Old Books, New Readers discussion

Hamlet will be the new book we are reading in March. All discussion should go here along with any review you should chose to write.

You can read it on goodreads by clicking the link or you can get it from Amazon or your local library.

I started it this afternoon. My son just finished it for school and really enjoyed it. I am introduced to Bernardo, Horatio, Marcellus & the ghost.

I watched David Tennant's Hamlet on youtub and really liked it, I am even more excited to read it.

I downloaded it from Gutenberg.

Hopefully I'm not alone in having faked a reading of a required book in high school. I confide this now that the statute of limitations is long past.

Somehow, I managed to pass that English class, but I always regretted not having actually read the story. In my attempt to clear my conscience, I found my old copy of Hamlet and cleared off the inch of dust on top.

Maybe since I'm not being forced to read it, I'm enjoying it. I just made it through Act I, having met the ghost. There is certainly something rotten in Denmark and I think it has a lot to do with the father figures we've met.

The number of book titles mined out of this play is stupendous. And you've heard the joke, about the old lady who was taken to see the play. She complained that it was full of quotations!

I know there isn't a test at the end of the month, or anything, but I'm finding the Spark Notes on Hamlet to be very useful.

After reading a scene, I go through the explanation/analysis. It's helpful since I stumble on a lot of the archaic language.

I know this might sound weird but I got an audio to listen to as I read. It is helping me a great deal because of the Language. I do not have any notes with the written text. I have read Act 1 and Act 2.
I remember only reading an exert from this when I was younger, not the entire play. I am enjoying reading the play with the help of the audio.

Excerpt not exert.....sorry.

I'm pretty certain that Shakespeare would never survive as a screenwriter, today. He ties up every loose end and doesn't leave himself anything to work with when it comes to sequels.

On the other hand, it's so nice to come away from a book with a sense of completion. Cliffhanger endings drive me crazy.

I read Hamlet earlier this year in my English class, and I have to admit, Shakespeare isn't really my favorite playwright to read. Along with Romeo and Juliet (which I had to read a couple years ago), the characters weren't really that interesting and I didn't really care at all for Hamlet's madness, even if Shakespeare tries hard at making us feel sympathetic towards the character. The whole time, I was bored the majority of the time. If you ask me, I find Shakespeare to be overrated, though I did enjoy Julius Caesar.

This was one of the first of Shakespeare's plays I ever read - as a teenager. I read it and listened to a recorded version of Richard Burton (on vinyl - can't find it anymore.) Loved it! I've listened to and watched many versions. I think since you guys are reading it this round, I will watch the BBC version with Derek Jacobi. I originally liked the play for Hamlet's young man angst. Now I'm 49, so I wonder what my take on it will be this time around...

A good audio recording to read along with with Kenneth Branagh here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfDCcJ...

Rick - Thank you, this is great!

Rick that looks really interesting. I look forward to listening to it.

I love Hamlet. My English class only read up to the "play within a play" and I was so perturbed that I went home and bought the 1996 Kenneth Branagh movie. It runs for almost 4 hours (if not more) and has every line from the play filmed.

I have already read it, and we (classmates and I) had a play with it. The twist in the story is actually pretty amazing. It is enjoying to read.

It's tricky, Hamlet. It's too long, for a start. It's also full of stuff that lacks, as Eliot said, an "objective correlative" (in other words, the sexual disgust and rage seem to come from nowhere) and the attempt to place an indecisive intellectual smack-bang in the middle of a revenge tragedy doesn't always come off. Still, what a play! It's the language: lofty and salty and intensely poetic, all at once. Branagh's film is a little clunky but his portrayal is wonderful. If you want to hear someone savour every line then he's your man.

I've always been partial to Macbeth myself.

Yes, well, Macbeth has a pretty much flawless plot, I'll grant you: there are no real diversions or digressions. But I can't identify with him like I do (like I suspect most of us do) with Hamlet.

V wrote: "I know this might sound weird but I got an audio to listen to as I read. It is helping me a great deal because of the Language. I do not have any notes with the written text. I have read Act 1 and ..."

