Soliolquy in Shakespeare´s Hamlet and The Reverger´s Tragedy

Madness is a condition that is often difficult to identify, especially when trying to analyze the behavior of a fictional character in a play that was published in 1603. In the play, Hamlet is asked to avenge his father’s death and to accomplish this task in a less apparent manner, Hamlet decides to put on an antic disposition. The madness of Hamlet is often disputed, for good reason, as his behavior is frequently baffling throughout the play. Shakespeare, the author of this tragic play, leaves the audience to decide whether Hamlet is truly mad or not. However, through careful examination and analysis, it becomes clear that Hamlet’s act of madness was just that—an act.

Appearance versus reality is the difference between what seems to be, and what truly is. Society experiences this, as sometimes someone appears to be your friend, when they are actually working against you. Many people hide their true identities, keeping up an appearance different from their own. Many pieces of literature utilize this theme, and a notable example would be Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Many of the characters appear to be acting in Hamlet’s best interests, but are really plotting against him, and Hamlet himself puts on an appearance of madness, unlike his own sanity.

In order to further investigate, Hamlet assumes an antic disposition and takes on the behaviours of a mad man. Throughout his play Hamlet, Shakespeare warns the audience against our own human psyche; furthermore he shows us that when we trust in unscrupulous sources, we fail to see the truth. A society founded on truth can Shakespeare illustrates

In order to capture the recurring theme of dishonesty, William Shakespeare uses the death of King Hamlet to force a façade of security and responsibility on the major characters in his play, Hamlet. Although King Claudius fails in comparison to his late brother King Hamlet, he still tries to portray king like traits and exemplify king like deeds. However, we quickly find that he is weak and faulty king not truly fit to rule. His character embodies irony to the fullest. Hamlet even refers him as a joke compared to his father.

It is clear, certainly, how concern... ... middle of paper ... ...n behind the words and appearances. Yet much as they do Hamlet, words begin to rebel against Paterson, ambushing him in his quest for their concealed truths. A more nuanced reading of Hamlet is perhaps less satisfying, as it fails to provide the reader with a neat answer. Yet, like Hamlet, the audience is ultimately unwilling to forgo truth for artifice. When the audience brushes away Paterson’s artifice, they come to find a more complicated relationship between word and deed, even in the play’s final moments--yet, ultimately a more fruitful relationship as well.

In Shakespeare tragic play Hamlet, the characters’ flaws of Hamlet, Ophelia, and Claudius makes them victims of their flaw. Hamlet lacks the ability to take action towards his goal, whereas Ophelia has no free will and follows men like Polonius, while Claudius follows his greed of power. Shakespeare displays Hamlet as the protagonist. He describes Hamlet having a conflict with himself that prevents him to accomplish his goal to

Shakespeare is not content, however, with the simple notion of thought as a mere signifier of the battle between the mind and the body. The real clash is a conflict of consciousness, of Hamlet's oscillations between infinite abstraction and shackled solipsism, between recognition of the heroic ideal and of his limited means, between the methodical mishmash of sanity and the total chaos of insanity. I repeat "between" not only for anaphoric effect, but to suggest Shakespeare's conception of thought; that is, a set of perspectivally-splintered realities which can be resolutely conflated, for better or worse, only by the mediating hand of action. Any discussion of Hamlet, a work steeped in contradictions and doubles, necessitates inquiry into passages ... ... middle of paper ... ...ble that someday the legendary cultural baggage that accompanies Hamlet will be lost, and future generations may wish to judge the play on its dramatic merits and not on its required-reading position. If that is the case, they may very well "make" the play "bad" through their different perspective, one which we cannot yet appreciate, and Hamlet, already four centuries old, may disappear from our cultural consciousness.

However, later in the play Hamlet questions the validity of the apparition after assuming its sincerity initially. In the scene following the ghost's entrance, Hamlet's speech towards Horatio and guards is evasive as his mood swings ... ... middle of paper ... ...es the superiority and intelligence of Hamlet. Surfacely, Hamlet's supposed insanity paves the way for the plot of the tragedy. The madness also proves as a medium for comparison for other events, themes, and images in the play such as Ophelia's insanity and Laertes' real avenger role. Introspectively, Hamlet's supposed derangement allows him to question himself and supplies us with a more rounded picture of Hamlet's true character.

By placing Macbeth against Hamlet’s incredibly high standards, it becomes clear that the character of Macbeth is not a Machiavellian prince for one simple reason: he is not smart enough and lacks the foresight that Machiavelli preached. The character of Hamlet is far removed from a Machiavellian prince. He is unconcerned with his own public image and instead focuses on deep knowledge of a person and himself. The opening line of Hamlet, “who’s there?” (Shakespeare 1.1.1), sets up the play for the theme of self-discovery that Hamlet and Shakespeare himself are obsessed with. The thesis of Hamlet quickly exposes itself in (1.1.2) as, “stand and unfold yourself,” which starkly disagrees with The Prince’s thesis of taking on the traits of both a lion and a fox (Machiavelli 69).

After meeting with a ghost, who tells him to seek revenge against his uncle Claudius, Hamlet is determined to take action. Conversely he has a compulsion to moral law, which yields him to lack firmness. Critiques commonly label Hamlet as a man of contemplation rather than action. Consequently his periods of inactivity, tentative emotions, and constant hesitation characterize Hamlet as indecisive. In between periods of vague action Hamlet’s road to revenge takes several detours.