Hamlet Shakespreare And Hamlet Comparison

What makes the motives of the two young men so ironic is the fact that Hamlet just so happens to kill Polonius, father of Laertes, while in the process of trying to get revenge on his father. Due to the fact that Hamlet is being so adamant in avenging his father’s death, he speaks to his mother in a way that makes it seem as if he wishes to bring some form of harm to her. His mother calls out for help in fear Hamlet will kill her. Polonius is near and calls for help. When

He sought to avenge the death of his father, thus giving his father justice. However, Hamlet’s quest for vengeance did not allow him to remain a righteous character, but instead turned him into a villain. Claudius who is seen as the villain is only responsible for the death of one person, while Hamlet is responsible for numerous. He kills three himself, causes Ophelia to commit suicide, arranges the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, forces Claudius to drink poison even though he is already dying from a poisoned sword wound. So while Hamlet is justified in wanting to extract revenge for the death of his father he was not justified in the amount of deaths that he caused either directly or indirectly.

When he is notified about his father’s death he goes through an instant rage. During his rage Laertes enters the Kings castle and threatens to kill him. He says “Where is this King?-Sirs, stand you all without.” (Shakespeare.122) Laertes doesn’t take his time to research the murder of his dad. Laertes just assumes it is the King who has killed his father, so he seeks revenge on the King without realizing the consequences he may suffer in result. Laertes is not as introspective, after a while he just wants to get the revnge

That alone was enough for Hamlet a reason to kill his uncle even before knowing what his uncle had done. And another moment in which Hamlet had hesitated the most was when Hamlet and Ophelia’s Brother were sparring. And even in Hamlet’s false madness he could 've killed the king however Hamlet had no evidence and still wanted a proper death for claudius so Hamlet primarily used his false madness to buy time to retaliate. Hamlet was likely hesitant to kill a king. My argument is mostly theoretical.

Hamlet had the perfect opportunity to kill Claudius while he was praying, but he talked himself out of it. Instead of immediately avenging his father, Hamlet concocts a scheme to see if the ghost was lying to him. He over prepares his plans. His overthinking leads to obsession; his obsessions muddy his plans for revenge and further stall his actions. As Hamlet hesitates to act, his enemies are already acting against him.

Hamlet, after being left alone in the hall, begins to argue with himself about whether “To be or not to be?”(III.i.57). Hamlet discusses the topic on whether he should end his life or keep on living. Throughout Hamlet’s soliloquy he comes up with reasons to support each side of his argument. Hamlet’s sanity is still intact at the moment because if someone who had lost their sanity began to contemplate killing themselves they would commit the act right away without even thinking. In addition, Hamlet manages to list reasons on whether he should go through with killing himself or not which an insane person would not do.

It is mainly for Claudius to watch and react. Hamlet will soon figure out that Claudius did kill his father because the play is specifically about a murder that relates to what Claudius did. In Henry Thew Stephenson’s review “Hamlets Mouse-Trap” he writes “Hamlet believes that no man who had committed the crime attributed to Claudius could sit through the visual reproduction of that crime without displaying emotion” (Stephenson 31). Stephenson explains why Hamlet has chosen the play to find out the truth. He uses entertainment against Claudius.

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. As many researchers know there is much evidence for both his sanity, and his madness. But which is true? In the play, Hamlet is constantly talking to himself, which is already one sign of madness, but the things that he says to himself are murderous and even suicidal quotes. One of the quotes in the play being, “HAMLET: O, that this too too sullied flesh would melt, Thaw and resolve itself into a dew, Or that the Everlasting had not fixed His canon 'gainst self-slaughter!

The heroes in the “Odyssey” and “Hamlet” both practice deception to attain revenge against those who have wronged them. However, the way in which they go about these deceptions is very different between the two. It must also be noted that although revenge is clearly an overwhelming influence in the two stories it is not viewed in a truly positive light in either. In Hamlet the young prince uses deception as a means to bring about his revenge for his father’s murder. The image of madness which he intends to project would likely have protected him if he had ever gone through with his plans of revenge and killed his uncle.

Hamlet, the king’s son, soon discovers this and vows to kill the murderer. At first, this seems like a case of revenge, but look deeper. What is revenge but a primordial form of temptation? Hamlet wanted to see Claudius pay for his crime, but temptation enticed him to escalate the situation and kill him instead. It was the worst solution to his problem since he made many enemies and eventually was murdered himself.