Post your Hamlet reading

[Anonymous No.11589541]

There is only one true test to root the pseuds from the trues: and that is your reading of Hamlet.

So anon, why doesn't Hamlet just kill Claudius at the start?

[Anonymous No.11589791]

Claudius mogged him and he was intimidated

[Anonymous No.11589802]

>>11589541
Hamlet is afraid for his soul; he needs to confirm that the ghost is not a demon sent to damn him which is why he sets up the moustrap.

[Anonymous No.11589819]

>>11589541
>Thus conscience does make cowards of us all

[Anonymous No.11589865]

>>11589802
I don't think it is this, I think he is deluding himself.

My interpretation is that Hamlet doesn't truly love his father to the point were he can bring himself to act on his behalf. The likelihood is that the Ghost scene is the longest conversation he has ever had with his Father. He speaks about him with a sense of idolisation but never with intimacy, more a detachment. His inaction stems from his conflict and his guilt in not feeling the love or the duty to revenge his father that he expects to feel, and therefore he can only theorise on killing Claudius without actually acting.

His grief at the beginning is partly false and assumed - the “Seems,” madam? section is actually a kind of inverse of his feelings - he is playing the grief from the start, perhaps unconsciously, but when it comes to act on his supposed grief, it isn't sufficient to compel to kill.

'O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!' gets to the heart of it, how is it that an actor can force his soul to feel the thing that Hamlet should be feeling anyway? Why can't Hamlet will himself to feel enough for his father to kill Claudius?

I'll go into more detail on this if people are interested because it is an interesting reading that I think the text supports in a lot of ways

[Anonymous No.11589877]

>>11589865
Then why a bit later does he so easily kill?

[Anonymous No.11589898]

>>11589865
Do you think his witnessing of his mothers quick marriage: (and is his statements not a denial of yours: paraphrased "hamlet why are you wearing black" "its only been 2 weeks since father died" "its been 2 months" "oh its only been 2 months, and I should no longer mourn, a mans memory should last this long..." now I gotta look what he said(if you have those lines at hand post them please)) turn him off from his potential love for Ophelia?

[Anonymous No.11589916]

>>11589877
This is a good question that I will try to answer in a bit. Killing Polonius is a sticking point in most interpretations I've come across.

>>11589898
Will reply to that to just gotta take the dog out

[Anonymous No.11589936]

>>11589898
>>11589916
and partially how evil can get in the way of pure love: if Hamlets father wasnt killed do we assume hamlet may have happily married ophelia? But because Hamlet was distracted by his fathers murder, he had to dismiss Ophelia, and did so rudely, causing her to go crazy, and ultimately his own death. Pretty much, cain and abel: Brother killing his kingly brother, and then coveting his wife: ends up with everyone dead and sad and crazy.

[Anonymous No.11589945]

>>11589865
>My interpretation is that Hamlet doesn't truly love his father to the point were he can bring himself to act on his behalf.
ughh... are you projecting.... do you not really love your father (and consider yourself smart and charming like hamlet?)?

[Anonymous No.11589976]

Because the sources that Shakespeare used have this plot characteristic.

[Anonymous No.11589978]

>>11589865
hey yeah expand on this its a pretty cool interpretation i just need more text supporting it for me to buy it

[Anonymous No.11590014]

He's basically gay, is what I think.

[Anonymous No.11590064]

>>11589945
But remember that Hamlet grew up as a Prince in a society wholly different from our own - where Father-Son love/intimacy in the way we understand it simply didn't exist. But even in today's world, the ghost of your father asking you to kill someone to avenge his death is still not something you can snap to in a moment - most would still hesitate if they followed through at all.

But yeah I'm smart and charming and dress all in black tell girls to fuck off to nunneries.

[Anonymous No.11590089]

every interpretation of hamlet non-gnostic or without bloomian flavor is automatically retarded

[Anonymous No.11590155]

>>11589978
Writing it up now bear with me

[Anonymous No.11590180]

>>11590089
>every interpretation of hamlet non-gnostic or without bloomian flavor is automatically retarded
care to share? what is the gnostic interpretation? What is the bloomian flavor?

[Anonymous No.11590217]

>>11590064
>is still not something you can snap to in a moment - most would still hesitate if they followed through at all.
ok but that is -points for your original stance which was that Hamlet didnt want to avenge the death immediately because he didnt like/love/care about his father.

Which really, I don't think is a meaningful or valid theory.

[Anonymous No.11590288]

Hamlet doesn’t kill him because that’s not the point for Hamlet. Why would he want to kill Claudius and become king?
Hamlet just wants to play his part, in life, and also in the play. He learns from this, and also has great fun doing it.
He’s out in this situation and instead of just playing along like a regular person he plays along like a player, who knows he’s playing. He’s caught up in it anyway, so he has no choice, might as well do it his way.

[Anonymous No.11590311]

He's just depressed and can barely get out of bed, much less do something like kill somebody.

[Anonymous No.11590338]

>>11590311
>>11590288
>>11590064
No its quite clear and simple, he wasnt sure that he did it: so he devised a way of becoming sure: having the members of the troupe perform a scene which mimics the suggested brother kill brother act of his father, to see if he can catch a sense of guilt on claiudius face


>Murder has no tongue, but miraculously it still finds a way to speak. I’ll have these actors perform something like my father’s murder in front of my uncle. I’ll watch my uncle. I’ll probe his conscience and see if he flinches. If he becomes pale, I know what to do. The ghost I saw may be the devil, and the devil has the power to assume a pleasing disguise, and so he may be taking advantage of my weakness and sadness to bring about my damnation. I need better evidence than the ghost to work with. The play’s the thing to uncover the conscience of the king.


Also I just went to a site to look this up: whats the deal with this modern text version vs. original? Who was responsible for so vastly changing the original text and so adding in words and ideas?


>May be the 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. The play’s the thing
Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king.

[Anonymous No.11590346]

>>11589541
He's a pussy that overthinks until his only choice is to act.

[Anonymous No.11590619]

>>11590338
>The play’s the thing
>Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king.
Also is this a meta statement about all the King plays shakespeare wrote immortalizing their conscience, and also his hopes of maybe affecting a kings conscience who saw his play?

