How would the Shakespeare Protagonists or Heroes interact with each other? I think this could be very funny.

I can see all the Romantic Comedy Protagonists give Romeo and Juliet relationship advice.

Hero (Much Ado About Nothing) telling Othello to be careful with Iago since Iago seems like a much more competent Don John from Hero's POV.

Macbeth and Richard III having to sit at the "Villain Protagonists" table because the heroes don't trust them.

Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra, and Hamlet talking about how fate may be the overarching antagonist.

Someone bright slapping Hamlet to get him out of his indecision (based on Bright slapping Amuro in Gundam to get the latter out of his indecision).

What do you think?

I remember reading an article where actors spoke about whether or not they chose to perform this scene, and why. And that it was often left out. I've tried Googling this many different ways, but I can't find an answer. If anyone can lend their expertise I would be eternally grateful!

Hello, everyone! I’m excited to share an essay I recently submitted for my online high school English course. This is the first graded assignment of the course, and I spent a full two weeks refining it. Honestly, I’m quite proud of the effort and thought I put into this work; while it might seem intense for a high-school assignment, I wanted to push my limits and produce something exceptional.

To give some context, I haven’t officially graduated high school yet. For many years, my ADHD made it difficult to apply consistent cognitive effort, which held me back academically. However, with recent treatment involving stimulant medication, I’ve experienced a surge in productivity and focus over the past month—more than I ever have in my 21 years prior to treatment. This essay reflects that shift, and I’m hopeful that my evaluator will see the effort and thought behind it. Still, I’d love feedback from those with academic backgrounds or expertise in literature and writing.

So here it is, an overly ambitious high school analysis on Hamlet and Oedipus Rex! I welcome any constructive criticism or insights from anyone willing to take a look.

Thank you so much in advance for your time and any feedback you might offer. It would mean a lot to me as I continue on this new journey.

The Limits of Reason: Modern Skepticism and Classical Fatalism in Hamlet and Oedipus Rex

According to Gorgias, the fifth-century philosopher, tragedy evokes fear, pity, and awe to  uncover hidden truths about human nature, offering profound insights into overwhelming  experiences (Critchley and Webster 21). This emotional resonance reflects the limitations of  human reason and the ethical dilemmas inherent in confronting an uncertain and disorderly  universe. Masterworks of dramatic literature, such as Shakespeare's Hamlet and Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, anchor themselves in this profound human struggle against forces beyond our  control. 

Both Hamlet and Oedipus Rex delve into the overarching philosophical dilemma of the  limitations of human reason, presenting protagonists who confront epistemological, individual,  and political crises. Hamlet embodies modern skepticism, attempting to assert individual agency  within the confines of his historical circumstances. In contrast, Oedipus exemplifies classical  fatalism, ultimately acknowledging the supremacy of divine forces that govern human fate. This  essay examines how Shakespeare's Hamlet and Sophocles' Oedipus Rex use their protagonists'  struggles with the limitations of human reason—manifested through modern skepticism and  classical fatalism—and expressed via linguistic equivocation and dramatic irony, to explore the  philosophical implications on knowledge and identity. By analyzing these elements, the essay  argues that the plays present divergent political outcomes and propose alternative models of  ethical leadership within their respective societies.

Building upon our examination of the interplay between emotional resonance and  philosophical inquiry in classical tragedy, it is essential to delineate the literary frameworks that  embody contrasting perspectives on the fundamental limitations of human knowledge: linguistic equivocation in Hamlet and dramatic irony in Oedipus Rex. These frameworks are not merely  artistic devices but serve as mechanisms through which the playwrights explore and illuminate  profound philosophical ideas. 

One such perspective, emerging with the advent of modernity, contends that there is no  absolute truth to anchor understanding—only layers of appearances susceptible to manipulation.  When language becomes the primary arbiter of truth, its inherent instability compromises our  grasp of reality. Here, equivocation functions as a mechanism that constrains human reason by  obscuring the distinction between semblance and actuality. This ambiguity challenges the  audience's ability to discern truth, reflecting the modern skepticism about the reliability of  knowledge and perception. 

Conversely, the predominant viewpoint preceding the Renaissance acknowledges the  insufficiency of human reason by recognizing our vulnerability in the face of incomprehensible  forces. Philosophers of classical antiquity assert the existence of external sources of truth that  reside beyond human understanding. To emphasize this collective vulnerability, they employ  dramatic irony by personifying these distant realms within theatrical productions, rendering them  accessible and intelligible. This technique allows the audience to witness the limitations of  human knowledge from an omniscient vantage point, affirming their shared fragility and  highlighting the tension between human ignorance and divine omniscience. 

By employing linguistic equivocation and dramatic irony, each playwright cultivates  distinct patterns of emotional and intellectual engagement with the audience, which are critical to understanding the plays' philosophical underpinnings. Their dramatizations serve as exemplary  models of these respective frameworks by effectively modulating the perceived distance between  the audience's vantage point and the performance– contracting it through equivocation and  expanding it through dramatic irony. 

In Hamlet, Shakespeare endows the central protagonist with an illusory reflective  capability, wherein Hamlet's words seemingly mirror his underlying doubts, intentions, and  emotions. This technique serves to merge Hamlet's inner world with the audience’s lived reality.  The strategic use of metatheatre, such as the play-within-a-play (Shakespeare 2.2.540-542),  epitomizes equivocation by merging reality and representation, actor and observer (Craig 103).  This multifaceted approach not only propels the narrative forward but also highlights the  recursive nexus of illusion that envelops the audience, who are simultaneously participants in  and observers of the pretense. By engaging the audience in upholding the same form of  deception, Shakespeare evokes a sense of weariness, suggesting that the external world is  equally unstable and ultimately unfounded. This prompts the audience to further contemplate the  reliability of perception and the nature of truth. 

Conversely, in Oedipus Rex, Sophocles employs dramatic irony to expand the intellectual  distance between the audience and the performance. The audience possesses foreknowledge of  Oedius's fate, which the protagonist himself lacks. This deliberate use of dramatic irony  intensifies the emotional impact, evoking feelings of pity and fear as they witness Oedipus's  relentless pursuit of truth leading to his own downfall. The audience experiences catharsis  alongside Oedipus during his momentous realization, without bearing culpability for his fate.  This dynamic underscores the classical perspective that truth exists beyond human manipulation,  and individuals are bound to their immutable positions within the cosmic order. The emotional responses elicited reinforce the themes of fate and human frailty, highlighting the limitations of  human reason when confronted with predetermined destiny. 

By understanding how linguistic equivocation and dramatic irony function within these  tragedies, and the philosophical perspectives they illuminate, we can better interpret the  protagonists' navigation of crises across epistemology, identity, and agency. This comprehension  lays the groundwork for a more detailed exploration in the subsequent sections, where we will  dissect the nuanced interplay of these frameworks and their profound impact on the tragic  journeys of Hamlet and Oedipus. 

Both protagonists confront profound epistemological challenges that clash with the  inherent limitations of human reason. Despite their shared engagement with issues of knowledge  and perception, the protagonists arrive at markedly divergent conclusions regarding the integrity  of knowledge, thereby shaping their respective philosophical trajectories.  

In Hamlet, linguistic equivocation fosters an environment permeated by ambiguity,  effectively blurring the boundaries between appearance and reality (Mack 297). This pervasive  uncertainty compels Hamlet into an internal struggle as he grapples with the reliability of  knowledge, particularly when it originates from supernatural sources. The ghost of his father  epitomizes this dilemma; its ambiguous nature forces Hamlet to question whether it is a truthful  apparition or a deceptive entity. He articulates this skepticism: “The spirit that I have seen / May  be the devil: and the devil hath power / To assume a pleasing shape” (Shakespeare 2.2.598-600).  This doubt exemplifies the epistemological crisis induced by linguistic equivocation—Hamlet  finds himself unable to trust his perceptions or the information presented to him. To navigate this  crisis, Hamlet resorts to human methods of verification, notably the artifice of theater. By staging  "The Mousetrap" (Shakespeare 2.2.540-542), he seeks to "catch the conscience of the king" (Shakespeare 2.2.617), utilizing performance as a tool to extract a concealed truth (Critchley and  Webster 23). However, this reliance on theatrical deception further entangles him in a web of  appearances, highlighting the problematic nature of discerning reality through layers of artifice.  The feedback loop of art imitating life serves as a microcosm of Hamlet's struggle to attain  certainty in an equivocal world; when the boundary between illusion and reality becomes  blurred, so too does the boundary between performance and identity, pretense and action. 

Conversely, in Oedipus Rex, the limitations of rationality manifest in the protagonist’s  external demise; his confidence in his own abilities and volitional pursuit of truth precipitate his  admission of a predetermined fate. Sophocles establishes this ironic interplay at the outset by  juxtaposing Oedipus’s political authority against the presence of an exalted blind prophet,  Teiresias. The confrontation between these two equally stubborn figures is punctuated by  Oedipus’s relentless effort to uncover the perpetrator of the plague and his subsequent denial of  his own involvement. Through his physical blindness– which symbolizes the capacity to  perceive divine truths beyond ordinary human sight– Teiresias possesses innate knowledge of  Oedipus's origins. 

Oedipus’s rational dismissal of the prophet’s allegations—due to their lack of tangible  evidence—underscores the limitations of human perception and the paradox of relying solely on  rational faculties to apprehend the truth. Oedipus’s reliance on language compromises the  investigation by engendering ambiguities that obscure the truth. The shifting grammatical  categories from "one man" to "one thing" and from singular to plural ("robber" to "robbers")  illustrate his capacity to evade the truth through intellectual manipulation (Sagel 219). However,  as his attempts to absolve himself only weaken his position, mirroring his futile efforts to escape  the prophecy imposed upon him, he ultimately recognizes the futility of reconciling human knowledge with divine omniscience. Upon realizing the truth of his origins and actions, Oedipus  concedes: "Lost! Ah lost! At last it's blazing clear. Light of my days, go dark. I want to gaze no  more" (Sophocles 1315-1317). His subsequent self-blinding is a symbolic act—marking his  transformation from ignorance to insight—that resolves his epistemological crisis within the  play’s ironic framework. 

As each protagonist grapples with the precariousness of human reason, they adopt  contrasting epistemological viewpoints that prefigure their reformulated conceptions of identity.  Hamlet’s skepticism about knowledge engenders his suspicion that his preexisting identity is  founded under false pretenses; his propensity to apprehend the reliability of his perceptions by  equivocating appearance and reality extends to an equivocation between external and internal  modes of expression. On the other hand, Oedipus’ deference to oracular pronouncements is  ironically catalyzed by his initial reliance on human faculties to forestall his inevitable demise.  Thus, the resolution of his identity crisis, characterized by his acceptance of his preordained  position in the cosmic order, necessitates his eventual acknowledgement of external truths. 

Appropriately, the progression from Hamlet's skepticism and Oedipus’s deference to their  respective identity crises is delineated by a corresponding philosophical contrast between self constitution and self-discovery. Both protagonists confront the prospect of transcendence by  grappling with the devastating implications that arise in each instance.  

Hamlet's allegiance to a stable identity erodes under the assault of his growing inward  skepticism. His gradual dissociation from the world and himself unfolds as he replaces his initial  belief in external knowledge with perpetual doubt. When Hamlet asserts that he “passes show”  (Shakespeare 1.2.85) during the play’s first act—expressing frustration over his father's  abbreviated mourning period—he maintains a clear distinction between genuine emotion and mere pretense. However, the pervasive ambiguity surrounding the ghost's appearance highlights  his surrender to his own fallible sensory perceptions. Consequently, Hamlet oscillates between  deductive reasoning, based on foundational assumptions, and inductive reasoning, derived from  personal observations. This oscillation mirrors his inability to decouple the ghost’s testimony  from the unreliability of his own perception. His journey toward identity disintegration is deeply  intertwined with his erratic use of these reasoning methods, confounded by the destabilizing  influence of the play's linguistic equivocation. Through this, Shakespeare illuminates the modern  skeptical perspective that questions the possibility of absolute truth.  

The philosophical significance of Hamlet’s ensuing identity crisis is revealed through a  series of equivocations that operate on a constantly evolving scale. The pantomime reenactment  of King Hamlet's murder fails to provoke Claudius, whereas the dialogical version elicits his  subtle admission of guilt. (Craig 80). This contrast underscores the emotional potency of  performances delivered by actors who convincingly integrate words with actions, regardless of  their truthfulness. Hamlet himself understands this troubling discrepancy when he instructs the  players to "suit the action to the word, the word to the action" (Shakespeare 3.2.18-19), positing  that reality and performance are inseparable. This newfound equivocation arises from his  difficulty in discerning reality from appearance, leading him to suspect that his own thoughts and  feelings are subject to theatrical manipulation.

