Hamlet (Folger Shakespeare Library)

by William Shakespeare

book data

36,500 ratings, 4.09 average rating, 1,150 reviews (more data...)

rating	frequency	%
5		41%
4		33%
3		20%
2		4%
1		0%

edit

published

July 1st 2003 (first published 1600) by Washington Square Press

binding

Mass Market Paperback, 400 pages

characters

Hamlet, Horatio, Polonius, Laertes, ...more

setting

Denmark

isbn

074347712X (isbn13: 9780743477123)

description

Each edition includes:

• Freshly edited text based on the best early printed version of the play

• Full explanatory notes conveniently placed on pages f

...more

find at: Amazon | Half.com | Barnes & Noble | compare prices ($2.72)…

new topic
discuss this book

topics	posts	views	last activity
The Next Best Boo...: OFFICIAL SUMMER CHALLENGE 2009	3857	4499	23 minutes ago
The Next Best Boo...: Joanie's 2009 Book List	19	169	13 hours, 29 min ago
The Next Best Boo...: Hayes' 50-Book Challenge	9	143	2 days ago, 04:25AM

friend reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

lists with this book

Best of William Shakespeare

29 books | 107 voters

More lists...

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 42,117)

sort: default (?) | date
filters: all | text-only

05/18/08

Madeline rated it:

(review of isbn 0521618746)

bookshelves: assigned-reading, shakespeare

Hamlet, abridged:

GHOST/DAD: Hamlet, your uncle killed me and married your mom. I want vengeance, so best get to murdering, plzthnx.
HAMLET: EEK!
OPHELIA: Hamlet, are you okay?
HAMLET: Get away from me, skankwhore!
OPHELIA: WTF? *goes from zero to crazy like that*
GERTRUDE: Kid, you need therapy.
HAMLET: And you need to be less of AN ADULTEROUS WHORE!
POLONIUS: OMG so rude!
HAMLET: Eavesdropping? I KEEL YOU!
*play goes on hold while Ham...more

Like this review? yes (40 people liked it)

18 comments

02/09/08

Trevor rated it:

(review of isbn 0521618746)

recommends it for: humans

I’ve always meant to talk to my mate George about Hamlet and I guess this is as good an opportunity to do so as any.

There are different things I would say to different people about Hamlet – and as this is the near perfect play I guess there ought to be many and various things one could say about it.

The oddest thing about Hamlet is that people always tend to say the same thing – they always say, “Oh yes, Hamlet, the man who hesitates”. I’ve said it before an...more

Like this review? yes (10 people liked it)

3 comments

11/29/08

Manny rated it:

(review of isbn 0521618746)

Read in January, 1972

Jesus Christ what a year. No way could this get worse. Now they're hacking away at each other with their fucking swords, and I'm supposed to look interested. Oh, well done Hamlet! Despite everything he's still my son, that was a lovely feint. Pretty worried about Laertes though, he looks so crazy. First his dad and then his sister. Wish I could do something to help.

Oh come on, who am I kidding. It's Hamlet I'm worried about of course. God what am I going to do, that poor kid is tota...more

Like this review? yes (6 people liked it)

4 comments

09/27/07

Paul rated it:

(review of isbn 0521618746)

bookshelves: awopbopaloobopalopbamboom, hidden-gems, misc

I bet someone already quoted this, but anyway.

The Skinhead Hamlet - Shakespeare's play translated into modern English. By Richard Curtis.

Note : those offended by the F word - LOOK AWAY NOW!

*********

ACT I
SCENE I
The Battlements of Elsinore Castle.

[Enter HAMLET, followed by GHOST.:]

GHOST: Oi! Mush!

HAMLET: Yer?

GHOST: I was fucked!

[Exit GHOST.:]

HAMLET: O Fuck.
...more

Like this review? yes (10 people liked it)

21 comments

10/11/07

Dmitry rated it:

(review of isbn 0521618746)

Read in January, 1985

recommends it for: you

Just taking a stab here. Feel free to comment or dismiss.

I'd like to suggest that "Hamlet" was the first work of "high" or "serious" literature, by which I mean the first publically disseminated text written in a common language that was difficult for its contemporary audience (as opposed to, for example, texts like DaVinci's notebooks, written in code, Thomas Acquinas's "Summa Theologica," written in Church Latin, and texts like "The Bib...more Just taking a stab here. Feel free to comment or dismiss.

