To be or not to be, that is the question

no shit, mongolock.

that line means hes debating suicide

the point of the speech itself is not actually about suicide though

its hamlet contemplating how his mind stands up against reality

what power does his consciousness actually have over life or death?

Should I kill myself or not because we all die in the end

everybody eventually shits, but that doesnt mean you need to shit your pants right now at the exist moment user

killing yourself because death is inevitable is fucking dumb

why do you want to die?

I don't think he was contemplating suicide I think he was considering whether he should continue living the comfortable life of a prince or become a king. It is the question of ambition in general. To engage in life or to let life simply happen. It is extremely pertinent for first worlders today I think.

The (To be, or not to be) itself is just about the worst abomination ever conceived.

Shitting is no equivalent to death. When you shit your pants you gotta deal with shit in your pants. When you kick the bucket, you don't have to deal with shit no more.

Basically he wasn't considering suicide he was considering murder. As Genet would put it he was "pregnant with murder".

hamlet doesnt really care about being the king

if he did, he could call upon the masses the way laertes did

we know hamlet is popular with them and claudius is unpopular with them

in act V when he gets revenge, he talks about his thwarted ambitions, but thats just him being theatrical. up to that point, he doesnt really mention it or care, and really becoming king is never something he bothers working towards

He doesn't care about being the king? That is all he cares about. He was the rightful heir to the throne and his uncle was a usurper. It was not mere vengeance for his father. Also what evidence is there that Hamlet could have led a popular rebellion at all? He was brooding and strange to others. Besides by killing the usurpers he had a much better chance of taking the throne peacefully than by throwing his country into rebellion. Leading a rebellion has its own great risks and there are no guarantees as to the outcome and no capable political mind would consider it.
>just being theatrical
That is ridiculous, you're just justifying a confirmation bias with that. The only way he could avenge the king properly in his mind and in fact were to become the king himself.

Basically I think you're ignorant or ignoring outright the very nature of royalty and blood and how much that ascendency really mattered to kings. They were preserving what was to them an otherworldly, superior genetic code. What evidence is there that Hamlet was at all suicidal. One who is murderous is just as brooding over life and death as a suicidal person.

give me lines that show hamlet caring about and talking about being the king prior to act V

he wants revenge, at least initially, but he doesnt really show much interest in kingship in acts I-IV

im interested in what in the text led to your interpretation

>That is all he cares about
All he cared about was rescuing the father. That's why he drove to extremes that would have jeopardized his position had he wanted to become king.

I can't just spout lines right now it was an impression I had from reading it and also logically considering what the outcome would be from his plan of revenge. a direct consequence of his plot would be his own ascendency to the throne, so I cannot help but think that it was a part of his design. Hamlet the character possessed striking psychological depth, hence why the play is so great, he doesn't come right out and say everything that is going on inside of him and much is inferred. Anyway I'm not a scholastic I don't have lines memorized I might re-read it soon but I'm in the middle of War and Peace right now.

>I can't just spout lines
then you're a worthless pleb who should never mention shakespeare again

How can you rescue the dead?? Lol nigger stop watching that jackoff Peterson. Stop reducing everything to archetypes and memetics.

Fuck you. Fuck you and your blind literal interpretations of Shakespeare. You are the pleb nigger. Your insight is 10th grade level.

Sorry you can't find meaning in this chaotic post-modern dungeon, user. Hamlet sure did though :)

Also killing his mother and uncle doesn't jeopardize his plan to be a king, it assures it. Politics in that time did not work the same way they do today. His uncle and mom killed the king, his uncle becomes the king. He kills his mom and uncle. He becomes the king and as he is the rightful heir the people lose their angst.

i think when you read hamlet, you mightve read it with the preconceived notion that its about hamlet wanting to be king, that mightve colored your reading of it

and i dont mean that in an insulting way. the first time i read hamlet, i misinterpreted it too.

your position, that the play is about hamlet wanting to be king, isnt really a defensible one, and the fact that you wont even look for lines shows that

To (You), or not to (You)...

