Talk:Hamlet/Archive 1

message: Shouldn't this have a spoiler warning? I mean, even though Hamlet's pretty popular, we can't assume everyone has read it, so there should be a spoiler warning before giving away the ending. Keenanpepper 00:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct sir. Has been added below the "Main Characters" header. Ellsworth 00:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've seen increasingly that discussions are resulting in deletion of spoiler warnings in articles with fairly wide support. I, personally, think they should stay but from what I've seen I'm in the minority. Marty Donakowski 04:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler warning 

message: How about adding a "famous quotes" section?
*To be, or not to be: that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler . . ."
*Dead for a ducat! (killing his girlfriend's father behind the arras)
*greater things than you have dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio
*May I lie in your lap? . . . I meant country matters (you are merry, my lord)
etc.
It might help if these famous quotations were accurate! There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in (y)our philosophy.
---
Agreed. The line is "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt (not dreamed as the previous poster had it*) of in (y)our philosophy." 
However, give the guy credit. I could see an issue though.. there being so many famous lines.. we could have a whole article on "To be or not to be".
* it could be dreamed as we pronounce it today, but not dream-ed with the stress on Ed. I know no edition that uses this variation, you are welcome to point it out to me.
Good comparative editions include Folger's and Arden's. I only own the Folger's at present.
:Please see Wikiquote - we are trying to make a list of accurate quotations there, rather than have them all in the Wikipedia itself. Not just for Hamlet but for everything and everybody. Come and join us.
It was Polonius killed behind the arras not Ophelia! 172.143.18.148 18:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence, I guess, the phrase, "his girlfriend's father". Paul B 18:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: I have heard from a person I trust that the line "To be or not to be" is the most recognizable phrase in the English language. Before that amusing tidbit gets added to the page, is there anyone who can confirm or deny it? --Reediewes 21:50, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
:I would love to know the method behingd the analysis taht led to such an assertion—which I guess to be anecdotal.—Theo  (Talk) 23:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why won't anyone explain it?67.67.120.228 03:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The line is difficult to deliver because it is so famous and well-known that the actor may be somewhat awed or embarrased at being the one to deliver the line. The actor may not feel "worthy" to deliver the line and in his or her anxiety may be more likely to flub it. Some actors are also intimidated by the fact that the second part of the line will doubtless be mouthed or whispered by a large part of the audience as they of course will recognize it. Some guy 00:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To be or not to be 

