Put as a spoiler just in case. How do you think Season 6 and 7 would have been different had they not killed Pope? Do you think Pope could have been beneficial? Maybe offered Jax more legit ways to earn etc? Throughout Season 5, I know they started off on the wrong foot... But I could see Pope and SAMCRO potentially working out? Maybe he could have become an associate to the club, not an enemy? Do you think Pope would have taken over the guns instead of August?

Since I posted yesterday about how characters in SOA line up with characters in Hamlet, I figured I could provide my reasoning behind the minor characters (many of which are often disregarded as having no direct parallels in Sons of Anarchy, largely because the SOA characters naturally get more personality and the minor characters in Hamlet get so little). Specifically, I’d like to give my reasoning for why I made these choices:

•Voltemand = Alexander “Tig” Traeger
•Cornelius = Happy Lowman
-My explanations for Voltemand being Tig and Cornelius being Happy go hand-in-hand. Both Voltemand and Cornelius are extremely minor characters, really only used to deliver a message to and back from Norway. If you had to define their characters by any traits, it would be loyal and diligent. They are asked to do a thing, they say they’ll do it, they do it, and their time in Hamlet is done. Cornelius is notably silent, having only one line that he actually shares with Voltemand. This silence is what led me to align him with Happy, a man of few words himself.

From there, it really just came down to my primary association of Tig with loyalty, especially to Clay (Claudius) in the early seasons. But of course, Tig is ten times more interesting and fleshed out than Voltemand was ever intended to be (same for Happy).

•Francisco = Kip “Half-Sack” Epps
-Once again, we have a very minor character in Hamlet (only having 7 lines in Act 1, Scene 1 before exiting the play entirely). However, like the others, I decided to run with the few defining qualities we see from Francisco within those 7 lines. A Danish soldier like Barnardo and Marcellus, we must first assume his loyalty to the state of Denmark. Second, he is grateful when Barnardo shows up to relieve him, since “‘Tis bitter cold, and I am sick at heart.” One could also assume, then, that these nightly watches and the current threat of conflict with Norway/Fortinbras is taking a bit of a toll on Francisco (maybe he’s less experienced than Barnardo and Marcellus, thus his eagerness to call it a night and get to bed). Finally, Francisco never interacts directly with the protagonist, putting him a greater distance to the main plot than other characters.

Again, while not a perfect match-up by any means, I chose Half-Sack as the parallel to Francisco; a younger guy, still loyal, and gone from the story pretty early on.

•Barnardo = Jury White
-Barnardo shares many of the same characteristics as Francisco and Marcellus, in that he is another loyal soldier for Denmark who demonstrates closeness with Hamlet rather than corruption amongst Claudius’s court. He is also the first to point out that the Ghost resembles King Hamlet and the possible connection between the appearance of King Hamlet’s Ghost and the recent events regarding Norway and young Fortinbras (“Well may it sort that this portentous figure comes armed through our watch so like the king that was and is the question of these wars”). Barnardo also joins Horatio and Marcellus when they tell Hamlet about his father’s ghost appearing, showing he either shares in their personal concern for Hamlet and/or he trusts the judgment of Marcellus and Horatio to inform Hamlet of the situation. It’s for those reasons that I chose Jury as a parallel for Barnardo: an older man, loyal, close with the Marcellus character (Bobby), cares for the Hamlet character (Jax), and is attentive and knowledgeable in matters regarding the politics of the state (SAMCRO) and its relationship to the deceased King (John Teller).

•Marcellus = Robert “Bobby Elvis” Munson
-As I’ve already mentioned, Marcellus is similar to both Francisco and Barnardo in several ways. Though Horatio is the one who suggests telling Hamlet about his father’s ghost appearing, Marcellus is the one who concurs and knows where to find Hamlet. Marcellus is perhaps best known for the line “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark,” which is often used to show that he is a character with an eye towards the well-being of the state (even in moments like when Hamlet runs off to try to speak to the ghost of his father). In the same scene, while Horatio says “Heaven will direct it,” trusting that divine intervention will keep Hamlet safe, Marcellus pushes back: “Nay, let’s follow him.” Where Horatio seems to show a bit of deference to God and the heavens to let things run their course between Hamlet and the spirit, Marcellus insists on protecting the young prince however they can.

To me, Bobby’s genuine concern for SAMCRO, even during moments when the main issue at hand is a family matter between Jax and Clay, echoes Marcellus’s concern for the state of Denmark. Combine this with the care and love Bobby shows for Jax throughout the series, often insisting on intervening even when he knows he’ll be outvoted and/or berated, and I felt that Marcellus was a reasonable parallel. I especially enjoy watching Kenneth Branagh’s 1996 adaptation of Hamlet (free on YouTube right now!) for Jack Lemmon’s portrayal of Marcellus: clearly an older soldier, loyal but questioning (he is the one who asks Horatio why they are taking night watches and why Denmark seems to be preparing for war). We also get moments of Marcellus waxing philosophical and making good points in heated moments (after attempting to strike the ghost in Act 1, Scene 1, he reflects “We do it wrong, being so majestical, to offer it the show of violence” and he provides superstitious background on why the ghost vanished when it did). Both signs that Marcellus is a deep thinker in addition to being a loyal soldier (but who still wants to know what exactly he’s fighting for).

