Hamlet by William Shakespeare - Essay Example

‘Hamlet’ by William Shakespeare The plays Hamlet was written by renowned script and plays William Shakespeare. In the play Hamlet’s father, also Hamlet gets killed by his own brother and then marries his brother’s wife. Hamlet gets actually told his father’s ghost, and it nearly rescinds his mind, driving him to madness (Edwards 13). Once he gets these facts about the killing and incestuous relationship between his mother and uncle, he gets extremely mad. Is Hamlet an insane man or a revengeful, genius, scheming? There stand many conflicting theories and ideas on this subject, and this paper aims at analyzing the theme of revenge, in relation to sanity, the impossibility of certainty, the complexity of action and a brief analysis of the play. In the initial Act, Hamlet appears to be in a flawlessly sane state of mind in all the five scenes.  In the second scene, the audience starts to see his character change. Polonius meets with Ophelia and reminiscences the meeting she previously had with Hamlet.  Ophelia tells her father that indeed Hamlet came to her messy and in a traumatized state of mind, talking of "horror”.  Her father instantly believes that he is actually "Mad for thy love?" (Act 2 Scene 2).  Ophelia answers a question postured by Polonius which she replied that had told Hamlet that Polonius could not communicate or see with him any further.  Her father refers to Hamlet madness once again by announcing that what his daughter uttered, "...  hath made him (Hamlet) insane." (Act 2 Scene 2). The argument of if Hamlet is mad because of his affection for Ophelia remains often argued, but a more complex and confusing situation is the brawl within the mind of Hamlet. His personal struggle gets shown to the audience in the first scene of the 3rd act. In this first scene, Hamlet recites his eminent "being or not being- that are the query:" (Act 3 Scene 1) speech. Here, the audience truly apprehends that Hamlet is uncertain two means in his life. Being or not being essentially is Hamlet assessment on whether he ought to toil the efforts of living in such harsh world and contest to avenge the murder of his father or commit suicide. Hamlet remains muddled as to whether he have to avenge the death of his father when he, as Sigmund Freud "Oedipus Rex Complex" proposes, wished to kill his father to catch all the attention of his mother. However, in the hind of the mind Hamlet, which keeps him in continuous turmoil, remains his faithfulness to his family and furthermore, his father (Shakespeare 67). Hamlet, in scene two of act four, meets with Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, and he appears to be breaking into madness. Hamlet had just murdered Polonius, and his friends were inquiring him on where he located the body of the deceased man. The odd thing about this scene remains that Hamlet appears to play with Guildenstern and Rosencrantz and does not offer them a straight riposte. Hamlet has practically malformed into a different individual and does not seem to be wholly sane (Cantor 44). Since Hamlet doubts the existence of Ghost's revelation, he chooses to put on the behavior of being insane; in the process he actually drives Ophelia mad, initiating her death. Sometimes it also appears that Hamlet's madness appearance become a reality. Next is another condition that cannot be totally elucidated: the condition being Hamlet's delays in revenging the death of his father. The first thing that Hamlet discovers is the death of his father in scene five of the scene one, where he trails the ghost. Hamlet eventually hears from this ghost, that he (ghost) is the soul of his father and that he got killed by Claudius. All this took place at the onset of the play and Hamlet waits until the play end to avenge for his father. Then again there stands different perspectives as to if Hamlet waited till the end to actually have revenge. Within the play there remain many insinuations that Hamlet tormented Claudius all the way up till he killed the king and the father of Hamlet. Two instances get particularly manifested. First, the play in a play ratifies that Claudius murdered the father of Hamlet. Hamlet stages the Killing of Gonzago where the actor, playing the part of the king, gets murdered in a similar manner that Claudius killed the father of Hamlet (Desmet 179). At the instant that the actor playing the king parts get killed Claudius bounds from his seat and flashes out of the theater enraged. This violent deed by the king delights Hamlet for now he discerns that it stood Claudius who killed his father. Apart from the fact that he discerns that Claudius was the murderer, Hamlet seems part painfully and part gaining his avenge of the death of his father. Shakespeare puts Hamlet in a condition in which he must handle the murder and betrayal of his father by some of his own family.  Communications of feeling is done exclusively in monologue or through reports of spy, or third party.  Hamlet must use player's performance to monitor the reaction of Claudius since the topic of King Hamlet’s death is not acceptable discussion matter.  Therefore, Hamlet employs the performance to disclose the show that Claudius presents to his focuses.  The issue is; the disclosure is made to Hamlet alone. The people of Denmark do not know anything about ghosts nor do they hold any reason to suspect reasons for which the play gets presented.  Hamlet's blunder is that he alerted Claudius that he is aware of the killing.  Claudius then can scheme to rid himself from Hamlet, and therefore evade the danger of his actions being discovered.  Following the play presentation, Hamlet loses his attention.  He is unable to execute revenge against Claudius directly when an opportunity presents itself.  If he had been able to murder his uncle as he was praying, lives of Gertrude, Laertes, and himself could have been saved.  