Please post a considered response to the following prompt about Hamlet in the comments section before 12:00 AM tonight:
What essential truth do you think Shakespeare is trying to tell his audience about human nature in this play? How does he demonstrate this idea and to what end (why)?
Remember, Begin with a thesis and then support your answer with referential evidence from the text and commentary that explores the idea.
By Sunday Night please respond to two comments from your class (click reply under their comment). You may agree, disagree, or pose a synthesized answer that explores new ground.
In the play "Hamlet," Shakespeare explores the egocentric nature of the characters in order to reveal that humans will resort to immoral measures when it comes to something of personal interest. Throughout the play, the reader encounters characters who are willing to undertake morally grey tasks either for self-preservation or for other self-interests. For example, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, although once friends of Hamlet, readily agree to spy on him for Claudius. During a conversation with Claudius, one of them points out that although they willingly agreed to it, it's not like they really have a choice because as King, Claudius could easily simply demand that they follow his orders. In this instance, the importance of their own standing with the King exceeds the importance of their friendship with Hamlet. In addition, Claudius plans to kill Hamlet in order to keep his throne (the people would definitely not be pleased with him if they found out that he had killed the late King Hamlet who everyone had admired) and to make sure that Hamlet didn't kill him first, also making it self-preservation. Other examples include other characters who did what they did for the sake of Claudius (like Gertrude who betrayed her son for him) because he's the king. In final analysis, what I gathered from "Hamlet" is that people are mostly driven by notions of self-preservation.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great observation. This is something that although I noticed, I did not realize that it was taken out that far into the book. I like the examples that you used as well. The fact that Rosencrantz and Golderstine went to spy on Hamlet made me feel that they did it because they were not friends with Hamlet anymore, however your observation has let me see that what you say is true because their loyalties are in the King and if he said to do something they had to do it. The wording you used is magnificent-egocentric and grey were wisely chosen to describe Shakspeares tone in his revelations to us.
DeleteHamlet by William Shakespeare demonstrates human nature mainly to be greedy, selfish, and vengeful. Claudius represents the initial greed of wanting power, which led to him murdering King Hamlet in cold blood. He only had selfish matters in mind when doing so. Hamlet represents being vengeful. He is consumed by the need to take revenge for his father. He goes to great lengths to secure the "perfect revenge", to kill Claudius when he is sinning to send him to Hell. Hamlet also fakes being mad, which affects everyone around him. Hamlet takes the selfish motive of revenge, meanwhile, he tries not to get Gertrude involved in the situation, but is unaware that he affects everyone on his quest for revenge. It is human nature to be greedy and look out for yourself, even at other peoples expense.
ReplyDeleteYou made a good point in your thesis but I was wondering if you meant that every character is either selfish, greedy and vengeful? or are you only limiting those characteristics to certain characters in the play? other than that I definitely agree that Claudius displays the characteristics you listed in your thesis (selfish, greedy and vengeful).
DeleteI also agree that human nature can be greedy, selfish and vengeful. I like the way how describe the characters feelings and phrase the examples. Maybe if the Hamlet wasn’t seeking for revenge, could have things worked up well and no one could have gotten harmed. Do you think the other characters caused harmed to the other characters in the play?
DeleteI agree with your point that selfishness was involved and was one of the reasons that got Gertrude killed while trying to keep her safe.
DeleteIn the play "Hamlet", Shakespeare presents the idea that it is human nature to be of sin, however the defining moment that determines whether humans are naturally born or become corrupt from sin is argued through the idea of revenge. With emphasis placed on the differences between the medieval and renaissance idea of heaven and hell, Hamlet can be argued to battle the corrupted image of himself throughout the play, ultimately resulting in the carnage of all characters that come into contact with revenge. For example, Hamlet did not kill Claudius when he had the chance due to believing the king was free of sin through the act of prayer. It was in this moment, Shakespeare reveals the constant debate within the Prince of Denmark on whether his mortal hand could take the life of another without being damned and imprisoned in hell. In this instance, revenge and corruption go hand in hand, coexisting as a force of nature that disrupts the human need for the soul to be spared.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, I really like the way you phrased your thesis and I definitely agree with you Celina, I think the idea of Heaven and Hell plays an important role in this particular play. initially I thought hamlet didn’t have the courage to kill Claudius in act 3 scene 3 but now I see that your point of view makes more sense because hamlet does debate whether he should kill Claudius at that instant or if he should wait.
