Did he believe all of that stuff about making the leap of faith, about subjectivity and truth, the absurd, and so forth? Or did he intend to parody these notions? Or what?

I've only read a little of K, but here goes..

Was K the intersection of the sacred and the ironic? To describe what he described seems to require the distancing achieved though negation. Harold Bloom compared K to Hamlet. Both turned their backs on women, plumbed the depths of their subjectivities, and liked to enfold drama. "The play's the thing." To use a pseudonym means something, I think, in this case. He wouldn't commit to his lady, this K, and he wouldn't commit to God, or did he? Both men seemed tempted by radical freedom. Yet Hamlet becomes a sort of fatalist in Act V. Does God play this role for K?

If I'm way off, forgive me. Not much sleep of late.

The views expressed in works like Fear and Trembling and the Concluding Unscientific Postscript are commonly taken to be Kierkegaard's own -- despite the fact that Kierkegaard wrote these works under pseudonyms and despite the fact that some of the writings are even retracted by their pseudonymous authors. Attributing to Kierkegaard the views expressed in these works also ignores Kierkegaard's own explanation of his authorship in the Point of View. But if Kierkegaard didn't want to be regarded as holding the positions advanced in these writings, how are we to understand his attitude toward them? Did he believe all of that stuff about making the leap of faith, about subjectivity and truth, the absurd, and so forth? Or did he intend to parody these notions? Or what?