Andrew Moulton

Southern New Hampshire Universitys Shakespeare 319

Professor Paul Rosenberg
Short Paper: Hamlet
March 22, 2015
Since catharsis is defined in the Module Two Overview as a process of releasing strong or
repressed emotionsvia sympathizing with the main character (my own emphasis), I will focus
this paper on Hamlet; although honestly, in comparison to any of Hamlets drama, I felt more
emotion surge through my body when I read of the innocent and tragic drowning of Ophelia.
However, the eloquent Hamlet has his place as well, and this paper will look at the emotion he
unravels, beginning with his fatal flaw, his hamartia.
I believe that Hamlets most convincing tragic flaw is his lack of conviction. He is willing to
debate, he is willing to ruminate, but his real flaw is his inability to act. One finds in Hamlet that
he is truthful, moral, and much the idealist. He deliberates all of his actions, and in retrospect, I
felt a great deal of frustration with his character in the latter half of the play, whereas in the first
three acts I identified with his reasoning and even agreed with giving pause to immediate action
in order to reflect and act responsibly. In the end; however, his inability to act has set the stage
for a bloody cyclone to wreak havoc.
Readers are first denied an emotional purging when Hamlet talks himself out of killing Claudius
the first time.
To take him in the purging of his soul, when he is fit and season'd for his passage? No!
Up, sword; and know thou a more horrid hent: When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage, or
in the incestuous pleasure of his bed Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven,
and that his soul may be as damn'd and black as hell, whereto it goes, (Act III Scene III).
Forecasting into what might have been the future, if Hamlet had killed Claudius at this point, in
all likelihood we would have been spared the death of our fair Ophelia, her rather silly but wellintentioned father Polonius, the noble Laertes (all of the same family), Queen Gertrude who
shows herself to be worthy of life, Claudius, and even Hamlet himself, who might have grown
into his responsibilities rather well considering his high moral values. However, this reality is not
to be so and readers are left feeling disappointed at Hamlets inactions.
Interestingly enough, Hamlet demonstrates that he is willing to act in some circumstances, I will
walk here in the hall let the foils be brought, the gentleman willing, and the king hold his
purpose, I will win for him an I can; if not, I will gain nothing but my shame and the odd hits,

(Act V Scene II). Given our insight into Hamlets character, I felt a little uneasy in considering
Hamlets duel with Laertes. He has honorably stepped up to fight, and at this, on behalf of his
step father; he has shown himself to be responsible and even agreeable, and yet there is this
deeply orchestrated plot operating behind the scenes. Does Hamlet deserve to die at the hands of
such deceit?
The play did provide an emotional release in the last scene. I knew Hamlets days were
numbered when he denies Horatios suggestion not to fight Laertes and instead replies, there's a
special providence in the fall of a sparrow, (Act V Scene II). And with flourish, Shakespeare
provides so much destruction that readers arent allowed to leave the theater without having shed
at least one tear for someone they shared an affinity with. First, the queen drinks the poisoned
wine. Then in quick succession, Laertes gets stabbed with the poisoned blade, and the queen
drops dead. Hamlet finally acts with conviction. He stabs Claudius and then as added measure,
pours poisoned wine forcefully down his throat. At this I cheered Hamlet. Then with a few
beautifully absolving words, Exchange forgiveness with me, noble Hamlet: Mine and my
father's death come not upon thee, nor thine on me, (Act V Scene II), Laertes dies. As a tragic
finale and last action, Hamlet drinks off the poison offered by Horatio. Why he should choose to
act at this point and not stand to assume the role of king is the final little bit of irony.
Recognizing heroism in Hamlets actions, Fortinbras, Hamlets foil representing the valorous
action-heavy life, lifts him to the heights of a soldier.
In the end Shakespeare demonstrated that Hamlet became a deserving character. He had his flaw
that was his downfall, but he was also a pretty splendid young man. As a single child who most
likely had been sheltered and cushioned from having to shoulder any real responsibility prior to
the death of his father, I can understand how he might lack conviction, but is this lack of
conviction deserving of all of the pain he experiences throughout the play? If he had had
someone to confide in, could he have resolved another solution to his fathers demand? I believe
Hamlet is fantastic in that at the end of it readers are forced to consider their inactions in the
world and unlike Hamlet, have the opportunity to redeem these inactions before their time in this
world are lost.
Works Cited
Module Two Overview: Shakespeares Tragedies. LIT-319-Q4380 Blackboard. 21 March
2015. Lecture.
Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Web. 21st March 2015.
(http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/full.html)