standard arrangement than to have this section late in the essay. 12.210.83.193 03:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish-born?

Where's the support for Polonius being Polish-born? Don't say the name, because that line of reasoning equally supports Claudius being Roman-born and Laertes being Greek-born. Ellsworth 21:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you. Even if there is something which supports the theory (surely not, but we'll see what replies we get here) it's hardly significant enough to be worth a mention in the sentence you removed it from. AndyJones 21:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] name of this wikipedia page

I fear that none of the readers discussing above the tragedy will join my reasoning, but I think the page of the play should not be named "Hamlet" (even if Hamlet) remains a redirect on it: There are many other things that are named "Hamlet", and the play is not named "Hamlet".

Please read on at Talk:Hamlet (disambiguation) if you are willing to do so... — MFH:Talk 19:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, you are right, I completely disagree with you. "Hamlet" should point here with an {otheruses} tag or similar because most people searching for "Hamlet" want Shakespeare's play not Hamlet, Indiana, and not the brand of cigar, or whatever. Also I'm vigorously against trying to name Wikipedia articles for Shakespeare plays by their folio or quarto titles. I suppose you had in mind a rename to "Hamlet: Prince of Denmark" or similar, but that is only a slippery slope to ending up with "The most excellente and illustriouse comedy of..." type article names. I also couldn't agree less that "the play is not named Hamlet". At the date of writing wikipedia it is named Hamlet, here and here and here and here and here and here and here and I could go on like this for ages. AndyJones 11:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No doubt that in a place where you don't look for something else, people simply call it "Hamlet", like musicians say "Beethoven's fifth" instead of ...5th symphony. And all your links link to one and the same commercial website. Look at the google search for "tragedie of hamlet": here you see hundreds of links to serious websites about literature who call it like that. I don't plead for adding a whold subtitle to the wiki page name, but e.g. "tragedy of hamlet" seems to be more specific for the play. Why not having a 'hamlet' page where those who don't have time will just need a second click to find the play, and those with some more curiosity learn what else can "hamlet" mean? (I don't like "mass" arguments like "most people want..." - we don't either eat what trillions of flies eat, just because they are so many to prefer the same!) But well, I won't insist... — MFH:Talk 04:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ur-Hamlet

I reverted this edit, although my only source was wikipedia, which has the first date in Ur-Hamlet. I guess this may have been a mistake (it was done by an IP with only this one edit) but I'm raising it here in case anyone is able to check it. (If so, perhaps add the source to the article!) AndyJones 11:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You were right; I added the source of the reference to make things clearer. The Singing Badger 20:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamlet as a character

At some point in the last month, someone appears to have removed the entire "Hamlet as a character" section, whilst leaving an internal link pointing back to it. Could someone familiar with the page have a look at this? Thanks. Shimgray | talk | 22:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I've no time myself to look at this now, but I will add a quick comment: It's seemed to me, for a while, that the time had come to take that section out of this very long page to put it at Hamlet (character). Also, I'm starting to feel that Hamlet in cinema and TV is outgrowing this page and needs an article of its own, too. Any thoughts? AndyJones 12:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


  • I have made some minor style adjustments to the plot summary. Generally, I think it's still too long. There's an awful lot of narrating in the article generally - the character list and plot summary overlap and I get no sense of the play's language, structure or themes / concerns. Still, it's easy for me to say that without actually contributing any of that myself.. Maybe the two sections could be merged? Skalzey 16 April 2006

[edit] Hamlet Films

Im sorry to crash in like this, but I can not find a reference to the Hamlet film adaptation from 2000, where the setting is modern but dialogue is in original form. reference: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0171359/ Thank you. Also there is no reference to the Hamlet film starring Mel Gibsonm of 1990/1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.154.149.198 (talk • contribs).

