Throughout Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet” the main protagonist Prince Hamlet’s journey as a character is most strongly shown through his five soliloquies, with each soliloquy presenting a different obstacle for Hamlet to overcome. Ultimately this results in Hamlet being an extremely dynamic character who changes multiple times throughout the play, whether it be for better or worse. Hamlet’s first soliloquy shows his more extreme emotions, as throughout the soliloquy readers notice the lack of logic in his words, and the loss of Shakespeare’s iambic pentameter. However, Hamlet’s fourth soliloquy as arguably the complete opposite of the first, in which Hamlet shows pure logic, and lack of emotion. This results in him overthinking the situation and not taking action, pure logic can be dangerous as it tends to overcomplicate things. In Hamlet's fifth and final soliloquy he finally reaches a good balance of logic and emotion, in which Hamlet makes the decision to kill Claudius the next opportunity he is afforded. Those three soliloquies show how Hamlet evolves as a person, which makes Hamlet a prime example of a dynamic character.
In Hamlet’s first
…show more content…
Hamlet sees the greatness of Prince Fortinbras, and wonders how Fortinbras attacks over minor disputes are even possible while in his situation King Claudius still draws breath after he wrong Hamlet. He thinks through the situation with logic, but drives his thought process with emotion. This is Hamlet's final destination, the play and Hamlet’s journey leads up to this soliloquy and the final scenes with King Claudius, this is the moment when Hamlet changes for his last time, and becomes a man of action. This soliloquy finally inspires Hamlet to take action and he is now completely devoted to killing King Claudius at the next opportunity afforded to
Hamlet, after learning that his father's death was a murder and vowing to take revenge, wants to be certain that what he has been told is the absolute truth before he attempts to take revenge on Claudius. Even after Hamlet is sure beyond any shadow of a doubt that Claudius is the murderer, he hesitates to kill him. Fortinbras, on the other hand, has been taking action even before the play begins. As the play opens, the audience learns that Denmark is in a state of alert; the country has been preparing for a war. From Horatio, the audience also learns that the young Fortinbras is getting ready his "lawless resolutes"(I.i.111) for action against Denmark for the killing of his father and for the return of lands previously owned by Norway (I. i. 79-107). These differences between Hamlet and Fortinbras' actions are further mentioned in Hamlet's last soliloquy (IV. iv. 32-66).
In William Shakespeare’s tragedy, Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, we, as readers, increasingly question the sanity of the protagonist, Hamlet, as the play continues. His seemingly psychotic banter with the other characters in the play begins to convince us that Hamlet is, indeed, insane. Hamlet, however, states, “How strange or odd soe’er I bear myself, as I perchance hereafter shall think meet to put an antic disposition on” (1.5.171). He specifically tells Horatio and Marcellus that he will be acting mad, as a front. Hamlet has an exceptional grasp on mental philosophy and the uses and effects of logic, more so than the other characters in the play.
In this paper I will be analyzing and discussing how these four soliloquies reflect changes in Hamlet’s mental state; his
Hamlet's actions and words have a "method" to them; there appears to be a reason behind them, they are logical in nature. II, ii.
Much of the dramatic action of Shakespeare’s tragedy, Hamlet is within the head of the main character, Hamlet. His wordplay represents the amazing, contradictory, unsettled, mocking, nature of his mind, as it is torn by disappointment and positive love, as Hamlet seeks both acceptance and punishment, action and stillness, and wishes for consummation and annihilation. He can be abruptly silent or vicious; he is capable of wild laughter and tears, and also polite badinage.
In the play, the background stories of Fortinbras and Hamlet are similar. Both of their uncles are king, when the rightful throne should be theirs; however, the two princes deal with the aftermath differently. While Fortinbras deals by going out and conquering other countries, Hamlet distracts himself with thinking and plotting against Claudius. In Hamlet's soliloquy in Act 4, he compares and contrasts the differences between himself and Fortinbras. Hamlet explains that he would be more like Fortinbras with his actions.
William Shakespeare’s Hamlet is a complex play regarding the kingdom of Denmark, and the unusual stage it is going through. The main focus of the play concerns Hamlet, prince of Denmark, and his feeling of ambiguity toward his recently lost father and his remarried mother. Hamlet is a complicated character who plays assorted roles in order to manipulate people. These various roles make it problematic to develop a sense of the real Hamlet. Only during the soliloquies is the reader given a chance to understand Hamlet, they allow the reader to attempt to decipher who is the real Hamlet and what is an act. The first soliloquy allows the reader to initially delve into the character of Hamlet, by showing his anger and distaste towards his mother. The soliloquy also shows that, even through his anger, he is in a coherent state of mind.
