See the new shakespeare.com. This feature, while it still provides useful information, is no longer maintained.

Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries From Genuinely Interested Students 3.15.97: Top | Help

Hamlet's flaw

I still believe that Hamlet's flaw is his penchant for
delaying what he should do. I really wish that you'd
address that aspect of Hamlet's character.

Hamlet should have acted decisively and killed Claudius
as soon as possible after the Ghost told him to avenge his
murder. Hamlet has an indecisive streak in him; the same one
that allows him to mope about the castle for months on end.
Why else do we get the "To be or not to be" soliloquy two
months after the "Oh, that this too, too solid flesh would
melt" soliloquy? What has Hamlet accomplished in that time?
He's convinced a few people that he's mad. Big deal. Hamlet
could have killed Claudius and gotten away with it. Hamlet
was incredibly popular with the people, and Claudius wasn't.
We learn just how unpopular when Laertes rises the people
in an aborted revolt against Claudius. Hamlet could have
done the exact same thing as Laertes, and he wouldn't have
been manipulated by Claudius like Laertes was.

Fortinbras, Hamlet's other foil in the play, marches on
Denmark with an army to avenge his father's death. What does
Hamlet do? He wiles away the time, playing mad and deceiving
people, but accomplishing nothing.

If Hamlet truly questioned the Ghost's identity, why didn't
he test it when they confronted each other? Both times
Hamlet unquestioningly accepts the identity of the Ghost as
his dead father. Why? Because this is the other Hamlet, the
one that, once sparked to action, is a dynamic, capable
young man. This is the man who killed Polonius, jumped
aboard the pirate ship, and outfenced Laertes. The "active"
Hamlet, for lack of a more colorful description, is like
Laertes and Fortinbras, and a greater man on the whole.

Regarding Hamlet's refusal to kill Claudius while he is
"praying," even before he realizes that he would send
Claudius' soul to heaven Hamlet expresses doubt: "Now I
might do it." Fortinbras would have splattered the king's
brains against the wall and had done with it. Simple, nice,
neat. Hamlet, however, has this tendency to overthink things.
And it gets him killed. And drives Ophelia insane. And gets
Gertrude killed. And Polonius. And Rosencrantz. And
Guildenstern. And Laertes. And Ophelia.

If Hamlet could have acted decisively, seven innocent
people would survive the play, and one guilty man would go
punished.

If Hamlet is without flaws, what possible function do his
two foils, Laertes and Fortinbras, serve? Both of them are
men of action. Hamlet, at times, is not. When Hamlet is
spurred to action, he is a greater man than Laertes and
Fortinbras. But when Hamlet starts thinking too much, he
gets himself into trouble. What makes this hard for many
people to accept as a flaw is that Hamlet comes up with
acceptable reasons to justify his delays.

Still, this is his major flaw, and it brings about his
downfall. I can't express it any plainer: if Hamlet were
a simpler man of action, he would have triumphed.

Sorry for being long-winded, but I wanted to explain exactly
where I'm coming from on this one.

Posted by Scott Schiefelbein on April 01, 1997 at 15:56:22
In Reply to "I've discussed this elsewhere" posted by Justin Bacon on April 01, 1997 at 15:04:14

 Replies

 Post a Reply

Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries From Genuinely Interested Students 3.15.97: Top | Help