Can anyone tell me......?

Question

about Hamlet. Was he insane? Is there any web site i can get this information...please

Answer 1

Hello. - Link Below.

Have a nice day. :)

Answer 2

There is no one answer. Depending on how you interpet the play, he could or could not be insane. I would say he's not insane, but others will say he was.

There is a mulitude of sources< any library or hamlet sight will say this. Also, if you discuss this with any theater student or drama/english theacher, you will get a veriety of answers.

The best advice is just to read the play itself, re-reading key points, and discussing it in a small group to come up with your own inperitation and defence why.

In theaer, there is no right answer.

Answer 3

There is no answer to the question. As the reader, you need to decide based on your interpretation of the text. Every actor and every reader brings a different set of experiences to the play and bases his or her judgement on those experiences. You decide what the answer is, and then support your argument by using texutal references. "I think Hamlet is really insane because he sees spirits" or "I think Hamlet is really sane because he says that is his disguise." Either answer is correct, you just need to back up your point of view.

Answer 4

As Polonius says, "There is method in his madness." as it allows him to not be taken seriously in his quest for the truth about his father's death. Only after Hamlet mistakenly kills Polonius do his fortune's change as he becomes the hunted rather than the hunter. Many ramifications surfaced with his killing of the old man, who was popular with the people, father of Laertes and Ophelia also popular and Laertes vows revenge. Ironically Hamlet has a moment after the play, when he could have whacked Claudius, but becuse he thought Claudius was praying which meant he might possibly go to heaven whereas his father was murdered with all his sins on his soul, Hamlet didn't think it be fair. He didn't know that Claudius was unable to pray.

There is a marvelously succinct existential statement by Nietzsche in his book, The Birth of Tragedy - here is an excerpt using Hamlet as an example of his thesis:

The ecstasy of the Dionysian state, with its destruction of the customary manacles and boundaries of existence, contains, of course, for as long as it lasts a lethargic element, in which everything personally experienced in the past is immersed. Through this gulf of oblivion, the world of everyday reality and the Dionysian reality separate from each other. As soon as that daily reality comes back again into consciousness, one feels it as something disgusting. The fruit of this condition is an ascetic condition, in which one denies the power of the will.

In this sense the Dionysian man has similarities to Hamlet. Both have had a real glimpse into the essence of things. They have understood, and it now disgusts them to act, for their actions can change nothing in the eternal nature of things. They perceive as ridiculous or humiliating the fact that it is expected of them that they should set right a world turned upside down. The knowledge kills action, for action requires a state of being in which we are covered with the veil of illusion. That is what Hamlet has to teach us, not that really venal wisdom about John-a-Dreams, who cannot move himself to act because of too much reflection, too many possibilities, so to speak. It's not a case of reflection. No! The true knowledge, the glimpse into the cruel truth overcomes the driving motive to act, both in Hamlet as well as in the Dionysian man.

Now no consolation has any effect. His longing goes out over the world, even beyond the gods themselves, toward death. Existence is denied, together with its blazing reflection in the gods or an immortal afterlife. In the consciousness of once having glimpsed the truth, man now sees everywhere only the horror or absurdity of being; now he understands the symbolism in the fate of Ophelia; now he recognizes the wisdom of the forest god Silenus. It disgusts him.

Here the will in in the highest danger. Thus, to be saved, it comes close to the healing magician, art. Art alone can turn those thoughts of disgust at the horror or absurdity of existence into imaginary constructs, which permit living to continue.

Answer 5

This question must be answered by everyone attempting the role. The answers are as varied as the performers who assail the part. I've always been rather partial to Derek Jacobi's resolution in the early 80's BBC production, where he is at great pains to tell his friend (and the audience) that is but mad in craft, and then during his famous scene with Ophelia when he says "It hath made me mad!" He discovers to his horror that he really is. Rather elegant that. The tape is available at most libraries.

Answer 6

Sum up the play Hamlet in a sentence.
Strike while the iron is hot.

Hamlet was a procrastinator, hesitating , hesitating, that
To be or not to be........

Answer 7

I think that he was putting on an act of insanity in order to hide his plans. If people think that he's insane, they won't take anything that he says seriously, and he doesn't have to worry about slipping up. I think that he was perfectly sane and cunning.

Answer 8

I would suggest you read the play - so many different themes going on - then you can decide for yourself if you think he was insane - or not.

Answer 9

go to www.wikipedia.org and you'll everything about Hamlet

Answer 10

You can go to the Internet or at the library.Good luck.