Hamlet’s exploration of the shifting meaning of performance-related language reinforces  the self-doubt established by his engagement with theatrical mediums. He advises his mother to  "assume a virtue, if you have it not" (Shakespeare 3.4.168), suggesting that habit—a repeated,  performative action—can transform into a genuine characteristic. As a result, the destabilizing  effects of linguistic equivocation on Hamlet's interpersonal interactions desensitize him to the emotional consequences of becoming estranged from his identity by adopting an "antic  disposition” (Shakespeare 1.5.170-172). His framework of equivocation between performance  and reality creates a corresponding relationship between his genuine emotional experiences and  his feigned madness. This leaves both the audience and Hamlet himself questioning where his  true self lies.  

Hamlet’s growing recognition that all social roles are performative leads to his rejection  of predefined roles, viewing them as hollow imitations rather than authentic expressions of self.  His interactions with other self-conscious characters become increasingly strained due to his  disillusionment with identity. This culminates in his active detachment of performative roles  from any fixed essence. For instance, he exaggerates the characteristics of Osric and Laertes— the sycophant and the grieving brother—to distance himself from socially acceptable identities  such as avenger, royal heir, or mourner, which are embodied by his peers (Shakespeare 5.2.81- 204). By witnessing ubiquitous displays of insincere emotion, Hamlet invokes the unfalsifiability  of his self-fashioned transformation from aggrieved prince to histrionic madman. To Hamlet, the  insincere condolences and sacraments accompanying his father's mourning no longer merely  violate honorable social rituals; they destroy the importance assigned to familial bonds (Zamir  109). This realization gives him a warrant to forsake political action by reducing all human  endeavors to a shared mortality.  

Conversely, in Oedipus Rex, dramatic irony not only externalizes Oedipus's  epistemological challenges but also shapes his journey of self-discovery that ultimately leads to  the acceptance of external truths. Oedipus's identity is initially defined by his intellectual  prowess and adaptability—attributes that enabled him to solve the Sphinx's riddle and ascend to  the throne of Thebes. The riddle itself, involving the changing locomotion of humans throughout life, symbolizes human adaptation to nature's constraints through intellect. Ironically, while  Oedipus excels in deciphering this enigma, he remains ignorant of his own origins.  

His gradual self-discovery, tainted by parricide and incest, is mediated by the ironic  collocation of his past and his present (Sagel 220). Sophocles traces his prolific success as  Theban ruler to his inception as a helpless infant with a predestined fate. The significance of his  name, "Oedipus," meaning both "swollen foot" and "I know the foot," encapsulates this duality  of competence and ignorance. His pierced feet, a consequence of his parents' attempt to escape  the prophecy, symbolize the indelible marks of his past that he fails to recognize. This physical  impairment metaphorically represents his deviation from the natural order, as he does not  conform to the typical bipedal pattern of adulthood due to his injured feet.  

Moreover, this troubling duality is reflected in Oedipus’s interactions with the chorus as he attempts to navigate the emerging political crisis in light of his personal misfortune. His  declaration, "My spirit groans for the city and myself and you at once" (Sophocles 64), is literally  true; he embodies every constituent of Thebes because of his intertwined familial roles. His ease  in collapsing natural distinctions manifests in both the private and public domains of his life— becoming both son and husband, brother and father, leader and citizen—thereby intensifying the  ironic revelation of his unwitting crimes. It is only when Oedipus accepts the mortal limitations  imposed by his birth that he can restore order to Thebes.  

Together, Shakespeare and Sophocles illustrate the threat posed by unfettered individual  agency to political stability within the context of their contrasting philosophical viewpoints. As  the embodiment of the modern skeptical perspective, Hamlet forcefully wields his intellect to  dislodge his identity from the arbitrary behavioral norms endemic to his historical circumstances.  However, his refusal to anchor himself to any external truth—and his preference to spontaneously revise his identity—weakens his motivation to redeem the political corruption that  surrounds him. In stark contrast, Oedipus's transformation reflects the classical acknowledgment  of external truths by demonstrating the perils of striving for perfection. His realization that his  self-image was overextended into multiple contradictory roles highlights the futility of  leveraging intellect or effective leadership to transcend mortal constraints. It is at this moment  that his fixed position within the cosmic order crystallizes, empowering him to effect meaningful  political change by embracing his role as a sacrificial victim. 

