Hamlet story: “Why did it take Hamlet so long to avenge his father’s death?”

The story began with castle battlement in Denmark. This is where the guards observe the dead king’s ghost who is the father to the hamlet.  For most people Hamlet delay is frustrating, and though people feel sympathy for Hamlet due to his struggle on his suicidal despair, the audience views Hamlet as being the procrastinator. Based on the audience interpretation of the situation, Hamlet is considered to know what he was supposed to do but ended putting it using different reasons.

On the other hand, some people believed that the situation is not that clear to the character Hamlet on what he was supposed to do because he was not certain about the ghost.  In the most critical issue is the discussion about the reason to why it took much time Hamlet to revenge for the murder his father.  Therefore based on the analysis of the story we can be able to conclude that some of the factors which are believed to have hindered Hamlet from avenging for his murder father are as follows (Dawson. 1995).

The personality that Hamlet had was one of the reasons that that made him delay. Hamlet is seen in the story as one of the most serious thinkers. He is a sensitive person and not seen as a man who usually rash to action.  This can be proved from his monolog which shows his thoughts in the situation. He shows that he does not like the task he supposed to perform. That is the act of killing another human being. In dislike of the Hamlet, an action is seen when here, the time is out of joint, cursed spite, and that he was born to fix things in the right order.

Furthermore, the Hamlet had a strong belief which happened to be the other factor which causes him to delay in avenging his father’s killing.  The impression that we see in the story is that Hamlet is one of the oral people in the story.  This is evident when he denounced the sinful action of the mother, although Hamlet is considered to be suicidal, he spared himself from death because he was worried about the act of retribution of the divine. This means he was worried of being burnt in the hell forever.  Therefore his strong believe that he happen to have hindered him from avenging for his father and started questioning on ways the ghost can be relied on. The spirit that Hamlet saw might appear as an evil, therefore, might be on a mission to abuse me to damn me (Shakespeare. 1141).

The other reason which hinders Hamlet from revenging for his father murder is the fact that Hamlet considered himself as being of the Claudius power as well as acting as the representative of God on the earth. The position that Hamlet stand on has an heir to the throne.  This is evident as Hamlet cannot and will never be seen in the act of challenging the Claudius in the open therefore Hamlet was willing to support the Claudius till there prove that the Claudius has committed the crime.  Hamlet claimed that he had more relative than what people see. Things of the play where Hamlet will be catching the king conscience.  Hamlet is considered to be a sensible as well as a cautious person as he knew that the act of killing the Claudius without the confirmation his innocence or guilt will make commit crime against God as well as against Denmark. Hamlet also believed that by his action without proving, he would have led his kingdom to a chaotic situation unnecessarily. Furthermore, Hamlet would have taken away the man that his mother loved.

We can also say that the reason to why Hamlet had delayed in the revenge of his father is because he loved his mother.  Although Hamlet had seen his mother as his betrayal which was evident after the mousetrap, he was certain that Claudius is guilty. I will take the ghost wars for a thousand pounds. But instead of taking action of looking the Claudius with the aim of killing him Hamlet had to see her mother first. The reason of the Hamlet approaching the mother was to find more clarification of her guilt. The other reason of his confrontation might also be he wanted to give the mother a chance of confession.  Confess to heaven; repent what is past avoiding what is to come.  The desire seen in the action of Hamlet in wanting to save her mother soul is one of the reasons which made him take too long to revenge for his father’s murder (Innes. 2010).

In addition to said reason, there is also the issue of Hamlet determination to obtain justice, instead of just going for revenge on the killing of his father. This determination of getting justice is seen when Hamlet found the Claudius praying.  It should also be noted that Hamlet appeared to Claudius just by accident and by design when he was going to his mother’s chamber. Therefore he got a better chance to kill the Claudius as the Claudius was not armed and had no some guards or whatsoever.  Therefore Hamlet wanted to make sure that if at all the Claudius was guilty then he must be properly punished. His soul may be as damned and black as hell where to he goes.  In case Hamlet kills the Claudius in the prayer scene, this would have been considered to be hire and salary, not revenge.  The reason being the killed Claudius would have lost the earth’s life but gain the eternal life in heaven. This made Hamlet delay in his revenge for his father (Bell. 1998).

The other reason which caused Hamlet take much time before his father revenge was the circumstance.  Some of the circumstances like the accidental killing of Polonius y Hamlet, the exile that he went to as well as the death of Ophelia.  When Hamlet decided to spare the Claudius in the prayer scene, the people think that Hamlet might look for the other possible opportunity to accomplish his mission of killing the Claudius. Therefore, Hamlet opts to kill the Claudius in a place which he thought will not attract the public attention. Hamlet did think a chance, but unfortunately, he found himself kill the wrong person instead of the Claudius.  Is it noted that Hamlet was going to kill the Claudius through his state, thou wretched rash intruding fool, I took thee for thy better.  Due to his action of killing the wrong person instead of the Claudius he was therefore seen as a threat to the Claudius hence exiled to England.  Hamlet might not get another chance to be left with the Claudius as the king will always ensure that he have full security (Bell. 1998).

In conclusion, it is obviously noted that without delay in the story there would be no play. Therefore in the process of approaching this issue of delay, some should not narrow down to the difference between procrastination as well a justifiable delay. Despite the entire mean that Hamlet applies he will not revenge for his father death.  This caused by his delay as well as the Claudius satanic approaches and  The impulse rage of Hamlet that cause the death of innocent persons by the names, Polonius, Rosencrantz, Ophelia, Laertes, Gertrude as well as Hamlet himself.  Furthermore, the more important thing to do is the establishment of a clear reason for the delay at every step as well as examining how this delay affected the feeling of the readers towards Hamlet. The recede of the frustration as well as sympathy that the readers had for Hamlet as he is the central character in the play is mostly brought about by the audience’ minds of what Hamlet would have done as well as the understanding of the audience of why Hamlet did not do that.  The conflict between what Hamlet was supposed to do and what he did not do is what the play to be so complex as well as intriguing.

Revenge Cause More Harm Than Good

Revenge is defined as “a desire to do harm in return for a wrong; returning evil for evil; vengeance” (Webster Dictionary). Revenge is very powerful and, in most instances, can cause more harm than good. Sadly, it is something people will encounter in their everyday life.

In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, several of the characters feel the need to get revenge on others in order to to restore their family honor. Revenge plays a huge role in the character development of Fortinbras, Hamlet, and Laertes. All three men seek revenge for the murder of their fathers. Fortinbras redeems his father’s lost honor by gaining territory; Hamlet must avenge his father’s death by killing Claudius; and Laertes must avenge his father by getting revenge on Hamlet. Each character is driven throughout the novel by this burning desire for revenge.

Hamlet is tasked with retaliating for his father’s murder. However, he faces a dilemma: should he believe in the honesty of the ghost? For all he knows, the ghost might be a devil. Because his first instinct is to be a truth-seeker, his first step is to evaluate the truth of the ghost’s command, but this self-examination causes delay. Moreover, his extreme depression at his mother’s detestable remarriage, and the fact that Claudius was elected king, has served to make him sarcastic and disbelieving. A chain of circumstances provides a series of obstacles that Hamlet first has to overcome in order to achieve his revenge. This however, affects Hamlet on a spiritual level, as he accepts that both good and evil exist in the world, and that there is a fitness in performing his duty of revenge. His nobility and balance is at constant war with each other from the beginning to the end of the play. The ethical concerns Hamlet has for Claudius and Gertrude are plain to see, at the time, the church considered marriage to a sister in law tantamount to incest.

