Hamlet's Father Wrap-Up -- Orson Scott Card Speaks Out (but should have kept his mouth shut...)

WARNING:  Lots and lots of links in this post.  May I advise the "open link in new tab" option?

Wrong Links...

Now that Hamlet's Father has been well and thoroughly sporked (and returned to the unlucky library from whence it came), it's time for a final wrap-up regarding this book.  But first, a word from OSC himself.

After some scathing negative reviews of Card's book from various media outlets (Wikipedia's article on the book cites The SF Site, io9, The Guardian, and Rain Taxi in particular -- that last one is quite good), Card decided to go on the defense.  Because a book that turns one of the most famous plays in history into a homophobic morality tale needs defending, sure... *rolls eyes*  So he took to his website, Hatrack River, to set the record straight.  (No pun intended.)

Despite having just provided a link to Card's response, I'm reposting it below with my own commentary.  Simply providing the link to prove I'm not making this up, I suppose...

Normally I don't respond to reviews, especially when the reviewer clearly has an axe to grind.  But the dishonest review of Hamlet's Father that appeared in Publisher's Weekly back in February of 2011 has triggered a firestorm of attacks on me.  I realize now that I should have answered it then and demanded a retraction, because while the opinions of reviewers are their own, they have no right to make false statements about the contents of a book.

Um... I looked up the review in question, and while it's surprisingly short, it's really not inaccurate at all.  And why is it that so many artists, be they writers or filmmakers or video game designers or simple traditional artists, seem to think that any negative or critical review of their work is an attack?  I understand one's often quite close to their own work, but honestly, most people aren't attacking or trolling you, but just trying to point out the flaws in your work.  If you can't learn to take criticism, maybe you shouldn't be sharing your work with the public.  (Here's a couple of great comics on DA about accepting -- and giving -- critique, something more artistic types need to learn at some point.)

The review ends with the sentence: "The writing and pacing have the feel of a draft for a longer and more introspective work that might have fleshed out Hamlet's indecision and brooding; instead, the focus is primarily on linking homosexuality with the life-destroying horrors of pedophilia, a focus most fans of possibly bisexual Shakespeare are unlikely to appreciate."

Since my introduction to the book states that I was not remotely interested in Hamlet's "indecision and brooding" in Shakespeare's version of the story, I wonder how carefully the reviewer read the book.

Your Hamlet did do his share of brooding, actually, albeit mostly in the form of "wah, Daddy never loved me, wah, I don't wanna be king, wah."  And seriously, you're going the "did you even read the book" route?  This is the childish sort of tactic you see fanboys resorting to in response to Amazon reviews; seeing a professional author lowering himself to this tactic is just pitiful.

But the lie is this, that "the focus is primarily on linking homosexuality with... pedophilia."  The focus isn't primarily on this because there is no link whatsoever between homosexuality and pedophilia in this book.  Hamlet's father, in the book, is a pedophile, period.  I don't show him being even slightly attracted to adults of either sex.  It is the reviewer, not me, who has asserted this link, which I would not and did not make.

Except that Hamlet's father WAS a homosexual in this book!  He preferred boys, so therefore he was a homosexual pedophile.  There's no mention whatsoever of him going after Ophelia or any other girl, so he's not straight or bisexual.  Homosexuality and pedophilia are not mutually exclusive, you know...

Because I took a public position in 2008 opposing any attempt by government to redefine marriage, especially by anti-democratic and unconstitutional means, I have been targeted as a "homophobe" by the Inquisition of Political Correctness.  If such a charge were really true, they would have had no trouble finding evidence of it in my life and work.  But because the opposite is true -- I think no ill of and wish no harm to homosexuals, individually or as a group -- they have to manufacture evidence by simply lying about what my fiction contains.

Ah yes, the old "it's a conspiracy against me!" argument.  You realize that the more you claim that it's not your fault, you're just the victim of "dang dirty trolls," the worse you look to both your fans and critics?  I will also point out that a) wanting to deprive homosexuals of their rights is definitely wishing harm upon them, to some degree, and b) I have seen no review yet that has lied about what your work contains.  Perhaps they have read into your work deeper than you would have liked, but so far I've found no fabrications.  

The truth is that back in the 1970s and 1980s, when it was definitely not fashionable to write sympathetic gay characters in fiction aimed at the mainstream audience, I created several sympathetic homosexual characters.  I did not exploit them for titillation; instead I showed them threading their lives through a world that was far from friendly to them.  At the time, I was criticized by some for being "pro-gay," while I also received appreciative comments from homosexual readers.  Yet both responses were beside the point.  I was not writing about homosexuality, I was writing about human beings.

I think the best sort of writers accomplish this, actually -- ones who have a diverse cast yet still focus more on the characters being, well, characters than on what makes them diverse.  Too often in Hollywood or in fiction in general, you can tell a character has been added simply to represent a minority instead of to actually fill a role in a story.  You can often tell these "token" characters from actual characters by asking yourself "Would this character still have an individual personality and/or purpose in the story if they were white/straight/male/non-handicapped/cis-gendered/etc.?"

I haven't read much else by Card, and nothing with a homosexual character, so I can't say whether he's accomplished what he's claimed.  But according to this article on Salon, that isn't the case.  A homosexual character is made to marry a woman "for the good of society" in his Homecoming saga, and by all appearances the less I say about Songmaster besides Unfortunate Implications, the better...

My goal then and today remains the same: To create believable characters and help readers understand them as people.  Ordinarily I would have included gay characters in their normal proportions among the characters in my stories.  However, since I have become a target of vilification by the hate groups of the Left, I am increasingly reluctant to have any gay characters in my fiction, because I know that no matter how I depict them, I will be accused of homophobia.  The result is that my work is distorted by not having gay characters where I would normally have had them -- for which I will also, no doubt, be accused of homophobia.

Stop blaming it on your critics.  Nothing is stopping you from writing homosexuals, Card.  Just write them the same as any other character, except they prefer the same sex rather than the opposite.  Gays are human too, and while there are certainly "camp" homosexuals out there, most of them are pretty much the same as regular humans outside of orientation.

But Hamlet's Father, since it contained no homosexual characters, did not seem to me to fall into that category.  I underestimated the willingness of the haters to manufacture evidence to convict their supposed enemies.

*record skip noise*

What?  Wat?  WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT??!!

