A Philosophical Death Of An Unqualified Hero

Hamlet has been analyzed in many different ways. He’s critiqued through different eyes, having offered many explanations of his character. However, “Hamlet is not simply a philosopher whose will is paralyzed and mind is in debate with itself; but he is also a neurotic weakling, an introvert and a hopeless procrastinator” (Hamlet Take Home Test, Frame).

In Hamlet, Hamlet is a dynamic character who undergoes significant change. In Act I, feeling betrayed by his mother’s hasty marriage, he is unwilling to play along with Claudius’s �healthy’ court after his father’s devastating death. Hamlet appears to be malcontent; the lone person who refused to go along for the sake of greater good of stability.

Hamlet’s soliloquy in Act I, “O, That this is too too-solid flesh would melt / thaw, and resolve itself into a dew!” (1.2.129-130) ushers in the central theme of the play. In Act 3, his famous soliloquy, “To be or not to be: that is the question: … be all my sins remember’d” (3.2.57-91) introduces his debate with his inner self. His world is too painful to live in, but with the Christian framework of the play, if he chose to commit suicide, then he would inevitably be sent to hell. His soliloquy shows him as a neurotic weakling because he does not have the willpower to make a decision that comes with a certain consequence. He seems to fight with the choices at hand, debating both sides of the situation. However, during his soliloquy, he does not openly state that he is in pain. Instead, he poses the question as a philosophical debate.

In Act I, Hamlet fails as he is hesitant to undertake his father’s revenge because of his inability to find moral froth. As a hopeless procrastinator, Hamlet is whispered by the ghost that “so art thou to revenge, when thou shalt