Hamlet’s ethical concerns surrounding his mother’s sudden remarriage is overtly expressed when Gertrude asks Hamlet at her wedding, If it be, why seems it so particular with thee? Hamlet disputes Gertrude’s charge that he is being hypocritical, Seems, madam? Nay, it is, I know not ‘seems’. For him, she is the one who has shown hypocrisy and he does not agree with her ‘seems’ Whereas, Hamlet’s social concerns for Denmark is purely centered around the king and the influence he might have on the rest of the kingdom. Hamlet makes use of an ambiguous pun that depicts his dislike towards Claudius’s insincerity and Claudius’s attempt to polish over what has happened. Hamlet displays clear hostility, A little more than kin, and less than kind, Hamlet is more than close in relationship to Claudius (an uncle and a ‘father’), but He resents him and has no feelings of liking and kinship for Claudius.

Although deeply sorrowed by his father’s death, he did not consider payback as an option until he meets with the ghost of his father. The ghost tells Hamlet King Claudius, his own brother, murdered him. The ghost then tells Hamlet to revenge his foul and most unnatural murder (I.v.25). Although murder was an acceptable form of revenge in Hamlet’s time he is uncertain about killing Claudius. However, upon his fathers command, Hamlet reluctantly swears to retaliate against Claudius. Hamlet does this not because he wants to, but because his father makes it clear that it is his duty as a son. Hamlet promises to prove his love and duty by killing Claudius.

Young Fortinbras was deeply angered by the death of his father, and he wanted revenge against Denmark, due to this occurrence. Fortinbras wanted to regain the lands that had been lost by his father to Denmark. “Now sir, young Fortinbras as it doth well appear unto our state-but to recover of us, by strong hand and terms compulsive, those aforesaid lands so by his father lost” Claudius sends messengers to talk to Fortinbras’ uncle, the new King of Norway. He forbid Fortinbras to attack Denmark, and instead convinced him to attack the Poles to vent his anger. “His nephew’s levies, which to him appeared to be a preparation against the Polack; But better looked into, he truly found it was against your highness. On Fortinbras; which he, in brief, obeys, receives rebuke from Norway, and, in fine, makes vow before his uncle never more to give the assay of arms against your majesty.”

Feminism and Gender Roles in Old Literature

It is no secret that women have always been looked down upon in society throughout the years, it has been going on for many decades now and is not a shock to anyone. There are even stories written in old literature portraying just how strong the use of feminism and gender roles are, two very important critical lenses, by showing the women’s roles, personalities and fate in the tales being told. Many people actually think that feminism doesn’t exist,and women are already treated the same.

In the stories of old literature it supports the evidence to just how unequal women are treated and relates to women even today. Many authors are trying to bring attention on the use feminism and gender roles in their pieces to show their belief on how unequal women are treated and viewed to society. The purpose of the use of the critical lenses is to bring light without actually focusing on the women’s roles unless you look at the writing as a whole and critiquing the language of literature. A few famous tales from the Middle English 1500’s ,Hamlet, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and The Wife of Bath, illustrates just how strong feminism and gender roles were used to affect how the story flowed and how the women were perceived as back then.

Many people have most likely heard of the name William Shakespeare, often called the English national poet and considered by many to be the greatest dramatist of all time. He is well known for his famous play of the iconic love story of Romeo and Juliet. Shakespeare also wrote another play with a storyline unlike his typical romantic tragedy, but was based originally on a Danish revenge folktale told by a man called Saxo Grammaticus. In the version told by Grammaticus, a young prince fakes being crazy in order to get revenge on his uncle for murdering his father. In Shakespeare’s version he introduces a twist from the passed down fable in which he called the piece, Hamlet, a tale of a young prince who actually seems insane and determined to get his father’s revenge on his own uncle, who is in charge of his father’s murder. Throughout the whole story, Hamlet is so focused on trying to kill his uncle, he does not realize how many people’s lives he has put in danger: he fails to check up on Ophelia, the girl he likes, and her fate ends up ending her own life because of how unimportant she felt to everyone, including to Hamlet,who killed her father because he thought he was King Claudius. The story ends in a shocking tragedy, which seems to be common in Shakespeare’s work, where everyone in the royal family dies, including Hamlet and King Claudius.

Although getting vengeance may seem like the main focus of the story, since they mainly centralized the story on men, it also portrays just how little they cared about the women in the story. The first obvious evidence is that there were only two characters who were women throughout the whole story, Queen Gertrude and Ophelia, which are only included in the story because they have intimate relations to the men characters. It occurs that Queen Gertrude was only used to portray her unfaithfulness to her late husband King Hamlet, when she married his brother, King Claudius. On the other hand, Ophelia, was a young lady who had a romantic relationship to the younger Hamlet, even Ophelia’s brother and father thought she was being used by Hamlet for her chastity. Justifying how frequent men back then used women for their bodies and not for their personalities, a strong trait of gender roles. An author, Elaine Showalter, showed her point of view of the use of the character Ophelia, “”an insignificant minor character””,to only show the object of desire to Hamlet (Representing Ophelia). Nevertheless, there are acts in the scene that directly show how Shakespeare, showed how women were treated unequally. More specifically, in Act 3 during scene 1, Ophelia tries to talk to Hamlet, to remind him about the feelings they have for each other, instead of giving in to her attempt, he tells her off. He uses harsh phrases like get thee to a nunnery: Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners? implying to become a nun in order to control her feelings or what he says is lustand that he would never feel that way about her because he does not wanna be a sinner(Shakespeare, William). This scene is particularly important because it shows a contradiction between the different gender roles with how the behavior of women are only showed as wanting lust. This is a false accusation, since Hamlet’s attitude towards the women in the play as sexist, and all they want is lust. Women back then were categorized as only objects of sex, showing the strong use of gender roles.

Hamlet is an example of men even today, using women for their own time and not the women’s time is being selfish, and when the women gives the same energy back they get blamed on for their such called lust. In present day, men are just as careless about women as they were back then, Hamlet couldn’t even take a second out of his self-absorbed revenge to check up on Ophelia, after he went off on her and caused the death of her father. If he would have checked up on her and was there for her, she would not have felt so alone causing her to end her own life.