Another image I've been using quite a bit in this spork

Card, you specifically stated that several characters in your book -- Horatio, Laertes, Rozencrantz, and Gildenstern, your freaking title character -- now preferred men over women, and while you might not have intended it  you dropped plenty of hints that Hamlet might be gay as well.  HOW DOES THIS NOT MAKE THEM HOMOSEXUAL???  I would dearly love to hear your definition of homosexuality, because it's obviously FAR different from mine.  Does the fact that most of the characters in the book were molested as children magically not make them gay?  

And "haters?"  Seriously?  Are you suddenly Tara Gilesbie of My Immortal fame now?  Not everyone who doesn't like your work or sees glaring flaws and/or disturbing implications in it is a "hater," Mr. Card.

To show you what I actually had in mind in writing Hamlet's Father, here is the introduction I wrote for its publication in book form.  I'm as proud of the story as ever, and I hope readers will experience the story as it was intended to be read.

This introduction was covered in an earlier spork, but it might have made more difference if it had actually been INCLUDED IN THE BOOK.  Just my thoughts...

Final Thoughts

Dear Mr. Card, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you did not mean to make Hamlet's Father as detestable and homophobic as it comes across to readers, critics, and this humble sporker.  I'm going to assume your sheltered upbringing and blissful ignorance is more responsible for taking one of William Shakespeare's best-known works, throwing it in a meat grinder, and assembling a Frankenstein's monster of nasty implications from it, rather than outright malice.  After all, someone once said (no idea who, the phrase has been attributed to multiple people) to never attribute to malice what can be attributed to plain old stupidity.

All that said, I'd like to introduce you to a little concept called Death of the Author.  Sounds morbid, but the concept is simply the theory that "an author's interpretation of his own work is no more valid than any other reader's or critic's."  And while I don't necessarily agree with this philosophy, it still stands here.  Whatever you intended when you wrote Hamlet's Father, it's obvious that a lot of people interpret your work far differently than you do.  And you can post as many responses as you want screaming "IT'S NOT LIKE THAT," but that doesn't change how other people will perceive your work.  

You say you're proud of this story.  Proud enough of it to keep fighting over it?  Proud enough of it to make people forget about Ender's Game and only remember you for your controversial views on homosexuality, and for a sub-par retelling of Shakespeare?  Because even if you went back and excised the homosexual/pedophiliac content from the story, it truly is dreadful.  The characters are as interesting as a flat sheet of paper, the writing is bland and loses much of the magic of Shakespeare's prose, and you ended up eliminating or fatally truncating many of the most iconic scenes from the play in your work.  Even Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead was more faithful to the original play than this book.

Far be it from a lowly sporker and fanfic writer to tell you what to do, Mr. Card, but I would strongly advise you to distance yourself from this book as much as you can.  Don't keep defending it, don't insist that everyone who finds problems with its story and subtext is lying to make you look bad, don't keep throwing a tantrum and insisting "it's not like that, everyone's just hating on me!"  Just call this book an Old Shame, move on with things, and never speak of it again.  

And to my readers -- DO NOT READ THIS BOOK.  Don't expect to get any perverse sense of "so bad it's good" entertainment out of it, don't read it purely for the spectacle of it, don't read it thinking you're going to get an interesting re-interpretation of Hamlet out of it.  It's truly not worth it.  There are many other fascinating re-imaginings and analyses of Hamlet out there, not to mention the original work itself.  Hamlet's Father is vile in its implications, boring to read, an insult to Shakespeare and his fans, and far too thin a volume to justify its $30+ asking price on Amazon.

I hesitate to say this is the absolute worst book I have ever read -- The Legend of Rah and the Muggles currently holds that title, though I'm pretty sure Revealing Eden will steal that spot once I'm finished with it -- but it certainly is one of the most detestable things I've ever picked up.  Thank goodness it's over, at least...

...wait, I have Revealing Eden to finish now.  Guuuuuuuhhhhhhh... 

Hamlet's Father Part V -- Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot?

This is it folks, the home stretch.  We're gonna power through these last thirty pages in this post... wish me luck.

Hey, Rogue One is almost upon us, I'm

entitled to some Star Wars memes...

Hamlet's summoned to appear in court before the king.  Claudius says he hopes to view Hamlet as a son, and wants to send him, along with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to the Orkney Islands to see to matters there.  In the original play this was a plot by Claudius to kill Hamlet (though in the play he sent him to England, not Orkney, and sent orders for Hamlet to be killed the minute he got there), but seeing as Claudius is made of Incorruptible Pure Pureness in this rendition of the play, I have no idea why Card insists on throwing it in.

Although hang on... wasn't there supposed to be a couple things that happened between where we left off and this point?  In the original play Hamlet staged a play of his own -- a play within a play, if you will -- that was modeled after his father's murder, in an effort to implicate Claudius.  Not to mention Hamlet making his first failed attempt on Claudius' life, another scene with Ophelia, Polonius' murder (it still happens, but out of sequence)...  Freaking heck, Card, how can you insist this play doesn't interest you when you cut out all the interesting stuff in your version?  Seriously, the play-within-a-play and Claudius' reaction to it was one of my favorite bits!

Anyhow, Hamlet gripes about how he's not trusted, though given that he's plotting to kill the guy, can you blame him?  Hamlet asks if he can wait until after the king's funeral -- yes, over a month after his death and they still haven't buried the guy.  I'm sure he stinks by now...

"We wait for Polonius's son, Laertes.  You know that your father and he were close." -- p. 71

Ah, I've lost count by this point...

Hamlet grumps that they'll wait for Laertes but not him, the king's own son.  Claudius tells him he can wait to leave until after the funeral, and Hamlet asks to see his father's body.  Ew, dude, are you sure you want to do that?  He's got to be pretty far gone by now...

Apparently they've been keeping the corpse in the ice house up to this point.  I'm sorry, but the most morbid Google search I have ever done states that even with modern technology (cryonics, refrigeration, chemical preservatives, etc.) a body's not going to be in the best of shape after a month and a half.  And given that this story takes place hundreds of years ago, that body is going to be pretty ripe by this point.  Even if they stick it in the "ice house" (a building used by communities or by the ridiculously wealthy to store ice throughout the year), there's going to be some deterioration.  Not to mention that all that ice is going to go to waste.  At least, I sure hope they chuck it after they've stored a dead king in there for weeks...

Anyhow, Claudius forbids him from going to see the body.  Hamlet responds by mouthing off to his mother and insulting her until Claudius finally gives in and lets him have a key to the tomb.  Geez, Claudius, you're kind of a wet blanket in this book...

Page break, and Hamlet's wandering the family tomb.

Sorry, Lara, this tomb's not nearly that exciting...

We get some lovely descriptions of the rotting bodies in the tomb before Hamlet gets around to noticing there's no place set up for his father's body.  Hamlet's positive that they don't want him to see the body because he'll be able to see signs of murder, and Claudius and his mother are plotting to get rid of the body instead of putting it in the tomb.

Horatio's waiting for Hamlet when he leaves the tomb -- hey Hamlet, you ever wonder why this guy keeps hanging around you?  Think he might have something to hide and is trying to make sure you don't find it?

"You're a lunatic, and must be closely watched," said Horatio.

"Better you than Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.  They're not the friends I remember."

"Things changed in the four years you were gone.  When the Companions were dissolved at your parting, they decided not to dissolve themselves.  Living four years together on Guildenstern's estates has made them as fusty and peculiar as an old married couple.  I pity the woman who tries to wed her way into that house." -- p. 74

Even Card ships them...

If you're reading a bit of Ho Yay in the above, you're not mistaken... but I digress...

Hamlet spots the name on the gravestone Horatio's sitting on... and it's Yorick!  But if you thought Card was going to pay tribute to the most famous scene in the play -- the "alas, poor Yorick" bit that has been homaged and parodied to the moon and back -- you're sadly mistaken.

"You've been here this long and didn't notice he was gone?"

"But no one wrote to me," said Hamlet.  "I assumed he was away.  Or living privately, pensioned off.  But dead!"

"Not long after you left," said Horatio.  "Suddenly, in his sleep."

"He wasn't old enough to die."

"How old is that?" asked Horatio.  "I think there are tiny graves enough to prove that death knows how to find us all, however old we might not be."

Hamlet laughed bitterly at that, ashamed of the tears that streamed down his cheeks.  "I know you're right, Horatio.  But Yorick -- it's a terrible thing to say, but his death strikes me harder than my father's." -- p. 75

Okay, first of all, this bit isn't supposed to happen until after Hamlet gets back from his trip to England/Orkney.  Second of all, Card has managed to take one of the most iconic scenes in the play and cut it down to the barest shred of its former self, showing he has no idea how to prioritize what to leave in and what to cut.  Third of all, once again he has to make it all about Hamlet's whiny daddy issues.  Can this kid have at least one thought in his head that doesn't revolve around how much daddy didn't love him?  PLEASE?

Hamlet gripes some more about how he hated the Companions (new hit single coming out this month!) because Daddy seemed to love them more than him, and Horatio complains that it wasn't exactly their choice.  Horatio also begs Hamlet to tell him what the ghost told him, and Hamlet deflects it by saying he has to go talk to his mother.  Yeah, events in the play are all out of order -- I know Card warned us he was shredding the play, but I at least expected him to keep things in sequential order...

Oh, Horatio also makes a crack about having multiple girlfriends, and Hamlet gripes that "women seem to want so much" and make sucky company.  Geez, Card, do you have woman issues or what?

"I think I would have been a better man if I'd had a father," [Hamlet] said.

"And what if I say not?  Did knowing your father make better men of us?"

Way too many at this point...

"It might have," said Hamlet.  "But you had your own fathers, all of you -- I had none."

"You had Yorick.  You had your uncle Claudius."

"Horatio, all I meant was, I'll never know what I would have become, if my father had been a father to me." -- p. 78

Am I the only one who finds this constant harping about Hamlet's father obnoxious?  How is cutting all the moral and philosophical discussion and monologues from the play and replacing them with constant whining about "waaaaaaaaaaah I never had a daddy!" supposed to be more interesting?  Card, I haven't even gotten to your "brilliant" twist ending and I already think your remake of Hamlet sucks.

Page break, Hamlet goes to visit his mom, and spots Claudius kneeling at an altar in the chapel.  Card breezes over this scene pretty quickly -- Hamlet deciding he can't kill Claudius while he's praying and considering killing him in private the coward's way -- and sends Hamlet on his way to his mother's chambers within a few paragraphs.  Way to gloss over one of the more interesting snippets of the play, Card...

Laertes is with Card's mother, and he immediately accuses Hamlet of messing with his sister.  He states he's become a swordsman now and won't tolerate anyone insulting or harassing Ophelia, then marches off.  Um, bye...

Hamlet's mother asks about the whole stink with Ophelia, and Hamlet, and states that she doesn't understand a thing he's done since he's gotten back.  He retorts with a really cold insult (pardon the pun):

"Did you have them put my father's corpse on ice so you'd be sure it was cold before you got into my uncle's bed?" -- p. 80

She tries to slap him for that (who wouldn't?) but he retorts that she can't hit him for telling the truth.  He also says he's obviously the only person in Denmark who loved his father, and she tells him "don't judge what you don't understand."  Why won't people just freaking TELL Hamlet what's going on?  So much of this play falls under what Roger Ebert liked to call "the Idiot Plot," or "any plot that would be resolved in five minutes if everyone in the story were not an idiot."  Seriously, if the characters would just freaking TALK to each other like mature adults, we could have avoided all this...

Hamlet's mom finally confesses that she forbade his father from spending time with him, and that his death came "in good time for Denmark -- and for me."  Hamlet takes this to mean she was in on the murder and throws her to the ground -- hey Hamlet, didn't your Biblical studies teach you to respect your parents? -- and pulls a freaking dagger.  She screams for help, someone else screams behind a tapestry, and...

If you've read the play, you know what happens next -- Hamlet stabs Polonius through the tapestry.  In the play Hamlet rambles on like a madman at this point, but here Hamlet just thinks "Mom had him here to spy on me, she should have known this was coming" and blames her for Polonius' death.  Excuse me, kid, but it was YOUR choice to stab the guy!  How was she supposed to know you'd turn homicidal maniac on her?

Hamlet, instead of going into the nutcase ramblings he does in the play, calmly states that he'll take responsibility for the death and leaves.  Yeesh... no wonder Shakespeare nuts hate this book.

Hamlet goes to the graveyard to mope, and does he feel any guilt for killing Polonius?  Nope.  Instead we get the words of a true sociopath:

I've killed a man.  It was easy.  As natural as breathing.  Now there's nothing stopping me from doing what must be done. -- p. 83

Dang, I've been using this pic a lot this book...

