though there is madness

I think a popular misconception is the stereotypical Romantic or Gothic interpretation of Shakespeare, often seen portrayed in Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, and Hamlet. However, the "mood" interpretations of creepy castles/churches and black skies, (with perhaps the exception of Macbeth) were not very popular till the 1780's, almost two centuries later. That is not to say that Hamlet's brooding black cape and pale moody face, or Ophelia's socially repressed, frail, and broken heart, were completely fabricated, but that though Hamlet may have worn black at a funeral and was obviously upset about his dad dying, that was no means his norm, and similarly Ophelia's brief loss of insanity may not have necessarily been her personality.
The lack of reality in "mood" stories or romantic/gothic paintings doesn't have to mean that it is unreal, but that "moods" are only a deceptive piece of reality.
In fact, reading Hamlet has me think that Hamlet did not go mad in a brooding anguished introversion whilst Ophelia pined away and eventually broke her heart.
Perhaps I am a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but I suspect that the whole of Hamlet is much more a strategical study than a moody tragedy. Then again, Julius Caesar was not a "tragedy" or "conspiracy" story as much as it was about morals, ulterior motives, and real people. In fact, Julius Caesar was more about Brutus than anyone else worth mentioning. In Romeo and Juliet, were the title characters half as interesting as any of the background characters? Or was it really about them anyway? At least Macbeth was sort of about Macbeth, and Hamlet was mostly about Hamlet.
I am not done with the play yet, but all the initial head-scratchers in the play are now making me dizzy with delight. Polonius' advice, Ophelia's obedience, Gertrude's guilt, and Claudius' and Hamlet's subtle swordplay throughout the entire, ending with both of their deaths. Hamlet mad? maybe, but their is a method in't.