One interpretation of “Hamlet” is the play is about suicide. The play heart is an concentrated psychodrama that is about a prince gone mad from external pressures. He longs for the ultimate release of killing himself for several different motives depending on the situation. When Hamlet has the opportunity to kill himself he is seen as a coward, lacking the internal drive to go through with his deed: "O, that this too, too sullied flesh would melt,/Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew,/Or that the Everlasting had not fixed/His canon 'gainst self-slaughter!" Hamlet’s reason for suicide is due to the death of his father which is clear in his first soliloquy. Later on in the play he gives evidence that there are other reasons for his decided suicide. In his third soliloquy he states: "For who would bear... the pangs of despised love... when he himself might his quietus make/with a bare bodkin?" The word "despised" is put as "unrequited" - and thus we are led to believe that Ophelia is the reason behind his suicidal thoughts, not the late King. The mourning of his father is a pseudo veil because he feels as though he cannot sink so low as to kill himself due to a woman.
Textual integrity is the notion that the text can stand alone as a piece of work, regardless of the texts paradigms, it's social and theoretical practice and it's ability to be understood without reference. It exists and is understood and although other texts may add meaning to it, they themselves do not make the text. As to whether it means it's ability to be received in a variety of contexts - if you can say it's great because it's a 'whole thing' that would work but it seems pretty vacuous. I think you can look at how another reading of Hamlet fails to maintain the textual integrity of the original - i.e. if a feminist reading transforms it into something quite different say - but otherwise I don't think its that helpful as a concept. There is no such thing as literature, or even 'Shakespeare.' All these have been constructed by particular groups at particular times to serve particular interests.
There is no such thing as a straightforward, objective or disinterested reading.
Shakespeare is NOT timeless. Shakespeare does not transcend time, or place, or human understanding. He is to be understood in the context of the social, political and ideological and material practices and social relationships of the ideological production, and the reception of his work. For most of the new perspectives, therefore, the study of Shakespeare is a political enterprise. It was stressed by my teacher that when Shakespeare was studied, say in 1895, the assumption of traditional studies could be summarized in a short list - and it was done the same by everyone. (Not allowing for different perspectives or interpretations. E.g., a feminist viewpoint, a Marxian viewpoint... a Freudian psychoanalytical reading etc.)
A text is not produced by an author, but by readers, who themselves are 'produced' by social and political forces. New perspectives frequently attempt to establish their authority by specialized vocabulary (remember this term!) and extensive appeal to theory.
As with all literature we are unable to separate ourselves from our personal interpretation and that of the writers. Works of literature usually lead to various interpretations differing from era to context to experience. Each interpretation of ‘Hamlet’ brings different elements to the forefront. Without these interpretations of ‘Hamlet’ one may not be able to feel as though they receive a full understanding of the play and a lack of connection may become a dislike of the play rather than a love for the tragic tale. Shakespeare possibly has his own interpretation of the play. The writer merely sets words to the page; it is our job to make them our own.
