Talk:Hamlet

Archives

---

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6

FAC

Well, I've been bold and nominated Hamlet for FA in the closing hours of the dying year. Let's see what the groundlings community makes of it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think we're FA, even if there are a few small things here and there that can be improved. Perfection isn't a requirement. Wrad (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much my feeling :) Plus I expect that you and the others have a head full of the article right now, having all just come from a week of very intensive editing, which will make shepherding Hamlet through FAC, while it's all still fresh, much easier. (Very nice work on 1345, by the way.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Groundlings! I just got it! Wrad (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:) Last time I went to the Globe, I went with a friend. She kept referring to them, in all seriousness, as the Earthlings!? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

nunnery slang for brothel?

This is an uncited bit in the language section. Is there a source for this at all? Wrad (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, OED. I'll deal. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. It sounded like whoever wrote it new what they were talking about, so I brought it up here before taking it out. Wrad (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

disambig

Great article! Here are the links that need disambig:
-Indo-European
-Quarto
-Repression
-Richard III
-Winter Garden Theatre

Randomblue (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've sorted the first three and removed them from the last two. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro: Hamlet's desire for revenge

This sentence has been the subject of several very recent recastings:

1. The play starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge and ends, more than three hours later, with its fulfilment.
2. The play starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge; and it ends, more than three hours later, with the fulfilment of that desire.
3. The play starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge, and ends more than three hours later with the fulfilment of that desire.
4. The play starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge, and ends three hours later with his desire fulfilled.
5. The play starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge, and ends three hours later with the fulfilment of his desire.

Can further changes be discussed here first? Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like any of them. Branagh's version is four hours long. Others are shorter. Is there any research delving into how much time is taken up in the world of the play? I would guess things get a little fuzzy timewise once Hamlet gets kidnapped by pirates. Wrad (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I. I'll take it out. It doesn't add anything of substance to the preceding or succeeding sentences and the flow of the paragraph, if anything, is improved by its ouster. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Actually reads better without. AndyJones (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

On the question of time, that's always difficult to measure in Shakespeare's plays because (with rare exceptions, e.g. Comedy of Errors or The Tempest) Shakespeare isn't very explicit about time: some plays are said to have "double time": two different and contradictory timescales, and other plays "don't contain enough time for their action" (e.g. Othello). In the case of Hamlet there are several breaks in the narrative: the first is between Hamlet seeing the ghost and the court agonising over the fact that he has gone mad. Is that happening the next day, or some weeks later? Our only clue may be the "twice two months" reference in the play scene suggesting it is now four months from Old Hamlet's death - but that begs the question how far into that period we were when the play started. The next break is when Hamlet is sent to England. There's clearly enough time for Hamlet to meet the Captain, Polonius to be buried, Ophelia to go mad, Laertes to return from France and Hamlet to escape with the pirates: but we cannot know how long that is. AndyJones (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Active contributors

I added a little active contributors box to the top of this page after the wikiproject templates. Feel free to add yourself if you think you could help if someone had a question about a source. Wrad (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet & Skull images

Two candidate images have turned up, one found by Indopug and the other by our very own AndyJones.

• 
  Hamlet with Yorick's Skull (c. 1868) by H C Selous]
• 

Comments? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Following objections to the Ethan Hawke DVD cover at FAC, and following Andy's advice, I've replaced the Hawke image with Sarah Bernhardt. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

External links

What do we think of them? Do we want to change anything? I'm fine with the way they are, though we've had an objection to the blog on the FAC page. Wrad (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A link that might be appropriate
Here is an interesting link I think you all might like. It is to a site with lots of public domain literature, including Hamlet, Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, etc. along with a really innovative hypertext linking engine. Anyone can read and anyone can also contribute to the commentary of the texts on the site. Check out the Hamlet page: <a http://www.thefinalclub.org/work-overview.php?work_id=5. I would have posted the link myself, but I'm beginning to learn that such edits tend to be deleted immediately. In my estimation, the commentary on the site, thefinalclub.org, is interesting as well as accessible to the average reader. If you agree, I'd encourage someone with more Wikipedia clout than myself to post on the Shakespeare page or just the Hamlet page. Let me know what you all think. I'd love to hear your thoughts.--Andrewmagliozzi (talk)

Celebration corner

Great job, all! One down, 37 to go! :) Wrad (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How about a comedy next? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the closest article to FA now is Romeo and Juliet. The closest to GA is The Tempest. Wrad (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Romeo & Juliet. Now that appeals. Maybe with Dream, or Merry Wives or Twelfth Night (which is one I've seen most), on the backboiler? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done, all!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations, peeps! AndyJones (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I know I sort of dropped out when we reached GA (I realized I was in waaay over my head), but I'd just lime to congratulate everyone who contributed...Well Done!

