I think a lot of Hamlet can be interpreted about being about the inevitability of death. The famous “to be or not to be” speech is all about whether life is preferable to death.
I think it’s also important not to overindex on universal metaphor.
he, the prince, just found out his father, the king, was killed by his uncle to take both his mother and the crown and he feels he has to face the entire political and royal machine of the country against him - and wonders if it might not be better to just die.
Considering the character is also named after Shakespeare’s son who died (Hamnet Shakespeare, with an n) - it could also be a maudlin / macabre reflection on his own role as a father.
he, the prince, just found out his father, the king, was killed by his uncle to take both his mother and the crown and he feels he has to face the entire political and royal machine of the country against him - and wonders if it might not be better to just die.
Unless, as I said below, that’s all in his mind. It can definitely be interpreted that way.
As far as it being named after Shakespeare’s son, it might be, or that might be coincidence, since there’s the Ur-Hamlet (a lost play which was performed before Hamlet as we know it) which may or may not have been written by Thomas Kyd. On the other hand, all we know about the Ur-Hamlet, which Shakespeare still may have written is that there is a lead character named Hamlet and there’s a ghost in it.
I’d argue that’s a directorial or meta-critical way of analyzing the text, not necessarily dramaturgical, even if it is in his mind from a dramatic irony point of view, internally, to the character, those are his given circumstances.
Fair point on Ur-Hamlet. Dated 1587, when Hamnet (the kid) would have been 2 or 3. Whereas Hamnet (the kid) died in 1896 and Hamlet (the play) was written 3 or 4 years later
I also like to think that speech is about “to be BOLD in this moment, or not to be,” as in, to take action can lead to dire consequences, maybe it’s safer to sit back and “not to be” at all. But it also is about his contemplation of death and whether 'tis nobler in some way than life is.
I think a lot of Hamlet can be interpreted about being about the inevitability of death. The famous “to be or not to be” speech is all about whether life is preferable to death.
I think it’s also important not to overindex on universal metaphor.
he, the prince, just found out his father, the king, was killed by his uncle to take both his mother and the crown and he feels he has to face the entire political and royal machine of the country against him - and wonders if it might not be better to just die.
Considering the character is also named after Shakespeare’s son who died (Hamnet Shakespeare, with an n) - it could also be a maudlin / macabre reflection on his own role as a father.
Unless, as I said below, that’s all in his mind. It can definitely be interpreted that way.
As far as it being named after Shakespeare’s son, it might be, or that might be coincidence, since there’s the Ur-Hamlet (a lost play which was performed before Hamlet as we know it) which may or may not have been written by Thomas Kyd. On the other hand, all we know about the Ur-Hamlet, which Shakespeare still may have written is that there is a lead character named Hamlet and there’s a ghost in it.
So who knows?
I’d argue that’s a directorial or meta-critical way of analyzing the text, not necessarily dramaturgical, even if it is in his mind from a dramatic irony point of view, internally, to the character, those are his given circumstances.
Fair point on Ur-Hamlet. Dated 1587, when Hamnet (the kid) would have been 2 or 3. Whereas Hamnet (the kid) died in 1896 and Hamlet (the play) was written 3 or 4 years later
I also like to think that speech is about “to be BOLD in this moment, or not to be,” as in, to take action can lead to dire consequences, maybe it’s safer to sit back and “not to be” at all. But it also is about his contemplation of death and whether 'tis nobler in some way than life is.