The Ideal Hero in Shakespeare's Hamlet

1641 Words4 Pages

Hamlet is not like the other tragic heroes of his period. He stands apart from other Shakespeare's heroes because of his innocence. Perhaps this supposed tragic hero is an ideal hero - one without the tragic flaw. The tragic flaw has been a part of the formula for the tragedy since the Golden age of Greece. The main, and, most often, the only flaw that has been attributed to Hamlet is his delay. This seems to constitute the central part in Hamlet. Critics seem to cling to this detail, as if trying to save the status of Hamlet as a typical Elizabethan tragedy of revenge. By the definition of tragedy, there should exist a flaw in the character of the main hero, who is a great personality that is engaged in a struggle that ends catastrophically (Stratford, 90). If Hamlet had no flaw, what kind of tragic hero is he? No doubt, Hamlet is a tragic drama, for it has many characters that loose their lives. But the play wouldn't lose its tragic tone if Hamlet were an ideal hero instead of tragic one, which is exactly the case. If more people realized this, maybe we wouldn't have that much trouble trying to "decipher" Hamlet's character, just like Elizabethan audience never raised any questions concerning Hamlet's delay. It was only in the last two centuries, that the audience and their perceptions have drastically changed, which causes this confusion concerning the character that was created by Shakespeare for common people, some ignorant ones among them, perhaps.

Hamlet is like a soldier that is thrown into a war where he has to do some things he rather would avoid doing, but under the given circumstances he bites his teeth and carries himself well (Stratford, 128). In this war, the circumstances brought on by Cla...

... middle of paper ...

...went on in the kingdom in the last two months.

Hamlet is the only Shakespeare's tragic hero who doesn't have a tragic flaw, which makes him an ideal hero, instead of a tragic one. Hamlet, the play, still is the revenge tragedy, for Hamlet never lived to see the full revenge.

Works Cited

1. Hamlet. The Norton Introduction to Literature, Shorter 6th Edition, editors Bain, Beaty, Hunter, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1995.

2. Weitz, Morris. Hamlet and the Philosophy of Literary Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1964.

3. Hamlet. Stratford-Upon-Avon Study. London: Edward Arnold Ltd., 1963.

4. Grebanier, Bernard. The Heart of Hamlet, The Play Shakespeare Wrote. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1960.

5. Hamlet. Editor Harold Bloom.New York: Chelsea House Publishers, a division of Maine Line Book Co., 1990.

Open Document