Hamlet feigns madness in this play and after reading it four times, I still don't know why he does this. As far as I can tell, he doesn't really say. If this is a strategic move, it is a bad one, because it only makes his uncle King Claudius, who has killed Hamlet's father and married his mother, more suspicious that Hamlet knows of his committing this "murder most foul" and is upset by it. There are a lot of madness scenes in the play in which different characters try to figure out why Hamlet is upset--Is it because of his girlfriend Ophelia's feigned rejection of him? Or is it the death of his father and quick marraige of his mother to his uncle? Or does he know something about the murder of his father? I thought there were too many scenes like this which made the play overly long. Since there was no explanation for Hamlet's madness, the whole conceit of having him feign madness left me confused.
I also thought that the characters weren't very appealing in this play. Most of the time the play is focused on Hamlet and his indecisiveness about killing off King Claudius because of his lack of courage, even though he was a war hero. Much of Hamlet's brooding over the matter isn't particularly interesting and tends to slow the play down to a standstill. I suppose he was afraid of being accused of treason since Hamlet only knows about the murder of his father by way of his father's ghost--he has no evidence. Finally near the end, Claudius plots against Hamlet's life, which backfires and Hamlet gets his revenge even as he is dying.
Probably the most difficult part of the play is the middle in which Hamlet puts on a play that is very much like the reality of King Claudius killing off Hamlet's father. This is done to see whether Claudius looks or acts guilty during the play. It seems Hamlet does not totally trust his father's ghost's revelation that his father has been killed and he needs further confimation. This middle part refers the Aenied in which Pyrrhus hesitates to kill Priam, just like Hamlet hesitates to kill Claudius-get it? I had to read this passage several times to learn its significance. This middle part also contains a lot of in-jokes about the theatre business at the time which seemed self-indulgent to me.
There is also another confusing part of the play in which references to battles and a coming war are made at the beginning and a warring noble named Fortinbras shows up near the end to ascend the throne as king after Hamlet dies. I don't think these scenes were necessary.
Shakespheare writes often in a high poetic style that I'm generally biased against--to me it comes off as stilted when compared to having characters speak in a more normal conversational manner. --Hey, but thank Providence for modern language translation of Shakespheare; I don't think I could have made it on my own without it. It's the best thing since guitar tab, bicycle training wheels, and pocket calculators! I suppose there will be those who say that you've got to read everything in the original language to really understand the text, but until I thoroughly bone up on Greek, Latin, Arabic, Old and Middle English, Russian and French, modern English is good enough for me.
Here ends my rather cheeky review of the Bard's Hamlet. I hope I'm not haunted by his ghost just for explaining why I didn't like the play that much.
It is impossible to study Shakespeare without studying Hamlet. This is certainly one of the cornerstones of English literature. These folger editions are light and convenient to carry, and are very affordable as well. Hamlet is an excellent place to start if you want to become acquainted with Shakespeare.
But I would also like to comment on this edition. It provides a lot of helpful notes on vocabulary and cultural notes about the period in which it was written and takes place. There is also an essay in the end with some analysis, and several pages of notes and helpful facts at the beginning. If you are reading Hamlet on your own and/or this is your first time reading it, I suggest using this edition.
I think that the signet edition is the best. It has its usual introduction on Shakespeare and his times. It then goes into the different versions of Hamlet that have come down to us. It has several commentaries on the play, including one by Coleridge. Most useful of all is a history of the productions of Hamlet on the stage and screen.reviews: 1, 2, 3, 4, page 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14