Philosophy and the Puzzles of Hamlet: A Study of Shakespeare's Method

by Leon Harold Craig

Shakespeare's famous play, Hamlet , has been the subject of more scholarly analysis and criticism than any other work of literature in human history. For all of its generally acknowledged virtues, however, it has also been treated as problematic in a raft of ways.

In Philosophy and the Puzzles of Hamlet , Leon Craig explains that the most oft-cited problems and criticisms are actually solvable puzzles. Through a close reading of the philosophical problems presented in Hamlet , Craig attempts to provide solutions to these puzzles.

The posing of puzzles, some more conspicuous, others less so, is fundamental to Shakespeare's philosophical method and purpose. That is, he has crafted his plays, and Hamlet in particular, so as to stimulate philosophical activity in the "judicious" (as distinct from the "unskillful") readers. By virtue of showing what so many critics treat as faults or flaws are actually intended to be interpretive challenges, Craig aims to raise appreciation for the overall coherence of Hamlet : that there is more logical rigor to its plot and psychological plausibility to its characterizations than is generally granted, even by its professed admirers.

Philosophy and the Puzzles of Hamlet endeavors to make clear why Hamlet , as a work of reason, is far better than is generally recognized, and proves its author to be, not simply the premier poet and playwright he is already universally acknowledged to be, but a philosopher in his own right.

Genres: Shakespeare

296 pages, Paperback

First published July 3, 2014

Reviews

[Mora]

rating this bc the parts that were good were REALLY good (ch 2-4) (and to some extent ch 1; i just personally disagreed) even though the longest chapter (5) was just baffling and kind of boring and irrelevant. would recommend, though! lot of interesting thoughts and points i hadn't considered before, the writing style was accessible and conversational, and it didn’t feel overly supercilious like is so often the pitfall in literary scholarship (he did think his answer was the right one ofc but the important point was the question). you can tell this guy just really likes hamlet. i also enjoyed the setup/structure of the book: finding places where things don't quite line up in hamlet and working through how to make them line up (the titular "puzzles")

again, the first four chapters were good even if i disagreed with most of what he said about horatio (ch 1; you should still read it for the emphatic pirate conspiracy theories though), ch 5 made zero sense bc he was just dumping a ton of historical context that didn’t all need to be there for him to make his point about hamlet (which was very halfhearted and then he seemed to speedrun through three others at the end of the chapter with no relevance to the context) and felt more like an excuse for him to talk about Cool Historical Figures. like sir i’m glad you’re interested in things but this is a hamlet book and most of your connections between that and hamlet were tenuous. ([mentions a line in hamlet that could be about magnets] "and john dee's FOSTER SON wrote a BOOK about magnets!!" / [brings up two words from hamlet] "and this is almost like the phrasing in this book that [historical guy] owned the second edition of!") because of this i didn't really get a point out of the last chapter even though there was definitely potential for one.

best part was the discussion of the line between acting and reality (ch 3 i think) bc it’s a blurry line! everyone uses social scripts - is that acting? etc. this is (an offshoot of) one of my pet interests in shakespeare in general and hamlet specifically so i am deeply fond of this chapter because it made so much sense to me.

the horatio premise i disagreed with was that horatio and hamlet aren’t close friends. i get why craig thinks some things can’t be explained if hamlet and horatio are purportedly so close, but i also think you can explain those things with the 'horatio and hamlet are close' premise. however, the chapter goes into a lot more than just being stuck on that the whole time, so it is still interesting and worth the read.

i suppose one thing to keep in mind with this author is that he has deep faith in shakespeare as an author. he thinks every single thing in the text is intentional. he does bring up a few textual transmission things or possible corruption of the text but generally dismisses them unless it personally seems to him like it's "too unsubtle" to be shakespeare, in which case clearly he didn't write it. i think this is probably necessary for his puzzle-seeking premise.

again, i would recommend this book! i like the setup and the writing style