This month has been spent covering tragedies in English
class. We read Oedipus and Hamlet, both of which were tragic plays. However,
despite having the same genre label, the idea of tragedy was presented very
differently. In Oedipus, the tragic ending was due to a fate assigned to
Oedipus by the gods. Hamlet’s tragic ending, however, is arguably due to his
reluctance and hesitance to kill his uncle. When discussing this in class, it
was argued that if Hamlet had just chosen to kill his uncle earlier on instead
of hesitating, he might have saved his own life, as well as that of Polonius,
Ophelia, his mother and Polonius’ son Laertes. This is not my opinion, however.
I do not think that revenge is always the right path, even if it is justified. In
Hamlet’s case, it is clear that revenge would be seen as “justified” since his
uncle killed his father and married his mother to gain the throne. The play
makes it seem like the only possible solution to solve this is complete and total
revenge, a life for a life. I do not think this is necessary or commendable. All
throughout the play God is mentioned and it is clear that Christianity is valued.
How then could revenge be acceptable? The Bible clearly states that we are to
turn the other cheek when someone wrongs us. While I do not think the play
would have been very interesting had Hamlet chosen this route, it does not make
any sense for him to attempt to kill the king “in the name of God.” I think
that this clearly shows how the values of our society in general have shifted
to being less accepting to the idea of revenge. In Shakespearian times, it was
glorified, but now it is frowned upon. If the same Christian values and Bible
are still being used, how did this happen?
In Shakespeare’s time, the ideal man was courageous and
headstrong, he was Christian, but also searched for glory, and demanded his
rightful place in the world. Today, we more often glorify the hero who is
humble and gentle, who stands up for what is right by doing what is right. In Hamlet’s
case, this would mean standing up to his uncle without killing him. Is it not
true that Hamlet had other options? He chose the path of complete revenge, but
did he not also have the option to expose the king and exile him, or throw him
in jail? His narrow-minded approach to the situation shows that killing was far
more acceptable in their society than it is in ours. There are moments,
however, where Hamlet resembles more of a modern day tragic hero, like when he over
thinks his plan to kill the king and puts it off for later. This, to me, shows
that he has some doubt that what he’s doing is the right thing, even though
many critics call that hesitation his tragic flaw. In my mind, a reluctance to
take the life of another human being is never a flaw, it is a strength. It is strength
to recognize that no matter how much someone has wronged you, you do not ever
have the right to kill in return. Our society has very much leaned toward this
point of view, but I envision a day where people react with love when they are
persecuted, then the world might just be a better place.