I'd like to suggest that "Hamlet" was the first work of "high" or "serious" literature, by which I mean the first publically disseminated text written in a common language that was difficult for its contemporary audience (as opposed to, for example, texts like DaVinci's notebooks, written in code, Thomas Acquinas's "Summa Theologica," written in Church Latin, and texts like "The Bible," or "The Iliad" that became difficult over time.)

I think "Hamlet" was difficult the first time it was performed. To show why, I'd like to propose a definition of "literature" as opposed to "genre."

Let me define "genre" first. A genre work is a work that openly and unproblematically acknowledges its influences. Itis easy to read and to market. For example, there are now hundreds of books in the genre of "The DaVinci Code." They do not hide that fact, but put it on the cover. Doing that, they pay back both to the reader, and to Dan Brown: the reader gets the joy of recognition, and the "original" grows in stature.

This open acknowledgement of influence is the defining feature of "genre." A work is "science fiction" if it openly acknowledges the influence of other works of "science fiction"; the same goes for "mystery," "western," and so on. The influence can be lateral, as well as longitudinal. Michael Connelly and Robert Crais are contemporary authors of mysteries; their detectives, Harry Bosch and Elvis Cole live in the same canyon, and nod to each other from their balconies.

Genre is old. Storytellers have always, without any anxiety, used tropes and structures from earlier works. Virgil took ideas from Homer. The author of "The Pearl Manuscript" took imagery from "The Book of Revelation." It's possible that before the invention of printing, the act of copying was so labor intensive, that the notion of plagiarism as transgression did not exist.

In a work of "literature," the author feels anxiety about using other people's stuff, aka "generic conventions." I'm riffing here on Harold Bloom's "Anxiety of Influence." Bloom posits that new works of literature are created when authors willfully, yet subconsciously, misread the works of their predecessors. They don't "feel free" to take, and so what they take becomes transformed by their anxiety.

That anxiety (I may be willfully misreading Bloom) causes the literary work to become alienated from the very "conventions" that instantiate it. And that's precisely why it's difficult to read. As the tropes that should be familiar turn foreign, the anxiety transfers to the reader, and if it's felt acutely enough, the merely alien becomes wholly Other and completely new.

This is what happened with "Hamlet," a revenge play in which Hamlet's anxiety over avenging his father's death mirrors Shakespeare's anxiety over writing a "revenge play." Shakespeare's princ(e)ipal innovation, which created literature, was to focus his energies on the anxiety. The play cracked open, and stuff poured in--philosophy, cosmology, insanity, the human condition, the craft of acting, the fear of death, and so forth--alienating "Hamlet" from the very generic conventions that caused it to be. That alienation was also felt by the audience, and made their experience of "Hamlet" difficult. Even after four hundred years people argue over what "Hamlet" is about, and the one thing everyone agrees on is that it's NOT about what it seems to be about, which is whether Hamlet will kill Claudius.

The difficulty of literature has nothing to do with abstruse language or complicated ideas (which can be present in genre.) The difference is literature alienates the familiar, and genre familiarizes the alien. Literature takes a generically handsome prince, his college buddies, a love interest, a villainous murderer, a castle, and a spooky ghost--familiar generic elements all--and anxiously misreads it all into a hopeless muddle.(less)

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

23 comments

05/26/07

Keely added it

bookshelves: drama, reviewed

Shakespeare is an adept poet and master of the language. He layers on jokes, puns, and references everywhere. He has a massive output of work, and a number of different plots. When we compare him to other authors, it is difficult to find anyone who stacks up. This is usually because we compare him to the wrong people.

Shakespeare didn't write books or pamphlets or epics, he wrote plays. Short pieces of drama that were meant to be fast-paced and exciting. That they are mainly experienc...more Shakespeare is an adept poet and master of the language. He layers on jokes, puns, and references everywhere. He has a massive output of work, and a number of different plots. When we compare him to other authors, it is difficult to find anyone who stacks up. This is usually because we compare him to the wrong people.

Shakespeare didn't write books or pamphlets or epics, he wrote plays. Short pieces of drama that were meant to be fast-paced and exciting. That they are mainly experienced today as bound books and not theatrical productions does not change their origins. If one wants to look at the achievements of Shakespeare, he should be compared to someone of a similar bent.

He should be compared with prolific writers known for catchy jokes and phrases. Writers who reuse old plots, making fun of their traditions. Writers of work meant to be performed. Writers who aim for the lowest common denominator, while still including the occasional political commentary. He should be compared to the writers of South Park; or Family Guy; or the Simpsons.

Shakespeare was meant to be lowbrow and political, but now it only reads that way to those who are well-educated enough to understand his language, reference, and the political scene of the time. He referenced mythology because that was the popular thing to do. Family Guy references 1980's pop culture. Is that any less esoteric? How esoteric would it be after 400 years?

Additionally, all of Shakespeare's magnificent plots were lifted, sometimes whole cloth, from other books and histories, just like how sit coms have 'episode types' or how the Simpsons steals the plots of popular movies.

Shakespeare was not as visionary or deep as he is often given credit for. Rather, he was always so vague with the motives and thoughts of his characters that two critics could give his characters two different and conflicting motives, but find both equally well-supported.

Is Shylock evil because he's a Jew, evil despite the fact, or evil because of the effects of racism on him? You can make a case for all three, while Marlowe (the more practised writer) never left it to chance, and where has it gotten him?

Shakespeare was an inspired and prolific author, and his effect on writing and talent for aphorism cannot be overstated. I think he probably wrote the King James version because it is so pretty. However, he is not the be-all and end-all of writing.

His popularity and central position in the canon comes mainly from the fact that you can write anything you like about his plays. Critics and professors don't have to scramble, or even leave their comfort zone. Shakespeare's work is vague enough that it rejects no interpretations. No matter your opinions, you can find them reflected in Shakespeare, or at least, not outright refuted.

His is a grey world, and his lack of agenda leaves us pondering what he could possibly have been like. His vague and endless interpretation makes his writing the perfect representation of an unsure, unjust world. No one is really right or wrong, and if they were, there would be no way to know it.

I don't know whether this makes him the most or least poignant of writers. Is the author's absence from the stories the most rarefied example of the craft, or is it just lighthearted pandering? I'm still not sure.(less)

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

add a comment

02/07/08

Mckenzie rated it:

(review of isbn 0521618746)

bookshelves: play

To be perfectly honest, I think the only time I have appreciated Hamlet, is watching Shakespeare Abridged. A professor spent half of a semester dissecting this play, and I still didn’t care for it, to his great dismay.

“Why?!” he asked.

“I don’t know where to begin,” I said. “It’s just painful to me. Not in a good way, either. I mean, it’s Romeo and Juliet painful. I just hate these two plays. I swear Shakespeare was drunk when he wrote them.”

...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

10/29/07

Jim rated it:

(review of isbn 0451526929)

bookshelves: plays, read-and-kept, required-reading, reviewed

Read in November, 2007

I've discovered the Signet Classics Shakespeare editions to be satisfying versions of the Old Man's stuff. They're thoroughly glossed and annotated, the editorial decisions are explained and reasoned out for the reader, and the supplementary criticism is insightful. I found the Signet Classics editions of The Two Gentlemen of Verona and Twelfth Night to also be of this high quality.

I've never read Hamlet -- ah, bless my public education -- and I fell asleep about forty-five minutes...more I've discovered the Signet Classics Shakespeare editions to be satisfying versions of the Old Man's stuff. They're thoroughly glossed and annotated, the editorial decisions are explained and reasoned out for the reader, and the supplementary criticism is insightful. I found the Signet Classics editions of The Two Gentlemen of Verona and Twelfth Night to also be of this high quality.

I've never read Hamlet -- ah, bless my public education -- and I fell asleep about forty-five minutes into the Kenneth Branaugh juggernaut. Reading the play, I discovered I was familiar enough with the plot, but also surprised how many of my expectations were upset.

The hoary chestnut of Hamlet is that it's four acts of wondering what to do, and a fifth of doing it. Not true! Sure, Hamlet mopes about Castle Elsinore wringing his hands, but the plot does not stall. Shakespeare imbues Hamlet not with indecisiveness -- he swears revenge at the end of Act One so stoutly, how can you not believe him? -- but with thoroughness. Hamlet does not want to make a move against Claudius until all the bubbles on the Scantron have been filled in.

Ghost is not Satan attempting to trick me -- check. Get rid of Ophelia, the woman I love, to stay true to my quest -- check. Convince everyone I'm mad and harmless -- check. Tell off mom for being such a tramp -- check. Ditch these snooping Rosencrantz and Guildenstern kiss-asses off in Britain -- check. Kill Uncle Claudius in such a way as to reveal his treachery and insure his eternal damnation -- check.

The genius of Hamlet, of course, is that everything I've just written could be reasonably argued down. It's as rich a read as all the stuffed-shirts say it is.

