This paper is concerned with William Shakespeare's Hamlet; and more specifically, deals with the question: Why was Hamlet so slow to act with regard to avenging his father's death?
Some literary critics believe that if Hamlet had substituted immediate action for the prolixity with which he continually berates himself for procrastination, Gertrude, Polonius, Ophelia, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Laertes, and even Hamlet himself would have survived. However, Shakespeare would not have had a play if such were the situation.
Hamlet's indecisiveness provides a conflict that is more internal than external. Hamlet's state of mind keeps him from real action; and as a consequence, the tragedy has a beginning, a middle, and an end, as Aristotle in his "Poetics" would have it: "Now, according to our definition, tragedy is an imitation of an action that is complete, and whole, and of a certain magnitude; for there may be a whole that is wanting in magnitude. A whole is that which has a beginning, a middle, and an end" (Aristotle 52).
A. C. Bradley poses the question: "But why in the world did not Hamlet obey the ghost at once, and so save seven of those eight lives?" (Bradley 79).
This question serves to point out that the entire play hinges upon the unusual character of the protagonist. Without this particular character makeup, the play would seem sensational and terrifying. Yet, the actual Hamlet is not that way at all. The effect obtained in Hamlet has a less shocking result than Othello, King Lear, or Macbeth. Also, if we had no knowledge of this character, the drama would not be very intelligible. Bradley states: "To come, then, to our typical views, we may lay it down, first, that no theory will hold water which finds the cause of Hamlet's delay merely or mainly, or even to any considerable extent, in external difficulties" (Bradley 82). An example of an external difficulty would be that the King was not only surro...