Consequently, William Shakespeare wasn’t the first poet to bring light to the stereotypes of women. Although the real name of the poet who wrote the inciting masterpiece still remains anonymous, some people refer to this author as the Gawain Poet, since this story is one of his most successful work. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight was written in the late 14th century while also surviving in a late 14th century manuscript, along with three other stories written by the same author. The tale is about a questionable warrior being put to the test to show if he has all the characteristics to become a heroic and noble warrior. To go in depth, the story is about a knight named Sir Gawain who accepts a deal from the Green Knight, who shows up at a local feast, the proposition was that he got to chop off the Green Knight’s head only if he could do the same to Sir Gawain a year later but although he was hesitant, Sir Gawain ended up accepting the deal. As a year passes, Sir Gawain is on his way back to where the knight said to meet him,but on his way back, a lord decides to welcome him into his castle for a few days. Sir Gawain was only allowed to stay in the castle if he accepted the lord’s one condition; where the lord and his men will go hunting while Gawain stays inside the castles door and whatever Gawain gets behind his castle they will exchange with each other. Thinking that it was a win for him, Gawain agrees. The first three days Gawain stays at the castle, the lord’s wife gives him kisses each day, but on the fourth day an old lady mentions she has a silk girdle that would protect anyone who wears it from death. So later that day the lord asked him what he acquired but did not give the lord the girdle.Keeping in mind that Gawain thought the girdle would save him from the Green Knight. Gawain leaves the castle the next day to fight. The Green Knight later reveals himself as the lord, and planned Gawain’s whole stay, including the old lady giving him the girdle, it showed dishonesty in Sir Gawain.

In the story not only did they use women as another sexual duty they also only put women in the story if they are queens or mysterious witches such as the old lady with the magical girdle, which is a big characteristic of feminism. The men in the story use women to restore their masculinity and control over them, Karras, an author who wrote a article about gender roles, goes in depth by saying the knight’s [masculinity] was defined in a large part in relation to women. The achievement of manhood depended on mastering the sometimes conflicting, sometimes complementary ideals of prowess (successful violence) and love (successful commodification of women) (Karras, 25). The men used battles and women to remind themselves about their masculinity, showing the inequality of the purpose of women in the story. The women are only objects to restore the reminder of how manly they are, when women are actually more powerful than men if they need women in order to show how strong they are.

This was back in the 1500’s and even in today’s society, men still use women to show how masculine they are, and it’s even worse now than back then.In today’s society, many guys will stunt with how many girls they talk to and how many relations they have had with them, as if women were just trophies to their collection.Whereas if women talked about how many men they talked to or had relations with, they would be considered a tramp. How does that balance out? Which is what many people who claim that inequality doesn’t exist fail to notice.

Lastly, the Wife of Bath, is one of the most famous stories included among the twenty-four stories in the Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer. The individual prologue was written in the late 1300s but not only is it the oldest story talked about, it’s the most important story that shows feminism and gender roles. The story begins with a woman, Alyson but in the story they just refer to her as wife, in the story she is in her forties which is particularly unique because the author usually doesn’t involve characters who are older because they mostly likely don’t even make it to that age, noticed in his other stories. Alyson talks about her past five husbands that she had married, she openly talks about them and is not ashamed of how many husbands she has had, she also includes when her 5th husband dies she plans to remarry a 6th.The wife describes her past husbands, she describes how she has had three good one as well as two bad ones. The three good ones were rich and old and gave her everything she would ask them for, however, the other two she talks about how she suffered in marriage. She would deceive them, and wrongfully accuse them because no man can swear and lie like a woman can. The wife also explains from her observation skills that men only like women for their riches, bodies, or by what they can do, and if they are ugly then they will latch themselves to any man they see until one accepts them. She is displeased with them unless they do these general things like admire her beauty, call her dear lady everywhere they go, make her a feast for her birthday, make her happy, and lastly, honor her family. She would reveal that men always say that wives ruin their husbands like worms ruin a tree. Her fourth husband was a reveller, and she was young and playful, but her husband had a mistress, which she was very angry about that he liked another women so she got even by making him very angry and jealous just to get back at him. By treating him that way, she made sure her fourth husband wasn’t happy and made sure his life was a living hell. When he died while she was in Jerusalem, but she didn’t pay anything to bury him because it would have been a waste to bury him expensively, and she didn’t care about him that much to pay her respects to him. Although she hated her fourth husband, she loved her fifth husband the most because his love was standoffish, she never wants his soul to go to hell, yet he was the biggest liar. He was good in bed, yet he was abusive and would beat her, but she would always have a soft spot for him because, he could win back her love in an instant. She would tell all of her husband’s secret to her best friend and he would get mad that even told her things. Whenever he went to london she would go out and flirt with men and told them if she was a widow she would marry them. She would give her husband all the land and property but regretted it because he didn’t give her anything she wanted. He hit her on the ear for tearing a page out of his book and she became deaf in that ear. She disobeyed and did not listen to him anyway. She did not like the book he was reading because it basically shamed women, and since she knew he would not stop reading it he tore out 3 pages. He became angry and hit her again and she fell to the floor. He got scared because she fell and he thought he killed her. When she awoke they made an agreement and she got all the control and made him burn the book while she remained nice to him. They never argued again.

The Wife of Bath is not your standard female character in usual old literature, she is different from the roles of women in Hamlet and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, she knew her self worth and how she wanted to be treated by her lovers. Although, most of her husbands didn’t treat her right, she always stood up for herself and gave them the same respect they would give her. Alyson was powerful, but they way men thought about women throughout the story showed feminism, the whole prologue says that wives would ruin their husbands and that men will only care about them if they are rich, look good, and what they do. Women’s love was compared to hell and barren land, or to an inextinguishable fire , make the women seem like the villian or horrible people. Alexandra Losonti, in her article Discourse and Dominion in Chaucer’s Wife of Bath Prologue, argues in the Middle Ages women were identified by their roles in life and society as wives, widows, mothers or maidens and were portrayed in relation to a man or group of men(Discourse and Dominion in Chaucer’s Wife of Bath’s Prologue). This draws attention to why the Wife of Bath is not called by her name but by wife, portraying that her status as a wife is more important than her real name.

Similar events still happen like this till this day, where women will only be defined by being labeled as someone’s girlfriend or wife, it is unfair because we have names too, just like when a couple gets married it’s more likely that the woman must change their last name to the grooms. It’s a tradition, but is it just because that’s what everyone has adapted to throughout the years?

Overall, women have been degraded, used as sexual objects, and are stereotyped to receive unequal respect throughout all the years even dating back to old literature stories from the 14th century. Hamlet,Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and The Wife of Bath, shows a point of view on how women were perceived as, and surprisingly has not improved over the years. The feminism and gender roles that happened in the story still happens today, men using women to show their masculinity, being shamed for having feelings and lastly being insulted by saying loving women is like going through hell. What will it take to show how unequal women are being treated by men and show change?

Why Is The Procrastinating Prince

The Procrastinating Prince

For centuries, Shakespeare has perplexed his audience with the puzzling issue that Hamlet poses. Taking it upon himself, the duty of exacting revenge on Claudius for murdering his father, Hamlet swears that he will swiftly act. Then, he seemingly neglects his vow to his father, wasting multiple opportunities, in spite of the ghost reappearing before him to remind of his task.

Even after escaping from his trip to England, Hamlet seems to have no intention of taking his uncler’s life. When he does finally kill Claudius, in the final moments of the play, he does so with no forethought, contradicting all his previous actions and contemplations. Hamletr’s retribution is too late. If he had done what he promised sooner, the other deaths would not have occurred as unintentional results of his procrastination. Now the question remains, why did Hamlet delay his revenge?