[Anonymous No.11590651]

>>11590217
>>11589978
It's hardly an essay but if you can see some validity in my stance I might try and write something more substantial up after rereading the play. Hopefully you see what I'm driving, but of course there are many, many more areas to explore with this take on Hamlet:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F4W00Q3kc6bYR9q5bzDHoIiN1xSS32jQ0pyxARbfrUk/edit?usp=sharing

[Anonymous No.11590661]

>>11590338
I always took that play as just another part of Hamlet playing.
Hamlet knows everything else of substance in the play. He even clearly knows he’s being tricked and likely going to die in the final scene.
The play just another part of his role which he has great fun with.

[Anonymous No.11590677]

>>11590338

>Also I just went to a site to look this up: whats the deal with this modern text version vs. original? Who was responsible for so vastly changing the original text and so adding in words and ideas?

The No Fear Shakespeare really is a crude didactic tool, but in your quotes it's because they NFS and original version aren't textually aligned on the page. This is also in the original and corresponds to your first quote

About, my brain.—Hum, I have heard
That guilty creatures sitting at a play
Have, by the very cunning of the scene,
Been struck so to the soul that presently
They have proclaimed their malefactions.
For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak
With most miraculous organ. I’ll have these players
Play something like the murder of my father
Before mine uncle. I’ll observe his looks.
I’ll tent him to the quick. If he do blench,
I know my course. The spirit that I have seen

[Anonymous No.11590750]

>>11589541
Hamlet is a lil bitch, and isn't even entirely sure the ghost he saw was real
By the end of the play he has nothing left to lose, so he's much more intent on killing claudius

[Anonymous No.11590815]

>>11590651
post it in the thread

[Anonymous No.11590858]

>>11590815
When Hamlet comes face-to-face with his father’s Ghost, he addresses it as so:
‘I'll call thee Hamlet,
King, father, royal Dane: O, answer me!’

This is telling - he is King before father, and the reiteration of title and status with ‘royal Dane’ simply reinforces the sense of a strained courtliness that is formal rather than loving. There is no sense of the affection, the hysteric ecstasy that one might expect to feel in seeing a dead relative risen - perhaps because Hamlet is fearful and suspicious, certainly, but it is fair to say that the entire exchange between them is forced. I assumed previously that this strange discourse was due to the nature of the Ghost’s undeadness, but I don’t think there is any reason to assume that being a purgatorial spirit would alter your pattern of speech or the strength of your relationship with your son, rather, I think the scene plays this way because this is the same way Hamlet Jnr and Snr spoke to one another while Hamlet Snr was alive.
When the Ghost asks Hamlet to revenge him, his reply is:

‘Haste me to know't, that I, with wings as swift as meditation or the thoughts of love, may sweep to my revenge.’

His separation of ‘thoughts of love’ and the act of taking revenge, to the point of comparison, suggest that taking revenge is not fuelled by these thoughts, that they are non-applicable in these circumstances, that love is not what will drive him to act (or rather the lack of it is what will, inevitably, lead to his inaction). The Ghost’s reply equally loveless:

‘I find thee apt;
and duller shouldst thou be than the fat weed that roots itself in ease on Lethe wharf, wouldst thou not stir in this.’

And then, as the ghost departs, his final words - ‘remember me.’ - no final declaration of his love for his son, but instead, a request for Hamlet to retain the image of his father in a totemic sense rather than in a loving one, as Hamlet’s frenzied response shows:

‘Remember thee! Ay, thou poor ghost, while memory holds a seat In this distracted globe. Remember thee! Yea, from the table of my memory I'll wipe away all trivial fond records, All saws of books, all forms, all pressures past, That youth and observation copied there; And thy commandment all alone shall live Within the book and volume of my brain, Unmix'd with baser matter: yes, by heaven!’
Hamlet’s pledge is to wipe away everything but his father’s memory, and therefore, to fixate on his command. It is a command, mind, something that the Ghost insists Hamlet adhere to, and this implies, therefore that he would not trust Hamlet to keep him in his memory, or carry out the revenge, otherwise. This is in fact Hamlet’s sole motive going forward at the finish of this exchange, needing to remind himself in order to embolden himself:

‘Now to my word; It is 'Adieu, adieu! remember me.'I have sworn 't.’

[Anonymous No.11590863]

>>11590858
Jumping to Gertrude’s closet, where, after killing Polonius (will write about this in a different document), Hamlet says:

‘A bloody deed! almost as bad, good mother, As kill a king, and marry with his brother.’

What is important here is that Hamlet’s rage is contained in the killing of ‘a king’ and not ‘my father’. It is the idea of the act of treason that is so incredibly outrageous and despicable, not the loss of his loved one at the supposed behest of his mother (perhaps because he is in line to the throne, and so if it can happen to his father, it can happen to him).
His personal loss seems not to be a factor. The ‘Look here upon this picture’ speech opens up his psyche completely, and shows it to be functioning in a realm rather distinct from that of a paternal bond:

‘See, what a grace was seated on this brow;
Hyperion's curls; the front of Jove himself;
An eye like Mars, to threaten and command;
A station like the herald Mercury
New-lighted on a heaven-kissing hill;
A combination and a form indeed,
Where every god did seem to set his seal,
To give the world assurance of a man:
This was your husband.‘

Not only are these comparisons hyperbolic to the point of absurdity, but they are strange - the comparisons of pictures even more so - Hamlet’s obsession one of pure aestheticism, a picture a manifestation of complete removedness, a still image behind glass, his father a God to be worshipped rather than a father to be grieved. The irony of his early vow to remember his father made clear with his reliance on a picture, as if memory is not sufficient enough, or contained too little to justify his actions. At the start of the play, he tells Horatio that he sees the image of his father in his mind’s eye, but now he fails to see him at all, relying on a facsimile. He fails to understand how Gertrude could have forgone so perfect an image of man, but never touches on the actuality of his person or character, never compares his father with Claudius in terms of their persons - all is status and superficiality. Are these the fixations of a son who truly loves and understands his father?

‘A murderer and a villain;
A slave that is not twentieth part the tithe
Of your precedent lord; a vice of kings;
A cutpurse of the empire and the rule,
That from a shelf the precious diadem stole,
And put it in his pocket!’

