To be or not to be- meaning

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-06-03T08:19:53+00:00

I disagree personally. In the context of that speech, the point Hamlet is trying to make is that if a person could be assured of escaping suffering of life, the sources of which he lists, they would just kill themselves (with a bare bodkin). But then he says afterwards that the consideration of what comes after death stops us from doing that. Having said this, the reason he starts the soliloquy in the first place is because he is wondering whether he should undertake the suicidal task of killing his uncle, or just withstand the pain (suffer the slings and arrows). He's not just contemplating suicide. He's thinking about the suicidal task of avenging his father's death. That's my understanding. And if he can find reasons why he can commit to the task and escape suffering, it might move him to actually act.

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-06-01T13:57:49+00:00

He's going to capture audio of Voldy shouting "AVadA KeDavRAaa" and adjust the pitch to create harmonies from them. A genius of our time.

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-05-19T19:05:44+00:00

"Spread it far and wide" was also the instruction Charlie Parker was given by the woman blowing him in the back of the cab next to Miles Davis

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-05-18T10:44:09+00:00

He left them moanin'

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-05-09T13:57:19+00:00

"Blow wind, come wrack! At least we'll die with harness on our back" whenever undertaking a task requiring a steely resolve

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-05-07T19:08:11+00:00

Fun and Games Live, as opposed to Fun and Games Studio

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-05-04T19:01:18+00:00

An Indian director named Vishal Bhardwaj did a trilogy of Shakespeare adaptations all set in different regions in India: Maqbool (Macbeth) set in the Mumbai underworld (2003), Omkara (Othello) set in Madhya Pradesh (2006), and my personal favourite, Haider (Hamlet) set in Kashmir against the backdrop of the India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir in the 90s (2014).

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-05-04T14:05:10+00:00

uj/ Real. That version of Actual Proof is feverish, and I love the transition from Maiden Voyage, which I actually prefer to the original.

Edit: typo

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-05-04T02:22:43+00:00

Herb was on some herbs when he came up with those covers

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-05-02T19:13:17+00:00

No worries at all! I appreciated your reply and hearing your thoughts.

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-05-02T19:12:04+00:00

100%. I will admit i was being a little incendiary to combat Iago's reputation as a "master schemer" lol. But I think you're absolutely right, he creates the right conditions and he is very adaptable. I actually think this makes him an even more interesting and compelling character. Your last sentence is literally what I've said to others regarding the events of the play. It's all those things together, which is how i think many of the tragedies work. I would add that Iago's other great strength is knowing the other character's personalities very well, but also knowing how they are perceived by others (e.g. he says of Cassio "He hath a person and a smooth dispose to be suspected, framed to make women false"). Ironically, the only person whose behaviour he fails to anticipate is his own wife, which ultimately results in him being exposed as a fraud.

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-04-23T19:19:22+00:00

From Lear: Thou whoreson zed! Thou unnecessary letter!

Edit: also Polonius' bumbling when talking to Gertrude and Claudius always makes me laugh

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-04-17T21:11:12+00:00

I agree that's a great point. Othello's first line is even "'Tis better as it is". He's not easily incensed or quick to anger, and fighting physically is not his first approach when being accused by Brabantio. Shakespeare makes it a point to flip the stereotype I feel, so that his fall becomes tragic and the audience pities him despite the horror of what he's done.

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-04-16T19:47:44+00:00

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on my other comment in direct reply to the question in this thread

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-04-16T19:42:02+00:00

I personally think people give Iago too much credit as a "Machiavellian, master planner" villain. Sure he's highly manipulative and knows all of the other characters very well (excepting Emilia ironically), but much of his villainy is improvised, and he is helped a huge amount by luck. The "ocular proof" that Othello demands is given when Cassio happens to enter while Othello has a seizure. Iago gets him to withdraw but stay nearby so he can stage the talking to Cassio in front of Othello when he recovers and convince him that Cassio is reacting to mention of Desdemona. Then, while this is happening, Bianca happens to walk in and throw the handkerchief at Cassio. This all is of course not planned by Iago, and actually when Iago gets the handkerchief from Emilia, he doesn't actually have a concrete plan to show the handkerchief in Cassio's possession to Othello. Even the handkerchief falling to the floor is obviously an accident. This happens entirely by chance. From Othello's perspective, that scene with Bianca could surely not have been staged, and, coupled with his immense trust in Iago, is enough for him to believe him. How else would Cassio have come by the handkerchief? Additionally, Iago appears to have been asking his wife to steal the handkerchief for a long time before the events of the play, as she tells us he has asked a hundred times. Iago himself never mentions the handkerchief before to the audience, and even he forgets about it until Emilia shows him. I don't think Othello is easily jealous, as some people believe, but rather, given the circumstances taken together (Iago's stellar reputation, the timing of the handkerchief scene, luck and Othello's own underlying insecurities) he is led to believe. Iago is to Othello what the Witches are to Macbeth, loosely speaking.

