Thursday, February 21, 2013

Many scholars argue that Hamlet’s tragic flaw is his tendency toward inaction—his inability to act. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Yes, indeed. If Hamlet had acted immediately and decisively as he had promised the ghost to do, none of the tragic outcomes later would have occurred. His procrastination is what led to the deaths of so many innocents, including his own tragic demise.


When Hamlet is confronted by his father's ghost and learns about its untimely and horrific death, he is truly distraught and passionately promises:



Haste me to know't, that I, with wings as swift
As meditation or the thoughts of love,
May sweep to my revenge. 



When he is informed of the heinous nature of his father's death he once again asserts:



O, fie! Hold, hold, my heart;
And you, my sinews, grow not instant old,
But bear me stiffly up.



The words imply that Hamlet is ready to act and that his heart should not give in but give him the strength to perform his revenge. Truly the words of one who wants to take charge. This, however, is not so. Even though he is all fire and brimstone in the moment, it becomes clear later that Hamlet is not a man of action. He informs Horatio that he will adopt an 'antic disposition' which suggests that he will assume some form of odd behaviour to mislead and trick those whom he wishes to punish. Some commentators call it feigned madness. This is an obvious indication that he wishes to have time to plot his revenge.


It is also evident that Hamlet resents the duty that has now been imposed upon him:



The time is out of joint: O cursed spite,
That ever I was born to set it right!



He states here that he was born at the wrong time and curses the malevolent forces which have now made this atrocious task his destiny. Hamlet is obviously not a ruthless killer, but one who holds high moral values. He prefers to think things through and plan his actions and would therefore not be able to act impulsively.


This incapacity to act troubles Hamlet deeply and he is quite critical of himself, and at one point he even considers suicide, but even that is not an option, for just as murder is a crime, so is the act of taking ones own life. He however, still delays. He is faced with a dilemma and he struggles to deal with the duty imposed upon him. He really does not know how to proceed. In the process, his procrastination worsens the situation until he finally decides to act by staging a play to entrap the wily Claudius.


Hamlet had an opportunity to kill Claudius when he was vulnerable, but he couldn't, using the fact that Claudius was at prayer as an excuse not to commit the deed.



Now might I do it pat, now he is praying;
And now I'll do't. And so he goes to heaven;
And so am I revenged. That would be scann'd:
A villain kills my father; and for that,
I, his sole son, do this same villain send
To heaven...



He believed that it would be inappropriate to send Claudius to heaven when his father had not been given an opportunity to redeem his soul, since he was asleep when he was murdered. He later in this soliloquy promised that if he should find Claudius in a situation where he is committing some kind of sin, he would then kill him so that he (Claudius) may burn in the fires of hell.


If he had avenged his father's assassination at that point, none of the other tragedies would have unfolded. 



 

No comments:

Post a Comment

What was the device called which Faber had given Montag in order to communicate with him?

In Part Two "The Sieve and the Sand" of the novel Fahrenheit 451, Montag travels to Faber's house trying to find meaning in th...