Scan barcode
jonfaith's review against another edition
3.0
Hamlet is bereft of his desire, cannot act, and all the objects that surround him are degraded and rendered fungible: women are whores; stepfathers are liars; mothers are criminals; the world is rotten and putrefying.
My impressions of this text were very up and down, mostly down. That response wedges open a question as to what were my expectations. Most simply, I went to the text for Simon Critchley. He has been brilliant https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11538399-the-faith-of-the-faithless but has recently disappointed me, his pop ruminations on mortality proved rather annoying. So Critchley and his wife Jamieson Webster, a psychoanalyst, penned this swarm of brief essays on Hamlet. Too coy to be simply analytical, instead Stay, Illusion! scampers about from approach to approach, fingering the pulse of Nietzsche, Carl Schmitt, Freud and Lacan for their takes on Prince of Denmark and fomenting a crackle and foam of hogwash. Do weed further Hamlet theorizing? Should married couples collaborate on authorship? Why the FUCK, was Derrida's Spectres of Marx not mentioned?
There is a later echo devoted to Joyce and Bataille, but the damage had already been inflicted. Ophelia is the hero of the play, akin to Antigone but more pungent and sexual. Politics do matter critically/contextually, as a free association between Gertrude and Mary Queen of Scots couldn't be allowed to hatch on stage. I'm curious what Melville would've though of that explanation.
My impressions of this text were very up and down, mostly down. That response wedges open a question as to what were my expectations. Most simply, I went to the text for Simon Critchley. He has been brilliant https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11538399-the-faith-of-the-faithless but has recently disappointed me, his pop ruminations on mortality proved rather annoying. So Critchley and his wife Jamieson Webster, a psychoanalyst, penned this swarm of brief essays on Hamlet. Too coy to be simply analytical, instead Stay, Illusion! scampers about from approach to approach, fingering the pulse of Nietzsche, Carl Schmitt, Freud and Lacan for their takes on Prince of Denmark and fomenting a crackle and foam of hogwash. Do weed further Hamlet theorizing? Should married couples collaborate on authorship? Why the FUCK, was Derrida's Spectres of Marx not mentioned?
There is a later echo devoted to Joyce and Bataille, but the damage had already been inflicted. Ophelia is the hero of the play, akin to Antigone but more pungent and sexual. Politics do matter critically/contextually, as a free association between Gertrude and Mary Queen of Scots couldn't be allowed to hatch on stage. I'm curious what Melville would've though of that explanation.
figaro's review against another edition
3.0
As a card-carrying Bardolater, and particularly as a serious Hamletophile, I had to read this book once I learned of it.
I enjoyed it. It was heavy on the Freud, which became rather tedious, but there were definite moments of inspiration and insight.
I enjoyed it. It was heavy on the Freud, which became rather tedious, but there were definite moments of inspiration and insight.
notsarahconnor's review
reflective
medium-paced
3.5
Give me a book about Hamlet and I will read it. There were a few really interesting points in this, I think this book would be great for anyone writing an essay on Hamlet or for the Hamlet obsessed like me!
nnikif's review against another edition
3.0
Интересно, но бессвязно, бессвязно, но интересно. Наверное, интересно все-таки в большей мере. Захотелось прочитать "Гамлет-машину" Хайнера Мюллера.
deanna_etc's review against another edition
4.0
I've got a big place in my heart (and college degree) for Shakespeare, so this insight into the psychology of Hamlet was more than I was probably going to get out of any dull psych class.
rhiduval's review
3.0
This book is filled with great insight into the true nature of all the characters we meet in Hamlet. Hopefully it helped me out for the diploma. Fingers crossed everyone.
zachkuhn's review
4.0
A great critical look. I admit to skipping around to chapters with provocative titles.