[edit] 'Films' that reference Hamlet

It's not quite accurate to call them 'films', because a lot of the references occur in television shows. Is there some better description than just "films" that we can use to describe the audio-visual works that reference Hamlet? Nuance13x 08:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Good thinking. I've started reorganising here. AndyJones 16:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gertrude suicide

I reverted this: "Interpretations can vary on whether Gertrude intentionally killed herself to spare Hamlet or if she didn't know the wine was poisoned." Surely the first of these options must be a very minority view. It definitely shouldn't be here unsourced. Even if a critic has argued it, I doubt it should be in an encylopedia article without evidence of fairly widespread acceptance. A review of the literature would produce hundreds of cranky ideas about the play, which would swamp this article if we tried to cover them. (Or is this idea fairly widespread without me being aware of it?) Besides, in what way does her drinking "spare" Hamlet? And if that is her intention why doesn't she drink at 277 when Hamlet is first offered the cup? And while I'm here: if that's her motivation why would she need to drink poison herself? She could just spill the drink somewhere. "Oops, sorry Hamlet." Send a servant for a new one. AndyJones 16:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmmmm, I will agree that we can't get caught up on interpretations, the view that Gertrude intentionally killed herself is far from a minority view, particularily among Feminist Literature. The book "Man and Wife Is One Flesh: Hamlet and the Confrontation with the Maternal Body." argues that Gertrude gave herself for her son. There is also a text "Realising Gertrude: The Suicide Option." that expresses Gertrudes intent (The title alone makes that apparent). Additionally, John Updike - a VERY prominent writer - has mentioned his belief of Gertrude's purpose. The reason for Gertrude's motivation to drink the wine is as a form of retribtuion for marrying the senior Hamlet's murderer, and thus the line "The queen carouses to thy fortune, Hamlet". Additionally, this view is used in the Almereyda's Hamlet from 2000 and can be seen in this review: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2000/05/19/AR2005062901726.html Marty Donakowski 18:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • OK. My thoughts are:
  1. My POV is that the suicide option is simply wrong and the accidental option clearly correct.
  2. I haven't heard of the suicide option before today, but I find it very easy to reject: I don't want to get bogged down in a string of my textual objections here for fear of rambling. Besides, anything I wrote could no doubt be rebutted in some way by the people you quote above if they read it, and that is hardly the issue.
  3. It is very rare for a reader or viewer of the play to conclude that Gertrude deliberately kills herself. Are there any pre-20th century sources which are based on this premise?
  4. Contrary to what you say above, this is still a minority view. Two sources to the contrary do not change that. Having said that, they may imply a sufficient body of opinion to justify noting the view rather than excluding it from the article completely.
  5. John Updike, yes, fair enough, although being a Shakespeare academic isn't exactly what he's famous for.
  6. "The queen carouses to thy fortune, Hamlet" has a clear primary meaning under the suicide and accidental theories. The fact that there's a potential double-meaning under the suicide theory doesn't carry much weight with me.
  7. I've just checked out the relevant scene in Almereyda's Hamlet, and you are right: the premise is used there. Claudius walks towards Hamlet with the glass, Gertrude rushes in front to head him off at "Here, Hamlet, take my napkin", but realising this is futile she turns and drinks the cup, saying knowingly to Claudius "I pray you pardon me". Clearly she knows the cup is poison. How she might know this is not explained: is she a reluctant conspirator against Hamlet's life with Claudius and Laertes, or has she found out in some other way (how?)? Or is that another area of contention? In any event, this is the same scene in which - almost immediately after this moment - Laertes pulls out a handgun and shoots Hamlet. Almereyda at this point is not following Shakespeare's plot, he is vigorously reinterpreting it. It is impossible to accept the 2000 film as having any backwards authority on the question of what Shakespeare's plot was.
  8. I think the furthest we could consider going with this is something along the lines of: "Gertrude drinks from Hamlet's cup, unaware that it is poisoned (although some critics have argued that this is a deliberate act of suicide {footnote})".
  9. What do others think? AndyJones 19:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That seems like a good way of expressing it, or perhaps we could simply say that Gertrude drank the poisoned wine and forgo the word "accidentally" altogether. Also, I'm surprised that there's controversy over this, since at my University we discussed in great depths that Shakespeare kept this ambiguous, but I appreciate other views on this.Marty Donakowski 00:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I've been doing some more research on this, and I'm still not persuaded it's anything more than one of the hundreds of quirky interpretations you hear every year at Shaksper. Of the sources you cite above, I cannot actually read Janet Adelman's "Man and Wife is One Flesh..." online, but if the best we have is something from the kind of Pseud's Corner candidate who can write that "Hamlet redefines the son’s position between two fathers by relocating it in relation to an indiscriminately sexual maternal body that threatens to annihilate the distinction between the fathers and hence problematizes the son’s paternal identification" then I am not terribly impressed. Perhaps I am being overly harsh in judging the author's argument by her writing style, and I confess that the review does not get so far as her assertion that Gertrude killed herself (or self-annihilated her corporeal entity, if you prefer). As for G. B Shand's "The Suicide Option", its review here suggests that it opens by describing the suicide theory as "an apparent subtextual subversion of the script". The author goes on to defend the theory, but the opening is a clear acknowledgement of what Shakespeare's script is widely accepted as meaning. In summary, I just cannot agree that your in-depth University discussions were terribly meaningful. From my perspective Shakespeare didn't keep anything ambiguous. He wrote a play in which Gertrude unknowingly swallowed the poison intended for Hamlet. He did not think to include a rebuttal to a small number of late twentieth century critics who would choose to misunderstand him. Anyway, having had my rant for the day, I have incorporated a comment into the article here. I won't revert that, but we'll see how other editors deal with it. AndyJones 19:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Additionally, I have removed the word "accidently" from the description of Gertrude drinking the wine with an open invitation for other editors to change as they please. With that, I thank you for your criticism.Marty Donakowski 20:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] somehow hilarious anon edit