message: Though it is not discussed here, at pimp and fishmonger it states that fishmonger in Skakespearian times was a euphemism for pimp.  I did a little research and found that this is disputed.
From http://www.clicknotes.com/hamlet/Pap.html:
Excellent well; you are a fishmonger" (2.2.174), says Hamlet, in response to Polonius' question, "Do you know me, my lord?" This is the first of a series of bitter jests that Hamlet directs at the uncomprehending Polonius. The basis of the jests is apparently Hamlet's intuition that Polonius forced Ophelia to dump him. In Hamlet's opinion, Polonius sacrificed his daughter's happiness in order to suck up to the King. Thus, "fishmonger" is often explained as slang for "pimp," despite the fact that there is no evidence that the word was used that way in Shakespeare's time. Hamlet then makes his insult sharper by wishing that Polonius were as honest as a fishmonger, which is to say that Polonius is lower than the lowest of the low. Hamlet goes on to say that "to be honest, as this world goes, is to be one man pick'd out of ten thousand" and then says what Polonius probably thinks is a very crazy thing: "For if the sun breed maggots in a dead dog, being a god kissing carrion--Have you a daughter?" The comment about the sun and maggots has at least two possible meanings. One meaning is that it's not surprising that Polonius is such a hypocrite, because the life-giving sun can produce all kinds of disgusting things, especially from other disgusting things. The second meaning Hamlet explains, though not so Polonius can understand. When Polonius says that he does have a daughter, Hamlet replies, "Let her not walk i' the sun: conception is a blessing: but not as your daughter may conceive" (2.2.184-185). In other words, if Polonius is going to keep Ophelia away from Hamlet for fear that she'll get knocked up, he better keep her out of the sun, too, because even the sun can produce bastard pregnancies.
But there are other sites that support the fishmonger=pimp theory.  From http://www.princehamlet.com/QA.html#3:
Why does Hamlet call Polonius a fishmonger, and why does he prattle on about Jephthah? (And who is Jephthah, anyway?)
From Chapter Three, “A Certain Convocation of Politic Worms.”
Polonius: Do you know me, my lord?
Hamlet: Excellent well, you are a fishmonger.
Polonius: Not I, my lord.
Hamlet: Then I would you were so honest a man.
“Fishmonger” is Elizabethan cant for “fleshmonger”–a pimp, procurer, or bawd. In Hamlet’s view, Polonius treats Ophelia as so much flesh for barter–and rightly so, given Polonius’ “I’ll loose my daughter to him” 2.2.175, as if she’s a mare for the breeding. But Polonius is even less honest than a bawd; he manipulates Ophelia for political capital, not just time-honored pecuniary reasons.
Later, in the scene when the players arrive, Hamlet confounds Polonius with his ramblings on Jephthah: 2.2.285
Hamlet: O Jephthah, judge of Israel, what a treasure hadst thou!
Polonius: What a treasure had he, my lord?
Hamlet: Why–
“One fair daughter, and no more,
The which he loved passing well.”
Polonius: Still on my daughter.
Hamlet: Am I not i’ th’ right, old Jephthah?
Polonius: If you call me Jephthah, my lord, I have a daughter that I love passing well.
Hamlet: Nay, that follows not.
Polonius: What follows then, my lord?
Hamlet: Why–
"As by lot, God wot,"
and then, you know,
"It came to pass, as most like it was"–
the first row of the pious chanson will show you more, for look where my abridgement comes.
Enter the players.
Hamlet’s reference is to a story in Judges 11 (in the Geneva Bible version), and to a then-current ballad on the subject (and to a recently performed play on the subject; see Appendix B). Jephthah promised the Lord that if he would give Jephthah victory over the Ammonites, Jephthah would offer up the first person to come out his front door as a burnt offering. His daughter and only child is the lucky winner. Before she’s sacrificed, though, she begs leave for, and receives, permission to spend two months in the mountains with her “companions” to bewail her eternal virginity. She gets herself to a nunnery. Then Jephthah “did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she had known no man.”
Hamlet is chiding Polonius for similarly sacrificing his own virgin daughter–barring her marriage and procreation (and ultimately sacrificing her life). And he is also jabbing an insult at Polonius (and commenting slantingly on his own situation): Jephthah was “the son of a harlot.” …
I think this will need to be reflected in the aforementioned articles and the quote should probably be aded to wikiquote if not also here. I'll do what I can.
Theshibboleth 04:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fishmonger 

message: About this sentence:
:Hamlet is one of the world's most famous literary works, and has been translated into every major living language.
Is this some kind of definition? I think we need a source for this. — Sverdrup 11:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for number of translations 

message: I don't understand this change. I think it is worthwhile to mention that Hamlet's appeal is such that someone efforted the likely-no-so-easy translation into Klingon.
- Eric 00:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason why such efforting should be excluded, though whether translating into a made-up language is or is not likely-no-so-easy I can't say. Paul B 00:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was me who co-efforted it, and I thought it was non-trivial work, anyway. :-) Opoudjis 14:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Klingon 

message: Where's the support for Polonius being Polish-born? Don't say the name, because that line of reasoning equally supports Claudius being Roman-born and Laertes being Greek-born. Ellsworth 21:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you. Even if there is something which supports the theory (surely not, but we'll see what replies we get here) it's hardly significant enough to be worth a mention in the sentence you removed it from. AndyJones 21:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish-born? 