DeleteI take it this is FOR the fact that humans become corrupted through sin? That is a very interesting observation, as well as the final sentence implying that revenge and corruption are very compatible ideas that are very closely associated. I believe that revenge can most definitely cause corruption in a sense, if there is revenge needed to be done (Hamlet wanting to kill Claudius), a person will indefinately become corrupt in some way, minor or major. Hamlet becomes consumed by the pursuit of his murder and gets insanely into this character he's creating to appear as this madman who will stop at nothing to get what he wants, whether it be Ophelia's love or the death of Claudius, even if a few (pretty much everybody) people die along the way. There won't be an easy way out to every problem that arises in a person's life, someone is bound to get hurt just to benefit the other person or others. And there will always be a tie in with trust as well, especially in Hamlet, trust is essential to getting things done, it can even go hand in hand with revenge if you think about it, especially what triggers it. The truth is very important to protecting people (King Hamlet's killer was very "hush hush" to prevent the prince or anyone to become against it and act out of anger), the truth can also be used to damage a person's life as well. Just look how Hamlet's corruption, mixed with his desire for revenge, initiated by the truth, had turned out for everybody.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the play of Hamlet written by Shakespeare, the main character, Hamlet, is generally seen as a good-natured young man who, when confronted with the fact that his uncle killed his father, turns to a far more corrupted sense of thinking. Shakespeare is profoundly highlighting the tendency of human nature to commit full measured acts of both good and sometimes bad intentions in a way that must always result in collateral damage to other people, both physically and mentally, as a way of revealing how most humans have this ability through the use of vivid imagery of the mind of the characters and the carefully planned actions of Hamlet (and others). Take for example when Hamlet finds out his father was killed by his Claudius by the ghost, he could have easily just shrugged it off as nothing more than a strange little occurrence. And instead of acceptance, he chooses to do something about it. Shakespeare is able to identify how humans all appear to be good people, but at the same time all contain a sense of evil within and feel the need to do something, to make a choice. Maybe Hamlet never really got to make his own choices before the play, and this is his time to really prove to everyone that he's his own person, to express his strengths. This is also similar to how Shakespeare points out the idea of inevitable death. When Hamlet realizes everybody dies at some point, he decides that "that's it, I'm going to die anyways, why not now", and looks toward dueling Laertes. Shakespeare combines these ideas of wrongdoing, acceptance, and death in "Hamlet" in order to illustrate to the audience that everyone has that possibility of being their own Hamlet, instead of keeping to themselves and wondering if they should or should not do something, staying in a limbo of fear, unwilling to risk what could result in their actions or accept what is true or what may come of the consequences. He does this to remind the audience of what it means to be human, what we are truly capable of when the time arises, even if it might be some pretty messed up things, it's there, it just needs the right outlet, and that everything will have some type of effect, whether on others or themselves or even both, and we might not even be able to accept the truth. Maybe that person won't even recognize what he/she is doing is wrong or misbehaving, since they're doing it for all the right reasons, like family, up until something on the outside makes them come to their senses and realize it might not be the best course of action. Or maybe the true meaning or motivation of doing these types of things won't be fully understandable up until the end, when that person reflects onto what they have done like Hamlet, who at first believes that killing Claudius would make things right, that that was his intention and motive, whereas in the end, it seems more like he wanted to get in power, to show everyone what he's capable of, to prove himself worthy of a king even (?), it could even be the other way around, that his intention was because he was upset about not being King and really ended up doing all that he did because of family... or maybe he just really liked it, for himself.