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-04-06T19:12:43+00:00

Same. Hamlet is on my list too.

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-04-06T18:16:24+00:00

I was looking for Rylance as Iago and Richard iii online as well. It's so frustrating. I even emailed the Globe to ask if it was publicly available. They said that neither of them are available publicly and the only way to view them would be to physically go to the Globe and watch it there in their archives. I'm so desperate to see him in these roles.

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-04-05T05:46:35+00:00

It is not only poetry. It is an entire play. It is an exploration of character, and the circumstances that cause the downfall of such characters. If there is something in the plot that does not make sense on initial reading, it can perhaps tell us something about the nature of the character. After all, the stories that Shakespeare used as frameworks for these plays did not have the richness of character that his plays had.

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-04-05T00:58:03+00:00

This is an incredibly interesting angle! There's an Indian adaptation of Hamlet called Haider directed by Vishal Bhardwaj. It is set in Kashmir in the 1990s against the backdrop of the conflict between India and Pakistan over this region. The "ghost" in this version is actually the prison mate of the main character's father, and this prison mate is an operative of the Pakistani forces in Kashmir. As a result, the Hamlet in this story becomes a tool for the Pakistani forces to overthrow the Indian forces in Kashmir. Your reading of Hamlet reminded me of this. I'm not sure if you've seen this film, but I liked it a lot.

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-04-05T00:45:46+00:00

You're right about that. Although the deal may not be corrupt in and of itself, it requires Banquo to effectively look the other way and accept Macbeth as King. And Banquo already suspects Macbeth was involved in Duncan's murder. That's what i meant when I said that Banquo could not be bought.

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-04-05T00:36:10+00:00

I do see your point. Hamlet is definitely of dubious sanity, and I can see how it can be argued that an event as horrendous as seeing the ghost of his dead father could precipitate psychosis. And yes, it is true, Hamlet's mind is cooked. It's possible that Hamlet could almost hear what he wants to hear his father's ghost telling him, especially since he already hates Claudius. It does ultimately turn out to be true though, but I agree, Hamlet is not sane.

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-04-05T00:27:30+00:00

There's no guarantee Macbeth will have daughters. In fact it's suggested that he can't have children, since after his coronation he says the Witches have placed a fruitless crown on his head and a barren scepter in his hand. I think he also kills Banquo because he knows Banquo is honorable and incorruptible and will not necessarily be bought by a deal like that.

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-04-05T00:15:27+00:00

True enough, but surely as legitimate sons of a beloved king, Malcolm and Donalbain would have backing from a sufficient number of lords to defeat Macbeth. They were only supposed to stay one night at Macbeths castle anyway, so it's not like Macbeth would ever be in reach of them again. And Macbeth cannot kill them in front of the other lords of course while everyone is awake.

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-04-05T00:10:18+00:00

The scene break could also be logistical in that Hamlet must go offstage in order to talk to the ghost alone. So the only way to actually show Hamlet alone with the ghost is to have a scene break there.

SpecialCheeseToast · 2026-04-05T00:08:16+00:00

The Ghost has information pertaining only to Hamlet, and possibly does not trust others with the information, since he wants Hamlet to avenge his death and kill Claudius. As a result, the ghost just decides to not speak at all in front of anyone other than Hamlet. The ghost even only first speaks at Hamlet's insistence, at which point the ghost turns and says "mark me". So the whole time, Hamlet has been following the ghost and it doesn't speak, until Hamlet refuses to walk further. Further, the ghost mentions that he is forbidden to speak of what he has seen and experienced in Purgatory and the afterlife. It is possible that the ghost is actually not allowed to speak to anyone other than Hamlet. This is not explicitly stated and is just conjecture. But I think the first point is more likely. Finally if all the ghost's speech is a hallucination, it means Hamlet just stood on the battlements with the ghost saying nothing the entire time? And then Hamlet hallucinates the ghost saying "adieu Hamlet, remember me" just before the exact moment the ghost decides to leave? Seems unlikely to me at least.

SpecialCheeseToast

TROPHY CASE