Duels, poison, power and lust, the tragedy Hamlet, written by one William Shakespeare is constantly quoted, referenced and even used as a mantra for social groups; "to thine own self be true." Discussions on what are great and memorable are easily forthcoming. However, when scratching the surface of the main character's motivation for duplicity and finding only the empty air of the incompetent...the story becomes a let down. Thus the following argument: "Hamlet's feigned madness served no useful purpose; rather it aroused the suspicions of the King and other members of the court," can be made.

Important questions are "what is Hamlet trying to accomplish and how will faking insanity help him?" Of course the obvious answer to the former would be "to kill Claudius and avenge the late King Hamlet." How does pretending to be insane help him though? It does not; in fact it probably causes more harm than good. "Get thee to a nunnery!" he warns Ophelia, of course she doesn't know she is being warned since Poor Prince Hamlet has lost his mind. The scene where Hamlet wishes to punish his mother and the ghost King appears in her chambers might have been the turning point had Hamlet not acted so deranged earlier. The madness served no useful purpose, it only tainted his side of the story and made it impossible for him to be believed. Sadly though, to have a play, one must have characters doing very foolish things.

Pretending to be insane was an example of a 'very foolish thing'. Of course, where there is smoke, there is fire, and where there is fire there is usually a crowd of nosy bystanders, i.e. the Danish Court. Encore Prince Hamlet! Good job at drawing attention! Not only were Ophelia, Laertes and two of Hamlet's 'friends' dragged into it, the Queen and Polonius tangled themselves in the web as well. Polonius was skewered through a tapestry while eavesdropping on Hamlet and Gertrude, at a meeting the Queen set up in an attempt to reach Hamlet through his madness. Ophelia is emotionally injured by Hamlet after being thrown at him by the King, Queen and her father as an antidote to his foolery. Later she is so traumatized by the thought of him gone mad and her father dead by his hand, that she herself actually looses her own mind and later her life. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, hired to spy on the insane Hamlet, were betrayed by him and finally found themselves executed by the King of England. Of course, they wouldn't have been on their way to England had Hamlet not tipped his hand at the play and suddenly become dubbed, 'expendable' by the new King of Denmark. The Queen is accidentally poisoned when Claudius attempts to kill Hamlet and Laertes is avenging his father when his own (poisoned) blade slices him.

Why, William, why must you create such an irresolute character for so easy a job? Was it so impossible for Hamlet to get Claudius drunk, talkative and rude? Break a few rules of society, then on the way back, stab him and be done with the whole mess before the King could repent his sins? How Hamlet, were you planning to successfully kill your father-in-law, the King of Denmark, with everyone watching you? Of course, had Hamlet not feigned his madness to begin with, the story wouldn't have happened. So basically the entire argument is a moot point.

Copyright Ayleeandra Rowan, nothing presented here may be used without the author's express permission.

Back
Home