ReplyDeleteIn the play Hamlet, William Shakespeare illustrates human nature as corrupt, greedy, and vengeful. Also Shakespeare demonstrates what certain people are willing to do just to get their way, therefore also describing human nature to be selfish and inconsiderate. Claudius is a prime example of the human nature Shakespeare describes. The desire Claudius had to be king of Denmark, to have all that power, lead him to commit “the primal eldest curse upon’t, a brother’s murder”. Claudius kills his own brother just so he can be king. The desire and greed lead to the corruption of Claudius, the play does not say it but the audience may conclude that Claudius use to be a good man, making a biblical analogy to Judas Iscariot. Judas was a faithful disciple of Jesus, but due to his love of money, was corrupted and even conspired the death of Jesus. Hamlet also fits the description of being selfish. Hamlet does everything in his power to avenge the death of his father and to fulfill his desire to kill his uncle. But Hamlet fails to realize that everything he does affects everybody. He is too blind to see that he has caused the death of Ophelia, Gertrude, Polonius and Laertes, just so he can kill Claudius, which is very selfish.
ReplyDeleteYou make a really good point there with Claudius, but maybe Hamlet didn't exactly act out of selfishness "just to kill Claudius"? He was told by the King Hamlet's ghost that he was killed by Claudius and acted out of a heroic sense of triumph, he felt the need to avenge his father because he felt it would justify his death seemingly. It might not have been that reason Hamlet appeared selfish, Hamlet probably did seem so was because of another motive, power. Hamlet was undoubtedly a little upset at the fact that he wasn't crowned the new king, to have that type of notoriety or control. Nonetheless, I agree with what you have to say, Hamlet was driven by the power he would be able to prove if he were to kill Claudius, it's just that he also felt the need to act revenge on him to secure a purpose, and Hamlet probably didn't want to seem that greedy, so he made it seem as though all of his reason was to avenge his father, when in reality, it was most definitely to prove himself worthy of something greater than just a prince.
DeleteI agree with your comment about Claudius's greed, and how it led up to the killing of his brother. However, I don't agree with your comment about Hamlet being the cause of Ophelia's death, completely. Hamlet acted out of anger to avenge his father. I believe that Claudius can take the majority of the fault in the outcomes of the play. Hamlet knew what it would lead to. If anyone is willing to kill another, they are willing to lose it all. He had time to think about what the outcome might be. I do not believe that Hamlet acted out of selfishness. I feel, he believed he had an obligation to take out Claudius, for his father, and for his mother. It would end the corrupt in the kingdom.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the play "Hamlet" , Shakespeare describes human nature as dark and maybe even ironic. A part of human nature would be revenge, which is seen a lot through this play. For example, Hamlet's obsession with killing Claudius is the only thing on his mind and his main reason to live. Except Hamlet is not the only one looking for revenge... Laertes is determined to seek revenge for his father's death (which happens to be Hamlet), making plans on how and when to kill Hamlet. Revenge drove both these men to be obsessed with the idea of murder without measuring the consequences, resulting in their death and not getting revenge exactly as they planned. Revenge blinded both these men and it is demonstrated in this play that the dark forces (in our human nature) dominate our good side.
ReplyDeleteHuman nature does seem to have a light and dark side to it. I also agree that it is ironic that compassion for someone, more specifically Hamlet and Laertes fathers deaths, led to both of them being consumed by vengeance. Both believed what they were doing was right and blindly followed their dark sides. Hamlet and Laertes represent corruption of human nature from revenge, and affect everyone around them. Meanwhile, Fortinbras represents the only person in the play who did not take the revenge path, and lived. The person who took no action in revenge ironically ends up King of Denmark.
DeleteI agree with you that the play is ironic. The fact that Hamlet could have been king and he could have gotten married Ophelia if he had just waited is very ironic. It was also ironic when Hamlet had the chance to kill Claudius but he didn't because he was praying.You also made a good point when saying that Hamlet and Laertes seeker revenge without thinking about the consequences, they were driven by anger.
DeleteI like how you compared and contrasted Hamlet and Laertes. This really helps to see their similarities and differences. Furthermore, I agree that it is ironic how both of these men took the same path (of seeking revenge) and this just resulted in their deaths. Had they chosen not to take this route, had they been like Fortinbras, then maybe one of them would have received the title of king. Ultimately I agree that Shakespeare portrays human nature as dark as it's evident in the vengeful characters of the play and their unfortunate deaths.
