To be or not to be? Eh, why bother?
By Chris Hoekstra

Some have said that the play Hamlet by William Shakespear is one of the greatest pieces of literature ever concocted. They have said that the main characters are ones of profound depth, and that the play itself touches upon some of the most moving characteristics of what makes one human. This is not so. Hamlet is an disheartening farce. The flaws of both the characters and the mechanics of the play itself, promote an uninspiring feeling about Hamlet. These defects occur within the actual play itself, for the ending is one that does not intertwine well with the rest of the play. They also occur quite noticeably in the characters. The reader sees the women, pawns under the control of the men, as prime examples of disheartenment. Finally, this whole sorry facade cumulates in the persona of Hamlet, who’s jarring, and most unexplainable, change of character within the last act is too far-fetched to be considered inspiring.

Good stories are written so that the events within flow gracefully together, often with a sense of continuity. It is continuity and/or smooth transitions that make for superb reading. Alas, Hamlet falls short in this department. While the discontinuity with time in the first few acts is distracting, it is nothing compared to the travesty of the final act. The coincidences in this act are so numerous that the improbability of their all coming together is preposterous. The luck played out here is astounding. First is the friendly pirates, those that take Hamlet prisoner then release him in exchange for some promised favours. His unknown return to Denmark is another such instance. Thirdly is the sword fight. Not only does Hamlet refuse the offer of the poisoned wine, but he acquires Laertes’ envenomed rapier and manages to wound Laertes with it during the discourse of the duel. The final piece of this preposterous charade comes as Laertes lays dieing of his own poison and implicates the king before his passing:

"It is a poison temper’d by himself./ Exchange forgiveness with me, noble Hamlet./ Mine and my father’s death come not upon thee,/ nor thine on me." (5.2 333-336)

And so in one single scene all treachery is wiped away. Hamlet has avenged the death of his father, and been forgiven for the death of Polonius. Gertrude has paid the price of her actions in choosing Claudius to marry so soon after the death of her husband. And Claudius has paid for the sins of killing the old king and poisoning Hamlet and Laertes. It is all to easy to be considered inspirational. The luck pervading the proceedings was immense. Though out the entire play the audience sees Hamlet struggle and fight to make things go his way. Then at the end, the circumstances are so perfectly set to exact the revenge that was so long promised that it makes the struggles and heartaches of the rest all seem for naught. The fortune that brought all those elements together does not inspire the audience to believe in anything aside from luck and/or fate. The inconsistency of the ending of the play destroys all hopes of bringing some kind of inspiration away from it.

There is another pair of disturbing discouraging items with this play that must be brought to light. These elements are the two women, Ophelia and Gertrude. With women having been oppressed and discriminated against for such a long time, there are few more inspiring images then an embolden woman, one who will not allow such things to happen to her. Alas the females of this play are but pawns of the men whom they love. Ophelia, who goes mad over her unrequited love of Hamlet, is a prime example of this idea. Laertes puts it simply when he describes her as:

"A document in madness; thoughts and remembrance/ fitted." (4.5. 176-7)

Madness over a lost love and the death of a father. Yet Hamlet suffered the same things and remained sane, he only put on "an antic disposition" (1.5 180) so as to appear mad. There is no inspiration to be found in a character who would crumble over the same thing that the others endure with fortitude. It is weak characters like these that foster feelings of dismay with the reader.

If there is one thing that all stories need, it is a strong central character. A person who shows qualities and preforms actions that the reader will admire them for, and will perhaps be inspired by. Hamlet possesses no such main character. The main character, Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, is distinctly unremarkable. Throughout the entirety of acts one through four, we see him cowering and procrastinating. The only initiative that he shows in committing an act of violence is towards Polonius, whom he slays believing it to be the king. Yet when act five begins the reader sees a completely different Hamlet:

"It will be short. The interim is mine./ And a man’s life’s no more than to say ‘one’." (5.2. 73-74)

All that after a brief sojourn with pirates and a covert return to his home. It hardly seems the man who admitted that "[he has] cause, and will, and strength, and means/ To do’t. Examples gross as earth exhort [him]" (4.5. 45-46) yet who did nothing. Even upon viewing the guilt of Claudius, he hesitated to kill him. Yet there is still that drastic change in act five. The inexplicability and sheer abruptness of this change is noticeably jarring. In one act, nay one scene, Hamlet is transformed from a man of thought to one of action. Yet there is no motivation for this profound about-face in Hamlet’s attitude. How can one feel inspiration when there is nothing to promote it? This sudden change does nothing besides add to the readers confusion about Hamlet, and is the final nail in the inspirational coffin that is the play Hamlet.

To be or not to be? asked the melancholy prince one day. And while this play wanted to be, it wound up not being. It was a sorrowful string of uninspiring events, populated by depressing characters, and cumulating amidst ridiculous circumstances. Hamlet was a tragedy in more then one sense of the word. From the insipid actions of the women in the play, to the erratic antics of Hamlet, there was no reason to admire these characters. The faulty mechanics of the play only heightened this. To be or not to be? Why should one even bother?

Return to Story page