ARTICLE 2 (revenge)
Gleed, Paul. “How to Write about Hamlet.” Bloom's How to Write about William Shakespeare, Chelsea House, 2017. Bloom's Literature, online.infobase.com/Auth/Index?aid=17021&itemid=WE54&articleId=45965. Accessed 28 July 2019.
Revenge: Does the play endorse or denounce revenge?
Revenge appears here rather than in the "Themes" section because revenge tragedy was an extremely popular genre on the Elizabethan stage, and because Shakespeare subverts that genre so completely in Hamlet. It will not be necessary for writers to know much about the revenge tradition in order to tackle revenge as a topic, but a little background will be useful nonetheless.
Obviously, the Elizabethans did not invent revenge tragedy; it was in many ways the staple of ancient Greek drama. Equally, it is an important motif in contemporary film and television. What Shakespeare and his fellow 16th-century playwrights did do, however, was to revitalize and even reinvent the tradition. After all, as citizens of the early modern world, Shakespeare's contemporaries were witness to a time of transition during which social and legal conventions shifted and changed. While in ancient societies revenge was not only acceptable but essential to the maintenance of individual honor and collective justice, by the 16th century revenge was increasingly outlawed and replaced by the ideal of a state justice system. If a man's father was killed, it was not his but the state's role to avenge the death. Of course, it is impossible to know if there was a general consensus among Elizabethans that this change was a good thing or even if the change had occurred with any evenness by the time of Hamlet. Certainly many of Shakespeare's contemporaries wrote against individual revenge, most famously Francis Bacon, who dubbed it "wild justice." The intellectual, state, and religious institutions of Shakespeare's time all viewed revenge as not only imprudent but dangerous, a crime in and of itself. But what of the ordinary people who largely made up Shakespeare's audience? What of Hamlet?
You might begin this essay with an examination of act 1, scene 5. Analyze the conversation between Hamlet and his father's ghost, studying the ghost's advice to Hamlet (his tone, his expectations, etc.) and Hamlet's response. Pay close attention to Hamlet's speech beginning around line 92. What does he claim will be his approach to the task of revenge? Given Hamlet's character, is such an approach possible? Is there anyone in the play who does take this approach to revenge? Look at the way Young Fortinbras intends to avenge his father by launching war against Denmark and how Laertes becomes a vengeful fury in the name of Polonius. In contrast to these other characters, as well as his own frequent hot and bloody words about revenge (some critics have suggested that Hamlet, being such a fan of the stage, is at times performing the stereotypical role of the theatrical revenge hero, bombastically launching into formulaic promises of vengeance), how does Hamlet actually approach the act of revenge? What psychologically or emotionally separates Hamlet from Laertes? For example, you might argue that Hamlet consistently seems to require proof or knowledge of something and will not act without it; Laertes does not wait for certain knowledge before stirring up a riot in the name of revenge. The backbone of this essay, perhaps, will be an attempt to link Hamlet's character (whatever that is to you) to his execution of the avenger's task. You might also consider whether the play judges Hamlet's failings: Is the audience encouraged to regret his inability to avenge his father or prompted to some other, more complex moral response?
The very subject of revenge creates a number of compare and contrast possibilities among Shakespeare's works. Whatever you conclude Hamlet says about revenge, you could write an interesting essay comparing your findings for Hamlet with your assessment of another play. Of the plays treated in this volume, points of comparison or contrast might be found in Julius Caesar, The Merchant of Venice, and The Tempest. Is Shakespeare saying similar things, for example, in Hamlet and The Tempest if the latter is a play strongly condemning revenge in favor of reconciliation and forgiveness? Alternatively, a comparison of Hamlet to other Shakespearean tragic heroes will offer a wealth of material. A close parallel might, for example, be found in Brutus from Julius Caesar.Something in Brutus's nature (in this case, his commitment to old-fashioned ideals of honor that make him prey for a new breed of political machines like Octavius and Antony) makes him an ill fit for the task of political intrigue and machination, as is Hamlet. However, Hamlet belongs precisely to that same new breed of political animal as Antony, while Old Hamlet resembles the anachronistic Brutus. Comparisons of Shakespearean heroes can bend in many ways. Think about a comparison of Othello and Hamlet, for another example. An essay could be grounded in the notion that while Othello demands proof of Desdemona's infidelity, just as Hamlet seeks proof of the ghost's honesty or Claudius's guilt, the pair must finally be contrasted because Hamlet ultimately rejects the idea of truth while Othello falls victim to the illusion of truth.
Of course, Hamlet alone can generate a great many compare and contrast essays. Indeed, a consistent theme of this chapter has been the way in which themes and characters are mirrored and paralleled throughout. Think, for example, about a comparison between the situations of Hamlet and Laertes and the stark contrast in their responses to those similar situations. Again, even within the character Hamlet you can find enough progression and change to create a compare and contrast model of character essay by assessing the differences between Hamlet at the beginning and end of the play. What has he learned about the world and about himself? What in him has changed?
What slows Hamlet from taking revenge? What slows Sweeney Todd? What does the difference say about each of these characters?