هملت: شعر بی‌کران

by Harold Bloom, رضا سرور (translator)

اگرچه بلوم بارها تفاسیر خویش از نمایشنامۀ هملت را در قالب کتاب، مقاله و سخنرانی ارائه کرده است، هملت:شعر بی‌کران نه‌تنها به عنوان جوهره‌ای موجز از تمامی آنها، و نیز ضمیمه‌ای بر کتاب شکسپیر: ابداع انسان، بلکه چونان تفسیری بازنگرانه در آرای پیشین بلوم است. در این کتاب فصول بیست‌و‌پنج‌گانۀ تفسیر بلوم از هملت لایه‌لایه برهم می‌نشینند تا در انتها مانند گوی بلورینی در فاصلۀ کانونی مناسب، میان چشم ما و متن هملت قرار گیرند و بدین‌سان چشم‌اندازی صریح و شفاف از شاهکار شکسپیر ترسیم کنند.

Genres: Shakespeare, Literary Criticism, Nonfiction, Criticism, Poetry, Drama, 21st Century

229 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

Harold Bloom was an American literary critic and the Sterling Professor of Humanities at Yale University. In 2017, Bloom was called "probably the most famous literary critic in the English-speaking world." After publishing his first book in 1959, Bloom wrote more than 50 books, including over 40 books of literary criticism, several books discussing religion, and one novel. He edited hundreds of anthologies concerning numerous literary and philosophical figures for the Chelsea House publishing firm. Bloom's books have been translated into more than 40 languages. He was elected to the American Philosophical Society in 1995.
Bloom was a defender of the traditional Western canon at a time when literature departments were focusing on what he derided as the "school of resentment" (multiculturalists, feminists, Marxists, and others). He was educated at Yale University, the University of Cambridge, and Cornell University.

Reviews

[Petergiaquinta · Rating 2 out of 5]

Harold Bloom says that Hamlet knows more than we do, and he's probably right because Harold Bloom knows more than we do. In fact, I'm tempted to say that Harold Bloom knows more than just about everyone in the known universe. Except my wife, of course, but I don't have time to get into that right now...

I revel in Bloom's bardolatry like some ignorant celebrant exposed to the mysteries of a sacred passion that he really doesn't understand. But I also realize that Bloom is kinda full of shit, and if he wasn't Harold Bloom he could never get away with what he does in print. And what he does is ride the fire truck at the front of the Shakespeare parade like some overly chubby Homecoming queen tossing out tootsie rolls and lollipops to the unwashed multitudes and then moving right on down the road without ever stopping.

This incredibly small book is just stuffed to the gills with incredibly thought provoking observations about Hamlet and Hamlet (and of course about Falstaff, but enough already). Bloom will challenge just about every notion you have about the play and he's probably right. But what he refuses to do is stop and explain. There's almost no textual support or development or analysis for these pearls of wisdom he throws out on every page, and, when he does go to the play, the text is just laid out for the reader as if it's so very obviously demonstrating exactly what he is talking about and you just don't get it. But he's Harold Bloom...he doesn't have time to waste on you and me with any actual discussion or exigesis of the text.

So that, in a word, is maddening.

I'm going to read the book again (it's tiny!), and then, if the spirit moves, me I'll deign to add some specific examples here. After all, as much as I might wish I were, I'm no Harold Bloom.

[Christine · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dear Dr. Bloom, high grand poobah of Literature,

I sometimes agree with you, and sometimes I don't (in particular, I strongly disagree with your opinion about dogs). This is cool. I don't like to read things that I agree 100% with; that way lies stagnation. I really enjoyed your book about Blake, and I think Naomi Wolf needs to have her head examined. I have to ask you something, however. The question is no doubt influenced in part by The Shakespeare Wars Clashing Scholars, Public Fiascoes, Palace Coups.

The question is this.

You do realize that you are NOT Falstaff, right?

Honestly, this book is suppose to be about Hamlet, not about how much you love Falstaff and see yourself as him. I honestly don't think good ole Shakespeare based his Falstaff on you. I doubt Gertrude wishes her son had been Falstaff either.

Sorry, if I sound snarky, but I had to ask. I did find it interesting that you pointed out that there are seven soliloquies in Hamlet. Do you think, considering, how the good Dane seems to age over the course of the play, that the seven soliloquies are in reference to the Seven Ages of Man? Or do you think Shakespeare just got lucky? I really think you should have gone into that much more.

Additionally, I found your comments about Gertrude to be interesting. Do you wish you were Falstaff so you could date her? Your comments were nice and well thought out. The only other male critic I've seen be so nice to Gertrude was A.C. Bradley. He called her a happy sheep who wanted all the other sheep to be happy. When you read that, do you also think about the sheep in Wallace and Grommit? I do. I will forever have a picture in my mind of Gertrude as one of the sheep from "A Close Shave".

Your points about Horatio were interesting as well, in particular, how Horatio allows the audience to identify or to feel sympathy towards, Hamlet. The same is true for your analysis of Hamlet in terms of religion. The discussion about the Company Wars and the players in the play was really enlightening. It's amazing that you were able to fit such astute remarks in while expounding on the joys of Falstaff.

Incidentally, how can Hamlet have nothing of his father in him, if, as you claim, Hamlet as all the qualities of the world in him? Won’t Hamlet Jr. then have something of his father at least?

If you think Orson Welles was right, and Hamlet became Falstaff, then wouldn't it be kinda icky for Gertrude to date him?

Don't get mad at me for this letter, Dr. Bloom. After all, you pointed out that Hamlet mixes high and low brow.

[Andréa Carvalho · Rating 4 out of 5]

"..but we know Hamlet's: to be a mortal god in an immortal play."

It was amazing know Bloom's love for Hamlet, I could saw Hamlet and Shakespeare with Bloom's Eyes. I haver to confess that It was Very hard sometimes, but still an amazing experience.

I'm definetly not good enough to write a good review so I'll let with Bloom himself

"Hamlet's power of mind exceeds ours... There is no end to Hamlet or to Hamlet, because there is no end to Shakespeare.
He had discovered the nature of the selfsame, the full secret of how to represent an identity..."

[Elena Sala · Rating 4 out of 5]

HAMLET: POEM UNLIMITED (2004) is a short book which consists of twenty-five sections that serve as a revision to the long chapter which the author wrote on HAMLET in SHAKESPEARE: THE INVENTION OF THE HUMAN, where he focused on the question of the authorship of the so-called Ur-HAMLET text, an earlier, missing play. Bloom was so concerned with the matter of origin, that most of what he wanted to say about this play had remained unsaid, he states, hence this book.

When writing about Shakespeare, the main theme of Bloom’s analysis is human consciousness. He suggests that there are several dimensions of heightened states of consciousness, to which he refers as “new men.” These various levels were developed gradually in the past, for this reason he makes frequent references to various scriptures and other mystical sources (for example, the Hebrew Bible, the Greek Old Testament, among many others). Hamlet represents a new level of consciousness, a secularized and destructive consciousness, "a new kind of man". He doesn't listen to the voice of a god, as the earlier "new men", but to his own voice. By listening to his own voice he expands his own consciousness.

Bloom argues that HAMLET is a play about playing, about acting out. Not about revenge. It is a play within a play within a play, whose main player, Hamlet, an amateur actor, wrestles unceasingly with "his desire to come to an end of play acting", "for nothing else can stop [his] astonishing gift of awareness." "The readiness is all", says Hamlet when he accepts to take part in the Claudius-Laertes plot. Weary of his role, he craves for his own annihilation. For Hamlet, writes Bloom, "death is not tragic, but an apotheosis. "

This is not a book about history or theory, it's about Bloom's most personal responses to his favorite work of literature, a play he describes as "the most experimental of all plays". Bloom is not always successful when he tries to express with precision his intuitive understanding of the play. His verbosity is sometimes quite daunting, especially when he writes about his religious views or mystical sources. And yet, his commentary on Hamlet is always insightful, erudite and passionate.

[Leigh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here's the thing: Harold Bloom is utterly fucking nuts, and I disagree with or laugh at the majority of his pronouncements.

But here's the other thing: he loves Hamlet unabashedly and very personally, the way almost no other critic I've read will admit to loving it. And while I don't agree with all of his secondary comments, I think he's got the play (and the character) nailed: Hamlet and Hamlet as representations of modern consciousness straining to transcend worldly limitations. The play Bloom analyzes is the play I fell in love with; I appreciate him for that.

