Argue For or Against Hamlet's Revenge: Positive arguement For revenge - Essay Example

Where does the ghost bring information of the murderers of his late father? Is the technique of judging by facial expressions and behavior sufficient to place the blame of such a heinous crime upon the new King of Denmark? How can Hamlet be so certain about the murderer of his father when nobody stood witness to the incident? There are too many questions and each one of them has its own unique importance. In order to be certain to the maximum degree, Hamlet keeps postponing his plans to take the revenge as per the instructions of his father’s apparition until he takes some objective measures to judge the guilt of his father’s murderers and has reason to trust the ghost.

Through his proceedings, Hamlet tends to evaluate the blame placed by the ghost upon his uncle, who now happens to be the King of Denmark as well as his mother’s husband. In the capacity of his mother’s husband, Claudius essentially assumes the position of Hamlet’s father. This means that if Hamlet trusts the ghost blindly and does as the ghost says without collecting sufficient evidence to trust the ghost, he would not only be killing the King of Denmark, but would also be assassinating his father and thus, widowing his mother.

These are too big consequences to be made to occur without a solid proof of Claudius’s guilt. Therefore, Hamlet tends to delay his plans of taking revenge until the evidence has been collected. The collection of evidence is also of huge significance to the audience because, “The story where the need for revenge is considered generally implies that the position of the revenger is such as to offer the audience no doubts about his right to the revenge” (Dente 163). A significant percentage of audience considers Hamlet a play that is based upon the theme of indecisiveness and tends to contradict Hamlet (Mabillard).

Some people consider Hamlet a loser because he consumes too much time to act upon the will of his father’s apparition and take his revenge from Claudius. This is not appropriate evaluation of Hamlet’s approach. Hamlet is by no means, a coward! “It is crucial to recognize that Hamlet, despite his new serenity, the fresh endorsement of his con-science, and his princely if intermittent concern for innocent bystanders, has not disavowed his intention to kill the soul of his enemy” (Skulsky 86).

He threatens Horatio with death when he advises him not to speak to the apparition of his father. Hamlet stabs Polonius taking him for Claudius. On the sea journey to England, Hamlet takes control of the pirate ship. None of these facts indicate any cowardice in Hamlet. “In light of these deeds, Hamlet’s self-accusations are signs of burning impatience in one who would surely act if he could.” (“Indecision, Hesitation and Delay”). Hamlet consumed time to make sure that he is, by no means unjust in killing his uncle.

One fact that this play fundamentally highlights through the delay in revenge is that in daily life, people take life changing decisions without having sufficient reason to take them. People tend to take a lot of unknown quantities for granted in their evaluation of deeds of other people, which is indeed not right, or by any means ethical! Hamlet is right in his approach towards investigation of his father’s murder, and various facts that follow stay witness to this. Hamlet’s behavior bothers the people he interacts with.

Nobody including Gertrude, Claudius or Ophelia is satisfied with the way Hamlet behaves, yet, the different characters in the