CRITICISM

Andreas, James R. “The Vulgar and the Polite: Dialogue in Hamlet.” Hamlet Studies 15, nos. 1/2 (summer/winter 1993): 9-23.

Examines how the vulgar (language of the people) and the polite (language of politics) are used against one another in Hamlet. Andreas demonstrates that the polite language used by Claudius is duplicitous, while Prince Hamlet uses the straightforward language of the people to disconcert and expose Claudius and his retinue.

Cary, Louise D. “Hamlet Recycled, or the Tragical History of the Prince's Prints.” ELH 61, no. 4 (winter 1994): 783-805.

Warns against correcting apparent inconsistencies and errors in the text of Hamlet on the basis that those so-called errors may in fact have been intentionally made by Shakespeare.

Fendt, Gene. “Is Hamlet a Christian Tragedy?” In Is Hamlet a Religious Drama? pp. 161-78. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1999.

Argues that Hamlet has a Christian basis, which surfaces as soon as Prince Hamlet speaks to what appears to be the ghost of his father.

Grady, Hugh. “Conclusion: Hamlet and the Tragedy of the Subject.” In Shakespeare, Machiavelli, and Montaigne: Power and Subjectivity from Richard II to Hamlet, pp. 243-65. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Contends that in Hamlet Shakespeare attempted to break away from the Machiavellian form of politics that he had depicted in many of his earlier plays.

Hardy, John. “Hamlet's ‘Modesty of Nature.’” Hamlet Studies 16, nos. 1/2 (summer/winter 1994): 42-56.

Maintains that what makes Prince Hamlet such a memorable character is his “unpretentiousness” as well as his sincere attempt to seek the truth.

Jenkins, Harold. “Hamlet and Ophelia.” In Structural Problems in Shakespeare: Lectures and Essays by Harold Jenkins, edited by Ernst Honigmann, pp. 137-55. London: Thomson Learning, 2001.

Examines the “nunnery scene” in Hamlet.

Lacan, Jacques, Jacques-Alain Miller, and James Hulbert. “Desire and the Interpretation of Desire in Hamlet.” Yale French Studies nos. 55/56 (1977): 11-52.

Deconstructs Hamlet from a psychoanalytical standpoint.

Lamont, Rosette. “The Hamlet Myth.” Yale French Studies no. 33 (1964): 80-91.

Describes Prince Hamlet as an early modern hero whose mythical stature transcends the boundaries of the play.

Levy, Eric P. “The Mind of Man in Hamlet.” Renascence 54, no. 4 (summer 2002): 219-33.

Suggests that Hamlet's identity evolves during the course of the play, and that this evolution reflects the growth of the rational mind of the human animal.

O'Meara, John. “Sexuality.” In Otherworldly Hamlet: Four Essays, pp. 45-61. Montreal: Guernica Editions, Inc., 1991.

Examines Hamlet's apparent sexual disgust with his mother's remarriage to Claudius.

Rainer, Peter. “Get Thee to Moomba.” New York 33, no. 20 (22 May 2000): 88, 90.

Reviews Michael Almereyda's 2000 film adaptation of Hamlet and asserts that Almereyda's focus on Hamlet's similarities to the world of corporate New York occurs at the expense of the play's other themes.

Rosenberg, Marvin. “Claudius.” In The Masks of Hamlet, pp. 47-69. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1992.

Analyzes the character of Claudius in a variety of stage performances and contends that Claudius should be played as a “mighty opposite” to Prince Hamlet.

Stevens, Martin. “Hamlet and the Pirates: A Critical Reconsideration.” Shakespeare Quarterly 26, no. 3 (summer 1975): 276-84.

Argues that Hamlet's rescue by the pirates was not accidental but was planned by Prince Hamlet himself.