>post-modern dungeon
Are you not a repressed masochist?

No you have the preconceived notion that his soliloquy is about suicide, like everyone who casually looks at Shakespeare does. And you, without citing any lines yourself btw, defend this very common misinterpretation of the intent and fullness of Hamlet's character. You are taking the lines too literally and you are not actually reading the play you are simply scanning it.

i understand now that this is bait

congrats, you got me

In fact you've alluded to a line that actually confirms my interpretation and disavow it by calling it "just theatrical"
You are, à la lettre, a pseud.

The to be or not to be scene is usually represented with the yorick scene in the popular culture. Probably because the to be phrase is the most famous of the piece, and the image of Hamlet with the skull is also famous, so they just mix them

No it is not bait, it is a nuanced reading of a seminal text. Maybe sparknotes is more your speed, sweetie.

It seems you already made your decision. It was the wrong one

i think it has to do with procrastination.

Anyway the renaissance understanding of malancholy suggests that the melancholic is aggravated in his condition by thwarted ambition. Hamlet is not simply a "depressed" person driven to extremes by his sadness. In fact the entire idea of madness in Shakespeare is radically different than the common understanding of it today. Hamlet is a play about ambition in conflict and the extremes that ambition creates in the souls of men.
GUILDENSTERN
Prison, my lord?
HAMLET
Denmark’s a prison.
ROSENCRANTZ
Then is the world one.
HAMLET
A goodly one, in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst.
ROSENCRANTZ
We think not so, my lord.
HAMLET
Why, then, ’tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.
ROSENCRANTZ
Why then, your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow for your mind.
HAMLET
O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams.
GUILDENSTERN
Which dreams indeed are ambition, for the very substance of the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream.
HAMLET
245A dream itself is but a shadow.
ROSENCRANTZ
Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a quality that it is but a shadow’s shadow.
HAMLET
Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and outstretched heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court? For by my fay, I cannot reason.
ROSENCRANTZ, GUILDENSTERN
We’ll wait upon you.
GUILDENSTERN
Prison, my lord?
HAMLET
Denmark’s a prison.
ROSENCRANTZ
Then I guess the whole world is one.
HAMLET
Yes, quite a large one, with many cells and dungeons, Denmark being one of the worst.
ROSENCRANTZ
We don’t think so, my lord.
HAMLET
Well, then it isn’t one to you, since nothing is really good or bad in itself—it’s all what a person thinks about it. And to me, Denmark is a prison.
ROSENCRANTZ
That must be because you’re so ambitious. It’s too small for your large mind.
HAMLET
Small? No, I could live in a walnut shell and feel like the king of the universe. The real problem is that I have bad dreams.
GUILDENSTERN
Dreams are a sign of ambition, since ambition is nothing more than the shadow of a dream.
HAMLET
But a dream itself is just a shadow.
ROSENCRANTZ
Exactly. In fact, I consider ambition to be so light and airy that it’s only the shadow of a shadow.
HAMLET
Then I guess beggars are the ones with bodies, while ambitious kings and heroes are just the shadows of beggars. Should we go inside? I seem to be losing my mind a bit.
ROSENCRANTZ, GUILDENSTERN
We’re at your service, whatever you say.

Basically Hamlet was not a "good guy" his character was not the one dimensional Mary Sue out to revenge his father, his motivations were more complex and more ambiguous than that. The reason that Shakespeare is immortal is because he was able to see such nuances and paradoxes in character. Anyway I'm done with my rant.

It's actually "To be or not to be, that's the point"

In Hamlet?
No it's not lol

It is indeed. He changed it for later versions that were the basis for q2 and f. But in the q1, it's just that.

Saying that's the point and that's the question in this context means the same thing. Is lit full of autists with no concept of sense?