As for what article to do next, I second A Midsummer's Night's Dream, as it has 1280+ edits. Participation is usually the hardest thing to get in an FA drive. Once again, congrats to all! Bardofcornish (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations to you all on such a wonderful article of a great play. Now please can we get that to The merchant of Venice? It is his best play IMO. Samuel Sol (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section needs some attention, especially the (current) third paragraph. The first sentence is very strange, and in my opinion not very encyclopedic. I think the key to this is the word "mean". Furthermore, the paragraph does not give a good summary of the sections "Analysis and criticism" and "Context and interpretation". In the passage "For centuries, commentators ... and thwarted desire." it is suggested that the analysis and interpretation are generally about "Hamlet's hesitation in killing his uncle" alone, which I think is incorrect. – Ilse@ 18:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'm not sure it's possible to accurately summarise the entire analysis, criticism, context and interpretation sections, which are far and away the most complex, within the compass of the lead. Instead, the lead tries to bring out some of the key points and draw people into the body of the article. As a great deal of the scholarship focuses on delay, and the nature of the personality that delays, it obviously needs not only prominence but also sufficient explanation to be accessible to the general reader. I've added a "for instance" to generalise that a bit. That said, there are several other things that, in my view, need looking at but as the Dane has been at the forefront of my thoughts for two months now, I propose to take a wiki-break from Hamlet and return to it afresh later. Other editors will probably feel differently :)--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Gertrude and the wine

In the interests of keeping the synopsis short and to the point, I don't think we should say this. However the question of Gertrude's motivation in drinking the wine has been raised here before, and here's a link to the previous discussion. In my view the point is far too unimportant to mention on the page (although if we do, this is a featured article so we'd insist on a good source). However we might consider phrasing that sentence of the synopsis so as not to exclude the minority interpretation. Does anyone else have any thoughts? AndyJones (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I forgotten entirely about this and agree that what we have is too interpretative. The simplest solution is smoke and mirrors: "Amid the tumult, Gertrude drinks the poisoned wine and dies". --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've asked ANON to join this conversation. Roger's suggestion works for me. AndyJones (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I instigated the change a while back. I agree that it is overly convoluted and think it should be changed to "Gertrude drinks the poisoned wine and dies" without mention of various views. Marty Donakowski (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Weighing all of the evidence and the comments, I agree that "Gertrude drinks the poisoned wine and dies" is best.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice article

In case the editors of the article hadn't realised, here are two links to show what the article was like when it started (July 2001) and what is was like around 2 years later (September 2003). Congratulations! As for the next Shakespeare play, why, it has to be Macbeth! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodness me! Hamlet on screen is very impressive. And I was rather stunned to read at Shakespeare on screen that there have been more than 420 feature length films. And I'm ashamed that I didn't pick up on the connection between Hamlet and The Lion King. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me just add to the chorus of praise for this article. The extensive references, the various approaches to interpretation, the clear, concise exposition---Hamlet almost demands a new category above the level of "Featured Article." Nice article, indeed. Congratulations to all its authors! Gnixon (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ye gods! This is great! Congratulations to all who worked on this article!! The Drama Llama (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

New spinoff article (?) for comment

Hi, congrats on FA.

It happens that I've been working for the last few days on a section on the bibliography of Hamlet--as a subject in itself.

I don't yet know how to work this out--if it could be worked into the (already fine) references section--but which seems to lack some detail and context of the cited works importance--particularly in light of the Megabibliographic issues with Hamlet that I discuss.

Could people go to User:Shlishke/Sandbox and

• hack away at it
• suggest how and if it could be worked into Hamlet.

Frankly, I don't see why we couldn't make the a new Hamlet (bibliography) entry, Wiki-ref it in Hamlet, and let the dupe of the two big-ass on-line sites HyperHamlet and hamletworks stay, because in the piece I wrote they're given more detail, which I think is important given their scope and promise. Plus, of course, doing the separate entry thing would make life much simpler all around. Best, Shlishke (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Disambig

Indo-European still needs disambig. Also, First Quarto and Second Quarto redirect to First quarto and Second quarto, maybe the capitalization is inadequate. Randomblue (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hamnet

I added a reference to Stephen Greenblatt's argument that Hamnet's death likely was a significant influence on Shakespeare's writing of the play. (Since the names Hamlet and Hamnet were virtually interchangeable, more then than now, and since Shakespeare wrote this play about death and the father-son relationship only four or five years after his own son died, it would be amazing if it were otherwise, although of course Hamlet was based on a pre-existing story.) Greenblatt himself cites the following in his bibliography:

On the impact on Shakespeare of the death of Hamnet, see the sensitive psychoanalytic account by Richard P. Wheeler, "Death in the Family: The Loss of a Son and the Rise of Shakespearean Comedy," in Shakespeare Quarterly 51 (2000): 127 - 53.