Hamlet returns again to Gertrude’s part in the act being one of treachery, he never interrogates her actions in the frame of him losing his father. And then, his father returns for real, as if to dispel Hamlet’s idolatry and fetishism of him.

[Anonymous No.11590880]

>>11589541
He had to let his resentment grow in order to truly act without a doubt

[Anonymous No.11590892]

>>11590863
Hamlet does show love toward a father figure, but it is not Hamlet Snr - rather, it is the Yorick.

Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow
of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath
borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how
abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at
it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know
not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your
gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment,
that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one
now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen?
Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let
her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must
come; make her laugh at that.

These words of Hamlet’s contain the love, intimacy, and poignancy that are missing in the recollections and discussions of his father. A vivid memory of physical and emotional intimacy, and a sense unbounded joy, ending with witty pathos. As court jester, it is likely that Yorick would have spent a great deal of time with young Hamlet. This is the love we would expect for a father, a love that might drive a man to murderous revenge. Perhaps, if Yorick been the one in need of being revenged, Hamlet would have been more willing to see it through.

[Anonymous No.11591034]

>>11590892
To add a little something more that just came to me, the line 'I knew him' can be taken at face value, but there's perhaps something deeper in it, the idea that Hamlet knew him in a way that he never knew his father, or anyone else, for that matter

[Anonymous No.11591045]

>>11589541
Five Acts Bro
Plus the flowers Ophelia is feminists wet dreams wave point five.
Polonius was a Francis Bacon joke gone wrong.
It's actually "Rose-Anna-Danna & Gilda Stern"

[Anonymous No.11591056]

Hammy is bedazzled and perplexed by the indifference of fate and the dazing afterglow of indecision.
Hamlet cannot decide what the better future is, and thus consigns himself and his loved ones to death.
His perplexity at the indifference of the universe becomes in itself indifference, and life is indifference's opposite, thrust into existence through acts of will. And so Hamlet fades from life rather than struggle against death, slipping from indifference into death as easily as one slips on winter ice.

[Anonymous No.11591504]

will read that later op

[Anonymous No.11591515]

>>11589541
Hamlet is the inspiring story of a man who overcomes his bad hamstring genetics to kill his uncle

[Anonymous No.11591753]

>>11590661
he doesnt perform in the play,
>The play just another part of his role which he has great fun with.
No. it was his tool for discovering if his uncles guilt would show on his face, as he says, I wish I wasnt compelled to respond to you, but I hope I can heal your idiocy

[Anonymous No.11592105]

>>11589541
Hamlet has more important matters to deal with: the illumination of his soul to the truth of life which doesn't happen until act 5

[Anonymous No.11592121]

>>11589541
Because what's the point when we're all just dust, bro.

[Anonymous No.11592405]

Freud has already figured this one out. Claudius has achieved what Hamlet unconsciously desires: to love his mother and kill his father. Thus, Hamlet is unable to kill Claudius due to his unconscious admiration of him. Note how Hamlet is only able to kill him after Claudius accidentally murders Gertrude, effectively breaking Hamlet’s idolized view of him as the achiever of his unconscious desires. His intimate relations to his mother, especially his repetitive comments on her ‘incestuous’ sex life, also suggests this explanation.

[Anonymous No.11592425]

>>11592121
or cork, rather

[Anonymous No.11592443]

>>11591056
....OH, FROM THIS TIME FORTH,
MY THOUGHTS BE BLOODY, OR BE NOTHING WORTH
yeah, he slipped under just like ophelia there, didn't he

[Anonymous No.11592528]

>>11592405
>Claudius accidentally murders Gertrude
wot.. that doesnt happen

[Anonymous No.11592565]

>>11590858
>This is telling - he is King before father, and the reiteration of title and status with ‘royal Dane’ simply reinforces the sense of a strained courtliness that is formal rather than loving.
nope, youre just making shit up.

If my dad was a king, I would lovingly call him king, and it would have nothing to do with anything you are talking about, therefore what you say is not sufficient to create a point. He called his dad king, yes, ok, I would with no animosity... you then invent and read into it by saying: him calling his dad king means.... no, theres no evidence of that.

>There is no sense of the affection, the hysteric ecstasy that one might expect to feel in seeing a dead relative risen - perhaps because Hamlet is fearful and suspicious, certainly,
yes you got it there at the end, you caught yourself, certainly

>but it is fair to say that the entire exchange between them is forced.
ehhhh... errrr....ehhhhhhhh........ death of a father can be hard on a son..... wait ... what...... A FUCKING GHOST>.... WHAT THE FUCKKKK... YOU CAN INTERPRET ANY OF THIS AS NORMAL AND JUDGE HOW HE SHOULD ACT SEENG A GHOST... NOT JUST A GHOST... BUT THE GHOST OF HIS FATHER HE THOUGHT HED NEVER SEE AGAIN

>I think the scene plays this way because this is the same way Hamlet Jnr and Snr spoke to one another while Hamlet Snr was alive.
in the ways that hamlet is extremely reasonable and understanding of things about the world and life and his privileged position, I dont think there is any evidence that he didnt like his father.

>And then, as the ghost departs, his final words - ‘remember me.’ - no final declaration of his love for his son, but instead, a request for Hamlet to retain the image of his father in a totemic sense rather than in a loving one, as Hamlet’s frenzied response shows

Ok, that may be true... but still... there is no reason so far to assume that their relation was not then more of a brotherly love, so connected that there was no need to say simple thing such as 'i love you', it is obviously known, the knowningness of the love is contained in his desire to appear to him at all and ask him for this: but ok, refresh my memory please, why did the father want to be avenged, why was he in purgatory, he needed to be avenged?

I do agree that maybe Hamlet was hesitant because all this business was not his style, he is thrust into these affairs and it doesnt entirely suite him. This could be the case, without having to do anything with his feelings for his father

>It is a command, mind, something that the Ghost insists Hamlet adhere to
the ghost insists hamlet to forget everything? Or hamlet, in his desire to please his father, emphatically exaggerates his willingness, by suggesting that the most important thing is to avenge, that he will wipe everything from his mind but the thought, all this evidence so far, I dont know if it can be said, is not evidence for hamlets desire to impress his father and do right by him,

[Anonymous No.11592609]

>>11590863
>‘A bloody deed! almost as bad, good mother, As kill a king, and marry with his brother.’
>What is important here is that Hamlet’s rage is contained in the killing of ‘a king’ and not ‘my father’.
His mother doesnt know that hamlet knows (I dont think she knows either right) that his father was killed: he wouldnt say 'as kill my father, and marry with his brother'

he wouldnt let her suspect that he thinks that her new husband murdered her old one: maybe he said it to see if she would react if she ever considered it.

