All of 1st period AP Lit thinks I’m crazy.
I’m not crazy.
Hamlet is crazy.
And all of them know it. They just won’t admit it.
People have a couple of problems with accepting this because Hamlet is hot or whatever. Beyond that, the debate itself is stupid, because crazy is a stupid word. It’s far too subjective for anyone to get anywhere with this discussion. If this were January, I would’ve googled a definition of insanity from Webmd or a university or another Shakespearean work, but this is April—I have things to do and by God, I’m already at the brink here. Also, Andy Evans suggested I use quotes, but this is an article in the Literature section so I’m just assuming that the three people reading this came here from AP Lit anyway, so I’ll just paraphrase.
For the purposes of this article, I’m defining crazy as consistently committing actions lacking the substantial moral and logical sense of an average 1st period AP Lit student. We can’t read Hamlet’s mind so this is the best we can do with Shakespeare’s scribblings.
Brief plot summary for those who didn’t read the play (Melissa Riedstra), it’s just “The Lion King”: Claudius, brother to Denmark’s king, murders the king, steals his throne and wife (Gertrude), the ghost of the king tells his son, Prince Hamlet, and Hamie boy goes out to avenge his father. Hijinks ensue, la dee da. Spoilers, literally the whole main cast dies (Horatio doesn’t count you nerdy nerd).
Okay, but why is Hamlet crazy? I’ll start with the Ghost and it’s credibility. During the Ghost’s three appearances, Only four people ever see the ephemeral deadbeat: Hamlet, Horatio, and two irrelevant nobodies; the latter three have the first sighting. The two nobodies are idiotically introduced, accidentally sneaking up on one another during their late-night guarding. Horatio soon enters; all are admittedly exhausted, and two of them are already scared of the ghost, those same two are shown to be not-so-sharp in literally the first scene of the play, and again, it’s the dead of night. These are not reliable narrators. The ghost appears; it says nothing, the boys scream, the ghost disappears, and scene. One problem: ghosts aren’t real.
Eventually, Hamlet has a mano y mano with the Ghost. Nobody else can confirm if this thing is real. What can we confirm? Over the course of a very short time frame, Hamlet’s entire life has been upended; his father, whom he admires very much is mysteriously dead, he’s ripped away from his studies abroad, when he returns to Den-prison all grief-stricken ‘n sad he finds that his uncle has married his mother (consensually) and seized his throne. Somewhere along the line, literally everybody starts gaslighting him, saying that everything is fine, that he should get over his father’s death because he’s got a new Daddy now and his name is Claud. Oh and lest we forget, his country is on the brink of invasion. By the time the play starts, Hamlet is neck deep in an environment practically designed to make someone go mad.
What does the Ghost charge Hamlet with? Vengeance! What does Hamlet do? Literally everything but that until the end of the play! He runs around messing with the cast, putting on plays, “acting crazy to convince everyone he’s crazy so he can kill Claudius more effectively somehow” (we’ll get to that), kills people directly and indirectly, gets sent to England, escapes being sent to England, crashes a funeral for the woman he abused, wrestles with her grieving brother in the coffin, then duels him till his death. If there was an ounce of logic in sweet Hamie’s pea brain he’d have killed Claudius quietly, effectively, either collecting evidence of Claudius’ guilt or fabricating some and framing the guy anyway. Don’t you dare say that’s what he did, that’s like putting a fork in a microwave and calling it an atomic bomb. Hamlet seems well equipped enough to play the Game of Thrones and win but instead, he chooses not just to die, but to make literally everyone else die too, because he’s not half as cunning as he’s credited to be. Seems a little illogical and morally dubious…some might say…Crazy…
Still don’t believe me? That’s fine, I’m just getting started, and you know what? I can just keep going on and on, because nobody will read this far into the article anyway. Let’s talk about the third and final appearance of the Ghost, the only time Hamlet interacts with dear old dead dad with somebody else in the room: Gertrude, his mommy. Guess what? Gertrude can’t see the ghost, because, well, you know, not real n’ such. In my opinion, Hamlet only sees it because the Ghost is a manifestation of both his mourning for his pee-pa, plus, if symbolically, his intuition and principles; the two things undermined by his craziness. Nevertheless, if this scene codifies anything, it’s that the Ghost is not a reliable character, and thus neither is Hamlet nor his cause.