William Shakespeare’s Hamlet is laden with tragedy from the start, and this adversity is reflected in the title character. Being informed of his father’s murder and the appalling circumstances surrounding the crime, Hamlet is given the emotionally taxing task of avenging his death. It is clear that having to complete this grim undertaking takes its toll on Hamlet emotionally. Beginning as a seemingly contemplative and sensitive character, we observe Hamlet grow increasingly depressed and deranged as the play wears on. Hamlet is so determined to make his father proud that he allows the job on hand to completely consume him. We realize that Hamlet has a tendency to mull and ponder excessively, which causes the notorious delays of action throughout the play. It is often during these periods of deep thought and reflection that we hear one of Hamlet’s famous soliloquies, which are obviously relative to Hamlet’s apprehensions and worries surrounding his current situation. The seven soliloquies throughout the play offer insight pertaining to the deteriorating mental state of Hamlet, and the circumstances which induce his decent into madness.
In this essay I examine the soliloquy-approach which the hero uses. If Hamlet’s personality seems abnormally vague, if his different performer can award him with such widely differing characteristics, it is because his part is presented personally, much of it confided to us through soliloquies.
The soliloquy comes as something of a surprise after the conclusion of Act II, which displayed Hamlet as rational and determined, intent upon carrying out a positive action that, he was sure, would resolve all doubts relating to Claudius. Now he seems to have reverted back to the mood of the first soliloquy--the mood of the Prince who would welcome death, crushed as he initially was by his mother’s marriage to her brother-in-law. Our tragic hero is suffering from grief and this soliloquy is one of those violent mood swings typical of the depressed individual. With this in mind, his intellectual skepticism and honesty with himself, is commendable. Let us examine the beginning of his philosophical inquiries.
In this essay I examine the soliloquy-approach which the hero uses. Harry Levin comments on Hamlet’s penchant for soliloquies in the General Introduction to The Riverside Shakespeare: Comparably, Hamlet has been taken to task or, perhaps more often, for an alleged inability to make up his mind. Actually, both the testimony about him and his ultimate heroism show that his hesitations are uncharacteristic. It is a measure of the baffling prethe native hue of resolution Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought. If Hamlet’s personality seems peculiarly elusive, if his different interpreters can endow him with such widely differing characteristics, it is because his part is presented subjectively, much of it confided to us through soliloquies.
As illustrated through his speeches and soliloquies Hamlet has the mind of a true thinker. Reinacting the death of his father in front of Claudius was in itself a wonderful idea. Although he may have conceived shcemes such as this, his mind was holding him back at the same time. His need to analyze and prove everythin certain drew his time of action farther and farther away. Hamlet continuously doubted himself and whether or not the action that he wanted to take was justifiable. The visit that Hamlet recieves from his dead father makes the reader think that it is Hamlet's time to go and seek revenge. This is notthe case. Hamlet does seem eager to try and take the life of Claudius in the name of his father, but before he can do so he has a notion, what if that was not my father, but an evil apparition sending me on the wrong path? This shows that even with substantial evidence of Claudius' deeds, Hamlet's mind is not content.
However, Hamlet's indecision and inability to resolve his own inner struggles ultimately leads to his untimely demise, which serves a warning for the audience. Essentially, this essay will analyze both Hamlet and Claudius and then contrast the two characters. Throughout the play Hamlet, Shakespeare reflects the general condition of mankind in the way he uses the protagonist.
Shakespeare depicts dynamic characters as progressive or regressive to show how a situation builds on their personal characterization. Shakespeare puts individuals into situations that push them to either progress or regress as a character. This characterization can be seen in two of his plays, Hamlet and King Lear. In Hamlet, the main character, Hamlet, falls into madness. The situations Hamlet is put in drives him further towards the state of Madness we see him in by the end of the play. This can also be seen in King Lear with the character, Kent. Unlike Hamlet, Kent jumps into his character, his progressive characterization is more rapid at first. Hamlet, however, has a slow transition into the madman he ends up portraying. Shakespeare shows
The perfection of Hamlet’s character has been called in question - perhaps by those who do not understand it. The character of Hamlet stands by itself. It is not a character marked by strength of will or even of passion, but by refinement of thought and sentiment. Hamlet is as little of the hero as a man can be. He is a young and princely novice, full of high enthusiasm and quick sensibility - the sport of circumstances, questioning with fortune and refining on his own feelings, and forced from his natural disposition by the strangeness of his situation.