As another reviewer here on Goodreads points out, the play is not really about whether Hamlet will kill Claudius; it's about the journey to the final scene, the pondering and self-questioning, the contradictions in Hamlet's character that are so human. That's true, but it cannot be overlooked: this is a revenge tragedy. The central question Hamlet faces is, what price revenge? He finds it to be an expensive proposition.

The monologues are all they're cracked up to be, in particular "what a piece of work is a man", which I reread about eight times out of sheer joy of the language. Try reading it with a sneering or sarcastic tone; it has the muscular flexings of the hard-boiled school about it.

The Signet Classics edition features a good discussion of the two extant quartos and the folio versions of Hamlet. For grins, check out the "to be or not be" speech from the first quarto. It reads like a parody of the version we've all learned. Better yet, compare it to the Shakespeare parody the Duke and the Dolphin muff in Huckleberry Finn. Twain, as usual, is spot-on.(less)

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

06/16/07

Steven rated it:

bookshelves: thebard, theplayisthething

Obviously the plot is so well understood that there is nothing I can add. Some of my favorite lines are as follows:

There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

This above all — to thine ownself be true; And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horati...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

04/12/09

Gztaylor5 rated it:

(review of isbn 0521618746)

bookshelves: english-7701

What could I say of Hamlet that hasn't already been said? It's place in the literary canon is absolutely necessary. Hamlet, the prince, is the deepest, most complete character in literary history, unsurpassed previously and ever since. What makes Hamlet so special is his ability to see the world around himself, and to question his own existance within that world:

To be, or not to be, — that is the question: —
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
T...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

2 comments

12/19/07

Hager rated it:

(review of isbn 0521618746)

Is it true that thoughts could carry us out of the limited universalities of words? Whether we speak or drink words or act them, is it not possible that they could encapture us in their meanings and what we intend to reflect upon our needs and desires to know and what we intend to become consequently? Aren't thoughts the breed of daughters which flirt with our minds and cause us to be playful or upset? Aren't they what everything is to a soliloquist? Has it any severe impact on him or her who so...more Is it true that thoughts could carry us out of the limited universalities of words? Whether we speak or drink words or act them, is it not possible that they could encapture us in their meanings and what we intend to reflect upon our needs and desires to know and what we intend to become consequently? Aren't thoughts the breed of daughters which flirt with our minds and cause us to be playful or upset? Aren't they what everything is to a soliloquist? Has it any severe impact on him or her who soliloquizes? Hamlet explains his philosophy throughout it.

This reflection is a proper continuation of the question because it realizes and makes him aware of the realization of the fact how fragile man is compared to the world he lives in. Hamlet has been put down by Ophelia's death and wonders what death is, the mystery behind which lies either rest or catastrophe depending on how we figure death out (either too late(by dying) or by pondering on its characteristics).

Another spontaneous mode of death is heartaches and painstaking questions in the mind. Hamlet uses death as a metaphor to describe what he is going through emotionally. He is depressed and frustrated and finds no way to empty his thoughts out but to improvise a speech on his opinions of the world due to the facts he has been through and what he has gained from experiences solely for the unpleasant cause of his mother's marriage to his uncle after a week from the father's death. The soliloquy continues on to carry out entertaining thoughts to face the disaster from the point of view of a desperately in need of an acquisition to an internal power to guide him through his dilemmas and misfortunes outside him.

Hamlet ponders and anticipates death to be the answer to all his miseries. Life is too short and decision making is crucial in every minute passing. Hamlet is practicing 'democracy of dialog and dictatorship of opinion.' Which means the surveillance of his feelings through stating his opinion (which in this case he does not or cannot escape to more relieving and more friendly atmospheres of thoughts).hamlet continues to ponder on the uselessness of his thoughts to his will to act and to his ability to execute a straightforward plan to end his misery and exceed his expectations of himself and to himself by himself and others who spoke to him whom he rejected and added that they all are 'allies against him' (i.e, Ophelia).

After denoting the words of the previous, Hamlet moves on to morbidly introspect into the meaning of life when opposed to death: is death something to be overcome or befriended to do along with in life as a fact? Is death the measure of existence, that it is the death of those who do not see into the moralities of others sympathized with and the life of others who could not get enough for a decent living grade in life among others? Is life just and is there a Natural Law that governs us all or is it the law of the 'survival for the fittest'? Thus he argues with himself in the fact about death in shadow of living a deathly life.

