Revenge on Claudius

Why does this danish nigga delay his revenge?

Attached: Hamlet.jpg (641x1000, 155K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio's_Revenge
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spanish_Tragedy
humanities.uci.edu/poeticshistorytheory/user_files/Ricoeur.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I thought it was because Claudius was praying when he went in to kill him?

Also because he's an indecisive bastard

it's like you didnt read the play

cheapest bait i ever saw on this site. Why he does delay is never explained in the play, only why he doesnt specifically kill Claudius in the prayer scene. There are possibillities before and after that

because he can't make decisions

because he's a pussy just like every other shounen protag

he does board a pirate ship though and kills Polonius. Doesnt sound like a pussy to me

>You have a murder committed before the play begins
>Your protagonists discovers it already in the first act who the murderer was
>After your protagonists dies, the play will end, and he will only die after he kills the murderer
>What do you do if cant kill your protagonist and the villain in act 2, 3 and 4? You fill the interval with all sorts of ramblings and poetic questions that were in vogue in the day
>Since you have space, and since melancholic revengers are in vogue, why don’t you just try to make what others are doing, but better?

That’s all there is to it. The plot structure demands and the fashions of the day (of the time when Shakespeare was writing the play) are the responsible for Hamlets musings and his delay.

What makes this play great – as with almost all of his plays –is the poetry. Take the poetic exuberance and the metaphors away from Hamlet and the work is simply the same shallow philosophy and commonsensical dissertations one finds again and again in writings of the time.

>the same shallow philosophy and commonsensical dissertations one finds again and again in writings of the time
which are? and in what other contemporary works may these be found?

Is the prayer scene supposed to be funny? Both the idea that someone would go to heaven instead of hell purely because they happened to die while they were praying rather than a little bit later and the idea that Hamlet would let this concern delay his revenge, something that I think most people in real life wouldn't do, seem ridiculous. But I don't know if people at the time really thought this way or what.

because he fears the end--not just the termination of life in death, but the closing of possibilities that any decision entails
a decision is literally a cutting off of an unknown future

For plot:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio's_Revenge

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spanish_Tragedy

Alphonsus, Emperor of Germany

The Ur-Hamlet

As for the ideas, you get a lot of the same materials in Montaigne and Bacon, for example. And even theother plays at the time have the same kind of musings about life, death, melancholy, suicide, etc.

i want you to provide examples of what you see as 'shallow philosophy' and 'commonsenseical dissertations' in hamlet
and i want you to draw the parallel of these with specific passages from contemporary works
i do not need you to gesture broadly at some prototypical pieces, or source materials for hamlet, as i am already familiar with these

it's not that he thinks too much and that delays his decision making, he thinks too well. For the rapture of the Dionysian state,with its annihilation of the ordinary bounds and limits of existence contains, while it lasts, a lethargic element in which all personal experiences of the past become immersed. This chasm of oblivion separates the worlds of everyday reality and of Dionysian reality. But as soon as this everyday reality re-enters consciousness, it is experienced as such, with nausea: an ascetic, will-negating mood is the fruit of these states.

In this sense, the Dionysian man resembles Hamlet: both have once looked truly into the essence of things, they have gained knowledge, and nausea inhibits action; for their action could not change anything in the eternal nature of things; they feel it to be ridiculous or humiliating that they should be asked to set right a world that is out of joint. Knowledge kills action; action requires the veils of illusion: that is the doctrine of Hamlet, not that cheap wisdom of Jack the Dreamer who reflects too much and, as it were, from an excess of possibilities does not get around to action.

hey everybody dr. bloom is here
pleasure to have you here, professor

>i want you to provide examples of what you see as 'shallow philosophy' and 'commonsenseical dissertations'

Some examples:

The to be or not to be: it's an ages old exercise of rhetoric about if life is worth living and about all the errors that seem to exist in existence. It’s simple, it has been done before, it’s actually pretty basic.

The “what a piece of work is a man” is the same ages old celebration of humankind (there are already choruses in Antigone with the same theme), one that was especially in the air all around the renascence period. The end of the same speech “the quintessence of dust” was already crystalized for centuries in the Ecclesiastes.

>and i want you to draw the parallel of these with specific passages from contemporary works

I'm at work and without access to books, only memory. But try it yourself: open the Antonios Revenge. Or better: open the tragedies of John Webster, or if you want old stuff, the ones of the Greeks and of Seneca: you will find the same themes there.

the 'piece of work' speech is not celebratory; it's ironical
it's a bit of counter-espionage against the would-be spies, rosencrantz and guildentsearn a screen for his actual thoughts and motivations, which in this scene are to discern the very same of his enemy, claudius
you mistake the allusive nature of the text as though it were simple derivation
that's not it's function
it is web-working
yes, this is the function of the poetry, but it is not unoriginal, as it draws a nexus, of interconnections between disparate concepts, themes, ideas, etc. to be held in tension with one another, and to be further plucked upon, to sound out the resonance unique to this particular suspension
you stupid fucking pseud

Read the Notes from the Underground to understand that spastic Danish lad.

