Which when it falls, each small annexment, petty consequence, attends the boisterous ruin.

Uh? Rosencrantz? I’m not sure you’re making this situation any better.
You’re going from the king’s very personal death, to mass destruction and ending with a boisterous ruin.
I mean. . .weren’t you guys just talking about sending Hamlet to England?
How in the world did you end up at boisterous ruin? Well, shortly – you end up at general groan. . .which is slightly less apocalyptic than the death and boisterous ruin.

This speech is often cut, for many many good reasons – chief among them the way it adds absolutely nothing to the plot of the scene. It does, however, add an odd little something about Rosencrantz’s character. Who is this guy, when talking about taking this guy’s stepson out of the way, goes on an epic dystopian riff about the death of the man he’s talking to?

The sidekick doth protest too much, methinks. Is he trying to convince himself that taking Hamlet to England, (and possibly he knows that England is code for taking him to his death) is the right thing to do? The worse the circumstances are the more justified he is in doing it. It’s got to be apocalyptic, I guess.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s