In contrast, Hamlet becomes lost within his own psychological midst, which highlights his incapacity to bring problems to a quick end.  Hamlet is a very reactive character but he does not ever appear to have a certain strategy by which to attain his goal of revenge.  In due course, the characters in Shakespeare's Hamlet fall victims of the unwholesome state of affairs of their own creation. Initially Fortinbras is the symbol of vengeance. Hamlet's father overpowers Fortinbras' father in battle. Consequently, young Fortinbras aspires to recuperate the lands and commands lost by his late father as a method of avenging and honoring him. Though he ultimately finds another way of vengeance, his instance is duly experienced. Hamlet does not respond as quickly as Fortinbras do; his own indecision and a fear paralyzing him. In the end his revenge happens, but at great price to all. The irony bit about it is that Hamlet, by attaining his revenge, destroys a family whose honor he pursued to avenge. He and his mother both perish, alongside with the woman who could have willingly bear him children. Laertes is another son who avenges for father, but he, too, brings about great destruction. He lets his base emotions rule him, and he turns out to be evil Claudius’ cohort. Rather than taking vengeance as a duty to be undertaken in the most acceptable style, Laertes and Hamlet fix themselves on death as the only way of revenge. Unfortunately, this resolution eventually destroys them both. What differentiates Hamlet from other revenge oriented plays (and maybe from all play written before Hamlet) is that the action expected to be seen, mainly from Hamlet himself, is constantly postponed while Hamlet attempts to obtain more certain acquaintance about what he does. The play poses many queries that other plays would basically take for granted. Many people have perceived Hamlet as a play concerning indecisiveness, and hence about Hamlet’s letdown to act appropriately. It may be more interesting to contemplate that the play demonstrates how many uncertainties lives are made upon, how many mysterious quantities are ignored when people act or evaluate one another’s actions. The other occasion where Hamlet could have murdered Claudius in scene three act three. In this specific scene, Hamlet comes to Claudius while he knelt in prayers. Hamlet draws his sword intending to kill Claudius but then decides to delay. This is another instance as to why Hamlet delays revenging the death his father. The obvious reason Hamlet delay is to bring about more than just the agony of his sword against Claudius and torture him to the end (Edwards 80). The true state of Hamlet's insanity has been a matter of debate for many scholars over the many centuries. One theory remains that Hamlet's madness wasn’t for his own defense. In the time retro in which Hamlet lived, governments operated through the usage of complex spying networks. In Hamlet's dynasty, no one was permitted to go unwatched. Polonius, Guildenstern, and Rosencrantz are all directed to spy Hamlet at various instances. Polonius meets his demise in the process. Once Hamlet discovers his uncle’s atrocity, he craves for revenge. In that period, it would have been somewhat natural to take issues into one’s own hands. So as to keep his strategies secret; he cannot accent that he is aware of the crime. Imperatively, Hamlet's erotic attraction towards his own mother has to be discussed. In scene four act three, Hamlet enters the bedroom of his mother at her wish and initially kills Polonius, then goes ahead to romance his mother. This action titled the "Oedipus Rex Complex", got created by Sigmund Freud on a basis of “Oedipus”, epic poem by Sophocles. The theory states that all men wish to terminate their fathers so as the attention of their mother ought to be guided to them exclusively. Similarly, the fact that Hamlet believed that Polonius was Claudius evidence enhances that Hamlet had "Oedipus Complex". Hamlet got obsessed with his mothers love but before the condition in the bedroom intensified his father, the ghost, emerged and reminded him (Hamlet) of the dilemma which he was hypothetical to be achieving (Lavender 66). Hamlet's madness at sometime stands justified and at some other time seems pure insanity. At first Hamlet appears to be running mad over the circumstance that he stays not allowed to meet Ophelia. Then it appears that he gets astounded with the death of his fathers, and begins to contest with himself over the thinking of suicide. He then gets determined to avenge for his father and concentrates torturing Claudius in a genius and systematic manner. Finally, Hamlet remains caught up in for his mother’s love which takes him back to the point of madness. In conclusion, Hamlet is wavering between two domains: that of the crazed and insane and the one of sane and well. Later in the play Laertes Ophelia’s brother and son of Polonius, plays a role of revenge after Hamlet kills Polonius (Lavender 84). In any case, Shakespeare allows us to the nadirs of human emotions; hence, many become convoluted. The king, Hamlet’s uncle, get fully in discern of his past deeds, the danger he encounters, and the threat Hamlet stances, mad or not mad. Therefore, he plots to eliminate Hamlet, but would rather only exile him rather than killing him if possible. Hamlet’s two student friends, Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, merrily betray Hamlet and ultimately conspire with his father. Polonius, the minister of state, plots with the king touching Hamlet, but again, would choose to understand Hamlet as insane and to just exile him away. Polonius’s daughter, Ophelia is chased by Hamlet, but stays always suspicious of him, but fascinated simultaneously (Lavender 102). What distinguishes Hamlet from other plays touching revenge (and maybe from all play