English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

ok i have this question and i really want to know the answer. how or what other ways could Hamlet have solved his problem without becoming a murderer? i dont really know, plz answer!

2007-11-24 08:14:17 · 5 answers · asked by cutie 1 in Arts & Humanities Theater & Acting

5 answers

The Indecision of Hamlet (Essay)

http://www.123helpme.com/assets/4563.html


"To be, or not to be: that is the question" Hamlet Act III, Scene I).

The Meaning of "To be, or not to be"

Hamlet’s “To be, or not to be” soliloquy is probably the most famous passage in English drama–and may well be the most quoted. Its fame lies partly in the attention it receives from the endless debates it has generated about what it means. It is currently fashionable to oppose the traditional view that the passage is a deliberation in which Hamlet is trying to decide whether to commit suicide. Anti-suicide champions argue that Hamlet is really deliberating what course of action to take–or not to take–to ravel his sleeve of woe while retaining life and limb. Which view is right? Probably the traditional view–that Hamlet is contemplating hara-kiri with his bare bodkin. However, because Shakespeare carried ambiguity to the extreme in this passage instead of speaking his mind plainly, there is plenty of room to argue otherwise. Leading his readers through the tangled dendrites in Hamlet’s cerebrum, Shakespeare bewilders his audience. Admittedly, though, it is jolly good fun to try to solve the passage. In the end, though, it appears that Hamlet is indeed considering suicide in this passage.

http://www.cummingsstudyguides.net/xHamlet.html#To%20Be

http://library.thinkquest.org/19539/hamlet.htm

http://www.artofeurope.com/shakespeare/sha8.htm

2007-11-26 06:25:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Hamlet could not have solved his problems without becoming a murder without also creating new or worse problem for himself. If the accidental slaying of Polonius is murder, the way to have avoided that is for Hamlet to either have killed Claudius beforehand by not putting off the task, or by not acting rashly. But here's the rub... Indecision is Hamlet's flaw. The one time in the play his is decisive and acts without over analyzing things, Polonius is killed. Therefore, Hamlet can't act in anyway except to think things through, because when he doesn't they go wrong. Therefore, the only thing Hamlet could ahve done differently in that situation would be to take his time and wait to see who was behind the curtain. But...

His father's ghost tasked him to kill Claudius. (Provided that killing Claudius is murder) when Hamlet delays that task, the ghost reappears. If Hamlet were to keep delaying or refused to do this task, the ghost would have kept reappearing. This would not have solved any of Hamlet's problems. So Hamlet had no choice but to dispatch Claudius.

Laertes' death is not murder, because at the time Hamlet thought he had only given him a minor scratch, being that he was unaware of the poison tip on the sword.

Had Hamlet done nothing, and had the ghost never appeared, Hamlet still would have had problems. There was nothing he could do about the fact that his mother had married his uncle. And after it had been revealed to him that Claudius killed his father, he had no where to turn. As the king, Claudius had the law on his side. Hamlet's problems, like all of ours, may be solved by our actions, but all have consequences.

2007-11-26 11:51:15 · answer #2 · answered by SurrepTRIXus 6 · 0 0

In defining the term "murderer" are you limiting it to "premeditation?" He kills Polonius, Laeretes and his Uncle Claudius in fits of rage. Hamlet's tragic flaw is indecision -

The only one he was vengeful toward was his uncle, but when he had the chance to murder him while he was in prayer, he lost his nerve. He mistook Polonius for Claudius, and he killed Laeretes in a swordfight after he'd already been poisoned.

When mother died from the poison that was intended for Hamlet, he flies into rage and avenges the wrongs, but it wasn't murder, it was the result of his resistance to being a murderer.

2007-11-24 22:28:00 · answer #3 · answered by Little Ms Sunshine 6 · 1 0

In Elizabethan terms (morals) he was not a murderer, for revenge was a justifiable homicide.

2007-11-24 09:38:01 · answer #4 · answered by Theatre Doc 7 · 0 0

I know who you are.

2007-11-25 13:50:28 · answer #5 · answered by All-Knowing 1 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers