Interpreting Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, is a minefield. As Lacan himself admits, so many wildly different explanations of the play have been proffered that it is hard to believe so many contradictory things could be said about one and the same play. Dan Collins has gone so far as to characterize Hamlet as the play of interpretation itself, as a play designed to require the audience to engage in the act of interpretation. One thing we can safely say from the outset is that there are interpretations with virtually no textual justification, and others that can, at least, point to specific passages in the play that support them. This is true of people’s interpretations of Lacan’s work too! Some are simply wild, some are more disciplined.