DeleteIn the play Hamlet, William Shakespeare explores the idea of how humans can easily become consumed by revenge and greed and thus forfeit their values. Shakespeare argues that humans have both good and evil in them, however it is in our human nature to place our interests in front of others, regardless of the consequences that may pursue because of it. For instance, after finding out from a ghost that his father was killed, Hamlet decides to seek revenge. Similarly, Laertes wishes to seek revenge for the death of his father, Polonious. Both characters are willing to renounce their values in order to achieve their ultimate goal. This fixation that both characters have on seeking vengeance is what ultimately leads to the demise and suffering of others. While putting their personal interests in front of all else, these characters indirectly impact those around them. Take for example how Ophelia was driven into madness and how Gertrude died in the crossfire between Hamlet and Laertes. On the other hand, there would have been a different outcome if Hamlet had not chosen to put his interests in front of others and sought revenge. Shakespeare demonstrates this through the character of Fortinbras. Initially, Fortinbras also wanted to seek revenge but he veered into a different path and instead chose not to. At the end, Fortinbras remains alive and is the most likely candidate to be king of Denmark. Ironically, it is not Hamlet, Laertes or Claudius, as they were consumed by greed and vengeance.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is in human nature to place your own interests in front of others, regardless of how it affects others. Claudius murders his brother to secure the throne of Denmark and rise to power for that very reason. Hamlet and Laertes both believe it is their duty to avenge their fathers, but do not take into account the way people would be affected by their quests. I also agree that Hamlet is very ironic, such as Hamlet faking madness, only to make Ophelia really mad and die as a result. Ultimately, the only person to not succumb to revenge, is the one left standing, Fortinbras. He becomes King of Denmark by not doing a single thing. Shakespeare does a good job of revealing that it is in human nature to be greedy and vengeful, while Fortinbras decides to do the right thing and not give into greed or revenge.
DeleteI agree with the idea of acting with your own selfish desires to get something without caring about how it's going to affect other people. Hamlet is all about seeking revenge to get Claudius killed in order to avenge the old king's death. Hamlet goes on a long journey to try to catch his uncle in sin so he could rot in hell and everyone could live happy. However, everything makes a giant turn when everyone ends up dead and Fortinbras becomes king. Once again we see that Shakespeare's ultimate goal was to tell us that it's not okay to seek revenge because at the end of the road you have nothing left. Imagine how it would've been like if Hamlet had just ignored the ghost? Everything would've been perfect. Hamlet might've become king (an idea that he really wished for), Gertrude would've been alive, Ophelia would've married Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guilderstern would still be Hamlet's friend. Nevertheless, I feel like if Shakespeare would've approached Hamlet in a happy ending someone was still bound to die because our needs are more important to fulfill before anyone elses.
DeleteIn the play "Hamlet", Shakespeare illustrates the idea of human nature by showing us that the amount of love we show a person can be based upon how much respect others have for them. Throughout the play the characters show us there version of love for one another yet it doesn't seem genuine. For example, Gertrude doesn't show true love to Hamlet because she has a certain level of respect for Claudius who has we know doesn't care too much for Hamlet. Here love and respect go together because we are able to see what happens when the power of respect interferes with love between two people. Gertrude is torn between being there for her son and showing him that she cares, and being a wife to Claudius and giving him the RESPECT she knows she must give him. The same happens with Ophelia. She so desperately wants to love Hamlet but because she has a high level of respect for her father she listens to him and doesn't do what her heart says. In this play love is overpowered by those who hold a high position.With that being said I believe that Shakespeare is trying to tell us that respect is the key to how exhibit our feelings to the ones that matter to us.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement Destiny, I believe that respect and love go hand in hand. The respect you have for a person who is superior to you can be very powerful to the point in which you would rather hide your emotions than dare to defy the person for the fear of being killed or exiled. This idea of respect plays a big role in "Hamlet" because no one is willing to say no to the king, Claudius. Everyone seems to just go along with what he has to say even Gertrude. I was really mad when Gertrude told Hamlet that she will never tell the king about what just happened with Polonius but as soon as they are done talking it's the first thing she did. This act shows how much respect the queen has for the king; She would rather lose her son by betraying him than betray Claudius by not telling him about Polonius. This once again shows how it's in human nature to save your skin before any one else even if that's someone you care about. Respect is above all!