Having established the philosophical relevance of Hamlet's and Oedipus's confrontations  with knowledge and identity, it is clear that their internal struggles profoundly influence their  outer engagement with the political structures that determine the fates of Denmark and Thebes.  Their contrasting approaches to leadership and ethics are informed by their respective  epistemological and metaphysical orientations—Hamlet's skepticism and self-constructed  identity, versus Oedipus's deference to external truths and acceptance of a fixed identity. This  divergence encompasses the full extent of enduring insights that their narratives impart,  revealing how their inner turmoil translates into their actions as leaders and their impact on the  political landscapes they inhabit. 

Hamlet's involvement in political affairs falters because, although he wishes to take  practical action, he feels unable to assert his own autonomy effectively (Cantor 51). His deep  disenchantment with collective human endeavors leads him to view political structures as  insignificant within a cosmos he perceives as lacking inherent meaning. Specifically, the  legitimacy of the avenger role—which resonates most strongly with Hamlet among the various  identities embodied by his peers—hinges on the crucial relationship between the avenger and the  avenged. This relationship becomes nullified as Hamlet’s disillusionment leads him to devalue the very foundation upon which acts of vengeance are justified. For instance, Hamlet’s  characterization of the world as “weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable” (Shakespeare 1.2.133)  forebodes his profound loss of motivation to undertake the decisive actions expected of a prince  and avenger. This pervasive disillusionment signifies his retreat from active political  participation. Consequently, his irrevocably fractured mental state becomes inextricably linked to  the eventual disintegration of the Danish political order. His ominous premonition that  “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” (Shakespeare 1.4.90) ultimately materializes as he  relinquishes the last remnants of his political resistance to Claudius’s corrupt regime. 

Hamlet’s nihilistic dejection in the face of uncertainty—leading to his abdication of  political responsibility—finalizes the transformation of his philosophical outlook across each of  the three critical dimensions: initial skepticism, intermediate disillusionment, and ultimate  resignation to fatalism. As Hamlet becomes increasingly disoriented by the political implications  of his radical skepticism, he abandons his aspiration to maintain authenticity and individual  agency. This shift is exemplified by his capitulation to forces beyond his comprehension,  prompting his declaration, “There's a divinity that shapes our ends, / Rough-hew them how we  will” (Shakespeare 5.2.10-11). This statement marks a departure from his earlier vehement  distrust of supernatural influences, thereby reinforcing the reciprocal dissolution of individual  autonomy and political stability inherent in the modern skeptical perspective. 

Furthermore, Hamlet’s specific capitulation to the impending invasion by Fortinbras  signifies his acknowledgment that his desire to extricate himself from the constraints of his  historical and political context was ultimately untenable. His ironic endorsement of Fortinbras— a figure who embodies the very revenge ethic Hamlet seeks to subvert—exemplifies the  destructive consequences of his nihilistic disengagement from state affairs (Bloom 106). By approving Fortinbras as the imminent successor to the Danish throne, Hamlet facilitates the  perpetuation of the corrupt political order he sought to dismantle as a way of signaling his  submission to fate—culminating in the tragic demise of both himself and his broader political  environment. 

Conversely, Oedipus’s philosophical transformation fundamentally reconfigures his  perception of political power, enabling him to restore order to Thebes through self-sacrifice and  exile, albeit at the expense of his personal agency. Notably, Oedipus’s virtuous public service  during his reign epitomizes ideal leadership, as it is directed toward the pursuit of knowledge and  understanding. However, his renunciation of human faculties—manifested in his self-blinding— and his recognition of mortal limitations, arising from the realization that he occupies  paradoxical roles, undermine the foundations of his anthropocentric political regime. As Oedipus  himself declares, “It was Apollo, friends, Apollo, That brought this bitter bitterness, my sorrows  to completion” (Sophocles 1329-1330). This deference to Apollo dispels his previous conviction  that he could evade his destiny, thereby suggesting that human political endeavors are equally  subject to divine sanction. 

