The Shakespearean play, Hamlet, represents a bad collection through the lens of  psychoanalytic perspective. Among annotating performances, scenes and passages, and scholarly sources, Hamlet embodies themes of death, dependency, deceit.  Such psychological aspects of Hamlet drive the play to end in a series of unfortunate events, as well as relate to obstacles in the production of the play itself.

 

Hamlet’s "to be or not to be" soliloquy represents a bad collection because it signifies his obsession with death and how his thoughts solely center on what comes after life. Though it is worth mulling over these questions periodically, as they deal with existence, Hamlet’s thoughts are plagued by death, revenge, and the misery of life.  Rather than to push him to be proactive in what he wishes to do, be it positive or negative, his bad collection of thought only leads him to indecisiveness and later in the play, irrational action. I would gloss the phrase “whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer” because it illustrates how his bad collection burdens him, yet he can’t distance himself from it.

​

Author of “The Hoarders,” Scott Herring, credits potential danger to society or societal beliefs as one of the ways to reveal a bad collection.  The infamous conclusion of Hamlet and its effect on Denmark exposes the play to be ridden with bad collections, one of them being the incorporation of dependency.  Many characters’ actions as well as thoughts are provoked by a figure other than themselves creating a tangled plot ending in death.  Not only does the lack of independence lead to the literal collapse of Denmark's social hierarchy, but in turn the crown’s inability to remain within the blood of its generations continues the cycle of bad fortune.  

Hamlet’s lack of self-determination promotes the commencement of the plot.   Through his willingness to accept his father’s influence, Hamlet begins his plan of vengeance.  Hamlet then chooses to depend only on vicious thoughts in order to achieve a goal set by someone other than himself.  Lesser recognized characters such as Ophelia and Gertrude, also use their deaths to advocate against the societal belief, more relevant to the time period, that a woman depends on a man.  Similarly, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's demise stems from their actions being puppets for the hierarchical system.

While Hamlet shows that the interference of others is capable of corrupting one’s mind as well as actions, the idea of dependency outside of Hamlet is also a threat to society. An insufficiency of independent thoughts and actions correlates to a deficit of innovation as well as progression. An example of this can be seen in the tragedy of commons.  Within this theory, members of the community don’t contribute to their societal duties with the expectations that their contributions among others is not necessary. This theory shows that inaction occurs when people rely fully on others rather than acting independently. Due to the flaws surrounding dependency, its incorporation in Hamlet foreshadows the play’s tribulation.  However, the causation of tragedy within Hamlet did not have one driving force. Another psychological aspect of Hamlet that aided in its label as a bad collection is the theme of deceit.

​

We consider deceit to be a collection because it was a characteristic that was present in multiple characters throughout the play, specifically Hamlet, Claudius, and Polonius. This collection of characteristics should be labeled bad because deceit proved to be destructive to all Characters involved, and from societies viewpoint, anything that is destructive could be labeled as “bad”. To start, characters manipulated a phenomenon known as notatio. Notatio is "the description of a person’s inward nature or state by means of outward signs that somehow unequivocally denote it" (Skulsky 477). In other words, notatio is about someone’s outward actions showing their true intentions. In Hamlet, the characters practiced deceit and acting. They attempted to perform outward actions that were against their true intentions. At the same time, the characters thought their acting was an exclusive trait and tended to take others’ actions at face value. This was where the deception became a problem. It was foolish for characters to act and not think other people were acting too. Hamlet attempted to deceive everyone by “going mad” while masking his true intention of exacting revenge on Claudius. Claudius tried to deceive an entire nation of his unjust overtaking of the throne, killing King Hamlet, and he tried to secretly pull off murdering Hamlet. Polonius used his daughter as a political pawn in his game of power, secretly kept tabs on his son, and always eavesdropped on conversations. All of these characters tried to fool others, and in the end every one of them died. Deceit is the common factor in all of the destructive characters of this play, and while it may not be the sole cause for the tragic end, it was a definitely a bad factor which played a role in the tragic ending. Overall, the common characteristic of deceit among a collection of characters in Hamlet should be labeled a “bad collection” because it was destructive and led to death.