What I don’t understand is why, if the public loves Hamlet so much, did they not make him King when his father died? Why is Claudius King and not Hamlet? I mean – I understand it’s a monarchy and the will of the people ain’t necessarily a factor. But they do help. And monarchies tend to hand crowns from fathers to sons, not brother to brothers. But…I’ve wondered this before and so have others.

The remarkable thing about this line is actually this spring that turns wood to stone. Apparently, this is a thing that exists. There are waters in the British Isles called petrifying wells and they make wood look like stone. No wonder these folks believed in magic. It’s like freakin’ magic but it’s a real thing. A real crazy nature thing.

I wish there were a general gender. Like rather than a world of male and female, there was just general gender and any variety within that was just that within it. Like, a general people – full of diversity but just generally people. It would be cool if gender was like that.
I’m thinking of it because of that story of the horrible orange bus driving around the country proclaiming that boys are boys and girls are girls and that’s biology. In my city, that bus was vandalized right away – to my city’s credit, I’d say. I don’t know why someone thought a bright orange bus with a hardline gender message was a good idea. But someone did.
Someone who would find general gender threatening, I imagine.

Well that’s a complicated way to say that, isn’t it, Claudius? And I suppose my question is, how much of it is true? Does Claudius really love Gertrude? That’s the first question. Conjunctive to life and soul is…not revealing necessarily. Life and soul sound convincing. But “conjunctive to” ….well, that’s political speech.
The star moving in his sphere is possibly romantic but also quite a bit removed from the subjects at hand.
Whether he does or does not love Gertrude, it still makes a fair bit of sense to frame it this way to Laertes. It’s such a complicated sentence tonally. It veers from one style of language to another. Is he trying to convince Laertes or himself?
Is this really why he hasn’t put Hamlet on trial for his crime? I’d wager the REAL reason – the one at the heart of it is that if Hamlet were put on trial, Hamlet might find it a good time to make his feelings about Claudius public. It might bring to light what Claudius is trying to keep in the dark.
But sure – it’s because he’s in love with his wife! That’s it!

Is this true? We don’t see a lot of love between Hamlet and his mother. Mostly Hamlet bullies her and rails at her. Which is not to say she wouldn’t be besotted with him anyway. Most parents love their children in profoundly unconditional ways. But we don’t see Gertrude ADORING Hamlet much. She tells him to cast his knighted color off. She talks about him to others in a fairly practical way. (“I doubt it is no other but the main. His father’s death and our o’erhasty marriage.”) And we don’t see much interaction at the play between them. The most we see them together is right after Hamlet’s killed someone right in front of her. It’s hard to work out their relationship from that.

We could take Claudius at his word here. That he’s trying to placate his queen…but I am skeptical that any of this actually has anything to do what Gertrude actually thinks or wants and everything to do with how Claudius wants to be seen by Laertes.

I love this O here at the top of this line. I mean. Usually an O has an emotional quality – like a groan or a grief or a moan or a surprise. It feels like a raw expression of emotion.

In this case, though, it feels more like a way to minimize. The way someone would say, “Oh you know, just enjoying the scenery” when asked what they’re up to. It’s so – casual almost.

The only other O I can imagine would be a sort of stalling O…an O that suggests that you need to think for a moment…maybe so you could come up with a good excuse, or a good lie. It’s certainly not the O of a lover or a wounded man.

Life advice from Shakespeare’s Villians
(but backwards – you know, learning what not to do from their bad actions)

Never make someone a friend who tells you “must put me in your heart for friend.” If you’re becoming friends with people based only on their manipulations and their say so, you’re going to be in trouble.
If someone has a list of reasons you MUST be friends with them…if they make arguments and proofs for why you suddenly owe them friendship…odds are, they are not your friend. They will not prove to be friends later. And in this case, their “friendships” will get you killed.