"See, what a grace was seated on this brow;
Hyperion's curls; the front of Jove himself;
An eye like Mars, to threaten and command;
A station like the herald Mercury
New-lighted on a heaven-kissing hill;
A combination and a form indeed,
Where every god did seem to set his seal,
To give the world assurance of a man:"

this sounds a lot like love, respect, and admiration. Also it is possible a royal family has fundamentally different family dynamics (nor is hamlet 23) than a middle class family in a midwestern suburbia

>rather than a father to be grieved.
he grieves him too, the wearing black, his acting on behalf at all, and the greivedness is in his tone, the tone of his speaking contains the venom of his sorrow.

>Are these the fixations of a son who truly loves and understands his father?
"‘A murderer and a villain;
A slave that is not twentieth part the tithe
Of your precedent lord; a vice of kings;
A cutpurse of the empire and the rule,
That from a shelf the precious diadem stole,
And put it in his pocket!’"

That is him talking about Claudius

>never compares his father with Claudius in terms of their persons - all is status and superficiality
His father was very special and important, when he died he did not suspect he was murdered: when he found out he was, he hated his murderer, so attempted to diss him by saying he is very unworthy of such an act. Do you think Hamlet is not honestly upset that his father died? Do you think if it is true claudius killed him, and hamlet believes he did, that these phrases do not show legitimate anger at his uncle for killing his father?

[Anonymous No.11592658]

>>11590892
>These words of Hamlet’s contain the love, intimacy, and poignancy that are missing in the recollections and discussions of his father
Perhaps yorick, a jester represented the lighter comedic side, and his father was more serious, as it is known a king must be: and Hamlet knows not to associate lightheartedness and jestering with the death of his father, the murder of his father, also the "the love, intimacy" not spoken of about his father, is contained with the fact he is acting at all towards avenging his father, and in the anger at all who he perceives as disrespecting his father. His saying angry things about his uncle and angry things about his mom is him saying loving and intimate things about his father. But yeah someone wrote it itt, "thoughts be bloody or nothing at all" (crude paraphrase), he was in 'seeing red mode', and we must imagine if he did not love or care about his father, he wouldnt be.

>Hamlet would have been more willing to see it through.

Hamlet was as willing to see it through as believing he was in the midst of killing claudius as he killed polonius.

>the line 'I knew him' can be taken at face value, but there's perhaps something deeper in it, the idea that Hamlet knew him in a way that he never knew his father, or anyone else, for that matter

Or, simply you are with someone, and someone else digs up a skull, and you hold it in your hand, and the person your with is like, what the fuck is this person doing, and you see them make that face, so you are compelled to say that you know them


All in all, I agree Hamlet was hesitant to act, why would he have wanted to wish to deal with any of that, but when his father told him to act, he did. You can say even then he didnt want to, and shouldnt have wanted to, what would it really matter, his fathers dead, thats that, why not just let claudius get on with it and his mother and happily ever after?

[Anonymous No.11593170]

>>11589541
>Post your Hamlet reading
I thought we were going to outpseud each other by uploading our actual readings of the monologue to vocaroo.

[Anonymous No.11593204]

>>11589541

>So anon, why doesn't Hamlet just kill Claudius at the start?

Because the play would be over in a few minutes, why the fuck do you think?

>And so Odysseus gets on the first boat home. The End.
>And so prince Andrei happens across Napoleon in a pub. Shoots him in the face. No war. The End.
>and so Don Quixote gets cold water splashed on his face and comes to his senses. The End.

What kind of fucking fool are you?

[Anonymous No.11593231]

>>11593170
kek

[Anonymous No.11593427]

>>11589865
i can swear i read a psychoanalist recently who said this same thing

[Anonymous No.11593431]

>>11593427
You don'r remember who? It'd be nice if you could find that somewhere for me because I'd like to see some in-depth psychoanalytical interpretation along those lines

[Anonymous No.11593528]

>>11589541
Cause Claudius is his uncle

[Anonymous No.11593537]

>>11593204
Wow you should really take this convincign, inspiring argument to your nearest university. Really blows a hole in the last 400 years of critical interest in Hamlet. Can't believe none of the hundreds of thousnads (possibly billions) of better educated people than you didn't think of the fact it was a play. Fascinating stuff you fucking cretin

[Anonymous No.11593546]

>>11590892
really interesting reading. Quite interesting to contrast this idea with Laertes's and Ophelia's reaciton to the death of their father: immediate and violent action. Obviously we see that Polonius has an active and interested part in their lives so Shakepseare might be deliberately trying to contrast the pair with Hamlet's inaction and his, as you claim, estranged father. Guess Fortinbras can be thrown in there aswell as the third 'control son' in the play

[Anonymous No.11593552]

https://vocaroo.com/i/s0GM9j7V2MsA

[Anonymous No.11593613]

>>11590346
This. The whole point and tragedy of Hamlet is that he dithers and prevaricates needlessly, and everyone he cares about dies because he didn't just act straight away. It's a universal human trait, after all, every single person in this thread is dicking about on the Internet instead of doing something useful, while their life trickles away from them second by second

[Anonymous No.11593620]

>>11591753
>No. it was his tool for discovering if his uncles guilt would show on his face,
No, it was a stalling tactic to delay actually having to act. He makes his excuses, and tries to fool himself that he needs this extra thing to confirm the guilt of Claudius. In reality he knew all along, even before he met the ghost, but would rather procrastinate and avoid making a decision

[Anonymous No.11594087]

>>11593170
me too, and that should be done as well

[Anonymous No.11594120]

>calling others interpretations wrong

[Anonymous No.11594128]

>>11593620
>In reality he knew all along, even before he met the ghost, but would rather procrastinate and avoid making a decision
evidence?

