Crazy Good

First, let me tell you how really, really difficult it is to criticize Shakespeare. (You may now pause to pity my sad condition.) We're talking about Shakespeare here -- it doesn't get much better than him. Literary references, beautiful prose and poetry, stories that influenced generations of writers... and let me add that I'm reading a Folger's Library version, which is brilliant at providing just the right amount of notes on the side, so I can read without breaking my stride too much but also know what's going on. This is extremely high quality literature.

Which is why I'm so grateful for those people who claimed to me before I read Hamlet, "It's better than Macbeth."

Macbeth, as I've noted, is my favorite Shakespeare play by a mile. Studying it in-depth probably helped, but in addition to that, the action is exciting, the characters are complex, and the story is a timeless story of self-fulfilling prophecy, which is subject to constant reinterpretation. Banquo and Macduff are probably more cemented in my imagination than the cast of supporting characters in Romeo and Juliet.

Can Hamlet measure up to this? Actually, almost.

I'll be reading the play again soon, I can tell you that. (I'll also see a performance this spring.) I need to experience it again because my first impression of Hamlet is that it's confusing. Hamlet might or might not be mad; Claudius (Hamlet's uncle, who according to a maybe-really-there Ghost, killed Hamlet's father) might or might not harbor genuine concern for Hamlet's well-being. The love of Hamlet and Ophelia might be real, and it might be incest, and it might be fake. The ambiguities stack up, and it's quite delicious; these roles must be fun to play onstage, I can tell.

However, as a reader, I'm keeping those ambiguities in place in the back of my head, so when some action takes place (like, say, the first big murder of the play -- or even the final scene) it comes out of nowhere, because suddenly instead of talking, planning, and plotting, the characters are dropping like flies. This suddenness of happenings even inspired a very weird play, entitled "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead", after an offhand line spoken by one of the characters in the last scene.

So the play is more confusing than Macbeth. How else can I compare the two? Well, the scenes are longer, but that allows for more interesting character development -- well, and for longer speeches. There are a lot of now-lost references in Hamlet, and the play is pieced together from several disparate versions, meaning that even in this, one of the most prestigious Shakespeare editions, the monologues are occasionally incomplete.

On the other hand, there are a tremendous number of classic lines and moments in here. "Speak the speech, I pray you." "Sweets for the sweet." "Alas, poor Yorick!" "To be, or not to be." I even got to one scene (2.2) and realized I'd performed it as Claudius in a summer camp. Good moments. Oh, and of course the opening Ghostly scenes are not to be forgotten.

As I said -- how can I criticize Shakespeare? He knew what he was doing; if there is something wrong with the play, that's because time has lost the stories he based it off of. This play seems a little bit haphazard, but it provides for a very interesting backdrop for the not-quite-mentally-stable title character. For literature scholars, this play is an absolute must-read. For the rest of us, it'll mess with your mind a bit, but sometimes crazy is good.

NOTE 1: I haven't yet read the "Modern Perspective" at the end of the book, but I plan to do that.

NOTE 2: The library list I posted previously is now defunct. I had to return them. I was not quite so invested in them as to want to go and get them again. Don't worry, though -- I have a long list of books on my shelf still to read, as well as some Great Books.

NOTE 3: I'm reviewing the first year or so of Marvel Comics chronologically! Follow me on twitter at twitter.com/EssentialMarvel for comic reviews in 140 characters or less.