Death

Shakespeare finds such value in the use of death and tragedy in his plays. Therefore, he uses this as a theme for most of his plays. When we read about the death involved in the play there are many different types. For example, some are related to rage and aggression whereas some relate to sadness. When Hamlet kills polonius, it is out of anger, but it also happens to be an accident. The way Shakespeare uses death really helps out the play. Hamlet as a character is set out to kill the king and has an opportunity to, but he just flakes out. It seems that the more important the character, the more they find the need to kill. Laertes is upset with Hamlet for killing his father so he feels the need to avenge it. That shows that death is of great importance for the characters. In Romeo and Juliet, juliet pretended to be dead so that they could be together. Since Romeo thinks Juliet is dead he kills himself. What is the importance of this death, to the characters? It makes the characters the way they are. Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy because of death, Hamlet could also be considered a tragedy because it focuses on the importance of death. The deaths in Hamlet are based off each other. Hamlet wants to kill the king because he killed his father. Hamlet accidentally kills Polonius thinking that it was the king. Leartes wants to kill Hamlet because of his father. Ophelia just goes crazy because of all that happens and kills herself. Death in this play seems to be mocked in certain cases, instead of oh no tragedy. For example, when the sword fight at the end happens they mean to kill Hamlet with the poisioned drink, but instead kill the queen. That does not really seem like a sad death for the queen, just for the king. The audience just kind of feels that's what the king deserves for trying to kill Hamlet. Ophelia kills  herself because of insanity. It seems that Shakespeare creates the sadness of death through her character. Ophelia as a character only suffers because she cannot be with her lover Hamlet. Her father is killed by her lover which in turn creates more sadness, which eventually ends in the suicide. The suicide in the play, is where the tragedy comes in. Shakespeare writes suicide in his plays to put out the idea of suffering as an individual. Most of his characters suffer from their overall surroundings and situations put in front of them.

JZ's response to # 5

Hamlet, the character, has received much flak for his supposed inability to act.  While this criticism may hold some merit, critics must remember that this is a play.  If Hamlet were to murder Claudius immediately after the ghost informed him of Claudius' deed, well that would effectively remove a bulk of the play.  What would happen to the drama?  The plot?  Suspense?  Shakespeare was endeavoring to engender a play that would entertain the audience.  Sometimes this entails some unrealistic actions.  I am alright with this phenomenon as long as it keeps me in suspense.  In addition, critics also must remember that Hamlet is delaying his actions because he is trying to perform such a deed in a purposeful, effective, reasonable, and satisfying manner.  To act or not to act is heavily pending rational considerations, such as absolute certainty, or whether or not to effectively send Claudius to heaven, by murdering him during prayer.  Considering the former rational consideration, murdering Claudius without just cause would result in, as Walker mentioned, incredible turmoil throughout the kingdom.  In addition, murdering without justification would send Hamlet to hell and devastate Gertrude.  COntinuing on the note of certainty, which seems to be a rather prominent theme throughout the play, Hamlet needs conviction, because it was a ghost that told him of the murder.  Ghosts are mythical and fictitious beings.  Although Hamlet is feigning madness, we are given evidence that he might indeed be going a tad insane, (I definitely feel so) and therevfore, imagining a ghost is entirely plausible.   Perhaps the ghost was a figment of Hamlet's conscience, and was simply misleading him.  Therefore, Hamlet would truly need evidence.  (however, some of the guards also saw the ghost, and we later gain evidence confirming Claudius' deed, both of which undermines everything I just said)  However, also like I previously mentioned, this is indeed a play, and is intended to amuse, so such events are plausible.  Ultimately though, Hamlet does indeed kill Claudius, but at a steep price: his life.  Could it be that Shakespeare is suggesting that had Hamlet acted earlier he could have circumnavigated the ramifications?  Or could it be that Shakespeare feels that absolute certainty should always be a priority.  Perhaps the longing for a sense of certainty is the proverbial spark that keeps humans searching and living.  Like we discussed earlier in the year, humans read novels because books are rife with connections and meaning.   The meaning creates certainty, which seems to be something humans are longing for.  I feel that humans are inherently conservative creatures, and tend to act out of certainty, as opposed to hesitation.  (i.e. Hamlet)  This lack of conviction ultimately results in hesitation, for better or worse.  Many argue that it isn't very intellectually rigorous to say that the answer truly depends on the scenario.  I wholeheartedly disagree.  IN many cases answers are truly pending.  However, in this very situation hesitation did result in death for our protagonist.  Whether or not Shakespeare was insinuating at this theme, well, I cannot say.  I for one say that he who hesitates might be lost in some cases, but not others.  I feel that being impulsive is better in some cases, and being hesitant is better in others.  