[Anonymous No.11594130]

>>11594120
>calling others interpretations wrong
every possible interpretation is equally valid

[Anonymous No.11594274]

>>11593546
Exactly - I was going to write up some of the parallels and juxtapositions in the father/son relationships within the play, and might still do that - I think the contrast between Laertes' and Ophelia's reaction to the murder of Polonius to the reaction of Hamlet to his father's is makes a strong case

[Anonymous No.11594719]

i thought all his actions were rational and his plans elaborate

[Anonymous No.11594731]

>>11594719
Stabbing someone through a curtain without even knowing who it is?

[Anonymous No.11594840]

https://vocaroo.com/i/s1hB72vp0TtL

[Anonymous No.11594877]

>>11594731
yes

[Anonymous No.11594977]

https://vocaroo.com/i/s1hB72vp0TtL

https://vocaroo.com/i/s1i3CW9qscNn


I hate to agree with you, who I was arguing with, but:
>That I will speak to thee: I'll call thee Hamlet,
>King, father, royal Dane: O, answer me!

father is lowercased... but... so is royal.... and its not like Hamlet wrote the text.... and told shakespeare to make sure father was lowercased....

[Anonymous No.11595016]

>>11590892
>Alas, poor Yorick!
maybe metaphor for him having to grow up, his childhood and humor and innocence have been killed, which is the tragedy, the absence of the comedy

[Anonymous No.11595144]

>>11594128
>evidence
Hamlet not being a moron. Everybody knew from the start what had happened, it's medieval Europe. Throughout the play Hamlet constantly makes excuses to avoid action, at the begining he's moping around feeling sorry for himself and pretending he's too grief striken to act. Then he pretends to distrust the ghost. Then he pretends to be mad. Then he does his play nonsense. Then he chickens out of killing Claudius.
All in contrast to the decisive Fortinbras.

[Anonymous No.11595248]

>>11595144
>Then he pretends to distrust the ghost.
So if a real ghost spoke to you, you would easily trust it?

[Anonymous No.11595268]

>>11595248
Probably would. Especially if it told me what I already suspected. Do you find Hamlet's excuse about the devil etc convincing? I don't.

[Anonymous No.11595282]

>>11595016
That is nice too but doesn't Hamlet in a sense act the joker and the player throughout, feigned or otherwise? He has this great moment of clarity and then tries to have a fist fight with Laertes in Ophelia's grave whilst proclaiming that he loves her more than 40 brothers could

[Anonymous No.11595334]

>>11589541
He suspects Claudius is his actual father.

[Anonymous No.11595364]

>>11595268
>Do you find Hamlet's excuse about the devil etc convincing? I don't.
He had never seen a real ghost before, apparently. He had apparently heard such stories and myths and fables of demons and damned spirits. He is seemingly , apparently, in some sense, somewhat intelligent. He encounters a real ghost for the first time in his life. This spooks him

[Anonymous No.11595417]

>>11595282
>That is nice too but doesn't Hamlet in a sense act the joker and the player throughout, feigned or otherwise?
maybe, and maybe he would be more purely so if his father didnt die/wasnt killed (or simply if his father died naturally): his father dying (and unnaturally) forced, propelled, provoked him to have to act not only so light heartedly/comedically/jokerly

[Anonymous No.11595438]

>>11595364
Do you think he is ever genuinely in doubt about what happened to his father? Is there a point in the play where you think Hamlet thinks it was all just natural causes and Claudius is innocent?
An example from a different play, nobody actually thinks Duncan's stewards murdered him. They all know it was Macbeth, but they're too scared to say it.

[Anonymous No.11595454]

>>11595438
But Hamlet is alone in during 'O but this too too solid flesh...' and never verbalise a thought towards that effect, in fact his anger at his mother remarrying so quickly shows something of the contrary, that it is 'merely' that which grieves him and not the thought that his father was murdered

[Anonymous No.11595739]

>>11595438
>Do you think he is ever genuinely

"I'll have these players
Play something like the murder of my father
Before mine uncle: I'll observe his looks;
I'll tent him to the quick: if he but blench,
I know my course. The spirit that I have seen
May be the devil: and the devil hath power
To 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: the play 's the thing
Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king."

[Anonymous No.11595838]

>>11595454
Yes he's alone, he's making excuses to himself. He's using grief and feigned anger at his mother as distractions so he doesn't have to confront Claudius. Much like anons on this very website who use their depression or autism as excuses to avoid making changes in their lives
>>11595739
>ignoring the first half of that speech
What would he do,
Had he the motive and the cue for passion
That I have? He would drown the stage with tears
And cleave the general ear with horrid speech,
Make mad the guilty and appal the free,
Confound the ignorant, and amaze indeed
The very faculties of eyes and ears. Yet I,
A dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak,
Like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause,
And can say nothing; no, not for a king,
Upon whose property and most dear life
A damn'd defeat was made. Am I a coward?
Who calls me villain? breaks my pate across?
Plucks off my beard, and blows it in my face?
Tweaks me by the nose? gives me the lie i' the throat,
As deep as to the lungs? who does me this?
Ha!
'Swounds, I should take it: for it cannot be
But I am pigeon-liver'd and lack gall
To make oppression bitter, or ere this
I should have fatted all the region kites
With this slave's offal: bloody, bawdy villain!
Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain!
O, vengeance!
Why, what an ass am I! This is most brave,
That I, the son of a dear father murder'd,
Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell,
Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words,
And fall a-cursing, like a very drab,
A scullion!
Fie upon't! foh!

[Anonymous No.11596303]

>>11595838
>ignoring the first 1/37th of that speech
Now I am alone.
O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!
Is it not monstrous that this player here,
But in a fiction, in a dream of passion,
Could force his soul so to his own conceit
That from her working all his visage wann'd,
Tears in his eyes, distraction in's aspect,
A broken voice, and his whole function suiting
With forms to his conceit? and all for nothing!
For Hecuba!
What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba,
That he should weep for her?

[Anonymous No.11596363]

>>11595838
>That I, the son of a dear father murder'd,
>Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell,
>Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words,
>And fall a-cursing, like a very drab,
>A scullion!
>Fie upon't! foh!