message: I fear that none of the readers discussing above the tragedy will join my reasoning,
but I think the page of the play should not be named "Hamlet" (even if Hamlet)
remains a redirect on it: There are many other things that are named "Hamlet",
and the play is not named "Hamlet".
Please read on at Talk:Hamlet (disambiguation) if you are willing to do so... — MFH:Talk 19:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  name of this wikipedia page 

message: I reverted this edit, although my only source was wikipedia, which has the first date in Ur-Hamlet. I guess this may have been a mistake (it was done by an IP with only this one edit) but I'm raising it here in case anyone is able to check it. (If so, perhaps add the source to the article!) AndyJones 11:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were right; I added the source of the reference to make things clearer. The Singing Badger 20:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ur-Hamlet 

message: Im sorry to crash in like this, but I can not find a reference to the Hamlet film adaptation from 2000, where the setting is modern but dialogue is in original form. reference: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0171359/ Thank you. Also there is no reference to the Hamlet film starring Mel Gibsonm of 1990/1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.149.198 (talk • contribs) 
*Wikipedia has pages for both, and several others. See Hamlet (1990 film), Hamlet (2000 film), and Shakespeare on screen#Hamlet which contains links to these and others. Also, this page itself has a section on Hamlet in cinema and tv here. AndyJones 16:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamlet Films 

message: It's not quite accurate to call them 'films', because a lot of the references occur in television shows. Is there some better description than just "films" that we can use to describe the audio-visual works that reference Hamlet? Nuance13x 08:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Films' that reference Hamlet 

message: Can someone check if this anon edit is valid? This version sound a little more hilarious than the previous one, but not so much... Maybe one can check if the newly introduced "Gravedigger" does exist? — MFH:Talk 19:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  somehow hilarious anon edit 

message: In compliance with Wikipedia's "no original content" policy, I have moved the comments I previously posted here over to wikinfo:
http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Motifs_in_Hamlet
http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Hamlet%27s_Fish_Motif
http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Hamlet%27s_Silence_and_the_Voice_of_Denmark_Motif
--Ray Eston Smith Jr 20:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikinfo 

message: I bring this up not knowing if anyone is familiar with the theory I am about to mention, but here goes! In my edition of the Bad Quarto, the theory is advanced by Albert Weiner that it represents not a "corruption" but an intentional, purposeful, and skillful abridgement of the play, to enable the King's Men to take it on the road with a far smaller complement of actors than would be required to stage the "full version". The reasoning behind this theory is, to me, both interesting ==and persuasive but I am not a specialist. Possibly this theory is known to others here but has been so discredited that it does not warrant mention, but possibly it is not a generally known theory. Would it, in that case, merit mention in the "Texts" section where the bad quarto is discussed? Hi There 07:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the theory has not been widely accepted. There were also articles - and an edition if I remember - at the height of 90s "postmodernism" when it was being declared that different versions were all "equally valid" and that therefore it was bad to say it was bad. The theory may warrant a mention. Paul B 08:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I added a few lines about this "road version" theory; let me know what you think of it and make any changes you deem necessary please. Hi There 14:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bad Quarto 

message: I thought "Assassinations in fiction" was really too too peripheral, so deleted it.-- Jrmccall 02:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Assassinations'' assassin 

message: Maybe it should be moved to its own page, but surely not deleted! Jrmccall 23:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''''Hamlet'' In Music''' was deleted: reinstate? 

message: I removed the detailed content from this section, after placing it (if it was not already there) in Shakespeare on screen (Hamlet). I retained the section name and a small leader, in case links to it exist. — Jrmccall 03:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Hamlet'' in cinema and TV 

message: This subsection is big, getting bigger, and singularly unilluminating about the play "Hamlet". Shouldn't it have a page of its own? Any suggestions as to what to call it? I'm going to move it in a few days if there are no objections. — Jrmccall 23:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it's interesting -- and daunting! — Jrmccall 23:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to Hamlet in popular culture 

message: I've just removed this from the intro:
:::Lines and phrases from the play have passed into the popular consciousness, and in fact, the introductory phrase "To be or not to be" of Hamlet's soliloquy in Act III, scene i has become identified with it.
It doesn't seem to mean anything. Can anyone elucidate? AndyJones 11:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it means that the play is epitomised by the phrase "To be or not to be" in the popular imagination. I'd say "alas poor Yorick" is at least as likely to used in the same way. Still, TBONTB does in a sense epitomise the play, and has been used as the title of two films. Paul B 12:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning? 

