We all know what happens when the ball drops in Time Square: dieting season. People all around the world plan their New Year’s resolution of finally hitting the gym and laying off the junk food. And every year, most plans go one of two ways: people either “plan on starting their diet tomorrow” for around twelve months and then rinse and repeat, or they starve themselves for around two weeks before giving up. In other words, they always either hesitate to act for too long and end up with absolutely no results, or they act too quickly and ultimately end up with no results either. This problem of extrema in action is quite common, and Shakespeare’s characters in Hamletare no exception to this fault. In the play, Hamlet’s outer persona is one of wit and irrational behavior, whereas his inner persona depicts a pained, introspective man—together, these conflicting natures lead to him to procrastinate his quest for vengeance. Thus, through Hamlet’s psychiatric discrepancies, Shakespeare explores the consequences of acting too soon or not soon enough: there exists a medium in planning action, and when we fall too far towards one end of the spectrum, the results are far from optimal.
Hamlet’s public persona stems from his playful wit, which eventually evolves into pure irrationality. His dialogue with significant characters, such as Claudius, Polonius, and Gertrude, reveals his quick-thinking as he speaks with double meanings and convoluted insults. When introduced to Hamlet in the first act, the first line he emits is a subtle insult aimed at King Claudius, stating, “A little more than kin and less than kind,” in which Hamlet disregards Claudius referring to him as both nephew and son and instead expresses his disdain for Claudius (1.2.67). Hamlet’s wordplay on “kin” and “kind” further portrays his restless demeanor, which evolves as the play progresses along with his madness. This is evident once Hamlet has taken on the task of killing Claudius: during the players’ performance, for example, he converses in double entendres—with his sexual advances to lay on Ophelia’s lap and his mockery of Polonius during their talk of the clouds—in his crusade to convince the kingdom of his emotional instability (3.2). However, these passive jabs escalate into full-fledged irrationality. When arguing with his mother, he stabs Polonius, who is hiding behind the curtains, purely due to his extreme emotions, choosing to act on a whim rather than investigate the noise. Immediately after, he holds no regard for Polonius, continuing to yell at his mother instead (3.4). Hamlet’s utter disregard of his actions expose his developing madness, but he still continues with his double-sided riddles, only now being more transparent in his dialogue with Claudius: when asked where he hid Polonius’s body, he simply states that Polonius is at supper and is being eaten by worms, which will be used by a beggar to catch fish to eat. In saying this, Hamlet implicitly threatens Claudius, stating that the king will eventually become grub for the use of beggars. Overall, Hamlet, throughout the play, is a character defined by quick wit and a sharp tongue; as he descends deeper into the pit of madness, these characteristics remain—morphed and amplified by his growing insanity.
Although Hamlet’s public persona displays him as an impulsive person, this is in stark contrast to his first soliloquy, where he appears extremely contemplative; he suffers from immense emotional pain and would commit suicide were it not for “His [God’s] canon ’gainst self slaughter” (1.2.136). His logical introspection, however, is first illustrated in his “To Be or Not to Be” soliloquy. During the speech, he finds himself torn between life and death as he weighs both the plausible benefits and potential horrors of committing suicide. He concludes that our thoughts and ideas lead to hesitancy and inaction, making us unable to take the plunge into the unknown (3.1). Moreover, it becomes increasingly evident that his charade of madness assimilates into his real thoughts; as compared to his previous thoughts, such as his plan to re-enact the death of Hamlet Senior in front of Claudius—a logical method of determining his uncle’s guilt—he is now contemplating rash actions, as he now views suicide as “to sleep, perchance to dream” which he previously scorned as a sinful act (3.1.73). Hamlet’s hesitation becomes clear when he approaches Claudius but delays in fulfilling his father’s wishes, stating that the king must die while committing a sin (3.4). Not pursuing the one perfect chance to slay his enemy and postponing it to a later date reiterates the idea that Hamlet will continuously hesitate and falter when presented with the opportunity to execute a course of action. Hamlet’s “deliberation and postponement of decision inhibit [his] action,” thus resulting in excessive amounts of murder and death–tragedies that would have easily been avoided if he had taken action at the appropriate time (Richards 174). Only later, during his soliloquy where he admires Fortinbras invading Poland, does Hamlet—in desperation—move to action, first killing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and later Laertes and Claudius (4.4). Hamlet retains the qualities of introspection and hesitancy throughout the play, yet into his inner self the madness creeps too: his thoughts become more wild, more daring than before.
Hamlet’s oscillation between pensiveness and irrationality in his inward and outward persona results in a struggle to avenge his father, revealing Shakespeare’s argument that action must take place in a logical, planned out way—not senselessly or hastily. Hamlet’s juxtaposing personalities result in a depiction of a man both “actor and scholar, lover and avenger, hero and fool,” as described by theatre professor Dr. Robert J. Landy (166). In creating this tension, Shakespeare illustrates that being extreme on either side of the spectrum—reluctancy or rash action—will result in failure, which he further proves through his character foils of Laertes and Fortinbras —Laertes is fast to act and Fortinbras follows a logical plan. Immediately upon hearing of his father’s death, Laertes swiftly acts in setting out to murder Claudius under an assumption that he was his father’s killer, then quickly believes Claudius’ assertion of Hamlet’s guilt. Fortinbras, on the other hand, chooses not to avenge his father through murdering King Hamlet, but strategically invades Poland instead, ultimately gaining control of Denmark. While Hamlet originally had a plan, he waited too long and began to fall astray, ultimately leading to failure; Laertes had no plan, and he fell short of revenge as well. By planning and carrying out planned action, just as Shakespeare believed, Fortinbras alone was able to succeed.
Both of Hamlet’s personas—his public irrationality and private hesitancy—conflict throughout the play, resulting in an inability to succeed in his vengeance on King Claudius. He was unable to succeed because he waited too long, hesitating to the point of pure desperation, causing a plethora of unwarranted murders. This failure is exactly why Shakespeare tells us to act on our plans—if we act too irrationally we will only crash and burn, but if we wait too long, nothing positive will come either. Hamletimparts upon us the necessity to plan—and act on that plan; anything else will not suffice. Be it a New Year’s resolution or vengeance for our father, only a plan—an actionable plan—will lead us in the right direction.
This essay was a collaboration with 3 other people, Rasa, Joseph G., and Ryan through an online cloud service called Google Docs. Who wrote what can be viewed here. However, this essay does not feel as if it was written by 4 people, each with their individual voices and unique ways of writing. Rather, the essay seems to contain a singular, sophisticated voice. In writing this essay, our group woked together to write each individual sentence. However, members had contradictory ideas of opinions about how to transcribe a certain idea, and these issues were solved through discussing the best and clearest way of conveying the information, and voted on as a group to solve the issue. Thus, each sentence had the combined voice of the people that wrote it, and this resulted in an essay that does not seem to vary in voice from sentence to sentence.
This essay shows a mastery of the use of technology to interact and work with others that results in a polished piece of writing that does not betray the act of collaboration to the reader.