Oedipus’s political resignation, subsequent to his submission to the divine forces  governing his existence, ultimately restores order to his city. His evolution from actively  attempting to avert the impending plague—which inadvertently precipitated its occurrence—to  his voluntary abdication of political leadership, which leads to its eradication, unfolds with an  ironic symmetry to the resolution of his epistemological and identity crises. By embracing his  role as the city’s ritual scapegoat, rather than maintaining his overarching responsibility as a  citizen and leader, he satisfies the requirement of acknowledging one’s place within the cosmic  order rather than asserting dominance over it.

Consequently, Oedipus's actions strengthen communal bonds and highlight shared  vulnerability. Entrusting Creon with the care of his daughters, he assumes the responsibilities of  fatherhood instead of perpetuating the familial curse that instigated the plague. He asserts,  “Creon, since you are the only father left for these two girls, do not allow them to wander like  beggars, poor and husbandless” (Sophocles 1433-1434) Furthermore, by engaging with the  chorus in a lyrical dialogue, he expresses his anguish and acknowledges his reliance on others:  “My friends, you still attend me, steadfast... In darkness though I am, I yet recognize your voice;  I know it clearly” (Sophocles 1435-1437). This interaction reinforces the communal bonds that  will ultimately restore balance to the city in the wake of his exile, signifying an evolution from  isolated authority to integrated community member. 

Overall, the culmination of the protagonists’ respective journeys illuminates the political  ramifications embedded within their philosophical orientations. Shakespeare illustrates the  hazards of excessive skepticism by linking the modern intellectual ideal to the debilitating  paralysis it induces in his portrayal of Hamlet. Specifically, Hamlet’s exceptional intellect, which  surpasses his historical milieu, ultimately undoes itself by enabling him to perceive his own  limitations, thereby initiating a self-destructive trajectory marked by pervasive doubt.  Conversely, Sophocles imparts the redemptive power of ultimately yielding to irrational forces  through his contrasting narrative. By paradoxically positioning Oedipus as both the source and  the redeemer of the political crisis afflicting his city, Sophocles subverts conventional  associations between prevailing political paradigms and their corresponding societal outcomes.  Oedipus’s initial governance, driven by intellectual prowess and unwavering dedication to his  people, leads to the city’s devastation. However, by irrationally punishing himself—both physically and socially—for crimes he unknowingly committed, he ultimately restores harmony  to Thebes. 

Through their respective dramatizations of foundational philosophical paradigms– modern skepticism in Shakespeare’s Hamlet and classical fatalism in Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex– both playwrights engage with the enduring Western intellectual dilemma: the human propensity  to assert control over external circumstances through reason and innovation, juxtaposed against  the inherent limitations of such control. By intertwining these inquiries with the literary devices  of equivocation and dramatic irony, Shakespeare and Sophocles infuse their narratives with  profound lessons that resonate within broader philosophical discourses. At the core of their  dramatic architectures, Hamlet and Oedipus emerge as paradigmatic figures embodying  divergent resolutions to a shared existential quandary. Shakespeare posits that human faculties,  while striving towards truth, remain fundamentally fallible, thereby highlighting the  precariousness of reason in navigating a chaotic universe. In contrast, Sophocles invokes the  supremacy of external truths, asserting that certain realities lie beyond human comprehension  and control. 

Reflecting the modern inclination to deconstruct the notion of absolute truth, Hamlet weaves a complex tapestry of equivocations that mark each phase of the protagonist’s  intellectual journey. Hamlet’s initial reliance on his cognitive abilities, though commendable,  gradually succumbs to pervasive uncertainty. This trajectory is fueled by his pursuit of a holistic  existence– intellectually, socially, and politically– rooted in an idealistic conception of humanity,  which ultimately degenerates into nihilism (Cantor 90). This descent leads to psychological  paralysis and contributes to the ensuing political turmoil, emblematic of the destabilizing effects  of extreme skepticism. 

Conversely, Oedipus Rex emphasizes the value of maintaining foundational beliefs that  transcend purely rational justification. Sophocles navigates the complex interplay between  intention and consequence through the ironic portrayal of Oedipus’ dual political roles: he is both  the redeemer and the inadvertent catalyst of Thebes’ suffering. This dichotomy illustrates the  paradox of his leadership—his commendable qualities as a ruler are overshadowed by his  inadvertent role in precipitating the city’s plague. Ironically, it is Oedipus's seemingly irrational  self-punishment and deference to divine authority that ultimately restore order to Thebes.  Through this juxtaposition, Sophocles illustrates how actions that defy rational justification  within human understanding can lead to redemption when they are aligned with the divine order. 