message: I've taken a stab at revising the "Text" section of the Hamlet entry, in line with previous criticisms. See what you think.Ugajin 10:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Text" section 

message: Any feelings on the infobox that I added? Remember 21:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added infobox 

message: There. Now that I've spoiled Hamlet for you guys, can we please get rid of the ridiculous spoiler warnings? TomorrowTime 14:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but spoiler warnings are accepted on Wikipedia, and spoiling the play will not reverse that. Hbdragon88 02:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers! 

message: Hmm. It seems that someone has added a reference to every book on the top ten list at http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1578073,00.html as being "named by Time as one of the top ten books of all time." This statement isn't really accurate; the online Time article is actually about a recent book (The Top Ten) which is just a compilation of various contemporary authors' personal top ten lists. To say that Time named any of these books as the "ten greatest of all time" isn't really correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.128.6 (talk • contribs) 
*You are correct. I have removed it. AndyJones 18:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Top Ten 

message: Literary criticism on Hamlet is pretty scarce on wikipedia right now, compared to the stuff that is out there.  I think there should be a section in this article on it with a link to a larger article: Hamlet literary criticism. Also, the trivia section could easily be converted into a Hamlet in Film and Theatre section listing depictions of Hamlet on the stage (this could be an article in itself as well, for all that is said about it). Wrad 07:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary Criticism 

message: I just proposed a Shakespeare Wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Shakespeare I doubt anyone is going to object to a seperate project, but I'm not going to be able to make it right away.  I'm not going to be able to go to all of the pages announcing this, but since the debate here made me realize its necessity I thought I'd mention it here.
I'm in. I just posted your link on the Elizabethan theatre wikiproject talk page, as well. Wrad 03:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakespeare Wikiproject 

message: I recently added an external link to my website (thehamletenitgma.com), yet someone keeps removing it. The website presents a potentially ground-breaking discovery, which is supported with statistically irrefutable evidence, yet it is being censored here and I would appreciate to have the reason for this. It is true that my hypothesis is not widely accepted or for that matter contested, but that is because it has remained unknown until now. That is why I have turned to this article in wikipedia as a forum in order to publicize (in a discreet and relevant way) what I believe to be a great discovery in literary theory, in hope of generating constructive feedback. I can understand the necessity for strict editorial standards and appreciate the great quality of (and the work that went into creating) this article, yet I do not think wikipedia was created to censor unorthodox ideas, but on the contrary to give people a  medium to express them.
: Your ideas might be quite interesting, and you might have created the next big break in Hamlet literary critism -- but it is not currently appropriate for wikipedia, even as a link. Since you might not know how to look at your ip addresses talk page User talk:162.129.251.22 this is why your link has been removed.  Curtangel 01:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An editorial complaint 

message: Someone requested a third opinion. For what it's worth, here's mine. The article does not cry out for an info box. Western civilization will not collapse if one is included, but the one shown strikes me as silly. I'd like to see a plot intro in the first paragraph, something like "The play is about the moral dilemma faced by only son of the late King of Denmark whose uncle has taken the throne and married his mother." Compare with the intro to Romeo and Juliet. Otherwise, I think all the info anyone would want is easily found in the article.--agr 00:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: Wow, I asked if anybody has any thoughts on the infobox I added in December of 2006 (Talk:Hamlet#Added infobox) and nobody ever replied.  I heard nothing about this and went away and then suddenly on April 19 this became very contentious.  Well, here is my two-cents. I added the infobox to this article hoping it would catch on to the other play-related articles.  Currently the template is being used on about 60+ articles on plays (see here).
I generally find infoboxes to be very useful, and I think this is no exception.   I still support the use of an infobox on this page (even after reading all of the objections above) and I would like to see the infobox restored (but I don't want to get into an edit war over this).  I welcome the opportunity to discuss whether infobox should belong on play articles at all, but I think the discussion should go on at the template infobox talk page (Template talk:Infobox Play) or on the wikiproject theater talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre) so that we can come to a uniform understanding of this issue with all of the interested participants.  Other thoughts? Remember 15:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I think this conversation is pretty important and needs to be had in some place where everyone will be able to find it.  Others that try to add infoboxes for Shakespeare plays would never be able to find this consensus if it was just on a past Village pump discussion.  Therefore, I would rather move the dicussion to Template talk:Infobox Play) or on the wikiproject theater talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre Remember 17:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox discussion opinion by the guy who added it