Are you too quick to make important decisions? Do you act before you think? These quick decisions are common in the play Hamlet. Hamlet was written by William Shakespeare in 1589. The play takes place in Denmark. The protagonist is a prince named Hamlet. Hamlet’s father suddenly dies, and Hamlet’s mother, Queen Gertrude, decides to marry Hamlet’s uncle, King Claudius. Hamlet slowly goes insane, and he wants revenge on the murderer of his father. Laertes, the son of the king’s associate, makes a bad decision in the play. When Laertes’ father, Polonius, is killed, Laertes is outraged and seeks vengeance. Laertes made a bad decision in the play, but he could have tried using the decision-making process, weighing possible alternatives, and he could have changed the outcome of the play if he had made careful decisions.
Laertes’ main decision in Hamlet was how to seek revenge on Prince Hamlet for killing Polonius. There are seven steps to the decision-making process. First, Laertes had to identify the decision that had to be made. Laertes did follow this step by looking for a solution of his father’s death. Next, Laertes should have gathered information relevant to his situation. Instead of this step, Laertes automatically assumed that he had to kill someone without knowing what really happened to Polonius. Then, Laertes should have identified his alternatives of the decision. Laertes did not explore alternative in the play. He immediately met with the king and decided to kill Prince Hamlet without looking at different ways to approach the situation. After exploring alternatives, Laertes should have weighed the evidence of the situation. The only evidence that Laertes had was the king’s word that Hamlet...
... middle of paper ...
...the king. By killing the king, they put Denmark in better hands, and they save both of their lives. Also, Ophelia and Hamlet could get married and take the throne. Just by changing Laertes decision, the ending of Hamlet completely changes. Everyone is alive and healthy, except for King Claudius, and Denmark is not taken over by Fortinbras, an officer of a foreign country.
By using the decision-making process, creating alternatives, and choosing the best outcome, Laertes would have completely changed the play, Hamlet. Laertes could have used steps two, three and four of the decision-making process to make an educated decision. Also, Laertes may have wanted to explore his many alternatives and outcomes before making his decision. Lastly, Laertes should have talked to Hamlet about the death of Polonius. Think before you act, and do not be too quick to judge.
A major difference between Laertes and Hamlet is that Laertes didn't procrastinate in his attempt at revenge. He went right to it with the encouragement of Claudius. His hastiness is what gets him killed in the end. Because Laertes doesn't think long about getting his revenge gives the reader reason to compare Laertes to and think about Hamlets' struggle to decide weather [H-50] revenge is the right thing to do. [SS -1] He contemplates through the whole play on weather [H-50] to kill Claudius or not, leaving the reader with the sense that Hamlet is very careful when making decisions. [Doesn't this point deserve more discussion?
One of the foils important to the play is Laertes. Although Laertes does not appear often in the play, he brings much to the plot and to Hamlet's character. These two are similar in many ways. They both seem to be about the same age, are well educated, and gentleman. One main thing that they have in common is they both are seeking revenge for their father's deaths. Both of their fathers were unnecessarily killed. Hamlet's father was killed by his father's brother for the crown and his wife, and Hamlet killed Laertes' father over mistaken identity. It was the revenge of these two that made up the plot of the story. Because of Laertes, the two could finally fulfill their revenge in the battle at the end that killed both Hamlet and the new king. If Laertes had not challenged Hamlet, the king would have died by some other way; however, the king died by poisoning just as he had killed his brother.
...e story. Indeed, if Hamlet acts quickly, there would be only one act of Hamlet. Laertes, upon hearing of his father’s demise wants swift and fervent justice. Although he is the more impassioned of the two, it is this incisiveness that leads to Laertes’ demise. He allows himself to be manipulated, enamored by the king’s rhetoric. Laertes, suddenly realizing the plot at hand, repents for his killing of Hamlet, true to his character even in the face of death. Hamlet seeks to blame his "madness" for the death of Polonius, and never admits fault for the fate of his schoolmates.
As presented in the movie, Laertes is a sore loser. The text version of the play has Laertes simply say "No" after Hamlet scores his first hit. In the movie, Laertes shows much more emotion. His anger at Hamlet is obvious, and his frustration at being hit is evident, as he screams in protest to the mediator's call. Then, to show what a poor sport he is, he lunges at Hamlet when Hamlet turns his back to Laertes. Laertes didn't have enough courage or faith in his own fighting ability to take a fair shot at Hamlet and succeed. After the second hit, Laertes demonstrates much the same emotions, screaming in frustration and anger. In the text of the play, Laertes agrees with Claudius to fight Hamlet and use poison on his blade to kill him. As presented in the text, Laertes killing Hamlet will be enough for his revenge. However, in the movie, it is obvious through his actions and mannerisms that it is not enough for Laertes to merely kill Hamlet, but he has to make Hamlet look like a fool while he is doing it. That is why Laertes becomes so upset in the movie when Hamlet gains a hit; Laertes wanted to discredit Hamlet before he killed him.
