Rating: 
Summary: Signet Edition
Review: I'm not writing a review of Hamlet the play here - that would be superfluous. Next to the Bible, it is the greatest piece of literature of all time.I think that the signet edition is the best. It has its usual introduction on Shakespeare and his times. It then goes into the different versions of Hamlet that have come down to us. It has several commentaries on the play, including one by Coleridge. Most useful of all is a history of the productions of Hamlet on the stage and screen.
Rating: 
Summary: The human tragedy seen as drama...
Review: I've read Hamlet in Spanish, so I guess I may have lost most of its magic. However, the translation was good enough to transport myself to Shakespeare's wonderful drama.
Hamlet is so human, so well depicted that all the things said about this drama is true.
I would have loved to read it in English, but it's not my native language, but I'm sure might lost many of the word meanings.
This is book is very interesting to start reading Shakepeare.
Rating: 
Summary: Not one of Shakespheare's most accessible works
Review: Hamlet is one of Shakespheare's more complex plays, which doesn't exactly make it more enjoyable, although I recommend reading it for its famous "to be or not to be" speech. After reading a few of the bard's plays, his patterns, conceits, and crutches begin to emerge. Often he has characters comtemplating suicide or mortality like Hamlet does in the play; he usually has a dead body pile-up at the end of the play; he often favors poison as as a means to kill his characters off; there is usually a bit of court intrigue or underhanded dealing which leads to disaster, and he likes to have characters go mad. Hamlet feigns madness in this play and after reading it four times, I still don't know why he does this. As far as I can tell, he doesn't really say. If this is a strategic move, it is a bad one, because it only makes his uncle King Claudius, who has killed Hamlet's father and married his mother, more suspicious that Hamlet knows of his committing this "murder most foul" and is upset by it. There are a lot of madness scenes in the play in which different characters try to figure out why Hamlet is upset--Is it because of his girlfriend Ophelia's feigned rejection of him? Or is it the death of his father and quick marraige of his mother to his uncle? Or does he know something about the murder of his father? I thought there were too many scenes like this which made the play overly long. Since there was no explanation for Hamlet's madness, the whole conceit of having him feign madness left me confused. I also thought that the characters weren't very appealing in this play. Most of the time the play is focused on Hamlet and his indecisiveness about killing off King Claudius because of his lack of courage, even though he was a war hero. Much of Hamlet's brooding over the matter isn't particularly interesting and tends to slow the play down to a standstill. I suppose he was afraid of being accused of treason since Hamlet only knows about the murder of his father by way of his father's ghost--he has no evidence. Finally near the end, Claudius plots against Hamlet's life, which backfires and Hamlet gets his revenge even as he is dying. Probably the most difficult part of the play is the middle in which Hamlet puts on a play that is very much like the reality of King Claudius killing off Hamlet's father. This is done to see whether Claudius looks or acts guilty during the play. It seems Hamlet does not totally trust his father's ghost's revelation that his father has been killed and he needs further confimation. This middle part refers the Aenied in which Pyrrhus hesitates to kill Priam, just like Hamlet hesitates to kill Claudius-get it? I had to read this passage several times to learn its significance. This middle part also contains a lot of in-jokes about the theatre business at the time which seemed self-indulgent to me. There is also another confusing part of the play in which references to battles and a coming war are made at the beginning and a warring noble named Fortinbras shows up near the end to ascend the throne as king after Hamlet dies. I don't think these scenes were necessary. Shakespheare writes often in a high poetic style that I'm generally biased against--to me it comes off as stilted when compared to having characters speak in a more normal conversational manner. --Hey, but thank Providence for modern language translation of Shakespheare; I don't think I could have made it on my own without it. It's the best thing since guitar tab, bicycle training wheels, and pocket calculators! I suppose there will be those who say that you've got to read everything in the original language to really understand the text, but until I thoroughly bone up on Greek, Latin, Arabic, Old and Middle English, Russian and French, modern English is good enough for me. Here ends my rather cheeky review of the Bard's Hamlet. I hope I'm not haunted by his ghost just for explaining why I didn't like the play that much.
