In his interactions with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet seems to express his nihilism the most clearly. Whenever he is speaking to them, the three of them malign all of the good and noble things of the earth and express a deep cynicism that is seen in no other characters in the play. In the scene when the three of them are touching on the topic of ambition, for example, Guildenstern dismisses it as “merely the shadow of a dream,” and Hamlet responds by claiming that “a dream itself is but a shadow.” Rosencrantz in the end concludes with the remark that he “holds ambition of so airy and light a quality that it is but a shadow’s shadow.” (Shakespeare, II, ii. 1357-60). In their view, therefore, neither ambition nor dreams—good nor evil—are …show more content…
Bloom rather links the Prince’s inaction to some complex Freudian theory. Other theorists, such as Kenji Yoshino in his A Thousand Times More Fair, argue that Hamlet is on a desperate search for “perfect revenge.” Goethe, in his Wilhelm’s Meister’s Apprenticeship and Travels, argues that Hamlet is too soft and too refined to avenge his father’s murder. But if Hamlet were given another moment to think while Claudius was praying in the Church, would he have found some other reason not to kill him? If Hamlet were too soft, would he have had such vicious thoughts about consigning Claudius to hell in the first place? All of the theories mentioned are tenuous and beg more questions than they answer. The truth is rather that Hamlet doesn’t need to be on a quest for “perfect revenge” and is not too soft either; instead, he finds a reason, all throughout the play, to do nothing and to wallow in inaction. The nihilism cripples him and causes him to constantly question everything. He cannot consult a god or allow a firm belief in something such as ambition or a higher power to propel him forward into action. Even in the most iconic soliloquy in the play, Hamlet contemplates whether being itself is worth pursuing and asks, “To be, or not to be?” (Shakespeare III, i. 1749) That question is
Within their very first appearances in the play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern leave a memorable imprint upon the readers’ mind. They are rather blurred characters, with seemingly little personality and relatively little distinction between them. They are also “very isolated and self-serving figure[s]” (Friendship-Introduction). They finish one another’s sentences and even when being spoken to by Gertrude and Claudius, they are referred to almost as one person (Ham. 2. 2. 35-36). The reason for this is because they are not meant to represent an actual character, or in this case, a set of characters. They are meant as a symbol, a metaphor for the betrayal and dishonesty that occurs throughout the play. We see this instantly, as we find in their very first appearance that their sole purpose of coming to Denmark was to spy on their friend (Ham 2.2.10-18). Although Hamlet views them initially as old friends, the reader is able to view them as a distant and fake, portrayed together to lend to the concept that they are an idea rather than individual characters or merely the comic relief in the play.
Another interpretation could be that Hamlet is melancholy and indecisive, and is not trying to control anyone. He is trying only to take revenge on Claudius, at which he fails for lack of an opportune time. "Hamlet: Now might I do it pat, now'a is a-praying, And now I do it. And so'a goes to heaven. And so I am revenged…But in our circumstance and course of thought, 'Tis heavy with him; and then I am revenged, To take him in the purging of his of his soul…No.
From the beginning of the play Hamlet has only been thinking of extracting revenge without acting on it. He wants to take action and is angry he has yet to be fully invested in his own plan.
Hamlet wishes to avenge the murder of his father and rectify this great injustice. The conflict between his desire to seek revenge and his own thoughts of incompetence is the cause of his initial unrest. "Haste me to know't , that I , with wings as swift / As meditation or thoughts of love , / may sweep to my revenge (1.5.29-31). Here Hamlet pleads to the Ghost of King Hamlet to reveal the name of his murderer.
Hamlet was a hero trying to do the right thing, but his tragic flaws turn everything around when everyone including himself dies. Hamlet goes back and forth throughout the play between pondering and procrastination to sudden acts out of anger and passion. Hamlet is extremely philosophical and contemplative which leads to his over thinking side. It's Hamlet's ability to reason that keeps him from killing Claudius at one of the prime opportunities in the play. And yet it is Hamlet's act of wrath that leads to Polonius' death. Which than later leads to Ophelia’s death. I think the play establishes that revenge is a wrongful act and not only should it be delayed, it should be dismissed. Everyone in the play would have lived if revenge wasn’t an issue .
Something was definitely rotten in the state of Denmark. The king was dead of a murder most foul, a betrayal from his own brother, young Hamlet was thrown out of the frying pan, which was his father's passing, and into the fire of revenge. On would think that an act of revenge such as this, retribution from an enraged son over the unjust murder of his father, would come so quickly, wildly, and brutally, driven by anger and rage. This simply was not the case in William Shakespeare's Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. As the young prince Hamlet carefully thought out his plans for revenge over a rather large amount of time due to his own apparent weakness, inaction. "The smallest deed is greater than the grandest intention"(Stokes 90). Hamlet was full of grand ideas and intentions on how to kill the King, but he failed to act and to carry out the deed that was his revenge, the destruction of Claudius. Why did Hamlet choose and it was his choice, not to take revenge on Claudius quickly and decisively? Hamlet had his own reasons for inaction; the strategy that he felt best suited his revenge.