I did the same thing! I really enjoyed listening along as I read the text. It helps the reading flow better, I think. And I treated myself to the movie when I finished it :)

Mikiah wrote: "V wrote: "I know this might sound weird but I got an audio to listen to as I read. It is helping me a great deal because of the Language. I do not have any notes with the written text. I have read ..."

If you have a Kindle Fire, the Whispersync feature is really awesome for highlighting your text while it plays the audio.

I do not have a Kindle Fire. I have an Apple IPad.

I downloaded the audio books app and the Shakespeare app

started it on April instead of March. Halfway through.. Quite enjoying it.

You are ahead of me Lucresia, i still haven't started it yet. I took it with my on vacation but read a sci-fi book instead.

I have just finished reading Hamlet as part of my Catch-Up Challenge. This is my second time reading it (the first was in college). While I did enjoy the play, I will admit that I prefer some of Shakespeare's other works more. I found the story to be a bit meandering at time, though Hamlet himself was a compelling character.

One of the things that struck (and frustrated) me more this time than when I was in college, was the portrayal women--both Gertrude and Ophelia were weak and dependent on men and neither had any real agency of their own. Granted, women fare far worse in some of Shakespeare's other plays, but the women were so one-note that I found it kind of distracting.

Overall, it was a good read, and I'm glad I decided to pick it up again..

This is part of my Catch-Up Challenge too. These are my comments after struggling with a number of obstacles in my understanding of Hamlet's motivations. Hopefully these comments will be useful to other readers here.

Hamlet is the most quoted, critiqued, and cited work in English literature. Everyone knows a situation where a quotation from it is appropriate, such as "Methinks he doth protest too much" or "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" or "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't."

With every reading, I have been troubled by seemingly gratuitous scenes or monologues of indefinite intent. My concerns have caused me to question Hamlet's motivations. And yes, I know this same question has bedeviled critics over many years. So the basics are easy to follow. Yes, Hamlet is an admirable man of high ideals and excellent intentions, and Claudius is a criminal opportunist, and Gertrude is a woman of the world, and Ophelia is a weakling. But this thumbnail description is not the truth of the play, and it does not explain how the play ends with multiple murders under false pretenses. So how do we get from Hamlet's encounter with his father's ghost to such a ghastly final scene, especially with the numerous detours Hamlet takes through his preoccupation with death, suicide, good and evil, sanity and insanity, and honor and dishonor?

So I read up on criticism from G. Wilson Knight (from his book The Wheel of Fire) and I saw there an explanation. If Knight is correct, Hamlet is out to exist in a place beyond good and evil, and beyond action or inaction, and even beyond life and death. I did not think he might have this wish for a human superstate until I read through the most famous monologue of all time, starting "To be or not to be..." This is an almost dreamlike reverie of many clearly antagonistic thoughts, including suicide, active aggression in killing Claudius, passive endurance of an ill defined evil, and many conditions in between. But it seems he is out to attain something he does not understand, a condition that marries the masculine and feminine, a "lived poetry" that combines the conscious and unconscious, that allows one to cease fearing death since life and death are no longer antagonistic to each other. He clearly admires the values of a Fortinbras who lives as a soldier on the border between life and death, but then he knows that suicide attains those same conditions as well. So a superstate as Knight describes it might be the one condition that allows Hamlet a peaceful resolution of the problem he faces, which is to find a state beyond action and art, and between even good and evil. He will fail to do so, but he is much more at peace after he later learns the truth with the play-within-a-play.

A second point I would make is that this is not a revenge play, or at least not merely a revenge play. Shakespeare knew about many of those plays, the most famous of which may be Thomas Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy. But he clearly did not intend such a play because he carefully sketched the role of Laertes to fill that need for the Elizabethan audience and to cast Laertes as an honorable but easily manipulated fool who was useful to Claudius. Shakespeare casts him in the odious position of responding to Claudius' goading about the murder of Polonius by saying "To cut his throat i' the church."