Rating:
Summary: One of Shakespeare's greatest tragedies
Review: There really is no way to review a masterpiece like this. Shakespeare is considered by most to be the greatest writer of all time, and Hamlet is almost universally considered to be one of his best works. There are so many immortal phrases and lines in this play, the most famous being "to be or not to be." The play contains seven soliloquies by Hamlet which provide an interesting look at his character. If you consider these soliloquies side by side, you can see a sort of 'backstory' dealing with the development of Hamlet's character, from suffering to suicidal to vengeful ("My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth"). It is impossible to study Shakespeare without studying Hamlet. This is certainly one of the cornerstones of English literature. These folger editions are light and convenient to carry, and are very affordable as well. Hamlet is an excellent place to start if you want to become acquainted with Shakespeare.
Rating:
Summary: another view on Hamlet's tardiness
Review: Someone has probably thought of this but one reason Hamlet might delay killing the king is he is really conflicted about his feelings toward his dead father. Sure, he says a lot of fine things about him, but doesn't this raise a red flag? Isn't he maybe idealizing his pa? Hamlet, after all, is the only person who sings the king's praises. Some evidence in the play suggests that Hamlet Sr may not have been all his son cut him out to be. For example, if the ex-king was such a wise leader, then why did he have such a fool as Polonius for a counselor? And if he was such a good husband, then why did his loving wife fly so quickly into the arms of another man? And what about those sins that he mentions himself, the ones he's paying the price for by wondering the face of the earth in the night. Was Hamlet Sr really a great and virtuous man? And if he wasn't, then is it possible Hamlet Jr is secretly scornful of his dad? And is that perhaps the reason he doesn't take his revenge right away? Just food for thought. Something else that bothered me about the play are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. These two guys are supposed to be two close friends of Hamlet. Yet they're both dim-wits and total mercenaries. Just the opposite of what Hamlet is. What could Hamlet ever have seen in these two guys? It doesn't make sense. Something else that belies belief is Polonius. How is it that the king's chief counselor cannot suspect that Claudius had a hand in the king's death? This kind of thing was not unknown is those times and Polonius must have known the character of Claudius, not to mention his dalliances with the queen. How can someone who is so close to the crown not suspect something? His innocence is hard to believe.
Rating:
Summary: To Be Or Not To Be: This Is The Hamlet To Own
Review: The Folger Library series are your best Shakespeare source. They specialize in Shakespeares' greatest plays and are quality books that are perfect companion and translator to Shakespeare. It is loaded with page after page of translation from the Old English expressions that are no longer in use to our modern talk, and pictures as well as historic background information on th Elizabethan era and Shakespeares' life. Hamlet is without question Shakespeare's greatest tragedy, remaining in our theatrical culture to this very day. It has become a conversation piece for English professors, dramatists and screen actors (Mel Gibson tackled the role in 1991) and even psychologists, who claim that Hamlet had the Oedipal complex, especially when they read the scene in which Hamlet is in his mother's bedroom. What makes Hamlet so great ? Why does this old play still come alive when performed on the stage in the hands of the right actors ? Shakespeare, believe it or not, was a people's person and knew about the human condition perhaps more than anyone in his day. Hamlet deals principally with obscession for revenge. Hamlet is a prince whose father has been murdered under the evil conspiracy from his uncle Claudius and even the support of his mother, Queen Gertrude. Depressed, wearing black all the time, and very much as solitary as any "Goth" would be in our day, Hamlet laments his situation, until his father's ghost appears and urges him to avenge his death. The mystery still remains, is this ghost real ? Is it, as many in Elizabetheans thought, a demon in disguise ? Or is it simply a figment of Hamlet's own emotions and desire for revenge. At any rate, Hamlet's father appears twice and Hamlet spends most of the play planning his revenge. His most striking line that reveals this consuming need is "The play's the thing, wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king!". Pretending to be mad, he scorns even the love of the woman he genuinely loves, Ophelia, whose mind is shattered and heart is broken and who has an impressive mad scene. The deaths of Hamlet's friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, are also in Hamle'ts hands and a consequence of his revenge. The famous soliloquy in the play, is of course, "To be or not to be", taken on by such great actors as Lawrence Olivier and Orson Welles. Hamlet muses on the brevity of life and the suffering which can only cease through death, as he holds a skull and is evidently suicidal. Finally, the last scenes are the most dramatic. Hamlet duels with Laertes, Ophelia's brother, and with Claudius himself. The deaths of the main cast, including the Queen, goes to show how tragic the human desire for greed and revenge is. This is Shakespeare's finest tragedy, and quality drama, best seen in a live stage performance, but that also works as a film. As for this book, as I said before, this is the Hamlet to have. You will become more acquianted with Hamlet and Shakespeare even more than taking a year's course with a teacher. This book itself is the teacher.