Itr’s meaningless to question Hamlet as he himself is baffled at his own inaction. He criticizes himself sharply in Act 2, after watching an actor mourn with counterfeit sorrow for an imaginary character when he could not weep for his father. The actorr’s display in a dream of passion (II.ii.552) puts Hamlet to shame since his motives and cue for passion (II.ii.561) are genuine, yet all he can do is mope like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of [his] cause (II.ii.568). An entire act later, Hamlet finds himself abashed again for dragging his feet at the sight of Fortinbras and his army marching to fight over a little patch of ground / That hath in it no profit but the name (IV.iv.18-19). He expresses his own bewilderment at his inexplicable impotence through his soliloquy I do not know / Why yet I live to say This thingr’s to do (IV.iv.45-46). He openly admits in the same soliloquy that the reasons for why he continues waiting are implausible. Hamlet reveals his disdain of wasting his ability to reason Sure He that made us with such large discourse, / Looking before and after, gave us not / That capability and godlike reason / To fust in us unused (Iv.iv.38-41).

Hamletr’s ability to act seems to become apparent only when he acts without prior thought, from chasing the ghost instantly as it started to leave, to running his sword through Polonius believing it to be the king. Hamletr’s constant weaving between living and committing suicide to escape his suffering reflect his shortcomings of not only taking revenge, but also taking a life by the Christian objections of his conscience. Yet, he feels no guilt for the deaths of Polonius and his friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. A common explanation is that Hamlet is suffering from a psychological dilemma. At the close of the first act, Hamlet had received charge from his fatherr’s spirit and declares that he will put on an antic disposition (I.v.177), claiming that he will act mad as a disguise to expose the secrets that his uncle has kept. This not only exhibits his unreasonable methodology in uncovering a hidden enigma, but also begs the question of his current mental state.

For example, Paul Rozin and Edward B. Royzman analyzed the contagion of negativity stating that the despair that stems from misfortune grows more rapidly over time than the positivity from positive events. This can explain how his state of mind quickly spiraled out of control after suffering the loss of his father and learning of Claudius malicious ploy to take the throne. Similarly, A.C. Bradley diagnosed Hamlet in his study as a form of melancholic depression, making this assumption from Hamletr’s remark I have of late ’ but wherefore I know not ’ lost all my mirth (II.ii.295-96).

Hamlet losing his mirth, or cheerfulness, has lost his happiness in his life, corresponding to conventional symptoms of depression. On the other hand, others believe the Oedipal complex, a term used by Sigmund Freud, influenced much of Hamletr’s actions. The Oedipal complex is a theory of the desire of a child for sexual gratification through the parent of opposite sex which can be connected to the unconscious source of his suicidal dejection and pathological reluctance to avenge his father. He would feel that killing his motherr’s lover, Claudius, would be killing his secret Oedipal self. But what if Hamletr’s torment in playing the role of the revenger expresses his rejection to a corrupted way of life that tolerates injustice and inhumanity? If everything the audience learns from the play confirms Hamletr’s conclusion that the world is a prison in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, and Denmark being one o th worst (II.ii.245-247), then Shakespearer’s play turns out to be something quite different. It becomes the tragedy of having to live in a depraved world.

From Hamletr’s view, his retreat into the limbo of his feigned madness is his sane response to the insane mess that has manifested itself in his life. In Hamlet, Shakespeare undermines the genre of a revengeful tragedy by creating a main character that refuses to play the role that her’s been given. Shakespeare emphasizes his purpose by juxtaposing Hamlet with Fortinbras and Laertes, two sons who also want to avenge their fathers, but do not falter when doing so.

Depiction Of Hamlet’s Procrastination

The story of Hamlet is one containing many major themes, one, in particular, being the deterministic causes behind Hamletr’s delay in seeking vengeance. Hamlet struggles battles, both internal and external, with the internal proving to be more prevalent. Three of the specific factors that impact the heror’s inability to obey the ghostr’s command include his uncertainty, finding the ideal moment to act, and his tendency to over complicate the task in order to seek out perfection. Hamlet chooses to procrastinate his vengeance as a result of his own uncertainty.

Hamletr’s procrastination stemming from an uncertainty begins with his distrust of the spirit he recognizes as his father. When he encounters the ghost he immediately begins to question it. Following this meeting, he addresses his fears of its intentions in a soliloquy, The spirit that I have seen “May be the devil: and the devil hath power” To assume a pleasing shape; yea, and perhaps Out of my weakness and my melancholy, As he is very potent with such spirits, Abuses me to damn me: I’ll have grounds More relative than this: the play ‘s the thing Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king. (II,ii)

As a result, he chooses to ensure the guilt before making any rash decisions to take immediate vengeance. He takes it upon himself to uncover the full truth on the death of his father before taking the fate of Claudius into his own hands. His first method of unveiling the truth is done through the traveling players that have found their way to the Elsinore Castle. Hamlet meets with the group of actors and makes a request for a very specific play, The Murder of Gonzaga, to be presented to all, including King Claudius. The play presented a reenactment if what Hamlet presumed to be the events surrounding the murder of his father. During the performance, Claudius is unable to mask his increasing discomfort. The drama causes him so much distress that he resorts to rushing out and demanding the return of lights. This reaction gives Hamlet the needed assurance of Claudiusr’s guilt and leaves him with a stronger sense of certainty.

Following uncertainty, another internal factor that contributes to Hamletr’s inability to take immediate action against Claudius is his unpreparedness and indecisiveness. As Hamlet is exposed to opportunities to take down his uncle, he backs down. Each time he is able to find something potentially wrong with the situation. There are continuous introductions of new refinements, or added rules that Hamlet decides he must obey as he carries out his fatherr’s perfect revenge against Claudius. These added details signal that Hamlet lacks the self-confidence to carry out what he considers to be his duty. It is not that he does not know what he must do and what he even desires to do, but he prefers to take as much time as he can to deliberate and find the optimal method to do his task. His lack of readiness results in his hesitation and this causes the occurrence of unnecessary tragedies. However, he deems it vital to do whatever he can with the utmost precision in order to achieve the most desirable outcome. His behavior and action reflect this with magnitude. Hamlet does not see it possible to take reasonable, yet effective and purposeful action. The question at hand, is how is one to act as he/she is affected by not only the rational considerations, (i.e. the need for certainty), but also by the emotional, ethical, and psychological implications?

Hamlet portrays an attitude of distrust toward the idea that it can be even slightly possible to act in a purposeful, while still controlled manner. Other characters in the play differ in that they think and act with a conscious behavior, but they do not concern themselves with calculating each detail of what they will do to determine the optimal end result. As a result, they are less troubled by the need to act effectively. The characters act how they feel is appropriate in whatever situations and environments they find themselves in. Hamletr’s differing thought process is what sets him apart from the other characters. An interesting quality relating to Hamletr’s thought process is how well he can carry out actions when deprived of having the time to think on them. He reacts and is prompt with his responses. When he ran Polonius through, he did it quickly without any moment for him to become indecisive or allow the intrusion of his meticulous conscience or his over-refinement.