DeleteYou made very valid points and I agree with you that power does cause people to react in a way that puts those they love second. I think that part of that is not only respect but also fear. In the play, I believe that Gertrude goes to Claudius with the information Hamlet has given her not just because she respects him but because she fears what he'll do to her once he finds that she knew about Hamlets actions and didn't report back to him.
DeleteIn the play “Hamlet”, William Shakespeare presents the argument that humans tend to be selfish and greedy when determined to reach their goal. Take for example, the character of Claudius who is corrupt and insistent to eliminate anything or anyone standing in his way. Claudius’ motivation revolves around his obsession of having power in the kingdom. Claudius only cares about himself as it is seen in act 4 when Gertrude tells him that Hamlet killed Polonius (Instead of worrying about Gertrude’s safety he could only think of what would’ve happened to him if he was in that room with them) In act 4 scene 7 Claudius claims to love Gertrude and that she is one of the reasons Claudius did not confront Hamlet after Polonius’ death. Yet, Claudius doesn’t fully attempt to stop Gertrude from drinking the poisoned drink in act 5. Additionally, Polonius’ behavior throughout the play exhibits the nature of egocentrism. Polonius is a selfish father since he never considers Ophelia’s emotions or ideas (also part of the theme of the role of men in this play). Ultimately, many of the characters in Hamlet experience a moment of egocentrism in order to reach a certain objective.
ReplyDeleteYou are 100% correct on the fact that Claudius is selfish. But you are missing a big chunk of the picture, Hamlet is just as selfish as his uncle. Let us not forget that after killing Polonious, Hamlet didn't even apologize to Ophelia. Maybe he could have prevented the death of Ophelia, however the fact that he did nothing proves how selfish he is.
DeleteI agree with you that most of the characters in the play were selfish. Claudius was constantly only worried about getting his power away, when Gertrude told claudius about hamlet (hamlet killing polonius) he was worried about himself saying that he could have been the one dead if he was behind the curtain. Also when Ophelia and Laertes came to him he was not worried or felt any sorry towards them he was just worried that they could be a threat to his power.I also agree with you about Polonius being selfish and never actually cared about Ophelia feelings, he just had a certain goal and did anything to get there.
DeleteIn the play “Hamlet”, Shakespeare presents human nature as corrupt and dark. The way of thinking can be changed by greed and revenge, which is seen throughout the play. Claudius is full of greed, which causes him to kill his brother just for power. By doing that it caused Hamlet to get his revenge and while he was trying to get his revenge he kills Polonius, which caused Laertes to also seek revenge. Revenge and greed caused them consequences and not only to them but the people close to them. Gertrude is also seen as a selfish individual. If she had not married Claudius everything would have been different and maybe Hamlet could have been King but she needed a man next to her. Greed and revenge can drive a person to do much and cause damage to the people near them.
ReplyDeleteI like the way you described the play as a chain of events that all occurred as a result of Claudius's greed and Gertrude's selfish decision. I agree that when one person's corrupt nature takes reign, it tends to radiate and infect those who are affected by said decisions. Something as simple as Gertrude mourning for the late King Hamlet would have drastically changed the entire play. Perhaps then, Hamlet would not have had the insatiable thirst for revenge that characterized him throughout the play and not everyone would have died.
DeleteI agree with your events. The corruptness of the people in the Kingdom, and the greed, caused for the killing spree of almost everyone in the play. Something as simple as quick marriage after death, ended up in murder, again. Had Gertrude not married Claudius, maybe even if she had married, but mourned the appropriate amount of time, all of this could have been avoided. Revenge can drive people to the edge of the world, but i feel that Hamlet saw it as an obligation.