Ok, so my reading of Hamlet is that Hamlet was a nerdy beta dweeb. Usually hamlet is played heroiclly by heroic men gallantly valiantly, but maybe shakespeare imagined him to be a short, skinny, glasses wearing, snivelling dork. Autistic like Ignatius in confedercy of dunces, overblown and dramatic, and thats the humor and show of the play.

[Anonymous No.11596368]

I haven't read Hamlet since high school
I need to read it again

[Anonymous No.11596428]

>>11596363
I don't think he's been played heroically for a number of years - the idea of Hamlet as a tragic hero was a popular one for the Romantics but I think modern interpretations are usually more in line with a Freudian, psychoanalytical approach than something rooted in decorum or religious values, perhaps wrongly

[Anonymous No.11596526]

>>11596428
>Freudian, psychoanalytical
how niggardly

[Anonymous No.11596531]

>>11596368
listen to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4uZrna_lFM

[Anonymous No.11596535]

>>11589541
If to be or not to be was the question, what was the answer?

[Anonymous No.11596568]

>>11596428
>>11596363
Yes but imagine him played by a 23 year old, 5'6 120 lbs, glasses, anime loving, video game loving, nasal voice, high pitch voice, with a slight lisp

[Anonymous No.11596577]

>>11595838
>>11596303
Cool recording of that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxV1SgCwruI

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Juf0ARlJKHY

[Anonymous No.11596579]

>>11596531
This pretty hammy - I like Burton but he's a very shouty Hamlet

[Anonymous No.11596581]

>>11596535
>If to be or not to be was the question, what was the answer?
why was to be or not to be the question in the first place? Because he was sad his dad died, or frustrated in having to try to kill his uncle, while hating his mom,

[Anonymous No.11596584]

>>11596568
Don't slag off Ben Whishaw's version like that

[Anonymous No.11596591]

>>11596579
any of your favorite performers/recordings on youtube? You prefer a more elegant, dignified, restrained? Burton has gusto, vigor, passion, energy, that takes the words, and ideas, and feelings higher, then a cold distant sterile victorian reading can

[Anonymous No.11596607]

>>11596584
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNvB3pLJMj0

I have not seen many versions of hamlet, but the ones I have seen they all misinterpret that, admittedly confusing line: there should be no more marriages, all but one shall live

[Anonymous No.11596614]

>>11596581
I think it's wider than that. He's asking why we collectively continue to endure all the suffering in life when we could just end it all, and the answers he reaches is we do it because the prospect of the afterlife and the unknown is worse than living - in a sense it's a reply to his speech in Act 1.2. It brings up a lot of questions, as is self-evident, but Hamlet's attitude challenges a lot of religious ideas of the time

[Anonymous No.11596623]

>>11596607
Yeah that's a good point, when I hear I'm never able to make sense of it

[Anonymous No.11596627]

>>11596607
>>11596584
This is the line in question, how do yall interpret it (last time i tried considering its meaning i got confused and thought I grasped it, but im not sure I truly did...what I concluded was that shakespeare did write it grammatically confusing, maybe even invalid, or if my concluded interpretation is correct, he could have easily chosen another word to make it more clear, instead of, but, unless maybe he was pointing toward ambiguity in multiple meanings) :

"I say, we will have no more marriages:
those that are married already, all but one, shall
live; the rest shall keep as they are. "

[Anonymous No.11596641]

>>11596614
yes of course its weirder than that, but its in the context of the surrounding linear events, there is no evidence he would have given that speech if he did not have to deal with trying to kill his uncle, his hatred for his mom, his difficulty with ophelia, and the death of his dad..brought him to consider suicide

[Anonymous No.11596652]

>>11596641
Oh I see what you're saying - but he was suicidal at the beginning of the play, arguably?

[Anonymous No.11596658]

>>11596627
"I say, we will have no more marriages: those that are married already, all but one, shall live; the rest shall keep as they are."

The actors always speak it as if it means: Those that are already married, all of those that are already married, except for one, shall live....

oh maybe I just got it.... is he talking about his uncle, .... ok... fuck.... I guess thats the answer and makes sense.... his uncle is married to his mom at this point..? everyone married will live, except for one, his uncle... ok... ok.....

[Anonymous No.11596663]

>>11596627
Might be wrong but isn't it saying - we shall have no more marriages, the people that are married already, other than my mother who will be widowed when I kill Claudius, shall continue being married - the rest of the unmarried people will stay that way

[Anonymous No.11596669]

>>11596577
check this out and say what you think

[Anonymous No.11596685]

>>11589541
He knows deep down that Claudius is his biological father.

The over hasty marriage?
Gertrude’s feigned obliviousness to her haste and subsequent guilt after hamlet’s chastisiment in her room?
And who does hamlet have more in common with: the hale hearty warrior king Hamlet or the scheming plotting actor-king Claudius?

[Anonymous No.11596702]

>>11596591
I just don't believe a word he says, and though he has a great voice he has a very affected quiver thing going on, it's just of its time.

Best Hamlet I've seen is Mark Rylance's which was phenomenal but alas no recordings. Not sure for recorded Hamlet's, there are actual few goods ones (hate Tennant's, Brannagh's is just okay).

[Anonymous No.11596727]

>>11589541
This is the best thread on /lit/ in a while. What happened this time?

[Anonymous No.11596742]

>>11596579
ya, but mainly maybe the attraction besides what i mentioned here>>11596591
is the rarity of his voice in terms of solely the musical qualities, timbre, tone, pitch

[Anonymous No.11596763]

>>11596685
>actor-king Claudius
what does that mean?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Claudius
suggests claudius is capable king

[Anonymous No.11596823]

>>11596702
This maybe one of the best?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNYko5D5ZhU

[Anonymous No.11596832]

>>11596823
ophelias a babeee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg7dfMbKVfg

[Anonymous No.11596862]

>>11589865
Dude, i like where you are going but you have to keep going and connect it with hamlet's relationship with Ofelia. He loves her but he doesnt acts on it. The scene where some courtisans spy on Hamlet's conversation with Ofelia to see if he is actually in love says a lot. He is in love but he doesnt know why he should do something. But when Ofeia dies and some guy insults her he get killed. he acted there. Thats why its the first modern piec of literature. The nihilism of todays modern society can be

[Anonymous No.11597021]

>>11596862
AI is getting more and more intelligent by the day

[Anonymous No.11597147]

Macbeth thread when? Is there even anything deep about this play?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5ndaZkz2m0

[Anonymous No.11597175]

>>11597147
Also this king lear is great:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhaH-QFiXe4

though when I first came across it I was like, oh cool, james early jones, I actually know someone in this play, but he may be the weakest performer in it. As good as he can get, and as rare his voice and size is, there are some low points, of hard to hear speech, and over done his-voice

[Anonymous No.11597196]

>>11597147
Macbeth is Shakes most personal character imo (not in relation to the author but in how deep we go into their psyche), which is interesting too considering in act he's also his most evil. I'd really enjoy discussing it.