[Hanieh · Rating 4 out of 5]

۴/۵
نکته‌ای که قبل از خوندن کتاب باید بدونید اینه که دیوانگی محضه. حس می‌کنم شیمی مغزم رو تغییر داده. بلوم در مورد هملت دیوانه‌وار می‌نویسه و بدون ترس - مثل خیلی از منتقد‌ای دیگه- عشق دیوانه‌وارش به نمایشنامه‌ی هملت و خود هملت رو ابراز می‌کنه. حسی که طوری با متن کتاب در هم آمیخته که اگر از انفجار مغزم نمی‌ترسیدم، یک سره می‌خوندمش. کتاب ۲۵ فصل کوتاه داره در واقع پیوست، ادامه دهنده و تکمیل کننده‌ی نوشته‌های نویسنده در مورد هملت در کتاب شکسپیر؛ ابداع انسان هستن. خوشبختانه مترجم فصل مربوط از اون کتاب رو هم به پیوست این کتاب ترجمه کرده. و در کل ترجمه‌ی کتاب خیلی با کیفیت حرفه‌ایه. بگذریم...
بلوم دیوانه‌ی هملته، اون عاشق شکسپیره و تمام این احساسات رو به شما منتقل می‌کنه. در عین حال نکته سنج و هوشمنده. اون نه تنها خود هملت بلکه وسعت اثربخشی و تاثیرپذیری اون رو در بین آثار شکسپیر ، شخصیت‌های داستانی و ادبیات نمایشی غرب و حتی فلسفه، روانشناسی و ادیان گام به گام بررسی می‌کنه. آیا با تک‌تک چیزایی که می‌خونید موافق خواهید بود، احتمالا نه اما قطعا از مواجهه باهاشون احساس خوبی خواهید داشت. بلوم علاوه بر خود شاهزاده هملت، که روحش در سراسر کتاب شما رو تعقیب می‌کنه و زیر گوشتون نجوا می‌کنه، به سراغ تعداد قابل توجهی از شخصیت‌های داستان می‌ره و لایه به لایه نقش اونها رو موشکافی می‌کنه. بهتون پیشنهاد می‌کنم برای اینکه بیشتر بتونید از این کتاب استفاده کنید نمایشنامه‌های هنری پنجم، اتلللو، لیرشاه و آنتونی و کلئوپاترای شکسپیر ، فاوست گوته، رمان اولیس، تراژدی اسپانیایی، دست آخر رو خونده باشید یا حداقل در موردشان اطلاعاتی داشته باشید.

[Cindy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bloom elevates Hamlet, the play, to scripture, and Hamlet, the character, to an all-knowing demi-god*. To me, an underread pleb, Hamlet comes off as a justifiably brooding typical modern teenager. Self conscious, nihilistic, quick to retort. Bloom mentions that modern self consciousness of the public (common folk) is attributed by J H van den Berg to Luther's essay on Christian Freedom, but he points to Hamlet as the progenitor (I need to look deeper into the history of consciousness to see if those statements can be contradicted). So that would mean that maybe Hamlet was the first modern teenager, triggering puberty in the audience, making the people in that time period the teenagers of history.

I was fascinated by the parts of the book in which Bloom provided examples of great writers commenting on Hamlet. Victor Hugo, Oscar Wilde, Emerson, Nietzsche, James Joyce, and more. It's just amazing how much the play (or just Shakespeare in general) has permeated all aspects of Western lives for centuries. America itself is not just an ideologically Christian nation, one who wishes to but cannot deny the Christian ideas at the root of many of its "modern" lines of thought, but we are also a Shakespearian nation (and we can expand that generalization beyond America, to the entire West, and even further).

The book does leave you wanting. Like Hamlet, Bloom keeps some of his secrets to himself in the end. It's basically Hamlet: The Poem Unlimited: Unlimited Version.

* emphasis on demi, and all-knowing in a relative sense

[Hannah · Rating 2 out of 5]

Thoughtful and not without value or good points, this book suffers from being hugely pretentious and presenting huge claims without, for me, full explanation or proper textual backing.

[Cymru Roberts · Rating 4 out of 5]

"We want them to tell us even more than they do, because their power over language is so enormous."

Bloom here is referring to his favorite of Shakespeare's characters: Falfstaff, Cleopatra, Hamlet.

I would use this quote to summarize reading Bloom, with a few changes:

"We want him to tell us even more than he does, because his power over literature is so enormous."