DeleteI agree with your events. The corruptness of the people in the Kingdom, and the greed, caused for the killing spree of almost everyone in the play. Something as simple as quick marriage after death, ended up in murder, again. Had Gertrude not married Claudius, maybe even if she had married, but mourned the appropriate amount of time, all of this could have been avoided. Revenge can drive people to the edge of the world, but i feel that Hamlet saw it as an obligation.
DeleteIn the play "Hamlet" , Shakespeare describes human nature as revengeful and power hungry. In this play we are shown many examples of power hungry people: Hamlet, Claudias, Gertrude, and even Polonious. Shakespeare shows us that power is a dangerous thing that can cause many great ties to be severed. Hamlet and Gertrude's relationship for example was destroyed through Gertude's marrige to Claudias. Hamlet saw this as his mother not mourning King Hamlet and also handing over "his" crown to someone that did not deserve it. Polonious and Hamlet are kind of the opposite however because Polonius intitially denies Ophelia the ability to date Hamlet due to his social status. He realizes that Hamlet has more "power" than both him and Ophelia and he does not want anything to happen to her. This causes Ophelia's relationship with Hamlet to be put on hold. Another topic that Shakespeare speaks on is revenge. He speaks subtly yet dominantly about how revenge is a destructive human characteristics that should not be served. We see almost every character that has been introduced to us murdered in some form or fashion in this play all because Hamlet wants to avenge his father's death, and claim the crown that he believes to be his. And it is through the many tragedies and fatalities that we see occur in this play, it makes us question ourselves. Is revenge really worth it? Does Hamlet really need to kill all of these people whether by his own hands or by the hands of others?
ReplyDeleteI love your point of view on vengeance. I like how you describe all the events caused by Hamlet's desire for revenge in a simple way, just by saying they all died. I don't really agree on the point you made on Polonious thinking that Hamlet had more power. I wish you would have at least explained how Polonious thought that Hamlet was more powerful, but I do agree on what you said about power being dangerous.
DeleteIn the play "Hamlet", Shakespeare presents the idea that it is human nature to be selfish and corrupt. Throughout the play, we are shown this through various characters: Claudius, Hamlet, and Laertes who all seek revenge in order to fulfill their own wishes of getting back at each other. It's all kind of like a domino effect. For example Claudius kills Old King Hamlet because he wants the throne. Claudius later confesses that he doesn't feel sorry for a thing he's done because he enjoys everything that he got as a result. When Hamlet learns that Claudius killed his father, he wants to do everything in his power to make sure he gets his revenge. Hamlet becomes corrupt and even a bit obsessed with the idea of getting back at Claudius. It's the same thing with Laertes. He becomes too obsessed and he does not care or even think twice about what he is about to do and who it's going to hurt as a result. This shows that whenever we have something in mind its hard to let go of the idea and we become obsessed and eventually corrupt.
ReplyDeleteI like how you demonstrated examples to support your thesis. I also agree with what you stated, how human nature will act in a selfish way to gain their need of revenge. And I believe that Shakespeare shows this message through each character, especially in Hamlet. Even though he was trying to get revenge, he was slowly causing himself misery when he was slowly loosing his loved ones.
DeleteYou make a great point and I also agree that it was a “domino effect”. I like the way you explained how everything happened and how it took place was. Because the human nature the three had, caused the people close to them to get harmed and cause other characters to change their human nature to change.
DeleteI agree that it is in our human nature to be selfish and look out for out needs before those of others. I also liked how you explained the consequences brought on by each character's actions, whether it be directly or indirectly. I think this goes to show how we are all connected in one way or the other and it proves how our actions do indeed impact those around us. However, you stated that once we have something in mind, we become obsessed and eventually corrupt. With this in mind, how do you think Fortinbras was able to give up on the idea of revenge and instead chose a different path? After all, him and Hamlet are very much the same. What was it that made Fortinbras chose a different course of action?