In Hamlets mind, it is now his duty to avenge his father's murder. This is where the real problem of inaction enters the play. Later that night, Hamlet has a perfect opportunity to kill Claudius, when he sees the King kneeling in prayer. He wonders if this is the time to kill him and get it over with, but decides not to. He claims that he does not want Claudius to go to heaven, so he would rather kill him when he is committing a sin. If this is the case, then why doesn't he simply wait till Claudius has completed his prayer, accuse him of the murder and kill him in his sin of denial. Instead, Hamlet goes to the chamber of his mother and passes up his best opportunity at revenge. The argument can be made, however, that it is not a fear of killing that causes this inaction. He does not display an inability to end someone's life when killing Polonius. He neither hesitates nor capitulates in sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their executions. Why then would the prince of Denmark hesitate to kill the one man he most justly could? Many literary believe that his inaction is the result of a vicarious Oedipus complex. Those who concur with this theory say that Hamlet, in his subconscious mind, has a desire to do exactly what his uncle has done; that is, get rid of the king so that he can have Gertrude for himself.
Vengefulness is yet another inexorable human trait. Hamlet's entire character is changed by his need for revenge. He starts out as a serene, learned young man but the need for vengeance twists his soul to the point where he is driven only by his need for pay back.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (R and G…) by Tom Stoppard is a transformation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet that has been greatly influenced due to an external contextual shift. The sixteenth century Elizabethan historical and social context, accentuating a time of questioning had specific values which are transformed and altered in Stoppard’s Existential, post two-world wars twentieth century historical and social context. The processes of transformation that are evident allow the shifts in ideas, values and external contexts to be clearly depicted. This demonstrates the significance of the transformation allowing new interpretations and ideas about reality as opposed to appearance, death and the afterlife and life’s purpose to be displayed, enabling further insight and understanding of both texts. Shakespeare’s Hamlet was written in the sixteenth century Elizabethan historical context, where certainty was questioned and there was a growing importance of individuals and their choice as opposed to fate.
With his thinking mind Hamlet does not become a typical vengeful character. Unlike most erratic behavior of individuals seeking revenge out of rage, Hamlet considers the consequences of his actions. What would the people think of their prince if he were to murder the king? What kind of effect would it have on his beloved mother? Hamlet considers questions of this type which in effect hasten his descision. After all, once his mother is dead and her feelings out of the picture , Hamlet is quick and aggressive in forcing poison into Claudius' mouth. Once Hamlet is certain that Claudius is the killer it is only after he himself is and and his empire falling that he can finally act.
In the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare, Hamlet the king of Denmark is murdered by his brother, Claudius, and as a ghost tells his son, Hamlet the prince of Denmark, to avenge him by killing his brother. The price Hamlet does agree to his late father’s wishes, and undertakes the responsibility of killing his uncle, Claudius. However even after swearing to his late father, and former king that he would avenge him; Hamlet for the bulk of the play takes almost no action against Claudius. Prince Hamlet in nature is a man of thought throughout the entirety of the play; even while playing mad that is obvious, and although this does seem to keep him alive, it is that same trait that also keeps him from fulfilling his father’s wish for vengeance
Throughout Hamlet, each character’s course of revenge surrounds them with corruption, obsession, and fatality. Shakespeare shows that revenge proves to be extremely problematic. Revenge causes corruption by changing an individual’s persona and nature. Obsession to revenge brings forth difficulties such as destroyed relationships. Finally, revenge can be the foundation to the ultimate sacrifice of fatality. Hamlet goes to show that revenge is never the correct route to follow, and it is always the route with a dead
Is Hamlet a true revenge tragedy? What does this question mean? It means does Hamlet have all the components and elements for a revenge tragedy, then to answer this question yes hamlet is a true revenge tragedy, even though of the way the play is set up it may not be viewed as a typical revenge tragedy because of the fact that hamlet procrastinates throughout the whole play and doesn’t whole heartedly prove that he is ready to take out the act of revenge on his uncle Claudius and avenge his murdered father. “It is interesting that Hamlet is a
It is after this, that a series of unfortunate events start to unfold for the Prince, as Claudius now knows of his intentions. This tragic flaw, “was not the result of vice or depravity in Hamlet; he was not habitually vindictive and regularly desirous of the eternal damnation of his relatives.” (Froula 2001, 25) Even in Hamlet’s most outraged state, he still believed that Claudius would be sent to heaven when he dies: “A villain kills my father; and for
Hamlet seems incapable of deliberate action, and is only hurried into extremities on the spur of the occasion, when he has no time to reflect, as in the scene where he kills Polonius, and again, where he alters the letters which Rosencraus and Guildenstern are taking with them to England, purporting his death. At other times, when he is most bound to act, he remains puzzled, undecided, and skeptical, until the occasion is lost, and he finds some pretence to relapse into indolence and thoughtfulness again. For this reason he refuses to kill the King when he is at his prayers, and by a refinement in malice, which is in truth only an excuse for his own want of resolution, defers his revenge to a more fatal opportunity, when he will be engaged in some act "that has no relish of salvation in it."