The depth of Shakespeare is often so vast that it goes over my head; the depth is camoflauged. That, or I take in what is most like me, and stop there. So it's helpful to read an interpretation of Shakespeare, and of such an enigmatic play as Hamlet, and be clued into just how deep the mystery may go. But if you're looking for "this line means this" or "here is what the play is about: full stop" then you'll be frustrated. Bloom seems at times utterly unwilling to make a definitive "this = that" statement, which is funny because so many people hate on him for making grandiose claims without proof.

This isn't cliffnotes, and I say that not to disparage anyone or anything (I need summaries sometimes just to find my bearings); instead one has to come at it from the point of view of appreciation, and see whether or not Bloom's massive appreciation for the text (how many of us know the whole play by heart?) can illucidate anything new or interesting for them. I weighed my own latest interpretation against the contents inside, and found that it wasn't a question of being right or wrong, but a difference of kind in terms of apprehension.

It was nice to feel that some of my impressions weren't off the mark vis-a-vis Bloom, but it isn't about being right or wrong: it's about how much creative energy a text can spark inside of one, and how much one can truly enjoy a great work.

Enjoi, friends. Demand that each line be joy-inducing, each second of television amazing, each scene in a movie spectacular; expand your definitions of "joy" and "wonder" and "amazement", and seek the art that reaches this lofty apotheosis! And if you can't find it anywhere, if nothing is doing it for you, MAKE IT YOURSELF!

bôn chance......

[S. Mehdi · Rating 4 out of 5]

هملت: شعر بی‌کران
ترجمۀ رضا سرور
تفاوت ترجمۀ فارسی با متن اصلی این است که مترجم فصل مربوط به هملت در کتابِ «شکسپیر ابداع انسان» نوشتۀ بلوم را نیز ترجمه کرده است.

[Robert Lukins · Rating 4 out of 5]

This very short book is something of an afterthought to the much more comprehensive 'Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human'. As another goodreads reviewer astutely observes, Bloom is "fucking nuts", but simultaneously fantastically interesting and insightful on Shakespeare and the plays in general, and particularly Hamlet. This is Bloom just wantonly reckoning things about H. in no particular order or to any unified effect. But dammit it's great.

[Jill · Rating 4 out of 5]

A brisk, beautiful read. Admittedly my first introduction to Bloom, part of me was expecting to hate him for some reason (and, with some throwaway anti-feminist comments in relation to Ophelia & Gertrude, I was getting there at the beginning). But -- such lucid, lilting prose. Such an honest (if at times overweening/blind) affection. Such genuine respect for genius. Such thoughtful, elucidating commentary.

My favourite part of this piece is the frequent peppering of references to what other, grand and brilliant, authors have thought about the play throughout literary history. Huxley, Beckett, Goethe, Wilde, Carlyle, Joyce, Lawrence, Eliot, Borges, Blake, more. Everyone has had their love affair with this play. It is sublimely humbling to be in the same tradition as all these, and so many more --- reading Hamlet, and Shakespeare, and knowing that we are all of us, readers and writers, profoundly connected and linked by his words. Shakespeare is the literary touchstone, with Hamlet (and Hamlet) standing firmly at its peak. This little piece of lovely, vibrant criticism is a stalwart reminder of just that.

[Matt McCormick · Rating 3 out of 5]

All the reviews of this book may be right. It's a 1, it's a 5. It's horribly ostentatious and it's replete with learning. It's opaque and it's insightful.

One comment I read in a review stuck with me - why can't he just explain stuff. Often I wanted to really understand why he had come to a conclusion and all I was left with was a beautiful generalized statement and a quote from the play.

I picked this up because, in truth, I am always so horribly lost reading a Shakespeare play from start to finish. If I see one performed I have no idea, from the dialogue, what the heck is going on. My plan is to read a number of critiques of a Shakespeare play before reading it in full. I hope to understand the cast and the basic plot before my eyes fall on a line like, " To fust in us unus'd.". With Bloom I obviously started at a higher rung than needed.

Enough whining, Bloom is so very knowledgeable, passionate, and often interesting. He says things about literature that don't often come to a readers mind. I'm glad I read it. I'm glad it was short.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Hamlet, Polonius gives a long winded description of actors coming to play before the king from which this book gets it's name. Poem Unlimited.

"The best actors in the world, either for tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral, pastoral-comical, historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-comical-historical-pastoral, scene individable, or poem unlimited. Seneca cannot be too heavy, nor Plautus too light. For the law of writ and the liberty, these are the only men."