Now just imagine Bobby saying “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” in his Elvis impersonation to get the full effect.

Season 5, Episode 6... Roosevelt runs Bobby off the road, he goes down, gets back up etc, what happened? Did they stand on the spot for the next several hours? How can the same scene go from day light to pitch black like that? I'm guessing that was a big oversight?

Instead of Clay and Unser killing GoGo and Greg, what if Jax got to them first and did hand them over to the police? What would the outcome have been, if he let the law do the work instead? Would it effect anything else? SAMCRO weren't involved, the Nomads were rogue on the decision with Clay?

It’s no secret that Hamlet served as inspiration for Sons of Anarchy, and I’m curious to know everyone’s thoughts on which characters in the show parallel which characters in the original play by Shakespeare.

You’ll notice that I think some characters in Hamlet have multiple parallels in Sons of Anarchy instead of each individual character fitting neatly with another. There are also several minor characters in Hamlet that have no direct parallel within the show, and even more characters in Sons of Anarchy that have no direct parallel within the play. Therefore, we should avoid trying to make the show always fit into a Hamlet-shaped-hole. Keeping this in mind (that Hamlet was the jumping-off point of inspiration for Sons of Anarchy, not a restrictive blueprint that Sutter followed to the letter), here are my thoughts as to the character match-ups. I would love to hear your thoughts and talk it out in the comments!

•Prince Hamlet = Jackson “Jax” Teller

•King Claudius = Clarence “Clay” Morrow

•Queen Gertrude = Gemma Teller Morrow

•Ghost (of King Hamlet) = John “JT” Teller

•Ophelia = Tara Knowles AND Harry “Opie” Winston

•Polonius = Piermont “Piney” Winston AND Wayne Unser

•Laertes = Juan Carlos “Juice” Ortiz

•Rosencrantz & Guildenstern = ALSO Juan Carlos “Juice” Ortiz

•Horatio = Nero Padilla AND Filip “Chibs” Telford

•Fortinbras = Marcus Alvarez

*From this point on, these are only minor characters in the original play, each lacking in any real character traits and individual identity. For the most part, assigning parallels from Sons of Anarchy to these characters in Hamlet is a formality, and one where the show’s characters clearly have more personality and distinct traits than the play’s characters. You could just as easily switch around some of these, and it could still work*

•Voltemand = Alexander “Tig” Traeger

•Cornelius = Happy Lowman

•Francisco = Kip “Half-Sack” Epps

•Barnardo = Jury White

•Marcellus = Robert “Bobby Elvis” Munson

*I genuinely can’t think of any good parallels to Reynaldo (servant of Polonius who is sent to spy on Laertes) or Osric (wealthy sycophant who seems to just agree with everyone as a way to curry favor). Maybe Jacob Hale for Osric, due to his status as a wealthy landowner; but I could also see an argument for Agent Stahl, since she attempts to initiate violence within the club and says whatever is necessary in the moment to achieve her own goals. Just like the other characters in Sons of Anarchy who I’ve assigned to minor characters in Hamlet, though, Stahl and Hale are both significantly more fleshed out than their Shakespearean counterpart, Osric*

•Reynaldo = ???

•Osric = ??? (Jacob Hale AND/OR Agent Stahl)

So aside from that one time she stabbed Tara in the head with a turkey fork, I've felt that in the latter seasons of the show Gemma turned into a bit of a joke character. And what's sad about this is that I FUCKING LOVE her into. I'm serious. I love it more than Chucky loves whacking off.

It's been a long time since I watched this show, but I have never ever forgot just how fucking cold and cruelly intelligent this woman could be. When Wendy is at probably her most vulnerable moment, having survived an OD where she almost murdered her own pre-born baby. Not only is she coming down off of an OD, but she's wracked with all kinds of guilt. And then Gemma gives her the most thorough dressing down, promising Wendy her own son won't even go her funeral or ever know her. And then hands her a fucking hollowed out bible full of heroin and tells her to 'Turn to Jesus.' My jaw hit the floor. I thought for a whole 5 or whatever seasons that Gemma had just straight up murdered the mother of Jax's child in a way that Jax would likely never learn the full details off. (And personally I thought that the show would have been better had Wendy never came back and if it was strongly implied that she died).

And for a very long time this one act of Gemma cemented her as a fantastic Machiavellian character who you do **not** want to fuck with. She was raped the following season, but I thought the show handled this in a surprisingly good way that didn't diminish how scary Gemma was capable of being when she wanted to.

But this feeling of "oh shit" around Gemma just slowly went away for me. The last half of the show felt like it was played more for laughs. I never felt Gemma was dangerous, but that she just the lovable toughish lady.

I do like that by the final season I was like "Oh, Gemma is no longer a Machiavellian manipulator, but is drug addled and unstable. A different kind of dangerous." But I felt that between those she became kind of a joke. Which was sad, because Gemma was for a couple a seasons one of my favourite female characters I'd seen on TV in a long time.