There was this discussion forum questioning if Hamlet was mad or faking it.

Most of the people thought he was no mad. That he was using it as a ploy to find out the truth before he took revenge. That Ophelia was a contrast to show what true madness was.

Only a few thought he was really mad.

I have always leaned towards the opinion that he was faking it.
But as I was reading and replying, I started to think about the way Shakespeare set up his plays. Shakespeare was fond of doing asides telling the audience what the character was really up to.

In fact, Shakespeare really was never that subtle. So maybe he did really mean for Hamlet to be mad and unstable. And that we get this idea that it was a ploy from the modern performances of the mad prince.

What does anyone else think?

He was a guy, how could he fake...........oh. I'll read closer next time! But in reality, I think he was a bit of both. And I think the author Shakespeare wanted you to draw your own conclusion.

Was that a double post?

I think he was a bit of both. He was very upset to lose his father and then for his mother to get married so fast (It says something about the funeral feast being served cold at the wedding) He's basically lost both of his parents in a short time.
He's over playing it a bit because he is trying to get to the truth of his father's murder.
besides wouldn't you go a bit mad if your fathers ghost came back to talk to you?
(bit long winded, sorry)

sure was

I believe Polonius stated it best(II,II)

"Though this be madness, yet there is method in't."