Shakespeare Study: Interesting Books Related To Hamlet

I suppose the two plays I return to the most often are King Lear and Hamlet. There is so much within each of those plays. However, this time I read books that were related to Hamlet without actually reading an edition of the play. Hamnet was a book that was highly recommended to me, and I was eager to get a copy. Soon after I received the recommendation, my girlfriend called me to say she picked up a copy for me. Before I’d finished reading it, we learned that a new book store had opened near us, and of course I immediately went to the Shakespeare section, where I found a copy of a book on Hamlet’s soliloquies. The third book I had had for a while, and this seemed the perfect time to dive into it.

Hamnet: A Novel Of The Plague by Maggie O’Farrell – This wonderful novel presents events both in the time of the plague, when Shakespeare’s son Hamnet died, which is the present time of the story, and the time from when William Shakespeare (who is never mentioned by name) met the woman he would marry, who is called Agnes rather than Anne. The author clearly knows her Shakespeare and her history, and we get the sense of that in some of the details she provides. She gives a different reason for William’s move to London, while playfully nodding to some of the notions put forward for his leaving Stratford-upon-Avon: “he is leaving for London because of some kind of disgrace” (p. 176). And she creates a plausible way that William became introduced to the theatre. The book also offers an explanation for that rather odd item in Shakespeare’s will. There are quoted passages from Hamlet at the beginning of both sections of this novel. And Agnes tells Judith, “No, my love, he will never come again” (p. 227), reminding us of Ophelia when she says, “He never will come again.” There is also a little nod to Macbeth, when William asks, “What if I fail?” and his wife replies, “Fail?” (p. 179). Before the end of the book, there is a performance of Shakespeare’s new play, Hamlet. This book was published in 2020.

Modern Hamlets & Their Soliloquies: An Expanded Edition by Mary Z. Maher – This fascinating book takes a look at how different actors handled the role of Hamlet, with a focus on their approach to the soliloquies. In the introduction, Maher writes: “Also, an actor is most convincing in delivering direct-address soliloquies if he has not developed close relationships with the other characters onstage, notably Horatio or Ophelia; thus it is logical for him to find support off the stage, with the theatre audience. Playing more humor in Hamlet’s overall character conception aids an actor when he decides to speak to the audience. The wit of the character persuades spectators to be receptive to his direct-address speeches” (p. xxvi). Regarding why the seventh soliloquy was traditionally cut, Maher writes: “After a series of brutal invasions of countries in the mid-twentieth century, Fortinbras took on the cast of a tyrant, and Hamlet, by identifying with him, would have been drawing inspiration from a marauder or despot. The performance meaning of the seventh soliloquy has changed over time in response to historical events” (p. xxvii). In the chapter on John Gielgud, Maher writes, “After World War II and Vietnam, it would become less and less popular to find inspiration in Fortinbras, and, in fact, his portrayal on the stage would become more and more brutal and dictatorial” (p. 14). In the chapter on David Warner, Maher writes: “Despite the closeness of sitting side by side throughout the proceedings, Warner showed unconcealed rancor toward the king and queen by literally shouting what is usually played as an aside, ‘A little more than kin, and less than kind’ (I.ii.65) at them” (p. 53). In that same chapter, regarding the first soliloquy, Maher writes: “Warner’s intention here was to finally express the bottled anger that had accumulated throughout the council scene. He did not use the soliloquy to bond with the audience, slowing down and wooing them with eye contact; he rather assumed their collusion and let off steam. The character established was a rebellious prince who did not respect authority” (p. 54). In the chapter on Ben Kingsley, Maher writes: “Kingsley overplayed the Pyrrhus speech to bait Polonius, who, of course, thought it very accomplished. Then the Player King, Bob Peck, completed the speech in a beautifully naturalistic and convincing way, crying at the end because he was so overwhelmed by the poetry of it. This choice helped to motivate Kingsley’s profound anger at himself in the forthcoming soliloquy” (p. 78). In that same chapter, Maher quotes Ben Kingsley, regarding the final soliloquy: “He came from the first soliloquy, where he said, ‘I cannot do it’ to here – now he’s controlling the play. Before, he’d been left alone on the stage and he’d panicked, he wanted to melt away, but now he asks others to leave the play because he wants a soliloquy. It is a very great journey from being terrified of being left alone to saying, I want to be left alone” (p. 88). In the chapter on David Rintoul, Maher quotes Rintoul: “Notice, by the way, how very few of the lines in any of Hamlet’s soliloquies are end-stopped: thoughts sweep on to the next lines, reinforcing his emotional and intellectual quickness” (p. 143). In the chapter on Kevin Kline, regarding Kline’s delivery of the first soliloquy, Maher writes: “Thus, the audience’s initial introduction was to a prince not rebellious or flippant but enmeshed in deepest grief. He then moved from melancholy to stunned anger” (p. 187). In that same chapter, Maher writes, “The short questions ‘Am I a coward?/Who calls me villain?’ were addressed to the imaginary audience of courtiers that would soon, in the play-within-the-play scene, surround the platform stage, but never to the ‘real’ audience in the Public/Anspacher Theater” (p. 189). Also in that chapter, Maher writes, “At a certain point in the performances, Diane Venora began to signal to Hamlet after ‘Are you honest?’ that there were observers behind the arras” (p. 192). In the Kenneth Branagh chapter, Maher quotes Branagh: “What struck us in filming was that no one got a decent funeral in the play – something that Laertes bemoaned later on for the lack of ostentation in his own family’s deaths. The requirement for a period of grieving (never mind the specifics of Hamlet’s particular circumstances), to fairly and squarely acknowledge and mourn the departure of a loved one, involved time, certainly more time than ‘A little month.’ The play seemed to cry out for that” (p. 207). And then in the next chapter, Maher quotes Simon Russell Beale: “Since his mother behaved badly, he assumes that is how all women behave. I don’t think he can have a decent human relationship once his father has given him the commission to kill Claudius. After that, all human relationships are gone, including the one with Horatio, which has been a remote relationship anyway, a gentlemanly one, not a fully fledged one. In a way, he’s got to get rid of Ophelia because he realizes that, consciously or unconsciously, she will be destroyed along with him” (p. 233). This book was published in 2003.