Can someone check if this anon edit is valid? This version sound a little more hilarious than the previous one, but not so much... Maybe one can check if the newly introduced "Gravedigger" does exist? — MFH:Talk 19:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I reverted it. (See my edit summary here.) There are indeed two gravediggers in the play, and they do indeed talk about Ophelia's suicide. Actually Gertrude describes Ophelia as "one incapable of her own distress", which I interpret as meaning that her madness is so far gone that she is unaware that she has put herself in danger by being in the brook and failing to fight for her life. AndyJones 20:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 'play' in the play

I'm unsure abou the play in the Hamlet definition. I know the play is called "The Murder of Gonzago" but isn't it also called "The Mouse-Trap"?

The Murder of Gonzago is its proper name; Hamlet calls it The Mouse Trap when he introduces it to the courtiers; presumably he's trying to unsettle Claudius? Barney Jenkins 19:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinfo

In compliance with Wikipedia's "no original content" policy, I have moved the comments I previously posted here over to wikinfo: http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Motifs_in_Hamlet http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Hamlet%27s_Fish_Motif http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Hamlet%27s_Silence_and_the_Voice_of_Denmark_Motif --Ray Eston Smith Jr 20:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed image

I have removed the following image:

Hamlet, Horatio and Marcellus and the Ghost of King Hamlet by Johann Heinrich Füssli.
Enlarge
Hamlet, Horatio and Marcellus and the Ghost of King Hamlet by Johann Heinrich Füssli.

The image is too dark.

[edit] The Bad Quarto

I bring this up not knowing if anyone is familiar with the theory I am about to mention, but here goes! In my edition of the Bad Quarto, the theory is advanced by Albert Weiner that it represents not a "corruption" but an intentional, purposeful, and skillful abridgement of the play, to enable the King's Men to take it on the road with a far smaller complement of actors than would be required to stage the "full version". The reasoning behind this theory is, to me, both interesting ==and persuasive but I am not a specialist. Possibly this theory is known to others here but has been so discredited that it does not warrant mention, but possibly it is not a generally known theory. Would it, in that case, merit mention in the "Texts" section where the bad quarto is discussed? Hi There 07:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the theory has not been widely accepted. There were also articles - and an edition if I remember - at the height of 90s "postmodernism" when it was being declared that different versions were all "equally valid" and that therefore it was bad to say it was bad. The theory may warrant a mention. Paul B 08:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I added a few lines about this "road version" theory; let me know what you think of it and make any changes you deem necessary please. Hi There 14:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assassinations assassin

I thought "Assassinations in fiction" was really too too peripheral, so deleted it.-- Jrmccall 02:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamlet In Music was deleted: reinstate?