When Laertes finds out his father, Polonius, died he acted without hesitation whereas Hamlet avenged his fathers’ death by slowly plotting in a step by step manner. During Act 3 Scene 4 (1-9 pg.1), Polonius and Gertrude talk to each other and tells Gertrude to talk to Hamlet while he spies on him. “Lord Polonius: He will come straight. Look you lay home to him: Tell him his pranks have been too broad to bear with, And that your grace hath screen 'd and stood between Much heat and him. I 'll sconce me even here. Pray you, be round with him. Hamlet: [Within] Mother, mother, mother! Queen Gertrude: I 'll warrant you, Fear me not: withdraw, I hear him coming.” As Hamlet and his mother Gertrude talk they have a little argument and Hamlet says he is upset that she married Claudius. So Gertrude went on to say we shall talk to others as well about this. At this point Hamlet doesn’t want it to be discussed out of the room and when Gertrude tries to leave Hamlet would not let her budge. Gertrude goes on scream help and when Polonius hears he does the same behind the tapestry. Hamlet already had presumed the rat was Claudius and without hesitation killed the rat with his sword and then later finding out he accidently killed Polonius. Act 3, Scene 4 (28 pg.2) “Hamlet “Nay, I know not: Is it the king?” The news reaches Laertes and as he returned from France he assumed it was Claudius who killed his father and attempted to take revenge immediately. “Laertes: To hell, allegiance! Vows, to the blackest devil! Conscience and grace, to the profoundest pit! I dare damnation. To this point I stand That both the worlds I give to negligence. Let come what comes, only I’ll be revenged Most thoroughly for my father.” Act 4, Scene 5 (105-110 pg.7). He later finds out it was Hamlet who killed Polonius. Through these points we can see how Laertes is a foil to Hamlet, because he acts without knowing reasons.
At this moment the main problem of "Hamlet" could be ended. Hamlet could kill his Uncle Claudius and avenge his father's death, and the case would (excepting the case of some unknown tragedy) be closed. He would not accidentally kill Polonius, and perhaps he, Ophelia, Gertrude, and Laertes would not end up dead. The play might not have such an entirely tragic ending after all.
Laertes, on the other hand, was quite the opposite. He was all action and no talk. A very headstrong character, he was rash and let his emotions make his decisions for him. an example of this is when he finds out about his father's death, he immediately assumes it was Claudius and enters the castle by force, fully intending on killing him. This is what Hamlet needs to be like, but only in moderation. Sometimes, when the time calls for it, you must act on instinct, without having to think it through for a couple of days. Hamlet didn't want to be brash and end up getting killed like Laertes did, but then again, Laertes did avenge his father's death a lot faster than Hamlet did. And in spite of all the thinking and planning, Hamlet still ended up the same way that Laertes did.
...ia goes mad because of her father’s murder, and consequently ends up drowning to her death. Laertes also comes back to Denmark from France to seek revenge for his father’s murder. It is arguable that had Hamlet not murdered Polonius, none of these events would have occurred, including the deaths of virtually all the characters as well as Hamlet.
[4, 1, 40] These idiosyncrasies are observed in the play when Claudius becomes concerned he will lose power as King and the likelihood Hamlet will murder him to avenge his father’s death. This is apparent when Gertrude informs Claudius that Hamlet is, “Mad as the sea and wind, when both contend which is mightier”. [4,1,6] With these thoughts daunting Claudius, he approaches Laertes in a Machiavellian manner to convince him to murder Hamlet, for he knows Laertes is angry, deranged and “Vows to the blackest devil” [4,5,131] after the death of his father. In doing so, Claudius has the intent to use Machiavellian powers over Laertes who is currently mentally unstable, with the objective being that Laertes will murder Hamlet to avenge his own father’s (Polonius) death. Claudius is able to successfully persuade Laertes in a manipulative speech, especially with his snide comment, “Not that I think you did not love your father, but that I know love is begun by time, and that I see a passage of proof.” [4,7,96] Claudius’ malicious comment indicates he is using his power over Laertes, so that the burden and repercussions do not rest on him, so that he may retain his authority as King. By utilizing his power over Laertes, Claudius is successful, as Hamlet is slain, however, as reflected in Claudius’
Laertes has the ability to perform tasks that may be unpleasant or dangerous. Laertes does not simply try to kill someone by thinking cautiously the whole time, but by directly confronting them and facing them head-on. When Laertes returns home to Denmark he even confronts Claudius about the death of his father. Swearing Laertes says “I dare damnation. To this point I stand,/That both the worlds I give to negligence,/Let come what comes, only I’ll be reveng’d/Most thoroughly for my father.” (IV. v. 133-136). With this declaration Laertes plots with Claudius to kill Hamlet and they construct a plan to have Laertes fence with Hamlet and for him to kill him. They instrument a plot of revenge for the death of Polonius, quickly coming up with three ways to kill Hamlet: stabbing him with an unblunted sword, placing poison on the sword, and poisoning Hamlet’s drink (IV. vii.). After they construct this plan they swiftly utilize the plan. Laertes did not wait for the perfect moment, at the perfect time, and at the perfect place. He created the place, time, and moment to carry out the dangerous task. Hamlet, however, waited and waited for what he thought one day would be the perfect moment in which he could kill his uncle. Even when Hamlet had an opportunity to kill Claudius, he talked himself out of it. When compared to Laertes, Hamlet is a coward because of his inability
In the play, there are several characters wanting vengeance like that of Hamlet. Throughout the play, Hamlet, Laertes, and Fortinbras all had a tragic death of a family member which caused their decision for revenge. Consequentially, these revenges caused the demise of two characters and the rise of power of another. The retaliation shown by the Prince of Denmark, as well as Laertes led to the downfall of their government. In the play, Hamlet seeks revenge on his uncle Claudius.
