Why was Hamlet pretending to be insane? What was he trying to accomplish with this?

Why was Hamlet pretending to be insane? What was he trying to accomplish with this?

Attached: Hamlet.jpg (312x500, 33.53K)

he just wanted to spit fresh rhymes

Well, ostensibly, it was to dissuade Claudius from suspecting him of revenge, the idea being if he can hardly keep himself from cracking up, then he surely can't be plotting anything. But the age old question is: how put-on is his antic disposition? Or is the death of his father (and maybe more importantly his haunting) actually pushing him to the edge?

Cladius did the same and it worked for him. As a literary trope it pre-dates Shakespeare.

*as in the Roman emporer during the reign of Tiberius and Caligula.

I think it was a manifestation of the pagan vs Christian schism within Hamlet. He starts as an innocent-minded Christian prince, but the murder of his father and subsequent desire for vengeance push him toward more pagan notions of heroism: killing Claudius would be what Achilles or Agamemnon would do and, likewise, killing himself would be akin to Aeschylus' Ajax.

He wants the easier/pagan solution of suicide to be morally acceptable, but he isn't going to kill himself in the chance that Christianity is correct. This is the essence of his Act III Scene 1 soliloquy ("to die, to sleep, no more . . . to die, to sleep, to sleep perchance to dream"). This internal division, in my opinion, creates these swings in morality that comes to its peak by killing Polonius.

I think it starts with Hamlet simply acting insane to either throw the scent off his desire for vengeance or just confuse Claudius and his allies. However, I think his confusion breeds true insanity. For example, we're told Hamlet and Ophelia are lovers and that he is sending her love letters, Hamlet later outright (and quasi-publicly) scorns Ophelia in his "get thee to a nunnery" monologue, just to feel the despair of her suicide and launches himself into her grave.

Traditional Hamletic characters, which include pre-Shakespesrean Hamlet do it to appear safe to their uncle and save their life.

>pretending

>On the contrary my dear Ophelia I've never felt more sane.
What did Shakespeare mean by this?

>pretending to be insane?
>pretending
>Seeing his father's "ghost"
>Crafting an elaborate plot of his father getting cucked
>oooh my friends are all against me!
>My GF is a non-trad whore now! something, something... NUNNERY
>Talking to himself about suicide and doing some dumb shit before dying
>Going on schizo rant in a graveyard while holding the skull of an admired childhood friend
He needed meds and to be institutionalized desu senpai. Worse than a /pol/-tier incel schizo no cap fr.

For the lulz

>to be, or not to be
>suicide
Filtered

What’s your point?

It's a common misconception that this 'soliloquy' (it's not even a soliloquy, strictly, as Ophelia is on stage) is a meditation on suicide. Although the topic of suicide is breached, the main subject is whether it's better to stoically bear the unlucky pains of life (suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune) or to act and fight, to not go gently into the good night (take arms against a sea of troubles), but at the cost of the risk of death.

What did Harold Bloom mean when he said that the "To be or not to be ..." speech wasn't so much about whether or not to live, but whether or not to act? I think he said it on his Charlie Rose interview.

He also said it in his book, Poem Unlimited. Pic should answer your question.

Attached: Screen Shot 2022-04-19 at 21.09.14.png (403x641, 332.85K)

>And makes us rather bear those ills we have
>Than fly to others that we know not of?
>Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all,
It’s clearly about suicide user.

The only line strictly about suicide is
>bare bodkin
Everything else refers to risking one's life for action

What's your favorite passage, bros? For me, it's Hamlet at the graveyard digging up skulls.

For me, it's Hamlet's advice to the players.

Cliché, I know, but for me it's what a piece of work is man

which specific passage in that scene?

I like when he pulls up the lawyer's skull

Did you read it?

It was unironically just a time killer because of "muh five act" autism.
He know who the killer was in act 1, so Shakespeare had to devise plot devices to give an excuse for stretching this out 4 more acts.
Shakespearefags defend this as "genius writing" and do all kinds of mental gymnastics about why it was necessary for the structure, blah blah blah, etc.

if shakespeare wanted to tell a murder mystery he would have told the murderer later on in the play. thats clearly not what he was going for

So you agree with Laurence Olivier's interpretation that it's a "story of a man who could not make up his mind"? Isn't that kind of a copout? Isn't that kind of midwit for allegedly the greatest work of literature of all time?

Why is that a copout? He weighs over a lot during the play, he's not just hemming and hawing.

To be or not to be refers first of all to wether the killing of the king is to be or not to be in the future, but there is also the question of suicide present in those lines, especially after its stated outright in might i my quietous make...

>recites the line while holding a skull
>not about suicide
This website sometimes.

