The crazy, classic story about the prince of Denmark, in which everyone dies but Horatio... really delves into the idea of death, insanity, and the line between fantasy and reality. A must read (or see!). ( )

Shakespeare is an adept poet and master of the language. He layers on jokes, puns, and references everywhere. He has a massive output of work, and a number of different plots. When we compare him to other authors, it is difficult to find anyone who stacks up. This is usually because we compare him to the wrong people.

Shakespeare didn't write books or pamphlets or epics, he wrote plays. Short pieces of drama that were meant to be fast-paced and exciting. That they are mainly experienced today as bound books and not theatrical productions does not change their origins. If one wants to look at the achievements of Shakespeare, he should be compared to someone of a similar bent.

He should be compared with prolific writers known for catchy jokes and phrases. Writers who reuse old plots, making fun of their traditions. Writers of work meant to be performed. Writers who aim for the lowest common denominator, while still including the occasional political commentary. He should be compared to the writers of South Park; or Family Guy; or the Simpsons.

Shakespeare was meant to be lowbrow and political, but now it only reads that way to those who are well-educated enough to understand his language, reference, and the political scene of the time. He referenced mythology because that was the popular thing to do. Family Guy references 1980's pop culture. Is that any less esoteric? How esoteric would it be after 400 years?

Additionally, all of Shakespeare's magnificent plots were lifted, sometimes whole cloth, from other books and histories, just like how sit coms have 'episode types' or how the Simpsons steals the plots of popular movies.

Shakespeare was not as visionary or deep as he is often given credit for. Rather, he was always so vague with the motives and thoughts of his characters that two critics could give his characters two different and conflicting motives, but find both equally well-supported.

Is Shylock evil because he's a Jew, evil despite the fact, or evil because of the effects of racism on him? You can make a case for all three, while Marlowe (the more practised writer) never left it to chance, and where has it gotten him?

Shakespeare was an inspired and prolific author, and his effect on writing and talent for aphorism cannot be overstated. I think he probably wrote the King James version because it is so pretty. However, he is not the be-all and end-all of writing.

His popularity and central position in the canon comes mainly from the fact that you can write anything you like about his plays. Critics and professors don't have to scramble, or even leave their comfort zone. Shakespeare's work is vague enough that it rejects no interpretations. No matter your opinions, you can find them reflected in Shakespeare, or at least, not outright refuted.

His is a grey world, and his lack of agenda leaves us pondering what he could possibly have been like. His vague and endless interpretation makes his writing the perfect representation of an unsure, unjust world. No one is really right or wrong, and if they were, there would be no way to know it.

I don't know whether this makes him the most or least poignant of writers. Is the author's absence from the stories the most rarefied example of the craft, or is it just lighthearted pandering? I'm still not sure. ( )

Reread this play for class, I like it a lot, even if I think Hamlet is a whiney little bitch. Still a good play though. ( )

We're not reviewing "Hamlet" here. That's been done pretty thoroughly for about 400 years, and I think we'd find that the overall rating is a solid "5".

We should be reviewing this edition - the Ignatius Critical Edition.

What sets this apart are the Introduction by Joseph Pearce, and the seven critical essays. They shed a lot of light on the play. One of the highlights I remember is about the "To be or not to be" speech, where the first essay points out that the accent is on "is": ".... that IS the question" (page 185). That emphases the existential nature of his question.

This book takes a Catholic look at "Hamlet". Pearce notes these lines:
Act 4, Scene 3, 8th speech (lines 19 - 23):

King: Now Hamlet, where's Polonius?
Hamlet: At supper.
King: At supper! Where?
Hamlet: Not where he eats, but where 'a is eaten: a
certain convocation of politic worms are e'en at
him. Your worm is your only emperor for diet,
....

A clear reference to the Diet of Worms (1521, where Luther defended his "95 Theses"). And in Act 1, Scene 2, the King and Queen try to persuade Hamlet not to go back to Wittenberg - that's the university where Luther posted those 95 Theses.

The other essays look at the psychology, the religious background, and other aspects of the play.

In all, it's a good resource for anyone who wants to get beyond the surface of the play.

Really liked the characters and the ending. ( )