Rating:
Summary: folly of youth
Review: Like another reviewer wrote, Hamlet is a tragedy of youth, but it isn't the tragedy of lost innocence, it's a tragedy of youthful rashness. Yes, I said rashness. Hamlet doesn't think too much, he thinks too rashly, too hastily, without mature consideration. Just because his mother is a whore he quickly concludes that all women therefore must be whores. This is why he torments Ophelia and bids her, "get thee to a nunnery". This is why he decries, "woman, thy name weakness". This is why he's despondent and unable to respond to his father's injunctions. There are plenty of examples in the play of this youthful recklessness. Laertes, when he learns of his father's death, immediately rushes back to Denmark and assembles an army to exact revenge. Fortinbras does the same thing in order to retake the land his father lost to Hamlet's father. Both are checked in their youthful exuberance by their respective kings. Polonius' advice to his son is nothing but words of caution against youthful excesses (drink, women, gambling). Polonius' advice to his daughter is nothing but strictures against falling hopelessly in love with Hamlet. The little dialogue between Hamlet and Rosencrantz about the state of theater in London is about how a wild and vociferous younger generation of actors have sabotaged the stage and are holding the older generation at bay. Hamlet himself exhibits other rash behavior. When he sees Ophelia's funeral procession and hears Laertes' expressions of grief, he (Hamlet), regardless of the danger he throws himself in, he recklessly jumps into the procession and proclaims HIS love above the brother's. When Hamlet first sees the ghost he doesn't think to question whether the apparition is authentic. He believes it instinctively. It only occurs to him much later that he may have been the dupe of an evil spirit. When he discovers someone eavesdropping on his talk with his mother, he immediately kills him without even looking to see who it is. When the king invites Hamlet to fence with Laertes for a stake, he rashly throws caution to the wind and cavalierly accepts the offer. Cases of this youthful impulsiveness are legion in the play and wherever it goes unchecked, tragedy ennsues. Not just Hamlet's death, but also Laerte's deception by the king, and Ophelia's suicide. Fortinbras alone comes out unscathed, and only because he accepted the wise counsel of the king of Norway. So Hamlet can be seen as a play about the folly of youth. Issues about the evil in human nature are raised, but these are not the central themes. In fact, the play lacks a certain unity of design because there is a big difference between the rashness of youth, which is not an evil, and fratricide and incest, which are. There's a big incongruity between the central and secondary themes. For this reason I give Hamlet less than five stars.
Rating:
Summary: tragedy of youth
Review: what can i say about hamlet that hasn't already been said. nothing, no doubt. but that apparently doesn't deter anyone else, so why should it stop me? yes, hamlet is a great play. yes/maybe, it's shakespeare's best play. yes, it's one of the great works of english literature. but the thing that intrigues me is why hamlet hesitates to kill claudius. standard theory, and my own interpretation the first time i read it a full score year ago, is that hamlet thinks too much. and indeed, this fellow DOTH brood too much. but this begs the question, what does he think about? what so absorbs his thoughts that his will is so arrested? is it the tactical problem of how to kill the king? no. this he never mentions. is it doubt over the ghost's authenticity? maybe. yet, this only comes up after the players happen to come to court and he suddenly sees an opportunity to smoke out the king - ie, it wasn't premeditated. so is it really cowardice, then? maybe. hamlet certainly accuses himself of being "pidgeon-livered" and of "lacking gall". yet the first thing we see hamlet do is fearlessly follow the ghost where he bids him. and all agree he is a "soldier". doesn't sound like a coward to me. so so much for that charge. so what does hamlet think about? two things. one is how wretched the world is, and in particular, how unfaithful his mother has been. and the second is of death, suicide. hamlet's soliloquies are all on these subjects. even in the last act, when he has returned to denmark finally to act on his father's commission, his thoughts are still on death. think of the graveyard scene and his discovery of yorick's skull; or of his fatalistic retort to horatio when his faithful friend suggests that maybe he'd better not fight laertes. so, is hamlet's problem that he "thinks too much"? or is it really that he's depressed, and, being depressed, he broods? in other words, is brooding the problem, or is it only the symptom of what really ails him? i think it's the latter. i think hamlet's obsession with his mother's actions and with death show that he is deeply shocked by his father's murder and his mother's betrayal, and that he is