I've been spending quite a bit of time preparing for my talk on Hamlet tomorrow. And one of the play's qualities that I've found most astonishing is the number of theories and/or thematic interpretations it can withstand. One commentator will find Theme A - and be able to support the contention with quotations and summaries of the action. And the next will be able to do the same with Theme B, and so on and on. It's as though the play contains so much that almost anything can be found there. Over the next few days, I'll be posting about some of these theories.

Further to yesterday, where I mentioned that Hamlet changed the game for all literature (all art, in fact) to follow, here's what I meant: The play, on the surface, is a revenge tragedy, which is one of the least complicated formulas a writer could engage - but Shakespeare turned it into a psychological and philosophical investigation of a human life, and after it, art turned inward. It became less concerned with what happens and more concerned with why. If you don't believe me, read any play (not by Shakespeare) that was written before it.