But of course that’s not enough for you people. You’ve been conditioned to suspend your disbelief. Fine. Be that way. But if you wanna say the ghost is real, don’t tell me Hamlet is some genius with a master plan, that’s right we’re coming back to the acting crazy thing. Yes, he says he’s gonna act crazy to trick Claud so he can murder him. I’m here to tell you that the process of doing that lacks any morality or logic, and is thus, by our definition, crazy. If you really think about it, most of the cast isn’t actually trying to harm Hamlet. Most of everything Ophelia, Gertrude, Polonius, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern do is arguably little more than a wellness check. King Claud uses this against Hamlet, but at the very least most of these people don’t want to kill Hamlet. So, in acting crazy, he only ends up drawing more suspicion and provoking Claudius & Crew into monitoring him more closely; Claudius only brings in Guildenstern, Rosencrantz, Polonius, and Ophelia to try and chill Hamlet’s chicanery. What does Hamlet do to all of them at every turn? Berate, abuse, and murder them. It’s not just evil, it’s stupid.
“But Owen,” you say dumbly, “Hamlet was still right about pretty much everything Claudius and the rest of the cast was doing. He was like three steps ahead at all times,” and yes, that’s correct. You can still be right and out of your damn mind. Ted Kazinsky was right about the socio-economic trajectory of our nation. He also mailed bombs to people. Credibility is as fickle as your mom. Oh and let’s not forget Claudius & Crew are about as smart as an actual wheel of cheese; I’d be more impressed if Hamlet didn’t out-maneuver them.
No, let’s look at what Hamlet really managed in his super-legit vengeance quest: in pursuing his father’s killer, he managed to systematically ruin and end the lives of everyone who cared about him—even those in mere proximity to him suffered gruesomely. Ophelia. Gertrude. Rosencrantz. Guildenstern. Claudius. Laertes. Polonius, that rat (though that ratchet trailer park clown got what he damn well deserved). Objectively, Claudius only killed one guy. All the senseless death after that is a result of Hamlet’s response to that murder. His plan was in-elegant and sloppy; instead of killing Claud with tact, he spent the majority of his time meandering about giving prolonged speeches about how tragic and smart he is. There is no moral nor logical sense in committing this much ignorant violence against people you love, and that love you, over the actions of one admittedly evil individual.
But you know what? You’ve made it this far, so here’s the rub, here’s why my thoughts about this have been so bloody. I don’t think Hamlet is as smart as we think he is. Take the graveyard scene with the digger. The gravedigger kinda outwits Hamlet; I know Anjali Nayak said that maybe the interaction was to symbolize that Hamlet couldn’t outwit death, and that’s genuinely a really cool interpretation. Yet, I also think it’s possible that the gravedigger scene was just Shakespeare proving that Hamlet isn’t half as smart as everyone thinks he is, that the opulent bubble of privileged intellectualism he’s resided in his whole life has led him down a path of prideful false intellect—that he’s no righteous avenger nor glorious prince, that he’s no better than the dead clown in the grave at his feet. From the end of his first speech to his screechings at Laertes during Ophelia’s funeral, Hamlet consistently raises himself above others; only he mourns his father the most; only he can take vengeance on Claudius; Gertrude and Ophelia aren’t victims of his and Claudius’ game, they’re unfaithful and frail; Polonius was a rat and stupid, his murder was somehow justified; only he can truly mourn Ophelia; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern betrayed him, they deserved to die. It’s not just cruel, it’s a completely inane, narcissistic line of thought. Yet quite a lot of people justify Hamlet’s actions with his situation, and that’s not fair—Hamlet’s experience can contextualize, but not justify his deeds. Yet quite a lot of people, myself included, enjoy and follow Hamlet, because he’s charismatic and charming and well-spoken and relatable at times, but beneath it all, what is he? I think Hamlet is crazy. Maybe I’m wrong, but if you look at the story objectively, I’m fairly certain it’s hard to deny the ignorance and sheer evil of Hamlet’s actions.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.