[Anonymous No.11597508]

>>11597196
I dont know much about it, but really you would say deeper in his psyche than hamlet? and more evil than brutus?" he said slightly sarcastically, but was it up to the reader to guess, out of 100% how much was slight?

[Anonymous No.11597549]

>>11597196
I dont know much about it, but really you would say deeper in his psyche than hamlet? What else interesting can be said about it? Its got an interesting tone, mood, aesthetic, fantasia esque. ...or is this me just eskewed me judging by this Orson Welles rendition

[Anonymous No.11597586]

shakespeare awesome because he made plays composed of epic-poetry, I just realized thats the dealio.. 'the characters speak weird, shakespearen..' .....all the characters are poets..

[Anonymous No.11597635]

>>11597549
>but really you would say deeper in his psyche than hamlet?
I would actually. Hamlet's psyche may represent things more profound, but in personal self-to-self depth he seems to always be somewhat aloof from his own thoughts, as meta-cognitive player in a play thing he seems to have. He acknowledges his own distance by the last act, claiming it was a play of madness.
Macbeth is completely sincere, and his emotions change him piece buy piece and it's in no one more fundamental and agonizing. Maybe in Lear, but Lear seems to an extent may be putting on an air, a bravado in his madness; Macbeth speaks purely to his self, and he is completely transfixed by what he sees in himself.
>What else interesting can be said about it? Its got an interesting tone, mood, aesthetic, fantasia esque
Well you can reduce any play to a group of elements. It may just be a matter of taste if you feel significantly less in it than the other tragedies. I also would find the themes of fate, self-destruction, the two main characters different metamorphic journeys in the face of horror, Shakespeare's writing economy, and the great originality in the portrayal of treacherous tyrants to make Macbeth interesting.

[Anonymous No.11597819]

>>11597175
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhaH-QFiXe4
starts around 5:30 btw

[Anonymous No.11599096]

>>11596832
>>11596823
^^this

[Anonymous No.11599276]

>>11596727
Believe it or not this thread is actually about literature. I was kinda worried when i posted it that there would be no responses, or that it would get shitted up with politics. but no, liegitimate textual discussion. good work lads

[Anonymous No.11599606]

>>11597147
>>11597175
And this next:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQQh115qAME

[Anonymous No.11599625]

>>11589541
because hes a beta cuck that cant bear responsibility

[Anonymous No.11600064]

>>11599606
anyone?

[Anonymous No.11600170]

>>11597175
>weakest performer
nvrmind, the fool is much worse

[Anonymous No.11600186]

>>11599606
brutus acting is this is so.....errr.... hes like stoic 50s buisness man thick american accent and everyone else is like really involved and appropriately flamboyant ... yes we understand his role is graven, grievous, sober, solemn, as maybe a sturdy focused center piece for all else around, but there is just something only the slightestly offputting about the absence contained in his performance

[Anonymous No.11600313]

What are /lit/‘s cinemafag opinions on the two strangely arthouse 1971 King Lears?

[Anonymous No.11600589]

>>11600313
The Schofield one is probably the best filmed Lear performance. It's weird as cinema though. Brook is obviously a theatre director and it shows.
The Soviet one is absolute kino, as is the same director's Hamlet.
It's weird how many of the best Shakespeare adaptations are in non-English versions, Throne of Blood, Ran, Kozintsev's Hamlet and Lear.

[Anonymous No.11600688]

>>11597635
nice thoughts, I am a shame that has nothing to add

[Anonymous No.11601267]

the sublime challenging beauty of poetry is the musical necessity of every word in perfect order

[Anonymous No.11601877]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhW7bOoTxxQ

[Anonymous No.11601964]

>>11601877
>Olivier
What did he mean by this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWCe6bW0-Fs

[Anonymous No.11601973]

>>11601964
yikes... he couldnt even have tried to alter his voice a bit...you know throw in a few shieeets here and there

[Anonymous No.11602031]

trapped in an impenetrable philosophical and existential morass that he's unable to resolve using intellect or will, a fundamental dilemma between mortality and life and Christianity and philosophy, innit

[Anonymous No.11602059]

>>11602031
>morass
lmao...more ass

[Anonymous No.11602138]

Sometimes it seems to me that Hamlet and other famous works of art (like the Monalisa) are not in fact that deep and complex. Not saying they aren’t great quality works, but not that almost mystical and otherworldly kind of achievement that many authors tend to point out.

What I think is that, after the works became extremely famous, every critic, scholar, intelectual and artist find interesting to give their opinion about the thing itself. They also become a way for people who work teaching the arts to produce their own work. Naturally what happens is that every new analysis wants to bring something fresh, and then the straightforward and craft-like nature of the work ends up accumulating hundreds or thousands of interpretations, like a rock that accumulates moss after several centuries. The artwork itself it’s simply the rock (although this rock may be a diamond), but all the moss and algae covering it are all foreign to it, and were never in the mind of the creator of the rock.

What it’s essential is this: the artwork needs to get famous to the point that scholars find it irresistible to give their own opinion about it. It’s survival depends of the offerings it can give to the egos of the generations of people to come that will find it amusing (or even builds they profession and reputation on top of it) to express themselves through their views of the art object.

My point is: there are several Hamlets and Monalisas out there, but they need to get popular enough for scholars to build a tradition on interpreting them. There was, for example, a Medusa head that was though to have been painted by Leonardo and it was one of his most famous and praised works during the 17th and 18th century: several critics and artists were contributing wothbthwir own interpretations of it. Now that the work is known to not be by Leonardo it has gotten far more obscured. So what changed? Did the quality of the work decayed or simply the preternatural aura it has before, when it was though to be by Leonardo?