The divergent models of leadership embodied by each protagonist reverberate in  contemporary political discourse. The most pertinent existential risks to humanity—ranging from  technological advancements to environmental crises—inhabit the frontier of innovation and  challenge our preconceptions of perceived limitations. Drawing insights from Hamlet and  Oedipus Rex, we are reminded of the imperative to balance progress with stability. On one hand,  skepticism and deconstruction have propelled civilization to new heights, fostering critical  inquiry and intellectual growth. On the other hand, they risk incurring the heavy burden of  psychological and political fragmentation, as evidenced by Hamlet’s nihilistic paralysis and the  ensuing disintegration of the Danish political order. Without a firm adherence to guiding  principles—whether they be religious, ritualistic, or otherwise—modern societies face the threat  of imminent collapse, mirroring Hamlet’s ultimate fate. Ultimately, both plays serve as  cautionary tales: political and existential cohesion may necessitate a submission to truths beyond  human reason to prevent descending into chaos and nihilism.

Works Cited

Bloom, Harold. Hamlet: Poem Unlimited. Riverhead Books, 2003.

Cantor, Paul. Shakespeare Hamlet: A Student Guide. Yale University Press, 2004.

Craig, Leon Harold. Philosophy and the Puzzles of Hamlet. Springer, 2001.

Critchley, Simon, and Jamieson Webster. Stay, Illusion! The Hamlet Doctrine. Pantheon, 2013.

Mack, Maynard. "The World of Hamlet." Hamlet, edited by Dr. Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine, Folger Shakespeare Library, 2012, pp. 292-311.

Sagel, Charles. "Life’s Tragic Shape: Plot, Design, and Destiny." Oedipus Rex: Bloom’s Modern Critical Interpretations, edited by Harold Bloom, Chelsea House Publishers, 2007, pp. 205-225.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Edited by Dr. Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine, Folger Shakespeare Library, 2012.

Sophocles. Oedipus Rex. Translated by David Grene, University of Chicago Press, 1942.

Zamir, Tzachi, editor. Shakespeare’s Hamlet: Philosophical Perspectives. Oxford University Press, 2007.

I had always heard it was one of the "meh" ones, but I just watched the 2016 RSC production and WOW I loved it. Definitely some small things I would tweak, but overall I don't understand why this is is one of the least-performed plays. Is it just because there's a lot going on? I can't think of any reason plot or language-wise why this wouldn't be as popular as any of the other tragedies. (I know Cymbeline isn't technically a tragedy, but it sure doesn't feel right calling it a comedy lol).

I swear in high school we watched a rendition of the porter monologue where the guy comes out in all red with either fireworks or a bomb strapped to his chest. I've looked it up but can't find anything. Anyone else remember this or did i just imagine it?

Hello does anyone have any recommended monologues to use to audition for Feste In Twelfth Night? My school is holding auditions next month. I've seen the ones for Dogberry and Touchstone but are there any other monologues that might be a good choice?

Would be grateful for any insights on the best Kindle version of the complete works. I wish Norton a complete Kindle edition but they don’t. Searching around, the Royal Shakespeare Company, Arden and Oxford editions sound good. What do you think?

I was looking around the Folger's website for some research I'm doing and stumbled upon this: Folger Foe-lios | Folger Shakespeare Library

It's a full DND adventure AND they're hosting a game night showing people how to play AND they're doing a talkback with a DND-Famous person early next year - for Free! If you download the adventure, there are a ton of footnotes that reference real items in the collection - very "folger edition" esque.

I know the Venn diagram of theater people and people who play Dungeons and Dragons is basically a circle, but what a cool idea - I hope they make more.

I have a complete works version in a single volume, but I would love to own a copy of the individual works as well.

What version should I start collecting?

Arden, RSC, Signet, Oxford?

What are peoples favourites?

I'm directing a short scene for my sister and her friend early next year, but they've never done any kind of Shakespeare before so I'm a little stuck.

This is quite late notice, ideally we'd have started rehearsing lines by now but my previous group ditched me.

The scene has to be either 5 or 15 minutes long (roughly) and preferably something that isn't too hard to memorize and doesn't have too many long ranting paragraphs.