Maybe it should be moved to its own page, but surely not deleted! Jrmccall 23:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamlet in cinema and TV

I removed the detailed content from this section, after placing it (if it was not already there) in Shakespeare on screen (Hamlet). I retained the section name and a small leader, in case links to it exist. — Jrmccall 03:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References to Hamlet in popular culture

This subsection is big, getting bigger, and singularly unilluminating about the play "Hamlet". Shouldn't it have a page of its own? Any suggestions as to what to call it? I'm going to move it in a few days if there are no objections. — Jrmccall 23:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, I mentioned the idea some time ago, and I'm definitely in favour in principle. However before doing anything hasty, can I suggest that you join this discussion, since User:Durova seems to have some ideas on this issue. AndyJones 07:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, it's interesting -- and daunting! — Jrmccall 23:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • These "references in pop culture" sections seem to find their way into every Wikipedia article, and almost invariably degenerate into pointless collections of cruft. If such information belongs in Wikipedia at all, then I agree it should be given an entry separate from the main article, since it usually adds nothing to understanding of the subject. Perodicticus 16:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. There is a guideline about this at Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. Having said that, most Shakespeare-related articles have this stuff, and one thing that can be said in their favour is that they give kids something at Wikipedia they can work on. AndyJones 20:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Characters

Commented out the assertion that Shakespeare himself played the Ghost. Reference? — Jrmccall 23:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you were right. There is a tradition that he played the role, but it's certainly inappropriate to report it as a fact, or indeed to report it at all, unsourced. AndyJones 12:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning?

I've just removed this from the intro:

Lines and phrases from the play have passed into the popular consciousness, and in fact, the introductory phrase "To be or not to be" of Hamlet's soliloquy in Act III, scene i has become identified with it.

It doesn't seem to mean anything. Can anyone elucidate? AndyJones 11:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess it means that the play is epitomised by the phrase "To be or not to be" in the popular imagination. I'd say "alas poor Yorick" is at least as likely to used in the same way. Still, TBONTB does in a sense epitomise the play, and has been used as the title of two films. Paul B 12:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Current State Of The Article, 02 Nov 2006