Attached: 5106 - d4954f1b23076ace6dc9a573cf77f2a3.jpg (948x1121, 118.29K)

B8

>no cap fr
гдe word filter

>He know [sic] who the killer was in act 1
He says in Act II Scene II
>. . . 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.
He does not know if the ghost really was his father or just Satan tricking him.

cringe

The mad was thought to be geniuses, those that are touched by Gods. Hamlet has the highest level of consciousness in literature sive them. He's indeed touched by Gods.

Hamlet is the story of a man who asks "how does it go?"

>sive
what did he mean by this?

>To be or not to be...
>That is the question.
Idk man, I think you're partly right (I did get that bit you quoted), but it doesnt seem that those lines are competing with one another. It seems they are working in conjunction to bear on the argument of whether it is better to live or die. Do I want to fight and struggle? v. Is it better to just give up? I think Shakespeare really wanted to dance along that kind of line (it would be in line with the rest of the play), but I believe respectable arguments could be made either way.

faggot

I thought he was supposed to be like Orestes

> Now might I do it pat, now he is praying;
And now I'll do't. And so he goes to heaven,
And so am I reveng'd. That would be scann'd.
A villain kills my father; and for that,
I, his sole son, do this same villain send
To heaven.
Why, this is hire and salary, not revenge!
He took my father grossly, full of bread,
With all his crimes broad blown, as flush as May;
And how his audit stands, who knows save heaven?
But in our circumstance and course of thought,
'Tis heavy with him; and am I then reveng'd,
To take him in the purging of his soul,
When he is fit and seasoned for his passage?
No. Up, sword, and know thou a more horrid hent.
When he is drunk asleep; or in his rage;
Or in th' incestuous pleasure of his bed;
At gaming, swearing, or about some act
That has no relish of salvation in't-
Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven,
And that his soul may be as damn'd and black
As hell, whereto it goes. My mother stays.
This physic but prolongs thy sickly days.

Was Shakespeare familiar with Orestes? He knew little Latin and less Greek.

AND IM ABOUT TO BREAK

>Aeschylus' Ajax.
>Ajax's half-brother Teucer stood trial before his father for not bringing Ajax's body or famous weapons back. Teucer was acquitted for responsibility but found guilty of negligence. He was disowned by his father and was not allowed to return to his home
Wtf man

Retard

>WHEN HE HIMSELF MIGHT HIS QUIETUS MAKE
>WITH A BARE BODKIN?

it is literally about suicide, end of story pseuds

yes these meditations lead one to other questions about existence in general "how like the angels"
but the soliloquy is specifically about suicide and you guys' middle-school takes on how it's not are just embarrassing
"take arms against them" clearly refers to the option of choosing to live in spite of the pain of existence
you fucking dummies

>take arms against a sea of troubles
by taking up arms he means a knife, and by opposing he means plunging it into his chest, thus ending them.

Where my fellow Robert graves homies at

To be or not to be; that is the bare bodkin
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would fardels bear, till Birnam Wood do come to Dunsinane,
But that the fear of something after death
Murders the innocent sleep,
Great nature's second course,
And makes us rather sling the arrows of outrageous fortune
Than fly to others that we know not of.
There's the respect must give us pause:
Wake Duncan with thy knocking! I would thou couldst;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The law's delay, and the quietus which his pangs might take,
In the dead waste and middle of the night, when churchyards yawn
In customary suits of solemn black,
But that the undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns,
Breathes forth contagion on the world,
And thus the native hue of resolution, like the poor cat i' the adage,
Is sicklied o'er with care,
And all the clouds that lowered o'er our housetops,
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.
'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. But soft you, the fair Ophelia:
Ope not thy ponderous and marble jaws,
But get thee to a nunnery—go!

?

!

,

you better try your best now, this thread is likely going ot be the sum of my exposure to Shakespeare

The question of whether he was pretending or not is honestly meaningless. He was clearly in the throes of intense emotion. Even if he convinced himself it was only to throw Claudius of his scent, the energy he put into his mania could only come from genuine distress. He was merely allowing himself to act as awful as he felt.

Brutus before him, in the early days of the Republic.

>you guys' middle-school takes
>you guys'
Kek, nice one. I didn't say it wasn't about suicide, you illiterate monkey. I said it was a meditation on life and death with no clear answer.

>why does he wear the mask?
I think he was biding time for his ritual execution attempt at the end or whatever.

what the fuck are you talking about

maybe he was just a good actor.

What do you think "go gently into that good night" means, if not literal suicide? Otherwise it's a symbolic suicide, but it's still suicide

Attached: 1647230968351.jpg (250x250, 6.92K)

did you read ANY of those posts?

Hamlet is Shakespeare's archetypal "trickster" character but thrust into the main role of a tragedy i.e. a place where he clearly does not belong
In this sense Hamlet is something of a deconstruction of Shakespeare's other works which is why I think it stands out and conglomerates his best qualities as a writer

Attached: 1626582685647.jpg (550x508, 18.14K)