Hamlet Responce

Considering it is one of the Classics of literature, Hamlet left me with several serious question. For one, why did Learities forgive Hamlet! He had no need to. Polonious had not killed Hamlets father. Polonious had not acted against Hamlet in a spiteful way. Yet Laerities finds it in his heart to make amends with Hamlet? What literary bullshit. If that was me I would have been so pissed. The guy remorselessly kills my father, torments my sister to suicide, and destroys the peace at home. I would never find it in my heart to forgive him because of, well, being a "distraught soul" or something like that.
Second, why o why would Hamlet endorse Fortinbras to be King of Denmark? Is this really necessary? After an entire play of Hamlet striving to avenge his father and follow his wishes, he lets the old King's greatest enemy take the throne that was rightfully his? Hamlet, what are you doing? Cmon man show some consistency.
Third, the Roman names in Denmark. Really? Shakespeare? Really?
Fourth, Why did Claudius balk at the long oratory of the play rather than the much more graphic dumb play? I mean...the murder was enacted on stage an Claudius couldn't pick up on it, but he grasps the notion in dialog? Actors, is this your fault?
Fifth, the killing of Rosencratz and Gildenstern are ridiculous. The letter part was cool, but would the English just kill two men at the advice of a rival King's letter? Furthermore, why did they send people all the way to Denmark to collect pay? The deal should have sounded fishy from the start.
Sixth, and this only applies to the movie. Black and Asian Generals? Really? I'm not racist or anything but dude, the only place whiter than Denmark is Austin Radford.

Hesitation is Indeed a Vice, Maybe Not

One may criticize Hamlet for his hesitation and constant procrastination in regard to carrying out his revenge for his father. However, one must also remember what this revenge is. Hamlet's revenge constitutes killing the newly-elected King, who also happens to be his Uncle. Killing a King is an arduous and daunting task because it has the possibility of bringing pain and suffering to the perpetrator. On top of the fact that Hamlet is to kill a King, he must keep in mind that the King is also a family member and is dearly loved by his mother. If he does kill the King, he will bring sorrow to his mother and will bring hell upon himself. One can see that Hamlet has a lot of information to think about before executing such an act. This accounts for and explains his hesitation. Anyone would be hesitant in killing a person in the first place, but to kill a King is a much more frightening task. Of course Hamlet is going to dawdle due to fear and confusion over what to do. He has been approached by a ghost of his father for god's sake. What is he supposed to glean from that interaction? I think that Hamlet's hesitation and inability to act is most certainly well-founded when one observes the circumstances.
However, there are many problems with hesitating with decisions. One must decide what to do and follow through with it, or else consequences could follow or your opportunity will cease to exist. Shakespeare makes a statement of this by killing off everyone. Most of these deaths, if not all, can be attributed to Hamlet's inability to act. If he had killed Claudius immediately after talking to the ghost of his father, none of these other terrible acts would have occured. Ophelia would be alive and in love with Hamlet, as would her brother, father, and Hamlet's mother. Hamlet, understandably so, wastes time, however, and sets this series of unfortunate events in motion. Hamlet does eventually succeed in his task however. He does pay a price, his own life, to achieve this goal. Could it have been avoided had he acted earlier? Most likely yes. There would have been the possiblity of repercusions for killing the King, but Hamlet most likely would have found a way around that.
Perhaps Shakespeare is making a statement about inaction, saying that it leads to worse things than decisions made quickly, and possibly in haste. However, at the same time, I feel that Hamlet's inaction was completely justified considering what he was dealing with. I think either way, consequences would have taken place. Shakespeare may also be making a statement in saying that too much thinking can lead to problems. He may be trying to get the message across to simply make a decision, and once that decision is made, act upon it. I still feel that bad events would have occured had Hamlet killed Claudius immediately. Shakespeare may be trying to show that it's best to make a decision, and when that decision is made, to act carefully upon it. Your actions need to be the well-thought out parts of the whole affair. Your thoughts should go either one way or the other. It is all quite confusing and I'm not sure I see a clear relationship or point Shakespeare is trying to show.

Madness

In Shakespeare's play, Hamlet pretends to be crazy, but in actuality, his prattling and raving really has rhyme AND reason to it. I think in his madness, he's trying to insult everyone who supports Claudius by insulting their intelligence. Polonious tends to be the butt of most of his insults, which Polonious can follow, while he cannot understand.  

Not only this, but he can string his words together in such a way that they make a subtle kind of sense. He talks a lot about the mask that men wear to appear innocent when they have something to hide. He speaks of "words" that hide what someone is, such as Claudius's words are thick with deceit. 

Ophelia, on the other hand, has no rhyme nor reason to her crazy rants. There is no pattern of any kind; she simply talks....okay actually, maybe there is some: she does talk about the betrayal of Hamlet, the one she loved...but it's in such a random way that it seems inconsistent. No one but the audience or the reader would really understand her. We know she is sad about her father, and hurt by Hamlet, but it's almost impossible to tell due to her jumbled words and crazy actions.