(1.4.23-38) Hamlet speaks of the one defect that is in particular men from birth, and the fact that that one defect is his "particular fault". Hamlet says that this "fault" will corrupt the man. It seems to be an excuse from Shakespeare for why Hamlet will not act on impulse. As though he is giving the audience a hint that Hamlet has a tragic flaw. Shakespeare writes "As, in their birth, wherein they are not guilty / (since nature cannot choose his origin)" (1.4.26).
Thus, Shakespeare is able to successfully tie his thoughts on reason and emotion to a character's sanity. In the play Hamlet, by Shakespeare, the main character fits the description for being a tragic hero. A tragic hero is a character who has experienced life more fully, whether by heroic action or by capacity for enduring suffering than other characters in the play and ultimately destroys themselves. In Hamlet Shakespeare seems to suggest that suicide is an escape from the sorrow of life, "a consummation/Devoutly to be wished" (3.1.64-65), yet much of the play suggests that, for Hamlet at least, it is out of reach. He goes beyond the standards to which reasonable people adhere.
If Hamlet had no flaw, what kind of tragic hero is he? No doubt, Hamlet is a tragic drama, for it has many characters that loose their lives. But the play wouldn't lose its tragic tone if Hamlet were an ideal hero instead of tragic one, which is exactly the case. If more people realized this, maybe we wouldn't have that much trouble trying to "decipher" Hamlet's character, just like Elizabethan audience never raised any questions concerning Hamlet's delay. It was only in the last two centuries, that the audience and their perceptions have drastically changed, which causes this confusion concerning the character that was created by Shakespeare for common people, some ignorant ones among them, perhaps.
Othello: the Abnormalities in the Play William Shakespeare’s tragic drama Othello boasts quite a little list of abnormalities in both occurrences and personal behavior. In the volume Shakespeare and Tragedy John Bayley explains how the abnormality of the protagonist’s behavior brings on rejection by the critics: In our own time more genteel, but also more intellectualized versions of Rymer’s disfavour have been voiced by T.S. Eliot and F.R. Leavis, who both consider and reject the personality that Othello presents to the outside world, pointing out that he is not so much deceived as a self-deceiver, a man presented by Shakespeare as constitutionally incapable of seeing the truth about himself. So the detached, ironic view of the creator contrasts with the tragical and romantic view taken of himself by the created being.
And probably more people have thought Hamlet a work of art because they found it interesting, than have found it interesting because it is a work of art. It is the "Mona Lisa " of literature." "The grounds of Hamlet's failure are not immediately obvious. "T.S.Eliot in his essay "Hamlet and His Problems", says this and after his analysis he concludes that in order to understand Hamlet - the play and the character - we need to understand things, which Shakespeare did not understand himself. A similar view is aired by A.C.Bradley who says that the character of Hamlet as one can understand from the play cannot answer several questions which pertain to the logic and rationality of Hamlet's deeds like his idea to pretend madness and in order to get a reasonable answer one must try history where we find the story of Amleth,the Prince of Denmark which inspired Shakespeare to write this "Mona Lisa " of literature.
Without it, he would still be a miserable, slightly insane cynic unable to find happiness. While Hamlet is obviously a tragedy, Shakespeare did not follow the tragic formula exactly. Perhaps this is why the play is so popular and is considered his greatest work. Works Cited Knight, G. Wilson. "The Embassy of Death."
In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, one often wonders what Hamlet’s tragic flaw is? Was it his anger, his passion, his own feigned madness taking control? Perhaps they played a part, but Prince Hamlet’s inability/hesitation to act, and his tendency towards rash actions are the tragic flaws that lead inevitably to his own demise. He is no Macbeth, Othello, or Oedipus for sure! Ironically, the combination of these two polar opposite traits, Hamlet's hesitation and sudden rash actions, lead to his downfall.
William Shakespeare intended for Hamlet to be a tragic play of a hero: Hamlet. He does exactly that by allowing Hamlet to be exposed to suffering and being able to endure it without committing suicide. Although if one was to analyze the content of Hamlet’s “To be or not to be…” soliloquy once would realize that Hamlet is not really all that suicidal. However, there are moments throughout the play that arise the suspicion of Hamlet to no longer be able to endure the suffering and pain in his life. Hamlet’s judgment can be distorted when he does not act using reason but rather emotional impulse.
Yet, a closer reading of Hamlet’s death scene, while recognizing some superficial union of word and deed, suggests the ultimate failure of words to capture reality. Paterson addresses the dual nature of Hamlet as a play beloved for “the fullness and richness of the language” and a play that take an “intensely critical, almost disillusionist, attitude” toward language itself (47). Paterson argues that the play’s dismissive stance on language results from the greater issue within Hamlet of the gaps between reality and appearance. Words, Paterson argues, “stand for artifice, insincerity, falsity. Their meaning is not as true as their music.
Brian Pearce makes a very interesting connection between Hamlet and the absurdist world of Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot in that both plays are characterized by a distinct lack of real action but focus more on the words. Hamlet is, in fact, Shakespeare’s most absurd play in the way it is written with a focus on the inner workings of its main protagonist as well as several of the other characters to the point where the speech takes priority over the... ... middle of paper ... ...the rest of the play. The play ends with Hamlet’s death and possibly the clearest thought we’ve seen from him since the beginning of the play. Hamlet instructs Horatio to tell his story and to crown the invading Fortinbras king of Denmark. Hamlet is ready to take his final bow.