Points to Ponder
Hamlet, Laertes and Fortinbras are
all very distinct characters in this play – Hamlet is given to deep thoughts,
Laertes is haughty and hot-tempered, Fortinbras is obsessed with waging war and
winning respect. Yet they also
share certain attributes, not the least of which is their similar situation:
each finds himself the offspring of a wronged party, and each must figure
out for himself how to go about revenge. Hamlet has lost his father (to death), his mother (to
Claudius) and his crown (to Claudius as well).
Furthermore, he has lost his love, Ophelia, in no small part because
Polonius and Laertes convincingly counseled her to spurn him.
Laertes, in turn, loses his father and sister.
Fortinbras, though bereft of no relatives, cannot bear his uncle’s loss
of land to Denmark. It seems clear
enough that of the three Hamlet has suffered the most grievous wrongs, and yet
in the end it is Fortinbras who triumphs and (presumably) gains the Danish
crown. To what extent, then, can
Hamlet’s quest for revenge be considered successful?
And what exactly is Shakespeare up to with the inclusion of such foils to
Hamlet as Laertes and Fortinbras?
Is Hamlet a hero or villain? Both? Neither?
By all accounts he is neither perfect nor innocent:
he treats Ophelia cruelly, he happily sends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
to their deaths, and he decides not to kill the King at one point because he
wants to secure the King’s eternal damnation.
Finally, he is guilty of shedding Polonius’ blood.
And yet it is incredibly difficult not to cheer Hamlet on in this play.
Why is this so? For one thing, we share his sense of outrage at his murdered
father, and we are likewise pained that he doesn’t wear the crown.
Hamlet certainly has grounds for revenge, we admit, and we even catch
ourselves desperately desiring that he finish off Claudius.
Hamlet sums up his situation well with the seemingly paradoxical remark
“I must be cruel only to be kind.” Can
one be cruel and kind simultaneously?
Critics have labeled Hamlet a villain no less frequently than a hero. How are we to account for such wildly conflicting opinions of
Hamlet’s nature?
While Hamlet is unquestionably the
center of this most famous Shakespearean drama, there are at least ten other
characters who figure prominently in this play, an unusually large number. Several of them – most notably Polonius, Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern – fall prey to Hamlet’s “antic disposition” and his
tendency to toy with their minds. He
often cracks elaborate linguistic jokes at their expense, all of which sail
straight over their heads. Some of
these scenes can seem needlessly long, even downright dull at times. Why, then, does Shakespeare bother to include so many extra
characters – especially when they are just mere playthings of Hamlet – not
strictly necessary for the main plot?