In the words of Linkara from Atop the Fourth Wall -- "Our hero, ladies and gentlemen!"  *headdesks*

Page break, and Horatio comes running, carrying Hamlet's sword.  Laertes is looking for him, apparently, but not to avenge his father.  Apparently Ophelia's been found dead, drowned from walking into the sea.  She actually fell in a brook in the original play, but it's obvious by this point Card cares nothing about preserving the original play's continuity -- we didn't even get Hamlet's trip to England/Orkney (where he ends up sending Ros and Guild to their deaths, incidentally), or Ophelia's descent into madness, or the altercation at her burial...

What we do get is another pic on page 84:

Nothing too inspiring, and odd that they chose to illustrate a scene we don't even see in the play.  Maybe the illustrator didn't read the book first...

Hamlet doesn't even show grief at Ophelia's death, which is weird because I could have sworn he grieved for her in the play.  He's more concerned about the fact that Laertes wants to kill him -- which I admit is kind of worrying in itself.  Also, apparently Laertes wanted to kill Hamlet's father, but seeing as the king's dead already he'll settle for offing Hamlet.

Hamlet straps on his sword and heads for the castle, while Horatio screams for him to stop.  And here comes the BEST part of the book.  And I mean that with all the sarcasm in the world...

*evil laughter*

Laertes is in the throne room, where Claudius is trying to stop the duel.  Hamlet throws himself into the fight anyhow, and the two draw their swords and start whacking at each other.  Cue the last picture of the book on page 86 -- again, nothing terrible, but nothing memorable either.

In the play, this is where it's revealed that Laertes and Claudius plotted to kill Hamlet, Laertes for revenge for his father and sister and Claudius to keep the kid from blowing his cover as the king's killer and to get Hamlet out of the way once and for all.  But no, this setup is too BORING for Card!  He's not interested in murder and intrigue, he has something BETTER set up!  Shakespeare's a hack, what kind of street cred does he have, we have an even better ending for one of the most famous tragedies of the theater world!

The two duke it out, and Laertes accuses Hamlet of taking away everything he cares about.  Hamlet retorts that he grieves for Polonius and "I cared for [Ophelia] as much as I could for any woman."  *raises eyebrows*  Seriously, Card?

"Kill me or die," said Laertes.

"The only way I'll die is if you poisoned your blade and some of it spills on me," said Hamlet. -- p. 87

Card's idea of a clever nod to the original, which just makes me pine for the original material...

And then the bloodshed starts.

"I only have one enemy in this room," said Hamlet, "and it isn't you.  It's the man who killed my father, married his widow, and stole the crown." -- p. 87

And as the crowd goes nuts at this revelation, Hamlet disarms Laertes, runs forward to stab Claudius in the heart, and turns around and kills Laertes.  Wow... so much for the poisoned blades and goblets of the play...

And finally... we get to the moment of truth.  The revelation to end all revelations.  The real killer of Hamlet's father, and why he did the deed.  I'm including snippets of the book's text here, but instead of commentary -- because really, what is there to say to most of this? -- you get reaction pictures.  If a picture was ever worth a thousand words, this is really the case...

"O God!" cried Horatio.  "O God, how could you punish them all for my sin!"

"Your sin?" said Hamlet.

"I killed your father!" -- p. 88

A much better "Hamlet" adaptation than this...

"But I never -- why would you kill him?"

"Because he was evil.  Because of what he did to us.  All of us.  The Companions.  All the boys but you!"

Behind him, Hamlet heard his mother wail.

"What did he do?" asked Hamlet.

"He had us," said Horatio.  "All of us, one by one, over and over again.  Told us how much we owed him.  Our duty to the king.  How to thank him."

"Thank him?"

"With our bodies!" -- p. 88

"But you never told me."

"He swore he'd kill us if we did."

"All of you?"

"It twisted us.  I saw it in the others.  Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, the could never look at women.  Laertes -- he told me, even before he left for France, that his stick was broken and would never grow again.  And me -- I thought I was all right.  I thought..." -- p. 88-89

Mother's voice came from behind him.  "When I found what he was doing to the Companions, I almost killed him myself.  I caught him fondling you when you were practically a baby, Hamlet.  I held a knife at his throat and vowed that I'd have his blood if he ever touched you or was alone with you again.  I'd tell the barons and they'd kill him themselves.  He took a solemn oath never to touch you and he kept it.  I didn't know what he did with the Companions until -- until Laertes came to me and told.  Then I made him dissolve the Companions and let them all go free.  But it was too late."

"Too late," echoed Horatio.  "A few months ago, a new page came to the castle.  I taught him.  He followed me everywhere like a dog.  I delighted in his company.  And then one day I found myself... I had him naked.  I was telling him how a boy shows love to his friend and teacher... the words your father used, the very words." -- p. 89

"I was the worst of all of them!  I was like him!  I stopped myself.  I told the boy to dress and never come near me again.  That I was evil.  A monster.  And then I went out into the garden to kill your father.  There he was, asleep.  As if the devil had a right to rest in such a place!  I took my dagger and poised it over him.  Then with my other hand I clamped his mouth closed, holding his head in place, and then I pushed the dagger down into his ear and through his brain." -- p. 89

Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah... this is what Card has been building up to all this time.  Claudius didn't kill his father to win the throne -- his father was a child molester and Horatio killed him as payback.  Claudius was innocent all this time and Hamlet just offed two more innocent men.

.....................

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

There are SO many problems with this I don't even know where to begin.  I'll cover some of them below, but I doubt I'm going to be able to get to them all.  Just... brace yourselves.  This is going to be painful.

First of all, using rape, especially child rape, as a means to get cheap drama is... well, cheap.  Authors seem to think that the "best" way to make a character sympathetic is to include rape in their backstory, and the best way to make a villain EXTRA EVIL is to make them a rapist, and bonus points if they're a pedophile in the bargain.  And every time I come across it in a book, it makes me want to hurl it at a wall.  It drove me nuts when Karen Russell used it as a means of injecting pointless drama into her book Swamplandia!, and it drives me bonkers here too.

Second of all, this twist REEKS of "homosexuality equals pedophilia."  This is a squicky trope that crops up a LOT in Christian works, especially the works of the late Jack Chick, and it's one that's widely discredited by most psychologists today.  If one were to assume all homosexual men like little boys, then wouldn't that also mean all heterosexual men also like little girls?  Homosexuals are no more likely to abuse children than any other adult, and assuming so is both disgusting and dangerous.