The article, which was pretty good the last time I looked at it, is now garbage. The "Texts" section reads as though it was written by a very self-absorbed junior high school student with pretensions to literary insight and a VERY saccharine and overly precious writing style. I will considering nominating this as an Article for Deletion, with the hope that it will be replaced by something rather more encyclopedic. Hi There 10:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion is not the way to deal with these issues. The Texts section isn't terribly encyclopedic, but beyond that I don't see how the article is garbage. Why don't you edit the section and make it better? That's the general way to make articles better in wikipedia, not deleting them and starting over. You could even delete all the current text from the section and write your own version of it. john k 13:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. An AfD would obviously be speedy closed, and anyone who nominated it would be immediately labelled as a vandal, so there's no point whatsoever. As for the recent changes to "texts", I think they may be a bit long (which can be dealt with by splitting out, if necessary) but there is good information here, and a decent level of sourcing, and if it is to be labelled "unencyclopedic" then in my view it can only be the writing style that is an issue. Personally I admire what User:Jrmccall has done here. I've invited him to join this conversation to see if he has any comments. I'm sure we can all agree that comments like "pretensions to literary insight and a VERY saccharine and overly precious writing style" are in no way helpful, and they are not permitted here under our no personal attacks policy. AndyJones 13:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well gee Andy, I have just read he "No Personal Attacks" WP policy page and perhaps you will be so good as to explain to me exactly how my criticism of the "pretensions to literary insight and a VERY saccharine and overly precious writing style" of the Texts section is a "personal attack" because it certainly isn't apparent in light of the WP policy as expressed on the page you cite. I would also be interested in seeing your reasoning behind the idea that putting an AfD tag here would be "vandalism". Hi There 21:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Both answers are obvious beyond belief. I am not debating this with you. AndyJones 21:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
(Let me just jump in here...)Wow, it's bracing to be attacked like that -- for my writing style, yet! Perhaps it was high-handed to replace the original "Texts" section (and rename it, too), but I had my reasons (which may to you seem much unsinewed):
  • "Texts" emphasises the source(s) rather than the product. I was following such chapter headings in scholarly editions as "An account of the text" in changing it to "Text".
  • The original had no proper citations.
  • The original focused too much on Q1, whose contribution to what we might call the Canonical text is miniscule.
  • While not wanting to get into tedious technicalities, I wanted to introduce some examples of passages the Folio Party (as I called them here) felt that Shakespeare had marked for deletion, and why.
  • And finally, "Be bold!" says Jimbo Wales.
It's true that I myself made assertions that I did not cite authority for, as in judging the two example passages as much-loved, and their excision painful. A stylistic lapse from the "encyclopdic", perhaps, but I thought the literary equivalent of "the sun rises in the east" as being beyond dispute. (It just occurs to me now that someone might take that as a Point of View. It isn't, since -- truth to tell -- I am (albeit as bystander) more-or-less of the Folio Party.)
Having said all that, let me admit, as I look over what I wrote, that it could be rather easily improved. I did not explain at all well the difference between the two textual approaches ("all-in" and "Folio priority") at all well. Theobold probably figured out that Shakespeare wanted some of those passages from Q2 gone that he included, but his view was that all of Shakespeare's words were precious. The opposing view is the usual one in literary editors these days -- that an author's final say is the one we should respect. I remain agnostic. Jrmccall 22:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It is my hope that all editors to Shakespearean articles should be respectful and sensitive to contributions. These articles are wanting because they often fall prey to editors with good intentions but with poor textual and critical knowledge. Also, Wikipedia is not Cliff's Notes, we should not try to mimic that study-guide.
Also, the "Be Bold!" exhortion has been abused so often. Be Bold - only when you know what you are doing.
Also, the tone of certain passages is highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Dover Wilson's defense of the is called "heroic". But heroic is a very POV word which obviously favors Wilson's opinion. Other examples:
Of course, a playing text will be cut anyway. But to take these and other passages that have become traditional away from the standard reading version of Hamlet is troubling, even if they don't go away entirely, but get relegated to footnotes. It could be that scholars and players will diverge — as they have in the past — and the play that is acted will tend to have what is loved and expected, whatever current academic opinion has to say about some of it.
Bad as the Bad Quarto is, it does however give us, as through a glass darkly, a glimpse of how Hamlet was mounted in Shakespeare's day.
Shakespearean criticism and study has a long history. Frankly, I think unless you have a university degree (at least a Bachelor's), you should not tackle Shakespearean writing. College will give you some idea of how difficult the task is. There are huge voluminous periodicals and editions which you must skim through, and also very importantly, one must be at least impartial (and sounds like it) when one writes an encyclopedic article.

Mandel 07:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "Text" section

I've taken a stab at revising the "Text" section of the Hamlet entry, in line with previous criticisms. See what you think.Ugajin 10:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks good to me. It's well written, well sourced, encyclopedic in tone, NPOV. I may make a few minor tweaks for clarity but I'm pretty happy with it. AndyJones 13:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Beats mine. It especially got rid of that point of view stuff I rather carelessly put in. (I did modify one of your citations, tho, to put it in the form of the others.) — Jrmccall 15:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

bla bla bla bla

[edit] Added infobox

Any feelings on the infobox that I added? Remember 21:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/m/Talk%7EHamlet_71d5.html"