Interpretation - Nate Strum

I read Hamlet last semester, and I'm having difficulty saying anything that isn't just repeating the same old stuff, but I'll try to come up with some new ideas. 

Is Hamlet's reference to the Iliad in Act II, Scene II have to do with relating the play within the play to the Trojan horse? 

Here's another: "To be" = 2b = bb = baby = "is Ophelia my baby or not my baby? That is the question." Half Life 3 confirmed. No? Okay, one more try.

Hamlet is not really insane. He's just playing mad to disguise his plans. The fact that he doesn't just kill Claudius after talking to the ghost, and instead uses the play as a trick to get king C to reveal the what he did shows that Hamlet requires proof of Claudius's actions, presumably because he has a conscience about possibly killing an innocent man. Hamlet is, therefore, far from gone. How's that for cold, hard logic?

Zelda and Eliza