I cannot disagree that his advice would have ended in a better result as he would have been better off killing Hamlet and then sending him on his trip. He could’ve shifted the blame to another party, or could have avoided giving an explanation as he did with King Hamlet; Surely this way he could’ve secured his place on the throne as the king more conclusively. conclusion Claudius’ biggest mistake, one that turns around the entire play, is his implied admission of guilt during Hamlet’s Play, The murder of Gonzago. His guilty conscience leads to his prayer in the sanctuary, leading to Hamlet hearing his confession in prayer. Even though Hamlet let’s this opportunity to avenge his father, King Hamlet, slip by due to his dilemma, he is now firm in his decision to avenge his father in retributive justice.
Hamlet is a Shakespearean play about a distraught prince who comes home to Denmark at the news of his father’s death. Once he finds out that his uncle Claudius has married his mother and become king himself, Hamlet suspects foul play. When his father 's ghost comes back to tell him of Claudius’s sins, he is asked to murder Claudius for revenge, but he isn’t sure if he can do it. Some scholars, researchers, and casual readers would argue that this drives Hamlet mad by burdening him with decision. Others would say that after he accepts his father 's plea for vengeance, that he uses this cloak of madness as a disguise so Claudius cannot see his murderous intentions.
However, they are also different since Titus had a fighting spirit and fought his enemies until his death. Hamlet was skeptical to the idea of revenge and even opted for the option of suicide. Titus and Hamlet help us clarify the distinction between the typical and mannerist conceptions of principle. Titus uses revenge to discover emotional responses to events circumscribed by rigid justice systems. Hamlet uses revenge to discover responses to an ethical dilemma where common moral codes generic seem inadequate.
The big question is “Are Hamlet’s actions justified.” Well Hamlet was both justified and not justified. Some things he did were for a reason others were just possibly because he was pretending to have gone insane. Examples of this are the way Hamlet treated his own mother, Gertrude, and the way he treated his love Ophelia, one thing he is not justified in is delaying the murder of his uncle and his mother’s new husband Claudius. But the thing that is justified is actually killing Claudius. Hamlet is not justified by treating Gertrude the way he did.
His self-deception and revenge led to the eventual tragedy in the novel proving that deception and revenge can lead to frustration and vicious behaviour with disastrous consequences. The King's anger, Hamlet's ensuing instability and Perry Smith’s psychopathic tendencies and thinking prove the disastrous consequences of deception revenge. For centuries we have read of feuds within families and between countries. It seems that once revenge becomes a factor, anger becomes paramount and the human logic becomes ineffective. In the play "Hamlet" Shakespeare teaches us a valuable lesson; namely, not to allow revenge to overcome us (Teaching Companion,
When he hears of his mother’s remarrying, Hamlet becomes infuriated by the, “Incest” which has taken over the throne. He explicates this statement by speaking, “She married. O, most wicked speed, to post with such dexterity to incestuous sheets! It is not, nor it cannot, come to good. But break, my heart; for I must hold my tongue.” (1:2 Lines 161-164) Hamlet becomes frustrated for the fact that he may not say anything negative about the marriage of the queen, his mother, no matter how much he disapproves.
Derek did say a couple times that Ben was a mean to people he didn’t like such as Jacob and himself. What was the most damning piece of evidence against Jacob? Was there anything that you felt exonerated him? At First I thought that the knife that Jacob had was a piece that was very hard to disregard, however I feel that the story that Jacob wrote resembling Ben’s murder from the porn site that he always goes on basically was his confession in a sense. To write a story about a murder right after he’s very skeptical, but to know details of the story based from the murder is something that need attention because its shows that he could have been involved.
He also didn’t realize that touching Curley’s wife’s hair was wrong until he accidentally murdered her. The bad things he does are unintentional, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t wrong. That is one reason why I think George felt like he needed to kill Lennie. George knew that Lennie just kept making horrible mistakes that got
This is very clear in the beginning when he is talking to Giles and Paris, as he is begin swayed back and forth based on what their reaction to something is. Also, he is still accusing people (like Abigail) at the end of the play, just not the innocent people whom he was persecuting before. He is almost destroying his reputation as a “witch hunter”, but he knows that he will have better character and a personal name, rather than a public name with no conscience. So, Reverend Hale has not changed in some ways, but the ways he has changed were in his faults, and all of the changes were made for the
Once the witches’ prophecy began to come true, Macbeth was smitten by the idea of being King, though he didn’t really want to kill Duncan and his sons for it. Nonetheless, he was already under the Sisters’ control. I feel pity for Macbeth again here because the moment the witches’ prophecy came true, he wasn’t really who he used to be, and he wasn’t really in control of who he was anymore. An example of how he was a different person was his murder of Duncan. Before the witches’, Macbeth wouldn’t have even thought of something so traitorous!
For example, when the witches notify Macbeth that he will gain a new title, they are simply telling him of the fact and are not prompting him to act upon it (Rahman and Tajuddin 138). In spite of that, he instantly conjures up an image in his head of himself killing King Duncan in order to get the position of the King, and subtly questions if his thoughts are against his own morals (Mac I.iii.130-137). This thought is not the witches’ fault, but if they never told Macbeth of his imminent future, he would not think this way. Macbeth’s murderous thought of Duncan lets readers see that Macbeth has a lust for power, which ultimately leads to the tragedy (Kesur 5561). In addition, the witches’ apparitions also play a slight part in Macbeth’s decision making.
Now this is normally where the tragic hero realizes the error of his ways and tries to change. That or someone shakes some sense into him and tell him what he has been doing is wrong. But that is not the case with Macbeth he keep on doing things his way and keeps making bad decisions. The way it is going right now in the story it looks like it can only get worse and it does. The next major thing Macbeth does is hire those same three murderers to kill Macduff, because the witches said that Macduff is someone Macbeth should be afraid of.
VIII. 5-7). In this instance, Macbeth shows that he can feel guilt, and he exhibits this by demonstrating that he does not desire to end the life of a man whose family was already victimized at his hands. Guilt is the one thing throughout the entire play that stops Macbeth dead in his tracks and causes him to take a moment to consider his present and future courses of action. Although Macbeth was lead to commit murder by the witches’ manipulative predictions of the future, he is the one who ultimately makes the choices that prove that he is in control of his actions, even when his actions cause him to be filled with