I think Shakespeare pokes fun at the ridiculousness of play criticism at the time. I love the bunching of the categories like tragical-comical-historical-pastoral .

This is a between a 3 and a 4 for me. Hamlet is a far more complex play than Macbeth. Having a book of analysis is interesting , helpful and fun to agree and disagree with. A quick read.

[Carol Storm · Rating 2 out of 5]

Harold Bloom, Fuddy Duddy Unlimited.

Harold Bloom at 12: Mama, mama, the bad boys took my hat!

Harold Bloom at 72: Fortinbras is a killing machine. Hamlet has nothing to say to him. ("He has my dying voice.") Old Hamlet is a killing machine. Hamlet doesn't really love him. ("Alas, poor ghost.")

Any questions?

[Atefe Dtr · Rating 4 out of 5]

«هملت: شعر بی‌کران» (2003) مؤخره‌ایه بر کتاب «شکسپر: ابداع انسان» (1998) از بلوم. کتاب در 25 بخش کوتاه درباره‌ی موضوعات، شخصیت‌های مختلف مثل گرترود، فورتینبراس، افیلیا و.. بحث می‌کنه. در آخر هم مترجم «شکسپیر: ابداع انسان» رو پیوست کرده که به نظر من خیلی با هم هم‌پوشانی داشتند. (البته خود مترجم هم در مقدمه به این تکرارها اشاره می‌کنه) برای من ولی مفیده چون باعث می‌شه بهتر تو ذهنم بشینه:)
.
.
از بین کارهایی که از شکسپیر که خوندم مثل مکبث، اتللو، شاه‌لیر و... همیشه یه فاصله‌ای رو با هملت حس کردم. هم اولین باری که نمایشنامه رو در کارشناسی خوندم هم الآن. در واقع، من کم‌کمک دارم به هملت و بی‌کرانگیش نزدیک می‌شم. هنوز اون همدلی و هم‌ذات‌پنداری رو که بلوم ازش می‌گه به اون صورت حس نمی‌کنم. هملت با همه‌ی تنوع، گستردگی و جهان‌شمولیش هم‌چنان روبه‌روی منه، نه کنارم. برای همینم تصمیم گرفتم برم سراغش و دقیق‌تر بخونم ازش که بهش نزدیک‌تر بشم. جالب اینجاست که دیدن تئاترش هم باز اون‌طور که همگان معترفن من رو متعجب یا آشفته نکرد. به این معنی نیست که اثر رو نفهمیدم، اما در عین اینکه اون شوخ‌طبعی، فصاحت، مرثیه و آگاهی هملت رو درک می‌کنم و برام قابل ستایشه، چندان درونیش نکرده‌ام. نتوانستم بکنم. هرچند این کتاب فتح باب خیلی خوبی بود. من خودم صحنه‌ی گورکن رو خیلی دوست داشتم و بخش نمایش تله‌موش و توضیحات بلوم درباره‌ی اینا هم خیلی جالب بود.
.
.