Third of all, the fact that Horatio almost turns child molester here says a lot more about his character in general than about the king.  Because despite what you might have seen on Law And Order: SVU, there's no conclusive studies that have proved that victims of child sexual abuse will grow up to be abusers themselves.  It's a risk factor, but by no means a guarantee that a molester's victim will grow up with those same urges.  (And in case you're wondering, yes, my Google search history hates me and I'll be deleting my browsing history after posting this...)

Fourth of all -- WHY HAS NO ONE TOLD HAMLET ABOUT THIS BEFORE NOW?  I can understand not telling him as a child, because the knowledge that his father's a pedophile is heavy stuff to be telling a kid, but why not sit him down and tell him the whole story the minute he got home?  Everyone had the opportunity to tell him the truth at some point -- Horatio, Laertes, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Claudius, Hamlet's mom -- and nobody said a thing!  We could have avoided all this if someone had just freaking said something!

Damn right I'm mad right now... there's adapting a play for modern audiences, and then there's just plain sullying Shakespeare's work.  The Bard must be turning somersaults in his grave right now, knowing someone decided to take his work and do THIS with it.  It's like Jack Chick rose from his own grave to swipe a Cliff Notes of Hamlet and pen yet another homophobic pamphlet with a warped version of this story as his basis.

Guh... okay, I'm wrapping this up, I'm about sick to death of this freaking book...

Hamlet confesses that his father's ghost told him to kill Claudius, and Horatio insists that the king wanted Claudius dead because he couldn't stand someone being a better king than him.  The queen laments that she should have killed him herself when she had a chance, tells Hamlet she loves, him, and poisons herself with a phial she just happens to be carrying on the waistband of her dress.  Convenient, that...

Horatio begs Hamlet to kill him and avenge his father's death, but Hamlet says he has no desire to avenge him now and forbids him to die.  He tells Horatio to hail Fortinbras as the king of Denmark, and to live his life... and he stabs himself in the heart.  He does hear Horatio tell him "I love you, Hamlet!" just as he dies, which is a scream considering Card was doing his darndest to make this book homophobic to the last.

And just in case the audience didn't think the king was a complete monster already, Card gives us this ending:

Then Hamlet's body slumped onto the floor.

But his spirit did not go where his body went.  His spirit arose and looked around the hall.  To where Laertes' spirit held his father's and his sister's hands; then they arose into heaven.  To where his mother and Claudius, bright spirits both, embraced each other, and also rose into the air, toward the bright light awaiting them.  

And finally to the dark shadowy corner where his father's spirit stood, laughing, laughing, laughing.  "Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son.  At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be." -- p. 92

WELP... after THAT lovely ending, what is there to say?  Except that apparently Orson Scott Card's definition of a tragedy seems to be, not a mess of moral ambiguities and the weaknesses of mankind, but a simple (disgusting) case of The Bad Guy Wins, with a massive side order of squick and trying to justify his homophobia in the bargain.  Ugh...

Next post will be a wrap-up post -- Card's reaction to the criticism of this book, my reaction to HIS reaction, and my final thoughts on this travesty of a book.

Hamlet's Father IV -- In Which Hamlet Desperately Needs a Straitjacket

Apologies for not posting sooner -- I've been fighting a nasty cold and, between coughing up a lung and my throat feeling like I tried to swallow a hedgehog whole, I haven't been able to get a post up in the past week.  But I'm pushing through to get you guys a few more posts before I have to return this book.  Because I love you guys.

Throat-hedgehogs be danged, we're forging

on ahead...

Hamlet and Horatio go to look at the crime scene... erm, the garden where Hamlet's father died.  It's a secluded spot, and there's a stone bench where the king was laying when he died.  And Hamlet notes that it's impossible to see into the garden from the battlements.  There's some back and forth between Hamlet and Horatio that doesn't amount to much -- there are a LOT of conversations in this book that feel pointless and don't go anywhere -- but the gist of it is that Hamlet's still questioning whether he was actually murdered and Horatio is all gung-ho about finding the killer.

"Do you doubt his word?"

"I haven't told you what his words were," said Hamlet.  "Nor shall I.  So I can hardly tell you my doubts, or if I have any."

"Then you have no need of me here," said Horatio.

"More need than you know," said Hamlet.  "Because you knew him."

"Who?"

"My father.  Who else?"

"I feared that you thought I knew his murderer."

This is, what, the third time I've used this meme?

Card kind of sucks at subtlety...

"If you did, you would have told it," said Hamlet.  (*coughcoughcough*)  "You knew my father, as I could not."

"If anyone knew him," said Horatio.

"Everyone knew him better than I did," said Hamlet.  -- p. 55

Waaaaaaaaah...

Horatio also reveals that the king probably fell asleep in the garden because he was tired from working.  Hamlet acts shocked, and Horatio tells him that he took care of this garden himself.  And of course, Hamlet has to whine that the king loved plants more than his own son.  For Pete's sake, kid, stop bellyaching.  This whining about how Daddy never loved you is getting old.

Hamlet whines some more, asking why no one ever told him about the king liking to work in the garden, and Horatio protests that it could have been because any mention of his father seemed to cause him pain.  Hamlet whines even more and goes "I wish I was back in Heidelberg."  Good, go back there, spare us the rest of this travesty of a book...

More discussion about the ghost and why it would appear to Hamlet now when he and his father were so distant in life... and Hamlet brings up the story of King Saul and the witch of Endor from the Old Testament (1 Samuel 28, for anyone with a Bible handy who wants to look it up), which interestingly is a point of contention among religious scholars.  Namely, whether the ghost of the prophet that the witch called up was an impostor sent by the devil or the real deal who showed up despite the witch's spellcasting.  An interesting bit, but it's quickly dropped.

No, not THAT Endor...

More conversation, and Hamlet says something about how certain acts are always right or always wrong, regardless of context.  Horatio disagrees, and brings up another Bible story to prove his point -- the slaughter of the innocents by King Herod in the New Testament. 

"What if one of Herod's men, hearing the command to slay all the innocent babes of Bethlehem, had decided instead that he would strike down the giver of that command rather than obey it?  It's always wrong to kill innocent babies, isn't it?  Even if your king commands?  And it's always wrong to kill the king, isn't it?  Even if he means to do something evil?" -- p. 59

*COUGHCOUGHCOUGHCOUGH*  Hey Hamlet, Horatio's trying to tell you something here... Seriously, Card, you don't need a ton of foreshadowing here.  It's like Brylcreem, a little dab'll do ya.  Here it feels like you're trying to drive the point home with a sledgehammer.

