Talk:Prince Hamlet

Theatre Low‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shakespeare Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

USA TODAY

The following was removed by User:Celithemis"

In October of 2006 USA Today listed Hamlet as #5 on their list of Imaginary Luminaries: the 101 most influential people who never lived.[1]

USA Today is hardly trivial. It is a widely circulated magazine with a lot of readers. The list will probably be considered fairly important, possibly leading people to this very article. I protest the removal of this and the cosideration that it is trivial. I do, however, want to open it to discussion and consensus, rather than simply starting a revert war. Icarus 23 09:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet is on the list because he's important; he's not important because he's on the list. I'm sure he'll be important centuries after the list is forgotten. Yes, USA Today is a popular and influential paper, but that doesn't make everything they print worthy of being in an encyclopedia article, let alone in the lead.

Clicking through to the main story indicates that it's not even USA Today's own list, just part of an article on a recently released book, which has an Amazon.com sales rank of #1,752. That's not exactly like being Time's Person of the Year. We would do readers a disservice by giving undue weight to this kind of ephemeral trivia -- including any readers who might come here after reading USA Today. —Cel ithemis 11:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Very good logic. I still believe it should be referenced somewhere (perhaps not at the beginning of the article), but as I'm currently not up to refuting your points, I ask for others' opinions.

I'd also like to point out that many items that one generation finds important later ones might not, and that encyclopedias are made both for providing information for current users and preserving information for future users. I have a 1946 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica on my shelves, and I keep it despite its outdated nature because it gives me insight into the knowledge and beliefs of that generation. As an aspiring professional writer, I find that very valuable. Icarus 23 15:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet's delay

Another problem is that a devout Protestant might suspect that the Ghost of Hamlet's father is a spirit from Hell that must be ignored. This has led to the speculation that the elder Hamlet represented Catholicism while the son represented Protestantism. However, Hamlet himself thinks the ghost and purgatory are real.

Hamlet certainly *does* suspect the Ghost is a devil trying to trick him into damnation; he says so at the end of the "rogue and peasant slave" soliloquy (II.ii.594-599 in Arden). I can't see how to salvage this paragraph after correcting the error, so I'm cutting it for now; can anyone make it make sense? —Cel ithemis 05:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oedipal hypothesis not developed

Some scholars have argued that Claudius is actually Hamlet's father as discovered by a teenager growing up: not a gentle and protective man who cares for his family and his people, but rather a man with frailties, naked ambition, sexual impulses, etc. I don't know how much weight this view has in the overall Shakes-phere, but maybe it deserves a proper citation. The Oedipal argument presented as of now is weak and obscure. elpincha 08:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet love Horatio?

I've never read the play, but it says under Horatio's character description that he is the only character to have free "sexual relations" with Hamlet. That just seems unlikely to be in the play, but who knows. 24.65.141.226 05:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article still say this? If so where? It sounds like vandalism to me? AndyJones 14:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to my AP Literature teacher, there is an implication near the end of the play (don't have my book with me right now) when Hamlet is dying, where Horatio says he is more Roman than Dane. This has sometimes to been interpreted to mean that he was in love with Hamlet, not just that he loved Hamlet like a friend. The reason for this is because Roman soldiers were known to "bond", if you catch my meaning. It's a lose implication and I'm sure it has some meaning, but we just know that Hamlet and Horatio were very close friends, they loved one another, anything more than that, it's not in the play specifically. Skin Crawl 01:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the better interprtation of the line is that Horatio is contemplating suicide: in Roman times suicide was considred a noble end (consider the actions of the defeated leaders at the end of Julius Caesar) whereas in Denmark it was not: being a Christian country where it was known that the "everlasting" had "set his canon 'gainst self-slaughter". AndyJones 14:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that Hamlet and Horatio were ever having physical relations; Horatio's comment is taken completely out of context. He was about to poison himself, and thus die with Hamlet. Tha ancient Romans would commit suicide to perserve their honor; thus, Horatios' saying that he is "more antique Roman than a Dane" is not an indication of any sexual relationship with Hamlet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marguerite M. (talk • contribs) 19:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare's son

Unless I am mistaken, Shakespeare's son (who died young—I'm not sure whether before or after he wrote this play) was named Hamnet. Someone may want to follow up on this. - Jmabel | Talk 01:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Hamnet Shakespeare. There is probably no connection there, since Hamlet's name is more likely borrowed from an older, Danish story. However, we might want to dedicate a sentence to silencing any confusion on the subject. Wrad 17:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are so comical you really think Hamlet has something to do with Denmark? How do you explain there are no characters with danish name? Have you ever read the book it represents old greek kings with jokers etc. things that in Denmark did NOT exist at the time and Elsinore is NOT Helsingor you stupid

yeah that is right i agree with you

Image copyright problem with Image:Smoktun.jpg

The image Image:Smoktun.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empty section: Hamlet's Age

There is an empty section about Hamlet's age. The reason I looked up this article was precisely the question of his age. It would be lovely if someone could expand this... -- megA (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even the beginning of this article is very much un-NPOV.

> Prince Hamlet is a fictional character, the protagonist in Shakespeare's tragedy Hamlet.

How can he, an apparently psycho-pathologic serial killer, be a protagonist? He should be a co-antagonist, but if the article wants to be NPOV, Hamlet should be named as the "central character" of the play and that's it.

Most modern people, who are not descended from the excessively violent anglo-american-wiking gene line, are repulsed by the brute danish prince, who poses as intelligentsia just to make his murder spree look cool. He is much like a retroactive Hannibal Lecter and definitely should not be called a protagonist. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is fine. Your statement is what is very POV. He fits the protagonist definition perfectly. If he's not the protagonist, who is? And can you find a reliable source reference for it anywhere? -- JoannaSerah (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Protagonist" does not refer to a character's moral actions but rather their role in the story. Hamlet is undoubtedly a protagonist. Go read the wiki article on protagonists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.179.233 (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke

Hamlet is the best pun played by Shakespear to all people who are trying to understand this very name. Even citing supposed old Jutish names as if the personas names in Shakespeare's Hamlet had to do with Danmark, but you forgot that not one the names in the story are danish, instead they're almost all of greek origin: Laetres is from greek Ophelia is derived thereof... and Hamlet is Telemachos read on the contrary. If you read the story of Telemach is the same as Chamelet aka Hamlet

Etymology Section

First, apologies for the unprofessional edit summary I just made. However, the etymology section seems seriously flawed and so badly written that it's quite hard to follow. Does anyone know enough about it to rewrite it? garik (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Prince of Denmark" redirects here

Why, when there is at all times a real Danish monarchy with successors? 2601:642:4600:D3B0:A484:57D6:A62A:401 (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]