I don't have access to Shakespeare Quarterly. Can someone take a look and see if there's anything there worth adding? John M Baker (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Wrad (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I took a look. It's a good article, but it represents the view of a very small minority (by its own admission). I think some of it may belong on Sources of Hamlet or Hamnet Shakespeare, but not here. Wrad (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

inconsistent notation

All over the text, First Quarto is abbreviated as (Q1). However, in 'Texts', First Quarto is abbreviated as (Q1.) (Bolded and dotted). Randomblue (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't see anything wrong with bolding on its "defining" appearance, to be honest. Dot seems unnecessary, though, I suppose. AndyJones (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Do other sources put periods after these abbreviations? I doubt it. Wrad (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, most of our sources just talk about F (or F1) and Q1 and Q2 without punctution. AndyJones (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Succession

One thing that I have always wondered is why was King Hamlet succeeded by his brother, Claudius, rather than his son, Prince Hamlet? Last time I checked, sons usually succeed before brothers. Emperor001 (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Hamlet/Archive2#Why_doesn.27t_Hamlet_become_King.3F. Paul B (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I had thought of the election possibility mentioned on the talk page, but if election did prevent Hamlet from becoming king, why is he called the Prince of Denmark. Last time I checked, there were no princes of Denmark until the monarchy become heredictary. Emperor001 (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't really researched this, but the first thing that comes to my mind is that Shakespeare isn't known for being breathtakingly accurate on historical issues. It might be the case here. Wrad (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet specifically refers to the election in Act 5 Scene 2, so there's no debate on whether that was the problem. I suspect "prince" is there because in English usage "prince" meant "son of a king", without any reference to whether the term was strictly accurate in Denmark. AndyJones (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Authorship Activism rears its head again...

I'm somewhat concerned with the alteration exhibited in this set of changes by P pinkerton. It marks a radical departure from the original and skews the article much in the direction of a controversial point of view. Even if one feels the point of view advocated in the changed text is correct, the way it's done here seems unbalanced and awkward, to me, from a purely textual standpoint.

I'm of the opinion that this set of changes should be reverted in its entirety, and then each individual change can be brought up here and, if warranted, integrated into the text properly. Experience shows that any changes related to the Authorship Question are controversial and divisive, so I think treading carefully around it (by not making unilateral and wholesale changes like this or its reversion; and discussing the changes to achieve consensus first) is the prudent course of action.

Opinions? --Xover (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am no expert, but I would say revert it all. The author uses dashes wrong: who knows what else he or she did wrong.--Dchmelik (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree and reverted. It's inappropriate to make sweeping changes to a featured article, which reflects broad consensus after considerable review, without pre-discussion. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. In fact, I nearly reverted, but hesitated because others had edited the article in the meantime without reverting (other than to remove Pinkerton's signature from the actual article), and I took that to be a tacit acceptance of the edits. I was intending to have another look later. But yes, it's controversial, and it weighs the article too much in the direction of non-mainstream scholarship. (However, a newcomer can't be expected to know what's considered appropriate, or even what a featured article is.) Cowardly Lion (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well - we all have to play by the rules here. I also agree with Cowardly Lion about newcomers so I hope no one goes into attack mode against P pinkerton - but rather informs him of some basic Wiki rules. I'm not sure I agree with Dchmelik though. Use a dash wrong and everything else may be wrong? Perhaps that was a joke and I missed it. Smatprt (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend to imply anything but good faith on P pinkerton's part. His edits simply appear to reflect his best understanding of the topic, and if reasonable people may disagree that does not invalidate the opinion. I simply wanted to avoid straying from the hard won balance achieved in the article(s) in connection with FA and the discussions here over the last year and more. I have left a comment on his talk page inviting him to view this thread and comment on it.--Xover (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said and well done. And I didn't think you implied anything but what you expressed. As they say - you are a "gentleman and a scholar" (or maybe a gentlewoman and a scholar - one never knows here on Wiki). My hope is that others will be as kind as you. Smatprt (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)