Hamlet, Why Didnt just kill his uncle the king and be done with it?

Question

Is it because he thought he was crazy? Other people saw the ghost besides him, so he knew that was real enuf.

Answer 1

Many reasons.
1) You have to consider who is the author of that play. In most, if not all of his writing, it takes a long time for people to die, and they keep coming back. In his plays, he prolong the events as much as he possible could, and they keep coming to life even when they have been stabbed, shot, or drank poison, they should have been dead, but they keep getting up and saying things to those around them.
2) If Hamlet just killed his uncle, then what! it is over, and the play the lasted about 4 1/2 hours is done. The whole story is about his uncle killing his brother for his wife! if Hamlet kills him, the story is done.
3) In one scene the Uncle was praying, and Hamlet was about to kill him, then he stopped because if he did at that time, this will change things for the king and he would be going to Heaven instead of Hell for killing his brother. Hamlet would have given him absolution rather than just punishment.
4) I believe he thought he was becoming crazy, not crazy yet for all the conflict within his mind and heart. How to solve the problem, and give the justice due to his murdered True king, his father. He also had to deal with the fact that his mother married that king, his uncle. His mother didn't know his father was killed by his uncle, and if he killed his uncle, she will change her heart against him.
5)Hamlet also wanted to bring the truth out, and show all people who killed his father, and it was his uncle. As he did attempt that in the play in the play, 'the mouse trap'. The mouse is his uncle, and the trap is the play. Hamlet wanted to get the king to admit his guilt, and also he wanted the queen to kick him out of her bed.
6) Shakespeare! a complicated writer. His writing complicated, and his means to his solution were as such.
He preferred to impregnate the audience with multimedia of his fruit to stir up the emotion as well as the senses, if one has them, one might find them, or even create their own concoction.
7)Other people did see his father the ghost, he knew that was real, but those who didn't see the ghost thought he was mad. 'Talking to vacant air' while Hamle was speaking to his father. They couldn't see what he saw. Typical! when one knows more than others, they accuse him to be crazy, fraud, or whatever, maybe it is to explain their inablility for not understanding him! or why they are unable to see what he can see, and hear!

Answer 2

Have a closer look at the scene where Hamlet comes upon the praying Claudius. Claudius has just concluded the speech in which he speaks of how his conscience is torturing him over the murder of his brother. He despairs, as he realizes that no amount of prayer can redeem him.

Enter Hamlet. He realizes that THIS is the best opportunity he'll ever have to avenge his father's death. "Now might I do it pat, now he is a-praying..." And, just as he's about to strike ("And now I'll do it!")...he stops.

He stops. He pauses, and he starts THINKING about the possible ramifications of his act. And, in the pausing and thinking and contemplating, the moment passes.

It's sort of the whole play in a nutshell. Hamlet HAS enough proof. He HAS the motivation. But, every time he starts thinking things over ("thinking too precisely on the event..."), he finds reasons NOT to act.

The irony is that the man is absolutely capable of rash, impulsive actions. His murder of Polonius was nothing if not impulsive; heck, he didn't even know who he was stabbing! ("Nay, I know not. Is it the King?") He sends his former pals Rosencrantz and Guildenstern off to their executions during his sea voyage. And, his final act -- stabbing Claudius with the poisoned sword and forcing him to drink the poisoned wine -- that was a bit rash, too. No?

Answer 3

i think of this would be an exceptionally sturdy factor that many human beings omit. in case you seem on the history of christianity, there have been many differences in subject and concentration with the aid of the church, customarily based upon what replace into occurring in the international right now. the middle e book by no potential extremely differences (till you get translations and misinterpretations in touch, that's yet another question fullyyt). however the matters are the comparable. could the christianity of right now carry approximately crusades on the size seen hundreds of years in the past? i do no longer think of so. yet given the final suited circumstances, it might. the different venture is up till rather those days in church history, the dogma replace into set with the aid of the go with few who ran the church. human beings did no longer inevitably very own bibles, or could study for that remember, so they have been thoroughly based upon their priest for interpretation and practise. now that's no longer genuine. this is why you may polla thousand human beings and characteristic 1000 distinctive church sects. the dawn of protestantism led directly to the balkanization of the suggestions on your question. one element i think of all christians agree on is that jesus delivered a sparkling convenant with god such that his demise and resurrection is the start for the forgiveness of sins. that's a notably necessary subject. after that, this is notably plenty a unfastened for all

Answer 4

Yea...Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, let's go ask him!?

Answer 5

Hesitation was one of his fatal flaws.

Answer 6

Ay, there's the rub.