My point is: literature keeps working the same themes over and over and over again. It keeps working upon love, hate, war, peace, loneliness, fear, courage, cowardice, generosity, avarice, empathy, ambition, etc. The only thing that varies are the ways the writers use to convey such themes, that is, the style of the authors.

Then you get that cliché about “round characters” and “multilayered characters”, which is nothing more than making your character have contradictions, act in different ways according to the situation, have characteristics that don’t fit quite one another. A poet like Shakespeare may even end up achieving something like this by accident, in the desire to treat many different themes and exploring different metaphors and imagery in the same work, needing to use mostly a single character as speaker.

If one wants really original thoughts then one needs to look on deep-level philosophical works and, above all, in areas such as chemistry, biology, mathematics, physics, etc.

As for literature, its all the reheating of the same themes, and that’s ok.

You just keep saying what literature teachers and literary critics have inserted inside your brain. If you were an actual writer you would understand more of how the things are really done and how much of the “mystic” of art is just plain old craft and style.

your point is no point at all, but a means of elevating yourself, even if only for yourself, above the subject and practice you have here reduced to mere formula
you displace the arena of 'real' creativity outside the purview of literature, for no other reason than to enable yourself to dismiss the achievements within that arena as inconsequential, repetitive, blase, boring--whatever
you impute upon me a prejudice you wholly embody
for while i am just a poor and lowly autodidact, you bear the reek of an excelled formal education, subsequently wasted by your own narcissism

You’re reading too much Harold Bloom

>The to be or not to be: it's an ages old exercise of rhetoric about if life is worth living and about all the errors that seem to exist in existence. It’s simple, it has been done before, it’s actually pretty basic.
Repeat after me:
the view of the character is not that of the author
the view of the character is not that of the author
the view of the character is not that of the author
To add: how could you miss the genial usage of metatextuality? He anticipated Gadamer and Derrida by centuries.

But I love literature, and Shakespeare above other writers. I just think that people let the splendor of his language blind to the fact that most of Shakespeare’s themes and discussions are quite commonplace.

I also don’t like when people keep parroting what they have read and don’t make up their own mind about things.

Hamlet doesn't care to, because if he does the play is over and he doesn't get to btfo of anyone else. He's having a great time in the play.
I am being completely serious. Hamlet could kill Claudius at any time. Every plot against Hamlet is noticed and immediently flipped by him, until his final giving in to the play in act 5, even though he also recognizes the plot there.
Hamlet is too great for a simple revenge tragedy, which the play would be were it not for him.

who have i parroted here, please?

>in areas such as chemistry, biology, mathematics, physics,
thanks for outing yourself as a stemfag codemonkey wageslave.

In my opinion there are a variety of reasons for Hamlet's delay, but the most important one is that Hamlet's sexual development is slightly screwed-up and he is still fixed on his mother as the primary erotic object. He tries to get past this and move on to Ophelia but he can't do it. He's therefore terrified of actually deposing Claudius because the natural next step would be to take his place at his mother's side and he knows that's not the right thing to do. (This is not an original theory, of course - what theory of Hamlet is?).

Unacknowledged sexual desires are present in a lot of Shakespeare but I think it's in Hamlet and Othello where they're most noticeable and important.

Its incredible that after over a hundred years, people still believe in freuds moronic theories which where so nonsensical from the get go that its an absolute miracle ANYONE ever believed them. His mother is no erotic subject.

He, as a young man, looks up to his charismatic father and assumes his aging mother would see him with the same eyes. He has - for THIRTY years - known only his (presumably) happy, stable nuclear family. Now he has seen that the love he always assumed his mother had for his father was of a different kind or has altogether changed, in other words is confronted with the impernanence and questionability of relationships as a whole, which as a result leaves him deeply suspicious of his feelings towards Ophelia and her feelings towards him. Get the to a nunnery with your phallic freudian nigger shit

Freud used Shakespeare to form his theories because Shakespeare dealt with the topic so well. Hamlet isn't thirty when the play starts; he's in his late teens or early twenties.

To say "Shakespeare is Freudian" is putting it backwards. Freud was simply ripping off Shakespeare, except Shakespeare did it better.

If you can't detect any signs at all that Hamlet is somewhat unhealthily concerned with his mother's sexuality and is clearly unable to develop a normal adult sexual relationship, I can only suggest that you actually read the play.