Hamlet's answer to Horatio's story is to suggest the theoretical soldier Take a Third Option and run away, which is real noble of our hero.  Horatio insists that if you run away when you could have prevented the killing of hundreds, you're as guilty as the killer.  Then MORE foreshadowing, oh goody...

"But if you kill Herod, you'll die.  They'll torture you to death as a traitor."

"There are worse things than death, my prince." -- p. 60

I'm sorry, but is it just me here?  Am I the only one who thinks that Card, in his efforts to be all clever, is being very blatant about what his twist ending is here?  Or am I only seeing these bits because I went into this book knowing the twist already?  To me, it feels less like Card subtly hinting at future events and more like he's firmly winking and nudging and pointing to his twist ending in an effort to get everyone to recognize the BRILLIANCE of his new ending to Shakespeare's most famous play.  In other words, I think Card sucks at foreshadowing.

Subtlety isn't your strong suit, is it, Card?

Hamlet gripes again about how he'll never be offered the throne now with Claudius in charge, despite insisting that he doesn't want it.  I think you want it more than you think, Hamlet -- why else would you keep bringing it up but pretending you don't care?  I call sour grapes here.

Horatio tells Hamlet to not be afraid of whatever he has to do to keep his vow to his father.  Way to go, Horatio, you broke things worse...  And Hamlet walks off, thinking about how you have to do wrong to amend a greater wrong, and we get a page break.

After the break Hamlet's wandering around the castle, and he realizes people are staring at him.  He figures that if Claudius could kill his own brother, what's to stop him from killing his nephew, and decides he needs to find a way to stay alive until he can get Claudius alone.  And to do that, he has to masquerade... as what?

Oh hey, Ophelia finally shows up!  But if you're at all a fan of the play or the character, you're going to be enraged by her role in this book...

Hamlet runs into Ophelia, who's laughing with one of her maids.  Hamlet acknowledges that Ophelia's had eyes on him for years, though he figures it's just because he's the prince.

Not any more, thought Hamlet.  No crown prince now, and so no dynastic alliance and no yearnings.

But he could make use of her all the same. -- p. 63

Yeah, you read that right -- make use.  Hamlet has no tender feelings for Ophelia and only sees her as a tool.  He half-undresses and waltzes into her room shirtless, stares at her like a creeper, almost kisses her, and then runs off.

...wat.

And spoiler alert for the rest of the book -- this is the only scene where Ophelia appears, and the only one where she has any lines (which consist of "Your Highness, what brings you to my room?" and "Will Your Highness take refreshment?" and "How can I serve you, my lord?").  I understand that Ophelia wasn't exactly the strongest female character in literature, but still, to see her reduced to a single scene and a handful of lines that pretty much make her nothing more than a living prop to the male lead is painful.  Please tell me I'm not the only person upset about this...

Also, Hamlet states that he has no interest in "any of her tribe."  So... Hamlet doesn't like women?  Is Card hinting that his protagonist is gay?  That's rather rich, considering how this book treats gays, but we'll get to that...

So Hamlet's genius plan is to pretend to be insane to throw off suspicion, and so spends his days groaning and yelling at people and shunning company.  Okay, I can stand behind this to a degree.  Whether or not Hamlet is truly going mad is a big theme of the play, one that I spent an entire class period debating on in my AP English class and scholars continue to discuss to this day.  And while by no means is it the definitive interpretation of the play, some scholars do think he was feigning insanity in order to throw off suspicion and get closer to Claudius so he could kill him.

Hamlet runs into Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, has a loopy discussion with them about hunting, fishing, and taking a journey to Hell together, and leaves them to gape after him.  Hey you two, get out of this book.  At least Tom Stoppard treats you two respectfully, even if you do die in the end...

Hamlet then crashes the throne room while Claudius is hearing a petition and makes a scene.  Polonius leads him out, Hamlet blathers on some about nothing, and then we get another lovely bit regarding Ophelia.

"You have a daughter, sir?"

"I have."  Polonius's eyes lit up at that.  It made Hamlet sad that even a madman would be regarded as an interesting match for his daughter, even if he could only sire mad children on her.

"Be sure to keep her out of the sun," said Hamlet.  "Bright sunlight can breed maggots in a dead dog; who knows what it can do to daughters, sir." -- p. 67

Ugh... Hamlet, you're a jerk.  Why do so many authors feel the need to write their protagonists as arrogant and selfish A-holes anyhow?

Hamlet does have one moment in all his clowning around and messing with people's heads where he regrets toying with Ophelia, and thinks how he might have been able to marry her and have kids.  But of course now that's lost to him and he blames his father, thinking that it's the king's fault that now everyone sees him as a raving lunatic and Ophelia won't go near him.  This is really egocentric behavior, to blame other people for your own screw-ups.  The king just asked you to avenge him, not to parade around the castle and act like you need a straitjacket.  That was your decision, bucko.

Page break, and we're stopping here.  Less than thirty pages to go... one more post.  This is going to be GOOD, people, and by GOOD I mean "hold onto your knickers, this is where Card goes bat-slag insane..."

Card when he came up with his idea for "improving"

Hamlet, no doubt...

Hamlet's Father III -- Hamlet Needs To Call the Ghostbusters

Okay, let's get this over with, this book has to be back at the library December 15...

Hamlet gets back to court to find all the Companions (when's your next album coming out, guys) gone except Horatio, who greets him on his return.  Horatio apparently looks "older than his nineteen years" yet "in some ways [he] was still a boy," which seems an interesting contradiction in terms.  Also Denmark is bracing for war against Fortinbras of Norway, which is at least true to the play and is explained to be the reason why Claudius was given the throne so quickly.

There's some political discussion, as well as some griping about how TERRIBLE Hamlet's father was and how he's one of the major reasons why Norway's declaring war in the first place.  Card, seriously, did you really need a villain for your story so much that you had to pull a Ron the Death Eater on the old king?  (For those who don't want to click the link, "Ron the Death Eater" is TV-Tropes lingo for when a fanfic writer twists an otherwise good or at least decent character into a villain, often to make their Mary Sue or their favorite canon character look better in comparison.)  I understand that a lot of the original play is left open to interpretation, but blaming every single bad thing in the play on one character is a lot to stomach.