When Hamlet does something well, it is often due to him having been given no opportunity to dwell on the act prior. When he takes action, he does best when he does it blindly without any premeditation. Following the play, Hamlet is given the opportunity to exact his revenge when he encounters his uncle alone in prayer. Hamlet is aware that this is the perfect chance to kill Claudius, however, he does not take action as he presumes his uncle to be praying a prayer that will have his soul pure. He decides he cannot kill the king at that moment because he would certainly be sent straight to heaven. He resolves to wait for an opportunity to kill Claudius, which would be: When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage, Or in th incestuous pleasure of his bed, At game, a-swearing, or about some act That has no relish of salvation in t” Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven, And that his soul may be as damned and black As hell, whereto it goes. (III.iv)

So Hamlet will wait to kill until his uncle is actively indulging in one of his sins in order to ensure his eternal damnation. Unfortunately for Hamlet, he was not aware of what the king was professing in his prayers at that moment. His prayer was not sincere, as he states, My fault is past. But, O, what form of prayer can serve my turn? Forgive me my foul murder? That cannot be, since I am still possessed Of those effects for which I did the murder: My crown, mine own ambition, and my queen. May one be pardoned and retain th offense? (iii.iv)

He prays of having a desire to repent and seek forgiveness, but he knows he cannot ever be fully forgiven for his sin against his brother, as he is unwilling to give up neither the crown nor the queen. Hamlet’s father’s ghost assigned him a difficult task, to say the least, and Hamlet consistently worked toward and planned on carrying it out. However, each time he fell short as a result of his need to resolve, and then re-resolve, and finally he would find himself in the exact same place he started. It was not due to any disloyalty, or lack of desire. Rather he was being held back by never finishing out his thoughts on the matter. The instant it was his chance to act, he found a reason to take a step back. He welcomed any opportunity to think the task over once more, allowing himself a conscientious-appearing excuse for delay. He did his best work when the tasks were thrown at him by accident, but struggled when he was given any chance to reminisce. This is why he ultimately steps back and waits for fate to lure Claudius to him rather than actively pursuing him. This leaves him lamenting himself for failing to complete his duty to avenge his father.

What is a Human Life Worth?

What is a human life worth? To you? To your family and loved ones? The value of a life can be assessed through personal, emotional, and monetary standpoints. Apple CEO Steve Jobs gave an inspiring speech to the Stanford graduating class of 2005 when he told 3 stories each containing valuable lessons on the importance of life and death from a personal standpoint. Other people like Hamlet, a character in one of Shakespeare’s famous plays, looks at life from a purely emotional standpoint.

In the play, Hamlet was faced with tragedy and questioned whether or not his life was worth living. Both Hamlet and Jobs put a certain amount of internal value on their own lives, but government and insurance agencies face the daunting task to put specific monetary values on peopler’s lives every day. I agree with Steve Jobs and his views on life and death, although, I do acknowledge the views of Hamlet and the importance of agencies supporting families who have recently lost a loved one. In Steve Jobs commencement speech at Stanford University, the successful college-dropout made bold claims with his personal views on the meaning of life and death. Among other statements, he advised the graduating college students that life is short so there is no reason not to follow your heart (Jobs).

I agree with this statement and the message that Jobs was conveying. Jobs was saying that death is inevitable and he lives his life as if he has nothing to lose. He encourages people to follow their heart and do the same. He followed this statement with a story of his own life and his short-lived battle with cancer and how those experiences gave him a new perspective on the value of life and the importance of death. Jobs had a very optimistic view on both life and death and clearly states that throughout his speech. Jobs used his adversity as motivation to follow his heart and live every day like itr’s his last. In contrast, Hamlet has pessimistic views on both life and death due to the recent murder of his father. In his soliloquy, he contemplates whether his life is worth living and if death would be a better resolution or just as bad as life.

He describes his life as a sea of troubles and says he no longer wishes to bear the whips and scorns of time (Hamlet). From reading Hamletr’s soliloquy, it is evident that Hamlet does not value his life and his views on death are equally as pessimistic. Hamletr’s negative views are contradicting to Jobs in the sense that Hamlet does not value neither life nor death whereas Jobs puts a great importance on both. Although I do not agree with Hamletr’s views, I acknowledge that when faced with tragedy it is is difficult to see things clearly. When I was 7, I suffered the loss of my newborn sister due to heart failure. For months, I cried and was upset at the fact that life could be so unforgiving. My perspective on life changed drastically, much like Hamletr’s did. But after a period of time I came to realize that life is valuable and we are faced with these tragedies so we can use them to inspire others like Steve Jobs did.

If you are looking at the value of a life from the governmentr’s point of view, a life is only worth the amount of money that person made, or were projected to make. For example, the families of the victims of 9/11 were reasonably compensated for the loss of their family member. After evaluating factors such as age, annual income, and number of children, the Value of Life Calculator determined the amount of money the victimr’s families would receive. On The Value of Life Calculator website, they claim their purpose is to, help assess your financial value to those you love (Value of Life Calculator). But how can they put a price on a personr’s life? Economically, a life may be only worth around $1 million but to the people who lost a loved one, no amount of money would be able to fill that void. So, although I acknowledge that it is important to prevent families from suffering financial hardship when faced with a loss of a loved one, I believe a price tag should never be placed on a human life.

Each human life is unique, and no two lives are of equal importance or value – and no two people value life the same way. In the face of death, Jobs found even more reasons to value his life and from that he acquired a new-found appreciation of the concept of death. I agree with Jobs and the influential claims he made in his speech. When faced with hardships, like Hamlet, it can be hard to see the value that your life holds. Although I disagree with Hamlet, it can often be difficult to be optimistic when you are faced with tragedy. When valuing a life from a monetary standpoint, I do not believe a price can be put on a personr’s life. Although the financial compensation may help pay the bills, I do not believe a human life has a monetary value. When it comes down to it, everybody dies eventually no matter how you value your life. So, as Steve Jobs quoted in his speech, if you live each day as if it is your last, someday youll most certainly be right.

What Does Being Alive Mean?

What does being alive mean? I think being alive means going through challenging times and learning from them, maturing throughout your life time to ultimately come to terms with death. I value my family, and the time I spend here on Earth. Life is short.

We cant predict what will happen tomorrow. No one surely knows what happens after death. So, value life by enjoying your time on Earth, keep your family close, and forgive. Hamlet values the battles people experience without any hope for victory. Lance Armstrong values the battles people go through but he also sees, beauty and triumph and truth. The Federal Government values every life in dollar amounts for the stability of the economy which benefits everyone. I agree with Hamletr’s weary views of the after-life. I agree with Mr. Armstrongr’s outlook of enjoying the struggles that life brings and ultimately benefits you. I agree with the writers of the What is Life Worth story. The writers teach us how the family of victims logical reasoning is affected by their loss of loved ones. Their pain drives them to innocently justify their greed without realizing the effect of the economic consequences that impacts us all.

Hamlet feels that life is a difficult journey and that the value of oner’s life comes from facing all of the hills and valleys of the journey. He values not giving up. Hamlet begins his soliloquy wandering if he should continue facing the challenges of his life or avoid them by ending his life. He has found out that his uncle killed his father and married his mother. Hamlet wants revenge but is afraid of killing his uncle, the new king. The author best shows what Hamlet is thinking by these quotes.

…to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?

Hamlet ponders if itr’s worth continuing to endure the slings and arrows, the affairs in his life that has implemented the idea of suicide. Hamlet next explains why her’s thinking about to be or not to be.

To die: to sleep;
No more; and by sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, ?tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wishd.

Hamlet is pondering if death will end all the heart-ache that he has succumb to. However, Hamlet knows that his suicide might create worse problems than he already has.