completely disillusioned with the world and with life. shock and disillusionment are perfectly natural reactions, but in hamlet they are felt in a degree that is not found in most people. but hamlet is not like most people. he is a particularly intelligent and sensitive young man. a noble young man. the kind of man who recoils when confronted with evil, and rather than live in such a world, resigns, because such a life is not worth the candle. hamlet's actions prove this inclination to death. to a man in his position, the wisest course of action is to avoid attracting suspicion to himself. instead, hamlet does everything to draw the king's attention. he mopes and broods. he acts like a madman. he puts on a play before the king in which the murder is re-enacted. he does everything to make the king suspect that hamlet is up to something. and surprise, surprise! it works! hamlet is exiled and nearly murdered. and even when he returns to denmark, rather than hide himself and wait for the right opportunity to strike, he shows up at the castle and agrees to fight laertes in the king's own wager! what does all this point to except that hamlet is asking for it?! he wants the king to put him out of his misery. he wants to incite the confrontation that he can't bring himself to initiate. he wants to get out of this world, albeit, on the most honorable terms possible. believe it or not, there ARE people like this who just cannot reconcile themselves to the ugliness of the world. most of us are not nearly so sensitive, and we make compromises. indeed, most of us eargerly join the fray and contribute our fair share of sin and all that bad stuff. some zealots even add more than their alotted share. but not hamlet. he represents the purity of noble youth. and the tragedy of his death is really the tragedy of that part of us which dies every time we acquiesce in evil; that part of us which died when we cast away our ideals and agreed to take the world on ITS terms, and not our own. a wonderful play. i especially recommend the bantam edition. it's edited by david bevington and includes original source material, in other words, the actual stories or plays that shakespeare probably based his plays on.
Rating:
Summary: Shakespeare's Gem Amongst Gems
Review: To say that Hamlet is good would be the understatement of the decade. Hamlet proves to be a masterpiece of masterpieces -a shining paradigm of unparalleled magnificence unlike any other play ever written. I thoroughly enjoyed Julius Caesar, Othello, Macbeth, Henry V, The Merchant of Venice, Much Ado About Nothing, Romeo & Juliet, The Tempest, etc. Nonetheless, I unquestionably rate Hamlet as Shakespeare's crowning achievement - his magnum opus. Hamlet proves to be a prodigiously powerful and profoundly potent play incredibly chock-full of amazing quotes and axioms that I memorize and incorporate into everyday life - from Polonius's sanctimonious speeches spoken to Laertes and Ophelia("To thine own self be true") to Marcellus("Something is rotten in the state of Denmark") to of course the avenger himself Prince Hamlet("Frailty, thy name is woman!"). Although Hamlet's faults of inaction, procrastination, and paradoxical impetuosity preclude our protagonist from overcoming his impending and unalterable doom, I unavoidably empathize with him and his inevitable plight. Hamlet is grievously wronged by so many in his life - his uncle Claudius, his mother Gertrude, his love Ophelia, the ostensibly wise Polonius, shamefully by his traitorous "friends" Rosencrantz & Guildenstern, and lastly by his murderous foil(no pun intended)Laertes. The undeniable central theme of uncontrollable fatalism pervades throughout Hamlet. I felt as if Hamlet was on an unstoppable one way train going 200 miles/hour straight into a brick wall. Sadly, he knows he shall soon meet his untimely demise as he picks up his foil to fight Laertes. Fittingly, the victorious young Fortinbras proves to personify what could have and should have become of our tragically departed hero. To be read time and time again - even if just for the supremely witty quotes. Recommended AFTER reading: Kenneth Branagh or Laurence Olivier's film versions - both long, but undeniably superb.
Rating:
Summary: I got this copy of Hamlet with my Grade 12 English class.
Review: It comes with the complete play, plus side-by-side definitions of the more obscure English words used and illustrations. Also included are essays on Shakespeare, his life, Elizabethan England and so forth to help put the play in perspective. Through high school, I had to study a total of three Shakespeare plays, the other two being Midsummer Night's Dream and Macbeth, and this was the best of the bunch. And that's considering at the end of Macbeth we watched Roman Polanski's blood-soaked movie version, and the 1935 Midsummer Night's Dream movie starring a very young (read: annoying) Mickey Rooney as puck. And if you're curious, we watched Mel Gibson's Hamlet movie. Kenneth Branagh's was still a few years away and it would've taken us a whole week to sit through that.
|