Several of Hamlets complexities are all inventions of the people who are offering their own reading of it than actual complexities of the work. There are many other characters as complex and individual as Hamlet, and yet it’s now a “obvious truth” to call him the most profound and original character ever imagined.

[Anonymous No.11602244]

>>11601877
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DcoiAAuoeg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuCv6IBml1M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC4d8jwyAbk

[Anonymous No.11602299]

>>11602138
but it's by no means a given that a work of art will the the qualities necessary to sustain that kind of interest

[Anonymous No.11602313]

>>11589541
He needs to ruminate on it in his room some more because that's what young men do.

Young princes, anyway.

[Anonymous No.11602368]

>>11602138
>and yet it’s now a “obvious truth” to call him the most profound and original character ever imagined.
I agree that statements such as, and thoughts about, this are entirely insignificant compared to the existence of the work itself.

Shakespeare was the beatles of playwriting and Hamlet is consider to be one of his great songs.

[Anonymous No.11602605]

Hamlet is all about Laertes!

[Anonymous No.11602877]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmWtynh2Xwc

[Anonymous No.11602927]

>>11589865
I think you’re projecting the modern “*sniff* I never felt truly connected to my father” trope used to make male characters “deep” in movies and sitcoms onto a much older society with different mores possibly. Then again, how much HAS the human psyche changed? It’s an interesting question — Shakespeare could have even been subconsciously projecting his own relationship with his father into the play. The question is, do you think such psychoanalytical readings are valid or a retarded modern invention? Perhaps we’re so suggestible the very propagation of ideas of psychoanalysis makes us subconsciously act like psychoanalysis says we’re supposed to act and think, this making us fit everything into a psychoanalytical worldview and discard or filter out of our attention all that’s not relevant to it? The delusion-generating capacity of the mind is incredible.

[Anonymous No.11603102]

>>11589541
Hamlet was trying to get Claudius to admit that he killed Old King Hamlet, whether by outright saying it or expressing a reaction like he does later in thr play.

[Anonymous No.11603515]

[Anonymous No.11603596]

>>11591753
Responding days later, but obviously I know he doesn’t perform in the play.
I’m saying that having the play out on is a part of Hamlet’s part, which he must play and has great fun playing.
Obviously the reason is to show his Uncles guilt, but Hamlet does it because he has to do it. It’s part of the “play” in which he must act. Am I making sense?

[Anonymous No.11603831]

reading cold and on half-breaths so as not to wake my landlady upstairs, but here's my effort

https://vocaroo.com/i/s0zkLzA9h4TJ

Hamlet is the author of his own play.

[Anonymous No.11604024]

>>11601877
>>11601964
Olivier must have been electric on stage but his filmed stuff seems so hammy. Gielgud seems so much more natural
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_ZorcIPcyE

[Anonymous No.11604553]

[Anonymous No.11604562]

[Anonymous No.11604565]

[Anonymous No.11604570]

[Anonymous No.11604573]

[Anonymous No.11604577]

[Anonymous No.11604786]

>>11603831
nice reading mate

[Anonymous No.11604810]

>>11589541
Hamlet is basically a mouthpiece for transhumanism. You guys should read "A will most incorrect to heaven": a fanfic that spells it out more clearly.

[Anonymous No.11605042]

Voice is a bit rough today but here's a crack at To be or not to be - it's from memory so might not be word perfect: https://vocaroo.com/i/s136hn5JhesT

[Anonymous No.11605103]

hilarious
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaurxA4s6is


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb12fu_WWnk

[Anonymous No.11605440]

[Anonymous No.11605460]

[Anonymous No.11605697]

[Anonymous No.11606081]

[Anonymous No.11606879]

[Anonymous No.11607070]

>>11602877
damn he change the words in this? after like 3/4ths through the end, are not shakespeare writing?

[Anonymous No.11607095]

>>11607070
Yeah he sort of butchered Shakespeare's words in the film for some strange reason - combined a bit of Henry VIII Part III and then just added things in

[Anonymous No.11607101]

>>11607095
Meant Henry VI not Henry VIII ha

[Anonymous No.11607137]

>>11602927
>>11603515
>>11604562
>>11604565
>>11604570
>>11604573
>>11604577
>>11605440
>>11605460
>>11605697
>>11606081
>>11606879
Pale Flamer? how have you been

[Anonymous No.11607158]

>>11593613
delete this

[Anonymous No.11607164]

he's not sure if the ghost is true

[Anonymous No.11607552]

>>11592528
>'Wot'
>Lazy, witless, post ironic response

Read the book you complete and utter pleb.

[Anonymous No.11608161]

>>11593537
Pure pseudery. Here, listen to some big brain smart guys say the same thing and then kill yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smMa38CZCSU
I can't be arsed to back through the video and find where it is.

[Anonymous No.11608763]

>>11607095
the thing is I didnt think it was a butcher, I thought it was a worthy successful addition

[Anonymous No.11608985]

post more readings please

[Anonymous No.11609816]

[Anonymous No.11609931]

>>11608763
It's literally the same character though, so I think it's allowable. Sometimes productions of Henry iV include Falstaff's death scene from Henry V

[Anonymous No.11610147]

>>11609931
the character richard the 3rd appears in henry the 4th? what is that historical chronology of that like, does richard 3 have big role in the 4th? and takes place years before the historical setting of richard 3rd?

[Anonymous No.11610155]

>>11610147
No he appears in the Henry VIs

The chronology is Richard II, in which Henry Bollingbroke deposes Richard and takes the crown, Leading to Henry IV, and then his son is Henry V, and his Henry VI, until he loses the crown to Edward who is Richard III's brother and leads into Richard III

[Anonymous No.11610166]

>>11589541
>why doesn't Hamlet just kill Claudius at the start?

he was too busy trying to get Ophelia to take it up the butt

[Anonymous No.11610516]

>>11608161
If your takeaway from that interview was 'hurr don't bother interpreting text bc it's a text' then maybe you should reconsider who is the pseud

[Anonymous No.11611596]

[Anonymous No.11612633]