When I read the segments of Act 2, it reminds me of a deep political conspiracy in Elsinore. I felt like a play within a play had been staged where Polonius invades to spy on Reynaldo's Laertes, and Claudius and Gertrude were designed to spy on Hamlet. And I'm confused that the whole set-up gave the strength to trick each other with hilarious lexes in Elsinore. I was left in a state of error, when the entire act 2 scene changed tone from spy charge to wild and witty puns, and only Hamlet was in control of the game while the other characters were in their state of error soul. Suggestively and significantly, however, these maneuvers are described as very clumsy, if not imprudent. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Polonius's commands to Reynaldo are so wittily multiple and so evasively associated that he loses their path in a single argument. So his attempt to narrate the pronounced discovery of Hamlet's heartbreak in the second act is hardly superior. “Brevity is the soul of wit,” he declares. This turns out to be the second illustration of Polonius observing one of Shakespeare's most illustrious and decontextualized traits; and then it becomes anything but ephemeral, anything but fun. This law begins by creating the atmosphere of a political conspiracy in Elsinore. Polonius intrigues to spy on Laertes who employs Reynaldo; Claudius and Gertrude plot to spy on Hamlet through Rosencrantz and Guildenstern; Norway foils Fortinbras' plan to invade Denmark, only to help him in an undertaking against Poland. It seems like everyone in Elsinore is plotting against everyone else. He was observed somehow, he is sad, picky, presumptuous, ostentatious, embellished - moreover, more precisely, he is very wrong. As in the previous scene, Polonius understandably dreams of being a prodigious and politically aware mind. We may ask to differ. Interestingly, I am confused as to why Claudius, excessively, displays astonishing political absurdity in believing the espionage of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, two rather prankster companions whom Hamlet instantly sees through. Likewise, the Norway affair openly exposes Claudius's opaque tricks; he organizes himself to approve and tolerate that Fortinbras, who only a few days earlier had intended to take over his domain, crosses Denmark to defeat Poland. I can compare this to letting Canada cross into the United States to tame Mexico. Putting it another way, the entire scenario makes no sense as a whole, intentionally or technically. Looking at the prospect, I can predict that Claudius and Polonius, as much as they try to play the part of Machiavellian lords of state, are certainly and reasonably at risk. I appreciate the character and the author in the second act when Hamlet finally found his part. I admire the twist in the reading when Hamlet changes tone in a big, wild way. His language is seductive, full of desolate jokes, fertile gags and concise and robust annotations: an absolute mastery. His play on words with Polonius, for example, strikingly represents the concept of “method in madness”. Furthermore, Hamlet enacts the character of the gloomy madman virtually as, however, Polonius is a type of gullible spectator. I expressively liked the part where Hamlet plays puppets with Polonius, keeping the old idiot to continue to ponder what he is hungry for. I felt thoughtful amusement when Hamlet, grippingly, takes control of the scene, and?.