DeleteIn the play “Hamlet”, William Shakespeare expresses a negative view of human nature through his characters. He describes human nature as spiteful and revengeful. The characters in the play reflect this. Claudius can be seen as an evil, spiteful character because he murdered Hamlet’s dad. Hamlet, is seen as revengeful because he kills Claudius for murdering hi, father. Evilness and retaliation is what cause most of the events in the play. Not only those but many of the other characters in the play. Shakespeare created most of these events to portray human nature as a vile characteristic. Gluttony and selfishness and make a person do many thing that they might not have done. I think Shakespeare does a good job portraying these events into a powerful message.
ReplyDeleteYou have made many valuable arguments in this statement, however I feel that some of the topics are only limited to certain scenes. I love that you gave examples for the topics you chose. Do you think that Shakespeare was trying to use the characters to portray all of these things, or was he only using the main characters? How does Shakespeare show us the things that you listed?
DeleteI agree with your statement, though I believe you should be more specific on why human nature can change into being revengeful and spiteful. Other than that, I agree on how human nature can be cruel to an extent and their consequences.
DeleteIn the play "Hamlet", William Shakespeare expresses the idea that human nature is revengeful and impatient. This is shown through the characters. Hamlet saw the ghost of dead king hamlet and decided to take revenge. Claudius shows how evil he is throughout the whole play, he killed King Hamlet. Laertes also decides to take revenge after his father was murdered. They both show how their human nature of being revengeful instead of just waiting. They ended up dying because of the desire to get revenge. If hamlet had just waited he would of ended up being king like fortinbras. Fortinbras decided to be patient and not take revenge, and he ended up becoming king.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your thesis that reveals that the characters in Hamlet more readily resort to revenge than settle with idle behavior. I think that this is because they (the characters) considered inaction a cowardly thing because throughout history, the brave and revered men were those who took action. However, this was countered, as you said, by the fact that the one who waited was the one who ended up with everything.
DeleteI agree that it's human nature to become impatient, especially when one is angered and seeking revenge. In the play, its funny how the person who was actually patient and didn't take any part in the fight towards revenge like the other three was the one who ended up with all the power.
DeleteI agree with your thesis about Human nature being impatient and unrestrained when it comes to revenge. The point about those who are patient are rewarded is alps a theme that has been told for centuries.
DeleteIn Hamlet by William Shakespeare, the novel revolves around the idea of Revenge and Humanities’ corruption. Shakespeare uses revenge to kick start the corruption and sinful acts that already exist in these both complex and plain characters. Starting with Hamlet, a well behaved at last until the thirst for revenge starts and intelligent character in the play, Shakespeare uses him to expose the truths in every other character. When the idea of revenge is introduced to Hamlet, he first like any person with some morals would do, challenges and questions the act of murder. Later on as he thinks it over, he succumbs to the corruption that surrounds him. Corruption can be found in most characters of Hamlet such as Gertrude who betrays his own son to please his second husband who is now in power. Just like Gertrude, two of Hamlets friends also choose to obey Claudius, the most sinful character in the play, over Hamlet who has until then given no reason to be betrayed. Before you know it everyone is tangled in a circle of corruption that only pushed everyone to become worst human being than they were before. With every sin, Shakespeare demonstrates how people will lie to themselves to excuse their actions while other people just accept that they are bad people. At the end, Shakespeare dramatically exposes those who were really guilty of sin and corruption by having them die at the end.
ReplyDeleteIn the play Hamlet, William Shakespeare illustrates human nature as self centered and corrupt . Also Shakespeare shows how humans will do whatever it takes to satisfy there personal wants and needs at whatever cost, also describing human nature to be greedy and not think of others. Shakespeare's bet example of this would Claudius and how he took the throne. The demand Claudius had to be king of Denmark, to have all the power, and rule over everyone in the land. His desire and greed led to his corruption. Hamlet also fits the description of being selfish. Hamlet goes through whoever and whatever he must go through in order to seek revenge. Each action he makes effects those around him in a negative way. Ophelia and Laertes suffer from him killing their father, Gertrude suffers seeing her diranged son, and even Claudius is effected as he is confronted by his actions.He does not apologize or think before he does them showing the selfish nature of humans.
ReplyDelete