Indecisiveness in Hamlet - Essay Example

Indecisiveness in Hamlet If one were to describe Hamlet’s character in one word, that single word would be contemplative. He insists upon attemptingto make absolutely certain whether or not his actions are justified and the correct ones to take, so much so that it would seem to be a character flaw to a certain extent. Shakespeare’s Hamlet is a play that explores ideas of uncertainty and how that affects the actions that a person takes. There are many aspects of the play that we are left uncertain about, such as the existence and veracity of the ghost, Gertrude’s knowledge of the circumstances of her husband’s death, and the extent to which Hamlet is faking his madness. When considering all of this, Hamlet’s contemplation and indecisiveness certainly seem justified. We are forced to think about death and the afterlife by the play. The actions of the play are forced by the death of Hamlet’s father and the ghost’s appearance, and Hamlet contemplates death and suicide throughout the play. Death plays a large part in the theme of uncertainty throughout the play. We have no idea what happens after we die, and so we can no idea as to what happens afterwards. Because we do not know what will happen, we do can not know if we are making the correct decision in regards to questions of suicide. Hamlet ponders this very question in his most famous soliloquy, “To be or not to be” (III.i.56-86). He comes to the conclusion that people would only deal with the pain and suffering of life precisely because the there is so much uncertainty in everything dealing with the afterlife. The ghost’s existence is another factor to consider when thinking about the afterlife. The ghost’s existence seems to confirm the existence of an afterlife in the world of the play, but it does not state what kid of afterlife actually exists. The ghost has apparently come to seek out vengeance for wrong doings from his life, but we have to consider that it might merely be an evil spirit that is just trying to create trouble. There are many cues throughout the play to suggest as much. Because we cannot know the nature of the afterlife until we are actually dead, we cannot know for certain what the intentions and goals of the ghost really were. The ghost simply adds to he uncertainties. Hamlet is certainly left with more of his fair share of questions to ask himself: “Was I deceived by the ghost? How am I to do the deed? When? Where? What will be the consequences of attempting it—success, my death, utter misunderstanding, mere mischief to the state? Can it be right to do it, or noble to kill a defenseless man?” (Bradley 208). To be able to cope with this, Hamlet devises various schemes. In an attempt to determine his uncle’s guilt, Hamlet decides to put on a play for Claudius that would mirror the events as told to him by the ghost: With so much uncertainty throughout the play, it would appear as though Shakespeare was saying absolute certainty is not a possibility. There are many things that need to be considered throughout the play. For instance, might the ghost merely just be angry with Claudius and Gertrude for marrying so soon after his death and be attempting to punish the two by manipulating Hamlet? Only Claudius actually knows for certain whether or not he killed his brother. He might tell a person one way or another, but without actually haing been there to witness the event, there is no way of knowing positively what actually happened. The play tries to impress upon the reader that Claudius did in fact kill Hamlet’s father, but consider how the play would change in meaning if the Claudius was actually innocent. There are many uncertainties upon which our lives are built, and this play is asking us to truly consider these and not take them for granted. Analyses of various aspects of the play will help to support this idea. Hamlet turns to the play to discern the truth. Obviously this is an intended irony as Hamlet is utilizing a work of fiction in order to gain the truth. Is this really going to be possible, though? The play seems to convince Hamlet of the truth of the ghost’s words and Claudius’ guilt: “O good Horatio, I’ll take the ghost’s word/ for a thousand pounds. Dist perceive” (III.ii.297-298). Though this obviously isn’t the most effective and verifiable method to ascertain the truth, it seems as though it is the only option that Hamlet truly has, considering that he would not have been able to directly question Claudius in regards to the death of Hamlet’s father. Questioning the reigning king for such actions would have surely meant something very bad for Hamlet. Of course, considering the similarities that were very apparent throughout the play, it is obvious that Claudius understood what Hamlet was trying to imply. Obviously if he had been not guilty of the act, such accusations would have disturbed and upset him every bit as much as easily as if he had actually done it. So while Hamlet was looking for evidence of a guilty conscience in reaction to the events of the play, it is very much possible that he could have very easily misinterpreted the actions and reactions of his uncle. By making us question whether or not Hamlet was actually able to discern the truth, Shakespeare is making us question the nature or truth and certainty. While Hamlet is acts in the play the performs for the king and queen, he also continues to put on an act and pretend to be mad due to the grief caused by his father’s death. This is another part of Hamlet’s plan to make Claudius nervous and guilty over what they might or might not have actually done. As Hamlet is merely putting on an act and not letting the truth of his situation be known, it forces us as the audience to consider how many of the other characters might also be putting on an act. If Hamlet is able to do so, then obviously any of the other characters would be able to do so just as easily. This makes us consider how often we act in ways that are merely attempts to hide our true intentions. While Hamlet is acting irrationally, there also comes the point where other characters that he is not intending to deceive also ponder whether or not he has actually gone mad. We do not actually ever know if there is a certain extent to which he has actually gone mad or if the entire thing is just an act. The fact that he speaks to a ghost who basically tells him what he needed and wanted to hear in order to attack Claudius does not do much to convince the audience that he might not have been partially mad in the first place before he determined that acting as though he were mad would benefit his efforts for vengeance. As there are questions as to whether or not Hamlet was able to use a work of fiction to discern any amount of truth, this brings into question whether or not any amount of truth is able to be discerned from this play and from any sort of fiction in general. Instead of answering any questions that we might have about life in general or the afterlife as well, the play forces us to ask more and more questions about our own actions and the actions of those around us. Unless we are around to witness a certain event, there is no way that we are able to be absolutely certain that the event happened the way that we are being told that it happened. The play is forcing us to consider how much we have to rely on other people to determine what has actually happened, and considering how much Hamlet acts throughout the play, whether within the play within the play or acting as though he were mad, we must constantly consider whether or not people are being completely truthful with us. When Hamlet does break out of his indecisiveness, such as when he stabs Polonius through the curtain, it simply has more negative affects for Hamlet, such as driving Ophelia away and pushing her into actual madness as she does in fact kill herself. After taking so long to consider all of his actions, Hamlet certainly acted completely irrationally and without contemplation as he stabbed the curtain. This act in itself could be indicative of Hamlet actually going mad, but without actually being inside of his head we cannot actually know. Shakespeare does an incredible job of making his point of the impossibility of complete and absolute certainty. Whether we are simply over-interpreting or misinterpreting another’s actions, or whether another person is putting on an act and intentionally deceiving us, there are so many things about life that make it so we cannot so almost anything with absolute certainty. While often times we turn to literature in an attempt to discover some sort of truth, Shakespeare seems to be saying that the only thing that we actually can know is that we don’t know anything. Works Cited Bradley, A.C. “Lectures on Hamlet.” Shakespearean Tragedy. London, Macmillan, 1904. Shakespeare, William, Hamlet. New York, Bantam Books, 1961. Read More