And just to rub it in that Hamlet might as well be named Gary Stu, we get this exchange:

"You and I know that you're as skilled at the arts of war as any man, but Fortinbras had no idea."

"A war is not a duel," said Hamlet.  "The barons were right to give the throne to my uncle, at a time like this."

"I'll not quarrel with their choice of a king," said Horatio.  "Not even with their haste in choosing.  But you would have been a fine king, up to the challenge, and you may be yet." -- p. 35

Ugh... Card, honestly, do you not realize that painting Hamlet to be a perfect, saintly character who everyone loves and who everyone wants to be king even though HE doesn't want to be king because Ambition Is Evil is just as bad as vilifying a decent or just plain ambiguous character?  You may not have liked the original interpretation of Hamlet and thought a "dithering hero" was boring, but in my mind a perfect, angelic, universally beloved character is just as boring.  For Primus' sake, give him some flaws!

Oh, and apparently Hamlet is worried that Claudius wants to off him because "the throne changes a man."  Yeesh, at least talk to the guy before you make assumptions.

Hamlet apparently wants to leave Denmark and go to Rome to become a priest because Card wants to REALLY hammer home that his Hamlet is PERFECT and SAINTLY and GOOD!  And of course he shoots down Horatio's suggestion that someday he could be the Pope because "there's no place for ambition in the Church" and "I have no ambition."  We are swiftly reaching parody levels of Sue here, except this is being played completely straight.

If you're going Full Sue, at least do it with tongue in cheek...

Image from "Ensign Sue Must Die" (excellent webcomic, by the way...)

There's a pointless conversation about fighting a duel using books, which I guess is Card trying to inject humor into this story.  I have to admit I chuckled a bit at this bit (though military folks might not find it all that funny):

"So books draw blood?"

"Scholars don't have blood flowing in their veins," said Hamlet.  "When they're wounded, they bleed logic, and when all of it is gone, their brains die, and they become... soldiers." -- p. 37

Finally the conversation drifts around to Laertes... and Ophelia.  Oh hey, Card remembered she exists.

"Ophelia is still unmarried.  Waiting for you, they say."

"Waiting for me to what?"  (Okay, old joke but I snorted...)

"To pay attention to her.  To court her.  Hamlet, don't tell me you didn't know how Polonius always hoped she'd marry you when you came of age."

"That was back when I had a crown in my future," said Hamlet.

"That might change the Father's mind, but the daughter looks with different eyes."

Hamlet shook his head.  "Having a wife is often taken by the Church as a discouragement to ordination."

"Do you really mean to live a life of celibacy?"

"I have all the ordinary lusts of the flesh," said Hamlet.  "but to me, a woman is much like a pudding; when you're hungry, of all things the most beautiful; but when you've had your fill, the dregs are disgusting to look at, and you can't wait for someone to take the dish away." -- p. 37-38

Mmmmkay, so remember in the "Hamlet's Father Part I" post when I said to remember how Hamlet outright commented on how pretty Laertes was?  Well, both that tidbit and Hamlet's complete disinterest in women in general -- and Ophelia in particular -- have been brought up by more than one critic of this book as an indication that Hamlet himself might be homosexual.  And for a book that claims homosexuality comes from molestation, coming from a blatantly homophobic author like Card, to have THIS sort of subtext would be hilarious if it wasn't also kind of sad.  

Horatio insists Hamlet will come around and fall for Ophelia, Hamlet counters with a childish "then why don't YOU marry her?" remark, Horatio insists he's too poor to marry, and there's a discussion about how Laertes was Hamlet's favorite among the Companions (performing live in New York!)... and the angriest?

"Laertes was the angriest," said Horatio.  "I suppose that's all."

"Angriest?" said Hamlet.  "What do you mean?  At me?"

#9... this could be a drinking game...

Horatio blushed.  "I meant nothing.  He was choleric, that's all.  Quick to anger."

But Hamlet knew it was not what Horatio meant.  There was some grievance, and Horatio meant not to speak of it. -- p. 39

Oooh, is Hamlet finally going to address the issue?  Are we going to get some hint as to what's been going on in the Kingdom all these years?

Well, Hamlet wouldn't force the issue.  Those days with his Companions were done with now. -- p. 39

Freaking.  H.  E.  Double-hockey-sticks, Hamlet.  Do you care about NO ONE but yourself, you little sociopath?  You're going to just give up on your friends because you're (allegedly) an adult now?  Good Primus, I want to tie both you and Eden to chairs and take turns slapping a clue into both of you until your IQs go up a few points or I knock you both out cold, whichever comes first.

And no, I'm not counting this selfishness as a character flaw, because I believe it was unintentional on Card's part.  If Card ever reads this and believes otherwise (fat chance of that, I know...), he's free to correct me...

Hamlet and Horatio do a little swordfighting, then wrestling, then they go to dinner with Claudius, who remarks that Hamlet's grief must have eased enough to let him laugh with his friends.  And of course Hamlet leaps on that as proof that Claudius is just waiting for him to slip up and the royal court is just too tricky for him to deal with.  Wah, wah, cue the sad trombone...

Sad Trombone sound

Page break, and we skip to two nights later when Horatio's waking Hamlet up to tell him that he just saw Hamlet's father's ghost.  Hamlet insists that spirits don't walk the Earth, that they either go to heaven or hell, but Horatio insists he and two guards saw it and suggests Hamlet go see for himself.  He also suggests that Hamlet might know what to say to make it go away.

Then we get this telling bit that's even MORE interesting if you go into this book knowing the surprise twist ending:

"A spirit is airy, it's nothing, not even a fog.  I could see through it, the walls behind it.  When it passed between me and Marcellus, I could see Marcellus plainly.  What is there to fear from something insubstantial?"

"And yet you're afraid," said Hamlet.

Horatio was silent until they came to the stair leading up to the battlement.  "I'm afraid," said Horatio, "because of what the thing might say."

"Its body isn't real," said Hamlet, "but its words might be?"

"Words can be as sharp as swords, and stab as deep.  I fear that what this ghost might have to say will leave this castle draped with corpses." 

"Or perhaps he'll have words to save us," said Hamlet.  "Perhaps he knows something of the plans of Fortinbras."

"Why should Hell care what befalls kingdoms here above?"

"Hell?" asked Hamlet.

"Or heaven," added Horatio.

"You're sure my father must be in hell?"

