The best known - and longest - of Harley Granville Barker's celebrated Prefaces to some of the best practical guides to Shakespeare's work yet written.
In his Preface to Hamlet, Barker takes the reader through the play, quoting freely and commenting on the meaning and impact of each moment. In doing so he combines his experience as a director and actor with his scholarly knowledge of the Elizabethan stage. (2011-01-17)
I'm still reading about Hamlet before seeing the USF production next month. A classic of criticism and one of the best books I've read on the play, Granville-Barker's Preface to Hamlet treats the play first and foremost as a play, designed to be represented in a particular theater, and making uses of the conventions of its time and place, an approach which was somewhat novel at the time. He begins with several interesting chapters on various aspects of Elizabethan/Jacobean theater as they relate to the play, including the convention of soliloquoy and the use of "boy-actresses", then follows with a close explication of the text itself. He rejects the folio editors' divisions and divides the play into three rather than five parts. Throughout the analysis he emphasizes the effects that would be made on the stage and gives much good advice for directors and actors. He ends where so many earlier critics of the play begin, with discussions of all the characters and their roles in the structure of the play.
Another classic study of Hamlet, limited somewhat by a perhaps too-extensive working through scene by scene of the whole play, with summary combined with analysis. The final sections, of style, character etc., also do not really gel with the core of the book. As a sort of general preface to Shakespeare focused on Hamlet, this is useful. As a study of the play, specifically, it suffers from a bit of a lack of focus. Still, many a worthwhile insight.
Surprised me greatly in being pretty much exactly what I've been looking for in some of my other Hamlet-related reading. Granville-Barker has some general things to say about the makeup of the play, but then he goes scene by scene, talking of motivations, continuity, staging concerns, lines that fit or don't fit. He talks of the verse and the prose, and how the characters use each differently to different effect. He goes character by character, their significance and interrelationships. It's knowledgeable of the scholarship that's come before but never lapses into academic nonsense; indeed, he always keeps a keen eye on the idea that it's a play and therefore meant to be performed, approaching everything from that perspective. Certainly in some respects it's outdated, closing in on 100 years old, but throughout it shows a sympathy to the secondary characters that modern directors could do well to take note of.
Quite possibly the best single text I have ever read on the topic of Hamlet. A wealth of wisdom on stagecraft, character, and theme. A profoundly beautiful and meditative discourse on the heart of drama itself. This is pure gold.
Ok. And I just re-read the last section, a character analysis of Hamlet, himself. Such a great fucking work.