The Mystery Of Hamlet King Of Denmark Or What We Will by Percy Mackaye – This book contains four plays that lead up to the beginning of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, focusing on Hamlet’s father and uncle, and gives an account of what might have happened to Yorick and other characters along the way. Some of it is really quite interesting, and some of it doesn’t quite work with the text that Shakespeare has given us. It opens in a way similar to Shakespeare’s play. And in the prologue, King Hamlet is shown a scene from Hamlet, the scene where the Ghost shows himself to Hamlet. But that means that King Hamlet knows that his brother will murder him, which is odd. There are little nods to lines from Shakespeare’s play throughout this book. For example, King Hamlet says, “You are a woman, Gertrude,/And woman’s mind is frail” (p. 29), which reminds us of Hamlet’s line, “frailty, thy name is woman.” And a character called Gallucinius says, “Till all of Elsinore is dumb – and all/The rest is silence?” (p. 70). And there is this too: “Which shall it/Be, or not be?” (p. 128). Horatio is there, aged ten or so, telling King Hamlet of the prince playing with Yorick, which doesn’t work with two lines of Shakespeare’s play. The first is Horatio’s line to Hamlet, about Hamlet’s father, “I saw him once. He was a goodly king.” It doesn’t make sense if Horatio was around the king a good deal. Horatio is even listed as “aide to the King” (p. 297) in the third play of the book. The second is Hamlet’s line to Horatio, about Yorick, “I knew him, Horatio.” Hamlet wouldn’t say that if Horatio was there, if Horatio knew him too.  So it makes no sense for Horatio to be around Hamlet at so young an age. There is also a playful duel between Hamlet and Laertes when they’re children, which is just silly. And Laertes actually says, regarding the wooden swords they use, “This is too heavy; let me see another” (p. 135). And later Hamlet and Laertes argue at Yorick’s grave, over who loved him more, as they would do at Ophelia’s grave. This is ridiculous and forced. Also, young Prince Hamlet says, “And mighty Rome, and Julius Caesar’s death/Polonius taught us, because he acted it/At the university” (p. 155). So Hamlet already knew about that, and Polonius already knew that Hamlet knew? It just doesn’t make sense. Stuff like that made me frustrated with this book. On the other hand, there is some wonderful stuff about Gertrude’s connection to Ophelia. Gertrude is the one to name her, the name having come to her in a dream. Ophelia’s mother dies after giving birth, and interestingly even just after Ophelia’s birth, Gertrude imagines the girl will one day be with Hamlet. The book also makes clear Claudius and Gertrude’s relationship, and how their interest began before King Hamlet is murdered. It also establishes that there actually is a poisonous snake in King Hamlet’s garden. The book also contains a little nod to Caliban from The Tempest, and another nod to that play when Prince Hamlet says, “For I have dreamed thee, too. We are such stuff/As dreams are made on, and our little life/Is rounded with a sleep” (p. 520), Prospero’s words. Another thing that doesn’t feel right is that Hamlet and Horatio travel back to Denmark together while King Hamlet is still alive. Why would Hamlet be surprised then to see Horatio? Also, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern arrive, which makes no sense, as they also arrive in Hamlet, at the bidding of Claudius. King Hamlet goes a little mad in this story, which is interesting. Another thing that is odd in this telling is that Prince Hamlet does not want the throne, and is happy at hearing Claudius will rule, for he feels free then to be with Ophelia. Gertrude seems to wed Claudius right away, so not even a month passes after her husband’s death. The book ends with Act I Scene ii of Hamlet, but Claudius’ lines about Wittenberg are cut, as is Gertrude’s line “I pray thee, stay with us. Go not to Wittenberg.” This book was published in 1950.