Hamlet finds soothing thoughts in the fact that it is fair to go through this being someone who is not able to act properly to avenge his father's death and family's honor in the disgraceful marriage done by his mother and uncle. He lastly conceives on final thought into death as a sympathetic fondness of Ophelia due after her death and finally humanely finds her fine and unlike what he has thought of her. The final lines are a conciliation of her death being his fault, that praying for her or wishing her a restful peaceful rest is all he could do in his 'temporary' state(which we know of now until the end of the soliloquy) of inability of acting further than his thoughts could convey to him(hamlet does not want to act but philosophize and awaits an external action to spring him into action(foreshadowing of the soliloquy).

(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

1 comment

12/28/08

Alex rated it:

(review of isbn 0521618746)

bookshelves: school

Read in February, 2008

Shakespeare's masterpiece. What sets Hamlet apart from other WS plays I have read is its realistic flow: the plot in not contrived (ala Macbeth), the time-frame not quickened (ala Romeo and Juliet), the climax not hollow (ala Julius Caesar). Even the ghosts scenes work. The depth of Hamlet's character, expressed so poignantly in his numerous soliloquies, and the intricacy of the supporting roles further solidify this masterpiece's greatness.

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

1 comment

03/28/09

Melanie rated it:

(review of isbn 0451521285)

Read in July, 2008

Hamlet is my favorite character in all English literature. For all his cunning and wit, his self-doubt and indecision make him so human.

Some favorite quotes:
"What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god: the beauty of the world, the parpgon of animals; and yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust?" (II, ii, 312-317)

...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

11/25/08

Jennifer rated it:

bookshelves: classics

Despite its antiquated setting, Hamlet speaks to the average individual in ways that Julius Caesar or Macbeth do not, although they are obviously very worthy in different ways. Further, if you are a teacher of students disenfranchised in some way, this can be a very liberating text--not because of the literal plot, but due to the rich discussions that it provokes around how *not* to end up like either a modern Ophelia or Hamlet. Frankly, I am mystified why Macbeth is the traditional choice in Se...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

06/08/09

Alex Nigro rated it:

(review of isbn 0521618746)

Hamlet is without a doubt, the best Shakespeare play I have read thus far.

But what other reviews have failed to mention, which I particularly love about this play is the fantastic dark comedy within it (comedy as in the "haha" comedy, and not the "everybody's happy at a wedding" comedy).

Disclaimer: You'll just have to believe that the following statements are true and that I am not just a pompous snob trying to look smart.

Now, I almost a...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

04/13/09

Shea added it (review of isbn 0521618746)

bookshelves: q32009

Shakespeare wrote many classic tragedies throughout his life time, and Hamlet is known to be “the longest play and among the most powerful and influential tragedies” (Wikipedia) ever written in the English language. This play, written in Shakespearian language, begins with the main character, Hamlet, being visited by the ghost of his passed father, King Hamlet, who wishes to seek revenge on Claudius, who poisoned King Hamlet in his sleep. After killing the King Hamlet, Claudius, who happens ...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

04/16/09

Steven rated it:

(review of isbn 0451526929)

Read in January, 1994

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

Like this review? yes

add a comment

03/20/09

Hayes rated it:

(review of isbn 0521618746)

bookshelves: 1600s, drama, ereader, school

Read in May, 2009

How interetsting to read this again, 35 years later.

A classic school read, which I loved then, but the perception of the characters is so different now. How many Poloniuses have I met over the years? How many two-faced friends?

When I was in high school the angst was understandable, but not the anger. Now the anger becomes all too clear and the angst seems secondary. A lovely story of perception and context.

re-read this classic in eBook form, from www.dailylit.com

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

2 comments

06/22/09

Gabriel Aguilera rated it:

(review of isbn 0521618746)

Read in January, 1983

A guide to my rating system
*********************************************************************
5 Stars: This book is a timeless classic and undisputed member of the literary canon. I read and loved it.

4 Stars: This book is a personal classic. A book I am happy to read again and again and think you would enjoy it too.

3 Stars: This is a book I read and thoroughly enjoyed. I recommend only if you are interested in the subject matter.

I do not list ...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

05/21/09

Briana rated it:

(review of isbn 0553212923)

Read in May, 2009

I figured that since I took British Lit this year, it'd be kind of wrong to not read any Shakespeare at all...Plus, I really wanted to read Hamlet, because I've heard a lot of good things about it. (And my dad read it, and I really love reading the things that my dad's read...)
Honestly, I think that this play is worth reading just for Hamlet's soliloquy alone. (Shakespeare reminds me a lot of Sondheim...lots of clever wordplay, buckets of angst and somewhat macabre thoughts, sly, sharp hu...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment