This is a great criticism, even though few will agree with his assertion than Hamlet is an "artistic failure". Instead of considering the play as a fully delib

This is a great criticism, even though few will agree with his assertion than Hamlet is an "artistic failure". Instead of considering the play as a fully deliberate creation by Shakespeare, Eliot considers what Shakespeare layers on top of his source material. This gives rise to some fair criticism. For example Shakespeare seem to handle the "madness" quite illogicaly compared to the Amleth legend. In Amleth, he plays mad (or rather retarded) in order to seem unthreatening to the uncle. But in Shakespeares Hamlet, the feigned madness has it has the opposite effect - it causes the suspicion of Claudius who starts spying on him. Until then, Claudius seem to have full trust in Hamlet. So it is a pretty dumb plan. The point about the queen is also fair. In Amleth, the uncle openly kills the king, so the widow knowingly marries the killer of her husband. In Hamlet, the murder is disguised as an accident and there is nothing to indicate that the queen knows Claudius killed her husband. Still, Hamlet has the same level of anger towards her as in Amleth. Of course Shakespeare adds the complex psychological layer and beautiful poetry - but from a purely dramatic point of view, the original works better.