rettelse af lille oversættelse :) HASTER lidt... :D

Hej :)

jeg har denne oversættelse, og da jeg har været ude og træne med fodbold hele dagen orker jeg ikke at rette den igennem - jeg vil derfor blive super glad hvis du kunne tænke dig at rette lidt hist og her.

Det er efter sigende enhver skuespillers drøm at spille Hamlet, og Hamlet-citater er blevet gængse talemåder (household word), som dukker op (crop up) i de mest forskelligartede sammenhænge. Både kritikere og psykologer har følt sig fristet til at udforske (probe) dybderne i denne gådefulde (enigmatic) Shakespeare-skikkelse. For Hamlet er en mand, som har et ejendommeligt problem: det er utroligt svært for ham at tage sig sammen til at hævne sin fars død ved at dræbe hans morder - selv om det helt klart forventes (§ 149+386) af ham, at han skal kræve øje for øje (§ 19 b) og tand for tand.
Vi oplever i første akt (§ 47 d), at faderens spøgelser hjemsøger Hamlet og fortæller (§ 250 a), at han er blevet snigmyrdet af sin forræderiske bror, som hældte gift i hans øre, mens han sov fredeligt i sin have. Derefter er det lykkedes morderen at overtage sit offers trone ved at gifte sig med den sexede enkedronning. Der er således nok at hævne (§ 114 g): et brodermord (fratricide (u)) er under alle omstændigheder en afskyelig forbrydelse. Hertil kommer et seksuelt forhold, som efter datidens moralbegreber blev anset for blodskam. Og værst af alt: der er tale om et kongemord (regicide (u)), som for en elizabethaner var direkte helligbrøde (sacrilege).
Selvom hamlet er helt klar over, at det er hans opgave at bringe orden i tingene igen, bliver han ved at trække tiden ud og har en masse gode undskyldninger for ikke at handle. Forklaringerne er gode nok, det eneste mistænkelige er, at Hamlet har så mange forskellige grunde til at vente – en ny hver gang. Og det er karakteristisk for Hamlet, at han kun får problemer ud af det, da han endelig griber sværdet. Han tror at han får ramt på sin skurkagtige onkel Claudius, da han dræber en person, som udspionerer ham, mens han taler alvorligt med sin mor. Men ”rotten” bag vægtæppet er ikke kongen slev, kun hans trofaste håndlanger, Polonius, som oven i købet er far til to mennesker som står Hamlet meget nær: Hans ven Laertes og hans elskede Ophelia.
Kong Claudius er en mester i intriger og udnytter straks situationen til egen fordel. Laertes bliver nu Hamlets bitre fjende, og Ophelia bliver vanvittig og dør af sorg over den uløselige konflikt, der er resultatet af den tilsigtede heltegerning. Spørgsmålet er nu, om Hamlet er en anti-helt, en dårlig dræber, eller om hans skæbne demonstrerer, at vold i sig selv er en dårlig løsning.
Den traditionelle Hamlet er en forpint, bleg, sortklædt mand. Freudianske kritikere har gjort ham til genstand for psykoanalyse. I deres øjne er diagnosen klar: Hamlet har en psykoneurose, et Ødipuskompleks. Han elsker sin mor og har i en tidlig alder fortrængt drømme om at dræbe sin far og indtage dennes plads ved moderens side. Dette forklarer ifølge Freudianerne både hans problematiske forhold til Ophelia og hans manglende evne til at gøre det af med Claudius; han plages af jalousi og retfærdig harme, men identificerer sig så stærkt med onklen, at han ikke kan dræbe ham uden at tilintetgøre sit eget inderste jeg. Derfor lykkedes det ham først at hævne faderen da moderen er død og han selv ved samme lejlighed går til grunde.
Nyere versioner går imidlertid væk fra denne frustrerede neurose-Hamlet. Søren Spannings Hamlet, som blev spillet på Kronborg 1985, er en venstreorienteret idealist, som fuldt ud er i stand til at handle, men som foragter vold, idet han er humanisten blandt de magtsyge kapitalister ved hoffet. Da han provokeres tilstrækkeligt er han dog helt klar til at gøre hvad der er nødvendigt for at rense ud i den rådne danske stat. En samtidig svensk opførelse gør ligefrem Hamlet til terrorist.

Hamlet- traslation
It is by all accounts every actor's dream to play Hamlet and Hamletquotations have become household words, which crop up in the most varied connections. Both critics and psychologists have been tempted to probe the depths in this enigmatic Shakespeare-figure. Because Hamlet is a man who has a singular problem: it is incredibly hard for him to pull himself together to avenge his father’s death by killing his murderer – even though he is clearly expected to demand an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
In the first act we experience that the father’s ghosts haunts Hamlet and relates that he was assassinated by his treacherous brother, who poured poison into his ear while he was sleping peacefully in his garden. Afterwards the murderer succeeded in taking over his victim’s throne by marrying the sexy queen dowager. Thus there is enough to be revenged: fratricide is under all circumstances an abominable crime. Furthermore comes a sexual relationship, which by the norms of that time was considered incest. And worst of all: it is about regicide, which to an Elizabethan was downright sacrilege.
Even though Hamlet is fully aware, that it is his task to get things back in order, he keeps procrasting and has lost of good excuses for not acting. The explanations are good enough, the only thing is suspiciousis, that Hamlet has got so many different reasons to wait – a new one each time. And it is characteristic for Hamlet that he only gets into trouble, when he finally grasps the sword. He believes that he gets his villainous uncle Claudius, when he kills a person who is spying on him, while he is talking seriously with his mother. But »the rat« behind the tapestry is not the king himself, only his loyal henchman, Polonius, who on top is the father of two people who are very close to Hamlet: his friend Laertes and his beloved Ophelia. King Claudius is a master of intrigues and immediately exploits the situation to his own advantage. Laertes now becomes Hamlet’s bitter enemy, and Ophelia goes mad and dies from grief at the insoluble conflict, which is the result of the would-be feat. The question is now, if Hamlet is an anti-hero, a poor murderer, or if his fate demonstrates that violence in itself is a bad solution.
The traditional Hamlet is a harassed, pale, dark dressed man. Freudian critics have made him as an object for psychoanalysis. In their view the diagnosis is clear: Hamlet has a Psychoneurosis Oedipus complex. He loves his mother and has in an earlier age repressed dreams about killing his father and replaces him by the mother’s side. This explains according to the Freudians both problematic relationships towards Ophelia and his missing ability to get rid of Claudius: He is tormented by jealousy and fair indignation and identifies himself so strongly with the uncle that he cannot kill him without destroying his own inner self. That is why it succeeds him to revenge his father, when the mother is dead, and he gets ruined at the same opportunity.
Newer versions are moving away from this frustrated neurosis-Hamlet. Søren Spanning's Hamlet, which was played on Kronborg in 1985, is a leftist idealist, who is completely capable of acting, but despises violence since he is humanist among the power-seeking capitalists at court. When he is being provoked enough he is however ready to do what is necessary to purge to rotten Danish state.
A contemporary Swedish performance simply makes Hamlet a terrorist.

Den er lang, men det ville virkelig være fantastisk..