written before it) remain that the action we suppose to see, predominantly from Hamlet himself, stays continually postponed while Hamlet attempts to obtain more certain acquaintance about what he does. This play poses many queries that other plays would just presuppose. Can we have certain facts concerning ghosts? Does the ghost exist as what it seems, or was an ambiguous fiend? Does the ghost possess reliable knowledge about his own demise, or is the ghost deluded? Moving to more worldly matters: How can individual know for sure the facts about offense that has no witnesses to testify? Can Hamlet recognize the state of Claudius’s personality by watching his conduct? If so, can he distinguish the actualities of what Claudius did by perceiving the state of his personality? Can Claudius (the audience) discern the state of the mind of Hamlet by observing his conduct and just listening to his speech? Can a person know whether his or her actions will have the significances they want them to occur? Can a person understand anything about the after life? Many people see Hamlet as a play concerning indefiniteness, and thus about the failure of Hamlet to act appropriately. It may be more compelling to deliberate that the play expresses to us how many doubts our lives exist built on, how many unknown measures remain taken for granted whenever individual act or when they assess one another’s actions (Cantor 36). Directly related to the above mentioned theme of certainty remain the theme of action complexity. How can it be possible to take purposeful, effective, reasonable action? In Hamlet, the query of how to act stays affected by not only rational deliberations, such as the certainty need, but also by emotional, psychological, and ethical factors. Hamlet himself seems to distrust the notion that it is even conceivable to act in a purposeful, controlled way. When he acts, he prefers doing it blindly, violently, and recklessly. The other characters perceptibly think much less around “action” in the intangible than Hamlet does, therefore, becoming less troubled about the prospect of acting efficiently. They inherently act as if they feel it is suitable. However, in some logic they demonstrate that Hamlet remain right, since all of their actions fail. Claudius possesses himself of the crown and queen through valiant action, but his morality torments him, and he encounters beset by pressures to his power (he of course dies). Laertes firmness that nothing will sidetrack him from acting his revenge, but he becomes easily manipulated and influenced into aiding Claudius’s end, and his poisoned blade turns back upon himself (Cantor 109). The seeming contradictions in the character conduct of Hamlet have long implemented the conjectural resourcefulness of critics; and, as readers are always loth to believe that the cause of imperfection apprehension is in themselves, the mystery has been more commonly explained by the very simple process of laying it down as inexplicable, and by solving the phenomenon on a miss-growth or lusus of the irregular and capricious genius of Shakespeare. The character of Hamlet can be traced to Shakespeare's deep and accurate mental philosophy science. Indeed, that this character should have some linking to the common basic laws of nature may be presumed from the reason, that Hamlet has been a darling of every region in which the England literature has been fostered. So as to understand him, it remains essential that we have to reflect on the construction of our own thoughts. Man is distinguished from the instinctual animals in proportion as thoughts prevail over sense: but in healthy processes of the minds, a balance is constantly upheld between the impressions from outer objects and the inner operations of the brain;—for if an overbalance exist, in the contemplative faculty, humans thereby become the creature of ordinary meditation, and loose their natural power of action. One of Shakspeare's means of creating characters is, conceiving any one moral or intellectual faculty in melancholic excess, and then placing himself, Shakespeare, thus mutilated, under given situations. In Hamlet, he appears to have wished to demonstrate the moral need of a due balancing between our attention to objects of our minds, and our meditation on workings of our minds - equilibrium between the imaginary and the real worlds. In Hamlet this balance seems to be disturbed: his fancy’s images and his thoughts, are far more intense than his actual insights, and his very perceptions, instantaneously passing through the mode of his contemplations, obtain a form and a color not naturally their own. Henceforth, we see a great, almost enormous, intellectual action, and a proportionate dislike to real action, resulting upon it, with its all symptoms and accompanying qualities. The character Shakespeare places in settings, under which it is appreciative to act on the moment spur:—Hamlet is brave and careless to die in determination to revenge; but he vacillates from awareness, and procrasti-nates from thinking, and loses the action power in the resolving energy. So it is this tragedy of revenge that directly influence every bit of the play; creating almost every other significant theme in the play. Works Cited Cantor, Paul Arthur. Shakespeare, Hamlet. London: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Desmet, Christy. Reading Shakespeare's Characters: Rhetoric, Ethics, and Identity. Massachusetts : Univ of Massachusetts Press, 1992. Edwards, Philip. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. London: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Lavender, Andy. Hamlet in Pieces: Shakespeare Reworked. London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. John Cawthorn, 1806. Stockton, Carla Lynn. CliffsNotes on Shakespeare's Hamlet. New york: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Read More