Hamlet

Is it bad that I relate to Hamlet and sometimes self insert into him?

>and sometimes self insert into him

That's not bad, that's just kinda gay.

Well it's probably not good

I just really hyped when he gets closer to his revenge

I read a small critique of Hamlet written by Tolstoy which said that Shakespeare was projecting his own personality into Hamlet. So, I guess inserting yourself into Hamlet (non-homoerrotically) could possibly mean you relate well with Shakespeare himself, thus maybe a biographical study of the Bard of Avon would be stimulating, but sadly I have not embarked on any relating study myself, so I am at a loss for any recommendations.

>tfw all the girls in your english class thought you were like Hamlet
>tfw they all had crushes on you and you were too autistic and sad to know until you left
>tfw the most common thing you have with Hamlet is an Oedipal complex

Its pretty normal for a teenager to relate to Hamlet.

I'm in my early twenties though

>tfw the most common thing you have with Hamlet is an Oedipal complex
Hamlet was his father's son

Sorry.
>it's pretty normal for melancholy faggots to relate to Hamlet

Early 20s is just an advanced teenager.
I'm also in my early 20s

Hamlet is supposed to be in his mid or late 20's so that's probably fine. Though people did take things at a bit of a different pace back then, and Hamlet is fictional.

I'm a few years out of studies, but I think it was John Bell that said that Hamlet was the first modern man, meaning in one part that he was such a holistic character. I don't think identifying with him is out of the norm. I do think that if you really get rallied behind his revenge that it may be good for you to try and see things from the eyes of his foils.

>I do think that if you really get rallied behind his revenge that it may be good for you to try and see things from the eyes of his foils.
I'll try but it's not like I do it on purpose

None of you are actually like Hamlet his melancholy isn't some common depression but comes about from the dual tragedies of
>his idolised father dying
>his (too) beloved mother remarrying
This is compacted to madness by the exasperation of both through the revelations of the ghost
>his idealised father is unhappy in purgatory
>his mother is married to his fathers killer
Blah Blah Blah what was the point iill just insert stuff on hamlet that add to any stupid discussion of whiny teens

I don't think intent has anything to do with it. If you identify with a character that has some pretty huge downsides(which Hamlet certainly does), you may be able to learn something of your own weaknesses in his. The 'corrections' to these weaknesses could lie in his foils.

Ex. If Hamlet had killed Claudius in his chambers the final act could have been skipped, but Hamlet's desire to deny Claudius' soul passage to heaven(he thought Claudius was praying, while he was actually confessing and basking in his sins) led him down the much bloodier path. Aside from the irony, this extreme dedication to complete revenge causes Hamlet to lose his own life.
In such a way you could determine that some of Hamlet's virtues, such as waiting for evidence before jumping to conclusions are good attributes to share while obsession is a hindrance.
is a cucklord. "You're not exactly like this literally fucking tragic character, stop bitching." Yeah, no shit, that doesn't mean that you share no similarities.

Hamlet has no extreme dedication to complete revenge you moron he is distracted for entire scenes by his madness, love for Ophelia, even death rants.
You also completely miss that the point of Hamlet not killing Claudius at prayer is that it casts to light Claudius willingness to do that same act as it would put to rest all the insanity Hamlet has begun. It plays into the greater tragedy of Hamlet being although morally correct awful for the realm, Claudius understands that killing Hamlet will put an end to it all and endeavours to do so at any cost, Claudius is a strong and good King as evinced by his excellent diplomatic ability, his willingness to kill Hamlet wherever he is whatever he is doing shows his willingness to put the realm to peace as quickly as possible and as soon as possible. Whilst Hamlet continues to forestall his ultimate destiny despite his moral justification.
You also miss the penitent aspect of Claudius speech but whatever

>madness by the exasperation of both through the revelations of the ghost
Other people saw the ghost.

I don't know what you're trying to say here.
>the ghost only spoke to hamlet
>it made his primary anxieties worse
Other people seeing the ghost doesn't really mean a thing if it spoke to Hamlet alone and only extended his internal worries.

Why did Gertrude marry Claudius? This is the one thing I never understood.

I assumed you were trying to say the ghost was part of hamlets madness. nvm

She's a whore. Stop trying to look for a deeper meaning when there isn't one

Hey, actual analysis. I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure I agree. Claudius tries to have Hamlet killed off at sea, and it's only once Hamlet comes back and is clearly a risk to his life/kingdom that he endeavors to kill him at any cost.