Again Horatio kept his silence.  -- p. 42-43

#10...

I'm curious as to why Hamlet doesn't press this issue.  Is he really that uninterested in what Horatio knows about his father?  Given that Hamlet didn't like the guy, you'd think he'd leap on an opportunity to commiserate with someone else about him.  Even if the guy is dead, that doesn't necessarily stop people from talking about him...

Hamlet makes fun of both Horatio and the guards and cracks a joke... but nobody laughs.  Hamlet gets a "he's standing right behind me, isn't he?" moment and turns to see the ghost. surprise, surprise.  Oh, and we get another illustration on page 45.  Nicely dramatic one, and probably the best of the four included in the book.

Hamlet asks him if he has a warning for the kingdom, and offers to bring Claudius to speak to him since he's the king now, but the ghost tells him no.  Hamlet then tells the others to leave him alone because the ghost will talk to him and only him.  How he knows this I have no idea, because the ghost hasn't said anything about this and while I don't know much about Catholicism, I highly doubt they have any set rules about how to deal with ghosts.  

Horatio doesn't want to leave Hamlet, which given what I know about this book's ending is understandable... but finally he manages to chase both him and the guards away, and finally the ghost talks.

The lips did not move, and yet it spoke.  "Avenge me," he said.

More than the sight of the ghost itself, more than the way its words shook his body, the idea that his father had been murdered struck him hard and deep.  For he knew at once that there was only one man who might have done it -- the man who wore the crown in Father's place. -- p. 46

Okay, this is a huge leap here.  Claudius was always friendly to Hamlet, and Hamlet even used to wish Claudius was his father instead of the king.  Why is he suddenly leaping to this conclusion?  Didn't this book just set up that Hamlet had no grudge against Claudius?  Heck, a few sentences later he even states that he loves his uncle more than his own father!  And he never got along with his father -- why is he taking his word seriously anyhow?

To the book's credit, at first the king never states that it's Claudius who killed him.  Though notably, he does nothing to correct Hamlet on that count, which is just as bad.  

"Murder and usurpation, treason and adultery," said the ghost.  "I live now in Hell.  Will you have all Denmark join me there?  Avenge me, and purify the kingdom."

"Who killed you, Father?"

"You know already," said the ghost.  It backed away.

"How was it done?" asked Hamlet.

"Do you doubt me?"

"Will I kill my uncle on the word of one witness?" asked Hamlet?

"No one but the murderer saw the crime!"

"How will it benefit Denmark for me to kill my uncle now, with Fortinbras preparing his long ships against us?"

"I speak of blood and horror in your own family, and you answer me with fleets and armies." -- p 46-47

Hamlet declares that he owes his father nothing, and if this book was in any way logical it would end right here.  But we get more back and forth, and suddenly Hamlet's father wins him over in the most ridiculous way possible:

"My beautiful son," said the ghost.  (*shudders*)

"Too late," said Hamlet.

"My sweet, pure-hearted, golden-haired, lovely, strong, and clever son.  How often I stood at the window and watched you practice with the sword, the grace of God upon you, the sun shining in your hair.  You were the only joy in my life." -- p. 47

I understand that Hamlet is very much a "Well Done Son" Guy, and has wanted his father's love since he was a kid... but boy, is this uncomfortable to read.  Seriously, my skin is crawling.  Yes, I know Card meant for the audience to read this suspecting nothing, but given that this book's "shocking twist" is pretty well-known by now, it inspires nothing but squicky feelings right now.

The king insists he kept his distance from Hamlet so he wouldn't be spoiled and coddled, and could grow up to be the king Denmark needs.  Hamlet asks again how they can win against Fortinbras, and the ghost replies that there's no hope of victory with an adulterer on the throne.  So he very cleverly does not explicitly state who killed him (despite alluding to it pretty directly in the original play) but still states that Claudius needs to die.  Geez, hate your brother much, dude?

Oh wait, on page 48 he finally claims that his own brother killed him, though it's buried amidst a bunch of griping that his wife cheated on him and will kill him again by desecrating his memory.  So he's outright lying to Hamlet at this point.  Hamlet, why are you trusting this guy?

He tells Hamlet how he died (poison in the ear, which will be directly contradicted by events later in the book, but just wait and see...) and again insists that it's Hamlet's duty to avenge him and retake the throne.  Hamlet argues that he can't, because once again he's just too pure and saintly to do anything despicable, but when the king finally threatens to go to one of the Companions (buy our next album!) and ask them to do it instead, Hamlet finally relents and swears to avenge his death.

And here, we get what's pretty much the only conflict and "dithering" in the book -- Hamlet trying to decide whether or not to go through with his vow.  He wonders if Claudius really killed his father (and seems more upset about the fact that his mother might have cheated on the king with Claudius, which is some whacked-out priorities...), he fawns over the fact that his father actually complimented him for once (better late than never, I suppose...), he reasons that only the spirits of the wicked walk the Earth because the righteous have no need to descent from heaven (Card, you and I share a religion and I know for a fact our religion doesn't teach that)...

All interesting stuff that could take up a book of its own... and here it's glossed over in two pages.  All the introspection and moral complexities of Hamlet are pretty much boiled down to six or seven paragraphs.  What.  The.  Frag.  Card.

Hamlet sends the guards back up to the battlements and tells them to alert him if they ever see the ghost again.  Horatio demands to know what the ghost said, and Hamlet insists it's for his ears alone.

"I'll never ask again, my prince," said Horatio.

"Even if I choose not to tell," said Hamlet, "I'll never be offended by the asking."

"Then I'll ask this: Was he murdered?  Did he ask you to avenge him?" -- p. 52

Um... hey Hamlet, I think you might be paranoid about the wrong person trying to off you... just saying...  Not that I think Horatio would off Hamlet, but he does seem entirely too interested in wanting to know just what the king said to him...

Horatio points out one of the barons or some spy of Fortinbras' could have killed the king, but he also points out that Claudius and Hamlet's mother stood to gain the most from his death.  Oh great, everyone in this freaking book has got a death wish for poor Claudius.  Poor guy was just too good for this sinful Earth, I suppose...

Hamlet also threatens to kill anyone who accuses his mother of being unfaithful to his father, which is a real nice way to paint your oh-so-perfect protagonist, Card.  The two of them decide to go do some detective work and check out the garden where the king died, and we get a page break.

Stopping there for now... expect another post sometime this week.  We WILL get through this together!