کتاب رو خیلی پسندیدم از این جهت که نکات جالب فراوانی داشت و اینکه بلوم نظری مخالف آراء منتقدان رو اتخاذ می‌کنه، برام جذاب‌ترش کرد:) بلوم اعتقاد داره که هملت پیشین رو هم خود شکسپیر در جوانی نوشته و بعد از چند سال با بازنگری در اون رسیده به هملت نهایی. درحالی که اکثراً هملت پیشین رو به تامس کید نسبت می‌دن. (قابل ذکره که خود اثر هم به ما نرسیده) در همین راستا یه تبارشناسی ارائه می‌ده از شکل‌گیری هملت نهایی. از ساگاهای ایسلندی و آملت بلفورست شروع می‌کنه که در اون آملت پایانی خوش داره و در واقع، بخشی از پی‌رنگشون شبیهه به هم. آملت افسانه‌ای اغلب فیگور دلقک حقه‌بازی بوده که خودش رو به دیوانگی می‌زده. به نظر بلوم هملت اولیه بیشتر باید به آملت شبیه بوده باشه، اما هملت نهایی ازش دوره. حتی می‌گه شاید روح در هملت اولیه پررنگ‌تر بوده و شکسپیر در بازنگری خودش از نقشش کاسته و در عوض عمق بیشتری به هملت پسر داده. «هملت نه‌تنها با روح می‌‌ستیزد، بلکه با شبح روح در متن اولیه و نیز با شبح اولین هملت هم می‌جنگد.»
از طرفی، می‌گه هملت تراژدی انتقادم نیست. اگرم انتقام رو بخوایم در نظر بگیرم باید از انتقام از زمان بحث کنیم. (با ارجاع به نیچه) به نظر بلوم «هملت» چیزی فراتر از انتقامه. شخصیت فالستاف رو پلی می‌دونه بیت هملت اول و آخر و از شباهت و تفاوت‌های دو شخصیت فالستاف و هملت آخر خیلی صحبت می‌کنه، اینکه هر دو شخصیت آگاه‌اند و شوخ‌طبع و مسلط بر زبان. اما فالستاف به نسبت هملت محدودتره.
یه جا هملت رو با شخصیت‌هایی مثل داوودشاه و مسیح مقایسه می‌کنه از نظر تعالی و کاریزما.
به طور کلی، مؤلفه‌هایی که مفصلاً، اما تکه‌پاره بهشون می‌پردازه ایناست: شک و فرهمندی، تردید برآمده از آگاهی، نهیلیسم غیرتعمدی، آزادی و تغییرات هملت، تئاتریکالیسم، تناظر هوراشیو و تماشاگران (ما)، وارثان شکسپیر و غیره:)
بلوم بررسی زندگی‌نامه‌ای هم داره و به اینا می‌پردازه: ارتباط شکسپیر با روح (خودش همین نقش رو بازی می‌کرده)، هملت پسر با همنت (پسر خود شکسپر که در 11 سالگی مرد) و مواردی دیگر. در واقع، شکسپیر همه‌جای تحلیل حضور داره و شاعر خیلی پررنگه. بلوم معتقده دغدغه‌ی نمایشنامه پرسشگریه شبیه به متون کهن. اما دغدغه‌ی هملت مرگ نیست، مرگ‌های اتفاقی است. نکته‌ی دیگه اینکه اذعان داره هملت عقده اودیپ نداره، چراکه هملت چنان به همه‌کس بی‌اعتناست که نمی‌شه از علاقه‌اش به گرترود گفت.
در نهایت اینکه هملت نمایشی بی‌کران در باب اجرای نمایشه و شخصیت هملت «خدایی در ویرانه‌ها، انسان-خدا، شاعر-نمایشنامه‌نویس، خدایی فانی در نمایشی جاوید، انسان دیونیزوسی (نیچه)، انسانی سکولار و ویرانگر»، بی‌اعتنا به همه‌کس و همه‌چیزه که مرگ براش تقدسه و خاموشی مترادف با نابودی.
.
«اگرچه نمایشنامه‌ی هملت در نقطه‌ای پایان می‌یابد، اما این نقطه‌ی پایان شخصیت هملت نیست. او در بیداری خویش زنده می‌شود: لاشه‌ی حرامزاده‌اش پس از چهار قرن هنوز نپوسیده است.» :)))
.
ترجمه خیلی خوب و روان بود. کتاب هم منسجم و جذاب. در کل پیشنهاد می‌دم بخونید یه بار. اون یه ستاره رو ندادم برای تحلیل‌های بهتر اگر خوندم.

