|
|
Post by mmazzucco9 on Dec 11, 2011 22:42:15 GMT -5
Does any else believe in that in the end Hamlet turned out to be a wise leader? Once Claudius died Hamlet was next in line to assume control of Denmark. Hamlet knew he was about to pass and rather than leave Denmark in chaos due to the lack of a leader, Hamlet gave Denmark to Fortinbras. Therefore Hamlet did what was best for the people of Denmark by giving them a strong, powerful, and determined leader. Even though Hamlet believed he was never truly cut out for the role of a leader, he ended up being a very wise one.
|
|
|
|
Post by mmazzucco9 on Dec 12, 2011 20:33:08 GMT -5
To add to this. Although, it took the entire play for Hamlet to ultimately fulfill his late father's wish, Hamlet succeeded and also did what he felt was necessary in order to exact revenge. Making some of Hamlet's decisions sort of Machiavellian. Hamlet realized that the best way to kill Claudius would be to concretely reach the conclusion that he had poisoned King Hamlet. Therefore Hamlet put on the play. Hamlet also needed to consider all of the possible actions that he could perform and their outcomes which he does throughout his soliloquies. As a result, Hamlet was slow to react but in the end smart by going through all of the necessary steps so as to not tarnish his father's reputation as well as not hurt the people of Denmark.
Also, Hamlet was more qualified to be leader of Denmark than his uncle Claudius. On page 211 there was a group of individuals cheering for the end of Claudius, demonstrating the lack of support from the people. Plus Claudius on numerous accounts made poor decisions; for example, he picked Polonius to be his adviser and he only cared about his own pleasure. Hamlet on the other hand, spent a great deal of time in order to act correctly, which one can see as much better than that of Claudius. Hamlet also selected a better adviser in the individual Horatio over Claudius picking Polonius.
|
|
|
|
Post by mmazzucco9 on Dec 14, 2011 23:06:27 GMT -5
I also thought that if one were to attempt to counter the fact that Hamlet was somewhat of a wise leader due to his craziness throughout the play, there is a way to counter such an argument. Through the use of Ernest Jone's essay "Tragedy and the Mind of the Infant" one is able to see the Oedipal attributes within Hamlet. Therefore the sole reason for Hamlet's craziness is the Oedipal cycle that has occurred within his life. Hamlet has no way to prevent himself for going craziness, the majority of people would mostly act the same if they were in Hamlet's situation. As a result, Hamlet's craziness is based in good reasoning due to the ongoing Oedipal cycle, and the fact that he is so "passionate" about the occurrences demonstrates that Hamlet could be a good leader.
|
|