He has the ability to perform tasks that may be unpleasant or dangerous. Laertes does not simply try to kill someone by thinking cautiously the whole time, but by directly confronting them and facing them head-on. When Laertes returns home to Denmark he even confronts Claudius about the death of his father. Swearing Laertes says “I dare damnation. To this point I stand,/That both the worlds I give to negligence,/Let come what comes, only I’ll be reveng’d/Most throughly for my father.” (IV. v. 133-136). With this declaration Laertes plots with Claudius to kill Hamlet and they construct a plan to have Laertes fence with Hamlet and for him to kill him. They instrument a plot of revenge for the death of Polonius, quickly coming up with three ways to kill Hamlet: stabbing him with an unblunted sword, placing poison on the sword, and poisoning Hamlet’s drink (IV. vii.). After they construct this plan they swiftly utilize the plan. Laertes did not wait for the perfect moment, at the perfect time, and at the perfect place. He created the place, time, and moment to carry out the dangerous task. Hamlet, however, waited and waited for what he thought one day would be the perfect moment in which he could kill his uncle. Even when Hamlet had an opportunity to kill Claudius, he talked himself out of it. When compared to Laertes, Hamlet is a coward because of his inability to
His father was killed by Hamlet and his sister was driven insane due to the series of events that took place because of Hamlet. Like Hamlet, Laertes wants to avenge his father by killing the man who killed Polonius. As described earlier, Hamlet is slow to act. Laertes, on the other hand, acts quickly and with precision, wasting no time in acquiring his target and formulating a plan. Robert Palfrey Utter, Jr., puts it best, Hamlet and Laertes both come to the same conclusion that murder must be carried out, but Hamlet reaches that conclusion only “after he has had a few minutes to think it over.” (140) Once Laertes finds out that the man who killed his father was Hamlet he is ready to charge in and kill him as soon as possible. He is only stopped by Claudius, who advises him on a more subtle approach. Straight off the bat it is clear how efficient Laertes is compared to Hamlet. Hamlet wastes a large amount of time scheming up complex ideas on how to get a confession out of Claudius and how to kill him. Laertes on the other hand wastes no time in getting a straight and to the point plan that he can execute immediately. After spending more than half the play watching Hamlet squirm around on the stage getting almost nothing accomplished, the audience would be acutely aware of the stark difference between Hamlet and Laertes even though they share the same motivations. Laertes has his speed but he shares in Hamlets lack of critical thinking when he gets hot headed. He is in such a blind rage that he doesn’t think on what he is agreeing to do with Claudius. Just like Hamlet, his brash actions cost those around him his life. In carrying out the plan, the King, the Queen, Hamlet, and he all die to the poison that was used in the duel. Hamlet was slow and reckless while Laertes was quick and reckless. Wilds sums up the relationship between Hamlet and Laertes perfectly, “Laertes and Hamlet have been foils to each other
...emise, and rid of Hamlet at the same time. Hamlet’s unstable mental state and irrational actions led King Claudius to the conclusion that something must be done to rid of Hamlet. Working through the steps of the decision-making process would have enlightened Claudius on three things: citizens would be suspicious if Hamlet was to vanish, Hamlet’s image must be ruined in order to prevent citizens suspecting Claudius to be responsible, and the fact that Hamlet won’t be very easy to expel. After this information was considered, Claudius would be able to synthesize an effective plan to rid of Hamlet. Being aware of the fact that Hamlet is rather smart and likely hard to corner, Claudius would have arrived at a solution; an elaborate plan to kill Hamlet that gives him no time to counter the attack. No suspicion, no more nice-guy Hamlet, no thinking time, no problem.
Wright, Louis B. and Virginia A. LaMar. “Hamlet: A Man Who Thinks Before He Acts.” Readings on Hamlet. Ed. Don Nardo. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999. Rpt. from The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Ed. Louis B. Wright and Virginia A. LaMar. N. p.: Pocket Books, 1958.