The play my class is focusing on next year is Twelfth Night, however we don't have to stick to that (although it does seem quite fun).

Also maybe something with a little more action in it? These kids are easily bored so I think something a bit louder than an average conversation would suit them best.

(Should also add, if we can't find a good scene, we can merge with another small group / find extras)

Thanks all

So we know that king crimson can jump forwards ten seconds and “avoid” events that happen in those ten seconds, allowing you to bypass a seemingly impassible outcome in JoJo.

Let’s say Macbeth got hit in the head with a strange meteorite and gained king crimson.

If when fighting Macduff he activated the time skip, saw himself getting killed, and then defeated Macduff right after, would he have successfully bypassed the prediction made?

On a similar note, would golden experience requiem be able to stop prophecy in a similar way, given how it was able to prevent the foreseen outcome by epitaph?

I’ve been teaching ‘Macbeth’ to third year secondary school students (approx. 17) in the Netherlands for upwards of ten years and I always try to incorporate new teaching methods and ideas.

We watch the Polanski version, which I think is the best and most accurate, but the 70s cinematography doesn’t really appeal to the students. What other versions do you like and even if not the whole film, what scenes from other versions do you think are really well done? Maybe I can swap out different versions for their best scenes or compare and contrast them.

Also, does anyone maybe have some new ideas for me when it comes to teaching ‘Macbeth’? I already use a lot of what is available from the Globe’s learning materials.

Thank you for your attention to this request!

It's quite puzzling, that behavior. Stubborn in a strange way, like Cordelia's behavior at the beginning of the film. Edgar again and again refuses to reveal himself to his father.

Of course, without that behavior we wouldn't have the play we have -we wouldn't have Edmund being moved by Edgar's tale at the end-, and in that sense it explains itself; but psychologically it's not that easy to define. What do you think?

hi guys I am a high school senior that by tomorrow due I am tested on Hamlet I dont really have much time left and the movie is the only choice is it accurate enough as the book .

i’ll go first, wes anderson. especially if he adapts a slightly lesser known comedy like as you like it, since the drier comedic tone in that play is perfect for the style he’s known for imo

Hello! I am doing a paper/project for one of my classes and want to hear some of y'all's favorite quotes. they can be insults, obscure quotes, funny, sad, advice-giving, etc. short quotes are preferred! thank you!

[ EDIT: these are great!!! thanks everyone!! 🩷]

Hi all, would love to hear of UK based Shakespeare research resources I can use for my essay about shakespeare and the cosmos.

All advice welcomed!!

Hi I was wondering if the pelican editions of Shakespeare are good. I am just reading for my own fun and curiosity and not acedemic study I was wondering how they are for that purpose.

Does anyone have a link?😅

Hi all,

I recently stumbled across a video on the OP for Shakespeare.
It seems like a cool accent to learn. Does anyone know where I could find something to help with this?
I have done a quick google over the past hour or so and can't find anything.

If this is the wrong kind of question for this sub i'm sorry.

Thank you in advance.

https://www.chicagoshakes.com/productions/2425-pericles/

So this is a really dumb question but I'm now second guessing myself. I have an in-text quote from Macbeth that when put into my document is four lines, and is 8 lines in terms of the text in the play itself. I've been doing some googling and it's being very unhelpful so here I am reaching out to this sub. I did also ask my class's supplemental instructor but they said it may constitute a block quote since it's more then four lines. I don't know if that means four lines of the original text or four lines in my document, if it is the latter then I think they must be mistaken since it's four lines on my computer.

But yeah I'm just very confused and any help would be appreciated!

So a few mouths ago I bought tickets for all's well that ends well at the globe but my flight got canceled and it's a whole thing. I'm not trying to sell for profit or anything- dose anyone know of any Facebook groups or something like that were I can sell my tickets?

Hi! I'm not the usual demographic in this sub, but I have an exam on much ado about nothing soon. (This is also my first post, sorry if it isn't structured correctly) It will be a question based on a theme, written as 'How does Shakespeare present (theme) in this extract, and in the whole play'. I already have a few points for various themes, such as for love I want to write about how Claudio's insecurities come into play and how his actions can be mistaken for love/hate (especially when he rejects Hero at their marriage). However, I am unsure how to structure my point. Please leave any suggestions below, and feel free to discuss my opinions mentioned above. Thank you!