The penance of Claudius is a bit missed on me when he essentially comes to the conclusion that he can't have his cake and eat it too, and that he definitely isn't going to stop eating cake.

All I did was give an example of how this guy who identifies with Hamlet might try and learn from that.

I think the angle of Claudius as a good, proper king is an interesting one and your analysis isn't bad. You're still being a dick though.

Gertrude remarrying is simply a way of equally lowering Hamlet's mother to the same extent that death has lowered Hamlet's father.
Its the parallel of a physical heroic father becoming lifeless to a morally reliable mother taking up far too quickly with another man to preserve her position.
In both cases it is reality, of death and society, intruding on Hamlet's ideals.

Huh that does make sense.

To kind of go against what I said previously I'd almost say that Claudius putting the death of Hamlet whose intelligence he knows in the hands of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern who I assume in his elsewhere excellent Kingly ability he must understand their incompetency as a similar inability to finally carry out the requirements of peace.
I don't really know where I stand but I'll quite happily argue toward an inability on both sides to carry out the final removal of the inhibitor of the peace (Hamlet) or the usurper of the throne (Claudius). And as neither takes the final step, the realm is disbalanced causing the wander to tragedy.
Apologies for being a cunt, I am a cunt.

I'm more of a Fortinbras guy.

What are the best versions of Shakespeare's plays out there? I can cope with reading old English

so you want to kill your father and fuck your mother?

Shakespeare wrote in modern english baka

Doesn't everyone?

It's his uncle that Hamlet wants to kill though

Don't take anything Tolstoy says about Shakespeare seriously.

How stupid was Tolstoy?

Tolstoy couldn't understand Shakespeare because he wasn't anglo

>Hamlet is prince and demagogue, sagacious and extravagant, profound and frivolous, man and neuter. He has little faith in the sceptre, rails at the throne, has a student for his comrade, converses with any one passing by, argues with the first comer, understands the people, despises the mob, hates violence, distrusts success, questions obscurity, and is on speaking terms with mystery. He communicates to others maladies that he has not himself; his feigned madness inoculates his mistress with real madness. He is familiar with spectres and with actors. He jests, with the axe of Orestes in his hand. He talks literature, recites verses, composes a theatrical criticism, plays with bones in a churchyard, dumbfounds his mother, avenges his father, and closes the dread drama of life and death with a gigantic point of interrogation. He terrifies, and then disconcerts. Never has anything more overwhelming been dreamed.
>No figure among those that poets have created is more poignant and more disquieting. Doubt counselled by a ghost – such is Hamlet.
>He is tormented by that possible life, interwoven of reality and dream, concerning which we are all anxious. Somnambulism is diffused through all his actions. One might almost consider his brain as a formation: there is a layer of suffering, a layer of thought, then a layer of dream.
>It is through this layer of dream that he leefs, comprehends, learns, perceives, drinks, eats, frets, mocks, weeps, and reasons. There is between life and him a transparency – the wall of dreams; one sees beyond it, but cannot step over it. A kind of cloudy obstacle everywhere surrounds Hamlet. Have you never, while sleeping, had the nightmare of pursuit or flight, and tried to hasten on, and felt the anchylosis of your knees, the heaviness of your arms, the horrible paralysis of your benumbed hands? This nightmare Hamlet suffers while awake. Hamlet is not upon the spot where his life is. He has ever the air of a man who talks to you from the other side of a stream. He calls to you at the same time that he questions you. He is at a distance from the catastrophe in which he moves, from the passer-by he questions, from the thought he bears, from the action he performs. He seems not to touch even what he crushes. This is isolation carried to its highest power. It is the loneliness of a mind, even more than the unapproachableness of a prince. Indecision is, in fact, a solitude; you have not even your will to keep you company. It is as if your own self had departed and had left you there.

Is he on-point?

>I read a small critique of Hamlet written by Tolstoy which said that Shakespeare was projecting his own personality into Hamlet
What the fuck

Stephen what are you doing here? That Jesuit annoy you again?

But Hamlet literally says he's 30 when he returns.

>Shakespeare is the happy huntingground of all minds that have lost their balance.

In a poetic sense, yes. But you could also say Hamlet is definitely more "awake" than anyone else in the play, and indeed almost any character in literature. Part of his indecisiveness is not just "dreaming" but precisely that he is too awake, too aware of the horrifying pointlessness of reality (as it appears in the play) to act.