Third, sanity is a critical feature of Hamlet's quest to learn the truth. His father's ghost may or may not be a demon intending to mislead him into a revenge that will doom his soul to hell. Elizabethan audiences fully expected ghosts to be either truth-tellers or demons or possibly a mixture of the two, and that the apparent truths they spoke might lead to far worse consequences. So Hamlet had little choice but to devise first the phony insanity, and then the play-within-a-play device to try to learn the truth. Phony insanity is a clever device simply because it allows others to speak more frankly in front of the one deemed to be insane, and many other plays have used that device for the same purpose.

Finally, it is important not to undercut Claudius' command of the majesty he has attained. He is not merely the grasping power-mad monster that is often portrayed. He has good reason to occupy the throne, and does so within the confines of the powers of succession. For Hamlet to kill him is a treasonable offense, and Hamlet's hesitancy about this is well-founded. Hamlet has good reason to think he would be killed for doing so. Furthermore, Claudius develops stately powers that are cautious and reasonable. He has some stature that reminds me a bit of MacBeth.

Overall, I think the play gives us a good picture of a soul tormented by the need to find choices not available to him. So it fulfills the major demands for the making of tragedy. Hamlet is a man born before his time, and in particular before the structure of the Superman in Nietzsche was modeled.

I read this as a part of my catch up challenge for the year. While I've already read it twice up until now, it is a decent play, so I thought I would refresh my brain on the story.
I feel for Hamlet. To be the bearer of such knowledge of a tragic situation, he is forced to live with it on his own. Comes from that is a trainwreck that meets everyone. His father was killed by his uncle. This is the catalyst of all the action.
Hamlet goes 'mad', but others don't realize why. They feel it is Hamlet struggling with his feelings for Ophelia. After some interaction, Claudius determines there is something else happening.
As the story progresses, Hamlet doesn't help his reputation talking to himself and being hateful and short with others.
As the story continues, Hamlet decides to put on a play to determine whether or not his uncle did in fact kill his father like the ghost proclaims. The evidence that follows is more than enough to convince Hamlet of the truth behind the accusations. Claudius understands now that his secret is no longer safe. He tries in separate ways to get hamlet killed. Well, in the end everyone dies except Horatio. Hamlet names Fortinbras his heir.
I really enjoy the irony of the fact that the story starts with them discussing how to keep the Norwegian's away from their throne, but in the end Hamlet gives it to them. I guess it's the classic way of saying Karma will win.

I should have read Hamlet ages ago but now I finally have thanks to the catch up challenge for 2017.

What a tragedy for all who were involved. Laertes and Ophelia gets dragged into the family tragedy because of their father's murder. I think my favorite character was Laertes and he was a nice foil to Hamlet. He lost two people close to him within a short span of time and was determined to gain revenge. However, he was also able to forgive Hamlet in the end.

I also thought that what happened with the Norwegian army was ironic. At the beginning they were all trying to strategize how to keep the army out and in the end, Fortinbras was given the throne and he not even have to fight for it.

In this book we can find everything like the theme of mourning with all his bad shades, the desire to revenge and a unrequieted love, Hamlet after the father's death isn't able to go on, in fact he sees his ghost and talks with him. When people lost a close person usually sees things not real.

Michelle wrote: "I should have read Hamlet ages ago but now I finally have thanks to the catch up challenge for 2017.

What a tragedy for all who were involved. Laertes and Ophelia gets dragged into the family tra..."

I have always had trouble with Laertes. He is unquestionably a very brave man and an expert swordsman, and not afraid of anyone. He also fancies himself a "man of the people" so much that Claudius must work quickly to avoid an insurrection led by Laertes.

But he does not hesitate to manipulate Ophelia every bit as much as Polonius or Hamlet, mainly to protect her but also to preserve his own position.

So he has a kind of good cop/bad cop quality to his character. Very admirable, yes. Very quick to correct the wrongs from the deaths of Polonius and Ophelia. But also very scheming, and one who can be manipulated by Claudius.