display | more...

Hamlet, in Shakespeare's "Hamlet," is responsible for his own downfall. He makes a string of bad events worse by not taking the most direct course of action to remedy his situation. His problem is a relatively clear-cut thing when it is broken down; his uncle has married his mother after killing his father, stealing away the throne that was to be Hamlet's. He is instructed by his father's ghost to kill his murderous, incestuous uncle, avenging the murder. Yet what does Hamlet do? He procrastinates and does not directly confront his uncle. This is why he is responsible for his downfall.

Hamlet thinks when he should act. When the ghost of his father tells him to avenge his murder, Hamlet begins to ponder a way to have his uncle incriminate himself. He should have done what his father told him to do; kill his uncle, end of story. But instead of acting, he thinks, and thinks, and digs his hole deeper until it become a grave, until it is big enough to be a popper's grave to accommodate all the bodies resulting from his procrastination. This is his bane, the true reason for the whole degeneration of his situation. He has all the proof he really needs to prove to himself that his uncle did murder his father, yet he puts off killing him to seek more proof. Without this procrastination, it is likely that Hamlet would reclaim his throne and unveil his uncle's wickedness, emerging from the situation unscathed and certainly the only death resulting would be that of his uncle.

Hamlet acts when he should think. His impulsiveness defies the boundaries of sanity and insanity, such as his killing a person, though he did not know who it was, in his mother's bedroom. This is the pointless waste of a life, Polonius' death. He just happened to be in the wrong place at a very wrong time. Hamlet did not think, he acted, even when the true nature of the situation was not apparent. More observation of that situation would have been wise. Impulsiveness and taking rash actions are not positive qualities in a person. Some things require a time of contemplation in order to result in the best outcome. It is Hamlet's lack of contemplation when it is needed that sends his plight spiraling further into where it cannot be salvaged.

Indecisiveness is another factor that brings him to his demise. He cannot decide on a reasonable course of action, then chooses not to do anything for a time, then chooses to do something that is not necessarily in his best interests. It is wise, after observing a situation, to examine all possible courses of action and the results of taking each action. After deciding which action would be most beneficial, an action must be carried out. This is the order in which I carry out these events. However; Hamlet has invented a new and fatally flawed order to these same events. He encounters a situation, thinks of possible things to do (weather or not they are related to the immediate situation), and then thinks some more, and then chooses to do something that is not the best thing to do. Time after time I see Hamlet defy what I know to be logic. If the traditional 'observe, examine, do' method had been taken, Hamlet would have taken the advice of his father's ghost, planned to kill his uncle, and killed him.

However, there is another side to the argument, one which still supports my initial thoughts, but also which does not place all the blame on Hamlet. After all is said and done, Hamlet has just lost his father, lost his mother to his uncle, lost his throne, and is seeing his father's ghost. How can any good come of these events? I judge the demise of all involved be attributed 85% to Hamlet's procrastination and 15% Hamlet's situation, as it is a very horrible thing to have to face. If he gets his act together and stops procrastinating, then the probability of the outcome of his situation turning into a disaster is only 15%. Those are fairly good odds; the outcome of his situation is Hamlet's fault. Why? Because he is a dink.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.