To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay therer’s the rub (the problem);
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil (human body),
Must give us pause: therer’s the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.

Hamlet is pondering if there is life after death. And if there is and he kills himself, will he be in trouble? His religion believed that suicide was a sin and was punishable by being damned to hell for all eternity. Therefore, Hamlet was afraid of going to hell. Hamlet and all his friends have been through many trials and tribulations.

For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressorr’s wrong, the proud manr’s contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the lawr’s delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes

Hamletr’s uncle murdered his father and married his mother. Hamlet is tempted to give up because of this overwhelming knowledge of this. At the end of the soliloquy, Hamlet has, because he fears the unknowns of the afterlife, decided to keep living.

The undiscoverd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?

Hamlet is so afraid of life in hell that he will not chance it. Instead, he will put up with the miseries and misfortunes in his life. Thus conscience does make cowards of us all.

Lance Armstrong, like Hamlet, feels that the value of life is in facing challenges. He compares life to riding a bike, One minute you are pedaling along a highway, and the next minute, boom, youre faced down in the dirt. Armstrong values those people who get back up and continue riding the bike. Armstrong shows that he values getting up after a fall with his story about his cycling injuries.

Cyclists fight an ongoing war with guys in big trucks, and so many vehicles have hit me, so many times, in so many countries, Ive lost count. Ive learned how to take out my own stitches ( paragraph 5)
Ive got marbled scars on both arms and discolored marks up and down my legs (paragraph 6)
One minute youre pedaling along a highway, and the next minute, boom, youre faced-down in the dirt…all you can do is wave a fist at the disappearing taillights. (paragraph 7)

These quotations shows that he values the idea of never giving up because every obstacle in life that he has faced, Lance always picked himself backup. His battle with cancer also shows that he values trying hard even if he might not win. He had only a 40% chance of beating his cancer, yet he prevailed.

Therer’s a puckered wound in my upper chest just above my heart, which is where the catheter was implanted. A surgical line runs from the right side of my groin into my upper thigh, where they cut out my testicle. But the real prizes are two deep half-moons in my scalp Those are the leftovers from brain surgery. (paragraph 8)

His battle with cancer shows what is important to him. Good or bad, the events in his life that he experiences are important to him. Armstrong further develops his idea that people need to try when he says, You struggle slowly and painfully up a hill, and maybe, if you work very hard, you get to the top ahead of everybody else.

People die. And after you learn it, all other matters seem irrelevant. They just seem small. (paragraph 11)
I have a tough constitution, and my profession taught me how to compete against long odds and big obstacles. (paragraph 12)

His comparison to bike-racing to living with cancer develops his main idea that in good times and bad times we have to keep trying. Armstrongr’s last idea is that the struggles each of us go through can make us better people.

My illness was humbling and starkly revealing, and forced me to survey my life with an unforgiving eye. (paragraph 15)
There are two Lance Armstrongs, pre-cancer, and post. (paragraph 16)

The truth is that cancer is the best thing that ever happened to me…Why would I want to change, even for a day, the most shaping event in my life? (paragraph 17)

People live. Itr’s an equal and opposing truth. People live, an in the most remarkable ways. When I was sick, I saw more beauty and triumph and truth in a single day than I ever did in a bike race–but they were human moments (paragraph 18)

I still dont completely understand it. (paragraph 19)
All I can do is tell you what happened. (paragraph 20)

Introducing these quotations about his weakness helped describe his main idea.

Unlike Hamlet and Lance Armstrong, the Federal Government, looking at the value of the victims of Sept. 11, focused on the monetary value of each victim. Congress created the Victimr’s Compensation Fund that would be a safety net for victims families, to ensure that they maintain something resembling their current standard of living. The task of deciding what each victim of 9-11 was worth was placed in the hands of Kenneth Feinberg who came up with formula that computed what each victim was worth. Each family of a victim received $250,000 and an additional $50,000 for each child of a victim for pain and suffering. Then they deduct life insurance, pension, Social Security death benefits and workers compensation. Now you have the total award the government is offering you for your loss. The governmentr’s program of compensation is equitable and swift with minimal economic consequences. however , some families of the victims thought that the amount of pain and suffering was to low.

Gerry Sweeney, whose brother died in Tower 2, Floor 105, points at Feinberg and explains why $250,000 is not enough for pain and suffering in the case of her now fatherless nephew. (page 23)

If your wife was brutally raped and murdered and you had to watch and listen to it happen, what would you think the right amount would be?

I just cant accept the fact that the Federal Government is saying my husband and my brother are worth nothing. (page 24)

Kenneth Feinberg decided to chose the $250,000 figure because thatr’s how much beneficiaries receive from the Federal Government when fire fighters and police die on the job. The amount of money for pain in suffering is fair. Letr’s be realistic you cannot put a price on human emotion, it will never be enough and the government cant just hand out money. As awful as 9-11 was, people die tragically every day and comparing deaths with other deaths is just foolish. Some families of victims thought that they could receive more money as compensation for their losses. One example is the family of Cheri Sparacio and her two-year olds. She explains why $138,000 dollars isnt enough. She claims, the government isnt taking any responsibility for what itr’s done… Please come and step into my shoes for a minute…I am not looking to go to Tahiti. Cheri Sparacio was upset with the amount of money her family would receive because it wasnt her ideal compensation to live comfortably. Other families had a more acceptable value placed on their lost family member. Angelar’s estimated $444,010 award will probably be three times the size of Cherir’s. some families will accept the governmentr’s compensation because it allows them to get on with their lives. David Gordenstein, who lost his wife in the tragic incident, says he would rather devote his life to raising his two young daughters than spend time pursuing a lawsuit. I think David makes a smart choice putting his daughters who just lost their mother first before money, they all definitely need each other more than ever.

I agree with Hamlet, Lance Armstrong, and the federal Governmentr’s ideas on the value of life. I agree with several of Hamletr’s ideas on the value of life. My first agreement is we should not kill ourselves because we really dont know what will happen in the afterlife or if there is an afterlife, but I cant help but disagree with the fact that if you kill yourself you suffer in hell for eternity. Its seems unfair to want to get away from misery only to find yourself in hell suffering even more afterwards. It seems so unfair because the punishment is so severe but im not saying there wont be a punishment. I agree with Hamlet that we should continue to struggle through life and fear the afterlife, itr’s better not to chance it. I also agree with Lance Armstrongr’s ideas on the value of life. I agree with Lance that you should never give up. I also agree with him that you should be thankful for the good and the bad experiences in your life. I think Lancer’s overall idea on why we should continue to struggle in life because by going through these hardships we learn and understand the value of life. Finally, I agree with the Victimr’s Compensation Fundr’s overall idea on a personr’s value. I agree that the compensation method was fair. I agree that the government isnt attempting to replace souls but to keep our country economically stable. I think our government felt obligated to compensate so they did and when they started handing out money it wasnt enough, even though it was plenty. Even if they were to compensate a million to each person, I believe it would never be enough for them because at the end of the day, their loved ones are still dead. Though it may seem harsh to some people to agree with the governmentr’s ideas of compensation, never forget to look at the bigger picture and think reasonably. How does handing out large amounts of money affect the economy (all of us)? Isnt it wrong to compare death? By asking for more money arent they placing a price on a human life as well? Were any of these people in a reasonable state of mind at the time?

Life is an Attitude

As humans, we assign value to many things. Life, just happens to be one of those things. But not everyone sees the value of life in the same way.

The value of life comes from within each and every one of us individually. In excerpts from different viewpoints such as the contemptuous outlook on life of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, to Roger Ebert and Steve Jobsr’s positive outlook on life and death, audiences everywhere are shown why one should value their own life, no matter what hardships one is going through. In addition, we can come to the realization that the idea of assigning a value to someoner’s life from a financial standpoint is unfair because our true value lies within the relationships one develops and the legacy one leaves behind. A personr’s value should not be determined by material possessions, titles, social status, or any amount of money.

For decades, society has based the value of somebodyr’s life around the amount of money that person has and how popular the person is. This is wrong, because the value of oner’s life should be determined by how happy they are, the experiences theyve had, and the relationships theyve acquired. Society has its priorities in the wrong order; we think that actors, music artists ” celebrities in general ” are worth more than those who have good hearts and dont make as much money. Money cannot buy happiness, so why do we as a society put very large price tags on these celebrities who are only living miserable lives and plaster false smiles on their faces when a camera is pointed in their direction?

William Shakespearer’s play, Hamlet, shows us just how no amount of money in the world ” or title a person holds ” is capable of filling the void that is left after the passing of a loved one. Hamlet, a young prince whose father was murdered, has a very pessimistic view on what life is worth after his fatherr’s death. In fact, he despises his life so much that he wishes he could end it. Hamlet claims life to be …a sea of troubles… (Ln. 4), and is skeptical about continuing on living his life. William Shakespearer’s work is admirable, but his central claim to be or not to be is despondent and faint-hearted. Hamletr’s outlook on life is evaluated on an emotional level rather than financial, but how can somebody be content when their vision of life is completely twisted? When my grandfather was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, he didn’t let the disease define who he is and what he can and cannot do. He also knew he was near his deathbed, but he did not let that stop him from getting up every morning to go work in the fields to be able to provide for my mother and her sisters. Even if he had to have somebody behind him 24/7 to make sure he didnt wander off elsewhere, he still did what he did, because he loved his family very much and knew he had to support them until the end of his days. I dont know how he managed to get out of his bed every day, but sure enough, he did. He just got up and continued with his life as if he were perfectly fine. Not once did he ever voice a complaint, and he never once let his condition run his life. My grandpar’s story, as well as Jobsr’s and Ebertr’s, are proof that even when tragic things in life happen, it isn’t the end, and that your tragedies are not who you are and they should not dictate what you do and how much you are worth in this world.

From Chris Jonesr’s interview with Roger Ebert, we come to an understanding that unlike Hamlet, Ebert views life and death in a very optimistic way despite the calamity of his life. Chris Jones, a writer for Esquire Magazine, quotes Ebert, …to make others less happy is a crime. To make ourselves unhappy is where all the crime starts… (Jones 34). Roger Ebert was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 2002, which was then successfully removed through surgery. In 2003, he underwent surgery to get rid of cancer in his salivary glands. His illness was killing him, but Ebert did not let it define him. The uncertainty of Ebertr’s health impacts the way we see his attitude toward the value of life because it makes it seem like Roger Ebert is ready to live life to it’s fullest, regardless of how much time is left and his condition, and this would be apparent regardless of whether or not he beat out cancer. Surviving something like that is amazing, thus giving more meaning to living life fuller than before. Ebert continued his life as a film critic until his death. He didnt do what he did because he was forced to, but because he had a passion and truly loved what he did. The appreciation Ebert had for his life regardless of his illness and hardships he faced should get nothing but respect. It would be such a wonderful thing if we could all develop such a love and passion for something similar to Ebertr’s love for movies and writing. Ebert states, …it’s saving me when I am writing, my problems become invisible and I am the same person I always was… (Jones 18). I cannot express my admiration for Ebertr’s optimistic attitude. I truly believe that Roger Ebert has left a lasting legacy on the world, his courageous story has been imprinted into the hearts of many.
Similar to Roger Ebert, Steve Jobs is another innovative, wise man and an amazing source of positivity. Stanford Universityr’s graduating class of 2005 received such an amazing and truly inspiring speech from Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs was the chairman, chief executive officer, and co-founder of Apple Inc. He delivered a speech based around one simple phrase, youve got to find what you love, (Par. 15).

In his speech, Jobs mentions how as soon as he began to live in fear due to his failures, he did what he could to change it right away. He obtained that personal drive within him to get him to accomplish his goals. His speech reminds us that we are capable of achieving anything we set our minds to, no matter how big, no matter how small. He encourages us to believe in ourselves and achieve wonderful things because the world will always need us. In addtion, he tells the graduates about three different stories in his life, all serving as valuable lessons titled: connecting the dots, love and loss, and death. He explains to the graduating students how important it is to follow your heart and that you have to trust that eventually, things will be okay. He compares finding the right occupation to choosing a lover, As with all matters of the heart, youll know it when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on (Par. 15). Itr’s safe to say that a majority of people aren’t particularly overjoyed with their occupation; oftentimes we hear how much people hate their jobs. I think what Steve was trying to get across to those students is that you only get one chance at life, so why waste it doing something that doesn’t make you happy? I learned a lot from this speech, and although I’m unsure of what the future holds for me, I am sure that everything will turn out alright. Steve Jobs has inspired so many people around the world, including myself, to chase their dreams, and if it doesn’t turn out, itr’s not the end. You can always start over. Steve Jobs and his wise words have left a lasting impression on the world. He stood for something so simple, that still carries such a heavy importance on our lives: being happy.

Some may argue that life is meaningless, as to why they do not value life as much as others. So what? I mean, itr’s true; it is hard to get excited about your day knowing that nothing really matters in the grand scheme. This also means that all those other responsibilities you are so worried about dont matter either. Nihilism is a philosophy for those who are sad, and also for those who are happy, it is a philosophical viewpoint arguing that life lacks objective meaning, purpose, or instinctive value. Basically, there is no point for anything and everything in the universe is simply coincidental. If life is meaningless, then that means that life is nothing, and nothing is something. However, it is up to each individual to define the meaning of their own lives, even if others find life to lack a purpose.

To conclude, the most important thing in this life is attitude. Itr’s incredible how something so simple can have such a monumental impact on someoner’s life. To live a happy life, all you have to do is change your outlook on it, and think positively, do not focus on your financial situation or social status because the value of your life is so much more than that. If you look for the light in all situations you will find that life is a beautiful thing, and there is no time for pessimism.

Claudius is a Machiavellian Leader

Machiavelli explicitly expresses methods of how to be an efficient ruler throughout The Prince. According to Machiavelli, a ruler must do what is necessary in order to maintain power and prevent being overthrown. The most notable characteristics of a Machiavellian leader include avoiding flatterers, to be feared rather than loved, choice of secretaries, keeping people faithful, and how to rule after power is obtained by wickedness.

He focuses on ways power is gained and how one may maintain authority as a king. A king should be merciful and effective with the use of his power. Machiavelli conveys many instances where his techniques of maintaining control have succeeded. In Hamlet, Shakespeare created a character who closely follows the principles of an effective ruler. Claudius is a great ruler who reflects the qualities of a Machiavellian leader.