[James F · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't really understand why Harold Bloom has such a reputation as a great literary critic, unless it is the sheer quantity of books he has published. This book hardly seems worthwhile; it is divided into twenty-five very short chapters, each of which seems like a separate, random meditation on some character or aspect of the play. About half of each chapter is one or two long quotations from the play; the rest is bons mots or arbitrary opinions, usually obscure and "profound", and when they actually say something it seems wildly off.

[Tanya · Rating 2 out of 5]

Highs: review of the Player King’s speech and other good moments of close reading

Lows: calling Gertrude a “sexual magnet” (🤢) + the sentence: “That apparently infinite fascination of the figure stems from the enormous magnification of consciousness that it embodies, yet also from the refinement of consciousness into a quintessence that plausibly can intimate apotheosis” 🙄🙄🙄🙄

[Jackson]

homie must have been mesmerizing and insufferable in the lecture hall

[Vicki Cline · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a pretty short book with an interesting analysis of Shakespeare's play. Some of it was way too scholarly for me.

[Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Urgently needed an antidote to O’Farrell’s Hamnet. Harold Bloom pulls much of this out of his own asshole, but at least he understands why Hamlet matters.

But god does he love to yap about Falstaff.

[Dominick · Rating 2 out of 5]

I guess if you're Harold Bloom, you can get away with writing a book like this. Not that Bloom does not have interesting things to say, or that he's not a good writer, but this feels like it was tossed off over lunch rather than thought through and laboured over. What Bloom can toss off over lunch is of course still insightful and digestible, but it's not exactly a deep study. In some cases, short chapters consist of over 50% direct quotation from the play, with little or no close reading or analysis of the text, just Bloom basically saying, "here, isn't this great?" Well, yes it is, but I don't need Harold Bloom to tell me that. He rarely bothers to cite other scholars, even when floating ideas that have been much debated, and when he does, he provides nothing in the way of appropriate documentation--not even a bibliography. I suppose one could justify that sort of casualness by saying that this is a book for general readers, not scholars, but that seems weak to me. The book feels lazy, frankly. Basically, if you want to enjoy some extravagant bardolatry (and there's nothing wrong with that), this may be a book for you, but if you want something that justifies its claims, explicates the text, contextualizes, etc., you had better look elsewhere.

[Karl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another great work by Harold Bloom, his writings on Shakespeare are inexhaustible, his insights deep, and his observations keen.

Having the pleasure of reading The Tragedy Of Prince Hamlet a number of times, a lot of what consists in this small work is not new to me.

One of the most original questions Bloom poses in this work is questions like, and I am paraphrasing here, Why do Fortibras and Hamlet never meet? And what would they talk about? There's lots of other questions like this, that Bloom supposes are additonal examples of Shakespeare's genius (As if he needed more confirmation).


I'd recommend this to anyone interested in Shakespeare in general, or anyone who loves Hamlet as much as me or for anyone who wants something informative and well written by one of the world's greatest Shakespearian scholars.

[Hosein Naseri · Rating 5 out of 5]

هارولد بلوم منتقد سرشناس و پرکار آمریکایی با استفاده از نظریه "اضطراب تأثیر" خود، ابتدا در کتاب شکسپیر: ابداع انسان - که فصل مربوط به همل آن در پیوست این ترجمه آورده شده - و بعد تر در این کتاب به بررسی تاثیر و تآثرات هملت روی آثار قبل و بعد خود می‌پردازد و با استفاده از این تأثیرات سعی در فهم عمیق‌تر هملت این انسان خودآگاه جدید و نزدیک شدن به آگاهی خیره کننده شکسپیر/هملت می‌نماید.
ترجمه دقیق و اضافه شدن پاورقی‌ها بسیار به فهم زبان شاعرانه و پرکنایه بلوم کمک کرده ولی همچنان برای خواننده غیرمتخصص و ناآشنا با آثار شکسپیر و اصطلاحات تخصصی نقد ادبی ثقیل به شمار می‌رود.
به عنوان منبع تکمیلی در کنار این کتاب، مجموعه مقالات در مورد هملت با نام "مونالیزای ادبیات" به کوشش و گردآوری مهدی امیرخانلو توصیه می‌شود:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...

[M.E. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hamlet is my favorite work of literature, so I looked forward to learning about it from someone who had spent far more time reading it than I had. For the most part, I was dissapointed. While there were a few intersting insights in this book, it wasn't nearly as eye-opening as I thought it would be. And after having read it, I don't feel like my reading of the play is significantly better-informed than it was before I read it.

[Sarah Hofhine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some interesting insights into the play...I didn't agree with everything he said, but he brought up some stuff i've never considered, i'll have to read Hamlet again. My biggest complaint is that he's a bit pompous and I have to read it with a dictionary next to me. Which is saying quite a bit, because I read the dictionary for fun.

[Jamie Grefe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bloom has managed to smoothly give voice to those otherwise voiceless feelings I have for Hamlet and Shakespeare. He takes us through the play via characters, scenes, and plays within plays within plays, only to leave us leaping into boundless space, left agape at all of those things we wish to hear Hamlet talk to us about, but never will.

[Cooper Ackerly · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is so... so Bloom that I really can't bring myself to criticize it for the fact that it reads like it was written by a genius with an encyclopedic knowledge of literature and a (totally justified and infectious) obsession with the Bard who can't quite bother to explain his insights to us mere mortals.

[Tammy Schoen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Helpful commentary. I always enjoy food for thought when it comes to Shakespeare.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just re-read this little book after seeing a production of the play. Bloom is always smart, and this is full of insights, if a tad all-over-the-place.