This.

None of the posters in this thread are actual writers.

How long hast thou been a
grave-maker?
First Clown
Of all the days i' the year, I came to't that day
that our last king Hamlet overcame Fortinbras.
HAMLET
How long is that since?
First Clown
Cannot you tell that? every fool can tell that: it
was the very day that young Hamlet was born; he that
is mad, and sent into England.
...
Why, here in Denmark: I have been sexton here, man
and boy, thirty years.

He is concerned with his mothers sexuality because he has for all his life only known the nuclear family with his father as a charismatic patriarchical figure and has internalized and somewhat romanticized this constellation. Stabilitys like this shape a young mans world because, as long as they are in place, he assumes that his life will be lived in similar terms with one "true love" for life which will be lovingly adhered to even of one of the partners died. He is not expecting his mother to be detached enough from the father he idealizes that she would ever have interest in another man. The revelation that it is different damage his world view and thus his outlook on women as a whole. He is mentioned to be thirty in the grave digger scene, the type of world-weariness and the philosophical insights he displays do not fit a teenager. Also it is not specifed what the exact nature of Hamlets relationship to Ophelia is prior to the onset of the plot. It might as well be sexual and has often been interpreted as such, for example by Branagh.

Freud and other faggots like Lacan were perverts who assumed since they were sexually abnormal and satyromaniac, not only would everyone else be too, but also would have no choice but to constantly express it, expecially in artworks. Their theories are not only utter trash, but laughably unscientific. Freud was convinced that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet to deal with his festering Oedipal feelings after his fathers death. After he found out that John Shakespeare was still alive, he decided that the works must have been written by the magic wolfish Earl of Oxford instead of declaring his theory falsified like an actual scientist would have done. He is imposing his fantasies and pseudoscience onto Shakespeare, not the other way round.

I suggest you stop watching porn and rethink your relationship with your own mother.

Are you really going to tell me Hamlet was not significant and revolutionary as a character in himself? Or that character is not renown on par with the poesy in most of Shakespeare's plays?

Attached: bloomin.jpg (870x455, 33K)

Socrates, in Plato’s dialogues, is more interesting as a character and probably more layered than any Shakespearean play protagonist (and although he was based in a real person we all know that he was mostly a character created from Plato’s mind).

But Plato could never achieve the beautiful language of Shakespeare, so we get with Shakespeare interesting characters fleshed with the most sublime poetry (and yet there is a lot of truth in Tolstoy’s criticism that all Shakespearean characters sound alike: they tend to be different mostly when there are prose/verse oppositions, and when we compare a character from one phase in his carrear to another).

So here you got just one example of a complex character created many years before Shakespeare.

holy shit shut the fuck up you absolute charlatan faggot
accusing others of parroting the opinions of others while spouting the most generic, cliche quasi-contrarian faggotry imaginable
>it's just the poetry lol
>so divine omg my palate is so refined
you don't even understand the contextual function of the speeches you label derivative you stupid fuck

If you only knew

I have read more about Shakespeare than anyone in this thread. He is, by far, my favorite writer. I even made a list that is often copy-pasted on Veeky Forums:

>Shakespeare’s Imagery, by Caroline Spurgeon;
>Shakespeare’s Language, by Frank Kermode;
>Shakespeare’s Metrical Art, by George T. Wright;
>The Development of Shakespeare’s imagery, by Wolfgang Clemen;
>The Poetry of Shakespeare’s Plays, by F.E. halliday;
>Shakespeare’s Uses of The Arts of Language, by Sister Mirian Joseph;
>The Language of Shakespeare’s Plays, by B. Ifor Evans
>Shakespeare, by Mark Van Doren

Come to talk tome again after you have read all of Shakespeare's works and at least all of the books mentioned above (that actually work with his style and craft, not just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo "invention of the human" and "free artists of themselves" and all that crap that Bloom writes that dont mean nothing, just assertions with no proof).

inb4
No,I have not graduated in english

Retard.

And if you come to me with the likes of Derrida again I will hunt you down and cut your throat.

Lack of will to power.

kek, was gonna say something like this

>The Poetry of Shakespeare’s Plays, by F.E. halliday

Start with this book. The introduction is one of the most sane and free-from-idolatry things ever written about Shakespeare. But parrots like you dont know that, you only read the mainstream critical analysis and keep vomiting the same half-eaten crap all over again.

No wonder Nabokov got so many of you mad with his extremely cold and intelligent gaze. He was willing to look under the microscope, you lazy teenagers just read the book quickly and then run to see what you should think about it (ie what Bloom and the idiots of French literary theory said about the book)