If you actually want to understand this line, formulate a question expressing what it is that you don’t understand.

That guide has been a long-term ambition of mine for a few years, so, sorry, you may not make it into the dedication.

My point in mentioning the Lit Genius mentions is that they were for the very work that you’ve been declaring to lack even a modicum of coherence. That might give you pause to question your apprehension.

I grant that these few annotations you’ve jumped on are brief, but they’re part of a much larger series, created in annotating the play from start to finish. Small notes read in context can be meaningful in marking transitions in the play, as well as recurring themes. These notes seem less meaningful read out of context or from a perspective that’s insensitive to the recurring themes.

You claim to have surveyed all this work and reached some infallible judgment as to its worthlessness, though you’ve only actually engaged less than 5% of it. It seems to me you’re either not interested or not capable of rendering a fair reflection, but have a view distorted by your own attitude and general ignorance of the play.

You might notice that throughout our engagements, textual specifics – the actual evidence you claim to value so highly – has traveled in one direction, from me to you. You seem to even have become accustomed to my providing you with details you can only speculate on. Yet, though you don’t seem to be even particularly familiar with the text, you are not deterred from pretending to some sort o mastery from which you presume to instruct. Perhaps your work on other things is good, but you don’t have a solid grasp on this play.

I am well familiar with the way that disputes on the Internet can generate antagonistic postures, so I’m inviting you to step down off the high horse. I’m happy to discuss this play.

Has a modicum of cogency. Was a modicum of cogency is similarly not sensible English.

The Pomp Ass Guide to Hamlet does have a certain ring to it.

yes, pomp assess makes no linguistic sense. it’s two nouns, rather than an adjective noun pair like pompous asses. a pomp ass is a no-thing.

Your combination of arrogance and ignorance is a marvel to behold. As I’ve written, my work on Hamlet was cited multiple times by Lit Genius regulators as especially good. Given that your own annotations display poor reasoning skills and an utter disregard for the work your commenting on I’ll take your critique of my work with a grain of salt.

The word is pompous.

You don’t understand the play well. I have adjusted a couple of the annotations you’ve criticized. To generalize from these couple brief annotations does not even attempt at a fair reading of my work here.

I’m really not interested in creating annotations for those who are completely blind to the themes of the play. You don’t recognize the difference between what seems and what is as one of the principle themes of the play. Not surprising. Here’s the thing: anyone even remotely serious about understanding the play knows this as a key theme. I’m not interested in contributing to and Idiot’s Guide, but creating annotations for people serious enough to pay attention.

Hamlets emotional agitation is highlighted in this quote, where hamlet is expressing his hated for Claudius by calling him a “villain” repeating it a total of three times in this line alone and 11 times throughout the play. The exclamation mark reinforces the hatred for Claudius hamlet has, Hamlet also calls Claudius a “smiling villain” as if to say he is a plotting and double-faced character.

She is mocking and saecastic about his dismissive simplification. Yes, so happy.