While there are many methods to maintaining power as a king, it is essential to avoid flatterers. Machiavelli states in his chapter How Flatterers Should be Avoided, that Princes should be wise with whom they take guidance from in order to keep control of the kingdom. A king must be clever with his use of flattery to prevent deception and defeat. If the king is not careful, a wicked flatter’s ways may prove destructive to the king, But, like the owner of a foul disease/ To keep it from divulging, let it feed/ Even on the pith of life. Where is he gone? (4.2.22-24). Claudius avoids flatterers by flattering others himself. He uses other people to get what he desires while also keeping them truthful with him. Claudius uses Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to get information on the cause of Hamlet’s unusual behavior. In Act two, King Claudius states to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Welcome, dear Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Moreover that we much did long to see you, (2.1-3). Furthermore, Claudius uses Laertes to get rid of Hamlet, whom is the ultimate threat, You have been talked of since your travel much/ And that in Hamlet’s hearing, for a quality/ Wherein they say you shine (4.7.81-83). Flattery is one of the various characteristics of an effective Machiavellian leader.

Machiavelli states that a prince should rule with mercy and cruelty, as it is better to be feared than loved. However, it is crucial to avoid becoming too cruel or merciful, as it may cause disorder within the kingdom, The other motive/ Why to a public account I might not go/ Is the great love the general gender bear him (4.7.18-20). Claudius is merciful and cruel when it is deemed necessary. For example, Claudius did not have Hamlet killed right away. Claudius did not kill him because Hamlet is his wife’s son and the people of the kingdom love Hamlet, The Queen his mother/ Lives almost by his looks, and for myself/ (My virtue or my plague, be it either which), /She is so conjunctive to my life and soul/ That, I could not by her (4.7.13-16). Claudius inflicts cruelty when necessary, while also avoiding hatred. Claudius is wise in his decisions of punishment, Yet must not we put the strong law on him. He’s loved of the distracted multitude/ Who like not in their judgment, but their eyes (4.3.3-5). Claudius was not necessarily a harsh ruler. However, when there was a need to inflict cruelty, he always planned to do so in the quickest way. In plotting to kill Hamlet, Claudius planned his death to appear as an accident, Under the which he shall not choose but fall;/ And for his death no death no wind of blame shall breathe/ Even his mother shall uncharge the practice/ And call it an accident (4.7. 73-76). Claudius was sneaky and efficient with the use of his power. His plan to make Hamlet’s death appear as an accident, shows the use of necessary cruelty and mercy.

It is important for a ruler to keep people faithful. Although there are many ways a prince may keep his people loyal, deception is essential in keeping people devoted to the throne. Loyalty from his people is not ensured if they are not kept truthful. A king must appear to be merciful, honest, and trustworthy to maintain power over his kingdom. A great deceiver gains the loyalty of people, My lord, I will be ruled/ The rather if you could devise it so/ That I might be the organ (4.7.77-79). Throughout Hamlet, Claudius deceives many people. Claudius deceives everyone by lying about the cause of King Hamlet’s death, The harlot’s cheek beautied with plast’ring art/ Is not more ugly to the thing that helps it/ Than is my deed to my most painted word. O heavy burden! (3.1.59-62). Claudius lies to protect himself and to ensure that he will keep the crown. Additionally, Claudius lies to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern about why Hamlet must die, Our sovereign process, which imports at full/ By letters congruing to that effect/ The present death of Hamlet (4.4.72-74).

Hamlet, Insane or Not insane

Different hypotheses can be brought forth in the efforts to discover the truth behind whether Hamlet was insane or not. Among the hypotheses are; That he was sane all through but he only faked insanity for the success of the play; that Hamlet was less concerned with the insane part but more to his interview with the Ghost; That lack of sound mind was partial in Hamlet though it was only discovered with time during the play, (Allen and Joseph, 6). Therefore as per these hypotheses outlined, though they look more like assumed, it’s good to first analyze opinions of individuals who had presented their views earlier before.

Therefore, a doctor brought forth the fact that “the dignity of any line of reason is hindered by certain interruptions of a disease. Throughout his talk together with Polonius, the style he mostly used in his speech, to a greater extent, it was highly suggestive of his and kind of convincing that he was really insane.

According to Dr. Ray, “bad dreams “as he notes with Hamlet are among the signs of upcoming sense of insanity, therefore, how he behaves while talking to Ophelia, there is a sign of an interesting feature in something that to some extent is brought about by insanity over an influences by the heart and where the chains brought about by the heartfelt love are purely dissolved irrespective of the fact that it continues among men, (Mack and Maynard, 23). Also, “Dr. Bucknill points out relative to similar issue that Hamlet’s behavior in the play “is combined with faked mind unsoundness and the generosity of passion.

According to Doctor Conolly, together with other things contributing to Hamlet’s behaviors to secrecy and the signs of insanity which can be recognized by any physician intimately equipped with the information on how insanity begins, to the flightiness where on almost all circumstances, Hamlet’s speech is affected and slowly to the continuity of the hindrance like it’s explained by one of the fellow characters in his mode of talking while trying to convey the seriousness as it is displayed by a person with unsound mind within a short period and as well to the spendthrift and unsettled behavior, lack of sleep, strange dreams, Ophelia’s efforts to convince about his insanity and  anxiety as the two may relate and appear in an unsound mind person.

However, away from the belief brought about by these experts though I can’t set my ignorance against their established knowledge about the issue of insanity, I really agree with their explanations brought out to prove how the insanity in question is being conveyed but yet disagree with the remarks they came to arrive at. This is because Hamlet declared his intention of assuming “an antic disposition”, this is conveyed in the conversation by his mother assuring her that he will only be mad in craft. Also, in the trial he suggests so that people will prove sanity, may however seem useless in judging this issue of his insanity, (Allen and Joseph, 6). But, the fact that Shakespeare, the author of the play has influenced many into believing that the unsound mindedness of Hamlet is something very small as compared to his outstanding talent in the works of acting plays. The fact that he could comprehend things very quickly and accurately with the unsound mind in its different levels, then nothing could hinder him the ability towards assuming all those phrases.

Another incident where Hamlet’s insanity is manifested is while he was conversing together with some other two actors as they had suddenly returned without his knowledge. Their finds Hamlet unaware and as a strange occurrence where he abruptly assumes that they had been sent by the king and who he doubted was behind the whole issue. Therefore, while they were in his presence, he has to play somewhat a different role, (Mack and Maynard, 23). He first ascertains whether they have been set to spy against him and therefore without much strain, the completely confuses them with the impression of his ideas and in the way he makes irrelevant observations from time to time.

In conclusion, I have therefore come to consider the question whether Hamlet, though not insane from the onset, assumes such a behavior after they are through with acting a certain part of the play and thereafter, whatever remains is the flashbacks that actually he was initially not of unsound mind neither by reality nor by pretense. Therefore to my opinion, it shows how Hamlet was not mad but assumed the character so as to see the success of the play and to clearly bring forth the intended message perfectly. Something which brought about contradicting discussions on the fate of his sound mindedness. It is always obvious and acceptable for one to change character to behave in a way that may leave the audience wondering about their state if they knew them before, this is done so as to exactly bring on board the type of character intended for the play to achieve its goals as per the prevailing public demand.