Action v inaction choose the mark and COMMENT
Hamlet, by William Shakespeare, is the story of the Prince of Denmark who
attempts to avenge the death of his father, who was murdered by the current
king, Claudius, the Prince’s uncle. Claudius incestuously married King Hamlet’s
wife, Gertrude, one month after killing him. Hamlet, who is deeply affected by
his circumstances, struggles to take action to set his situation right and
ensure that justice is served, whereas other characters act quickly rather than
think things through. William Shakespeare’s Hamlet consistently
presents the theme of action vs. thought and shows how taking action, when
balanced with thought, ultimately enables people to overcome their situations
and achieve their goals.
The play suggests that excessive thinking results in failure to solve
problems as well as missed opportunities. This idea is evident in
Hamlet’s first soliloquy, in Act 1 Scene 2, when he says “O that is too solid
flesh would melt, thaw, and resolve itself into a dew, or that the Everlasting
had not fixed his canon ‘gainst self-slaughter.” Hamlet’s
contemplation of suicide demonstrates the danger of too much thinking and a
lack of action. Hamlet is trapped in his inner thoughts and struggles to
accept what has happened, making him unable to act. Through this segment,
Shakespeare delivers a message that excessive thoughts can impair one’s ability
to take action. Another example of failure that results from overthinking
is Hamlet’s decision to act crazy. He initially believes that this plan
will help him kill Claudius by giving him an excuse to commit the act.
However, this plan backfires when Claudius sends him away to England
because of the way he acts. There is an evident lesson in this sequence
of events. Shakespeare shows us through these events how Hamlet’s decision
to act crazy backfires due to a lack of action. He could have easily
killed Claudius while others were convinced of his lunacy, but misses his
opportunities to do so. Thought without taking action results in failure.
A third example of how Hamlet’s excessive thinking acts against him is
when he begins his third soliloquy questioning “To be, or not to be”.
This occurs after he has crafted a plan to prove that Claudius was the
murderer of his father. This is evidence of how one’s thoughts can disrupt
his success. This is what Hamlet experienced. He was in the frame
of mind to take action after he thought of the play within the play, and then
he distracted himself with his inner thoughts. An imbalance between
thought and action yields unsuccessful results.
In the play, Shakespeare suggests that while taking action is
important, thinking things through yields better results when the plan is
executed. For example, in Hamlet’s soliloquy in Act 2, Scene 2, he states
“The play’s the thing wherein I will catch the conscience of the king.”
This is an example of effective planning on Hamlet’s part amidst his
internal conflicts. He successfully formulates a well thought out
strategy to validate that Claudius did, in fact, kill his father.
Claudius’s reaction to the play further showcases the success of Hamlet’s
plan, proving accuracy of the ghost’s identity and message to Hamlet.
Hamlet then has solidified reasons to execute revenge on Claudius.
This segment of the play illustrates the rewards of balancing thought
with action. Neither is good nor effective at either extreme. There needs
to be a balance of the two. The value in thinking before acting is
further illustrated when Hamlet refrains from killing Claudius when he
witnesses him in a state of prayer. Hamlet’s hesitation to kill Claudius
was wise, as he did not want to give Claudius the opportunity to be forgiven
for his sins right before his death, an opportunity Claudius did not give King
Hamlet. Through this scene, Shakespeare illustrates how thinking before
acting out of blind rage helps people make wiser decisions and take action at
the appropriate time. Another example of the need to balance thought with
action is seen at the end of the play when Horatio refrains from killing himself
at the request of Prince Hamlet. If Horatio had killed himself, he could
not have cleared Hamlet’s name, nor could he have told the story of everything
that happened. During this scene, Shakespeare demonstrates how taking
time to think before acting influences history. If Horatio never lived to
tell of everything that had happened, history could have easily repeated itself
and nobody would have known the truth about Prince Hamlet or the other members
of the royal group. While thought and action are both equally important,
failing to take any action ultimately results in failure.
Taking action is ultimately required in order to achieve goals and
resolve problems. Hamlet’s ultimate goal is to get revenge on Claudius.
He could not have achieved this goal if he hadn’t decided to follow the
ghost in the beginning of the play. His decision to follow the ghost
allowed him to learn about how his father died and that his uncle, Claudius,
was the cause. Hamlet’s impulsive actions worked in his favor in this case
because they allowed him to learn the truth. Marcellous and Horatio urged
Hamlet toward inaction, but he followed his instinct and impulse in the moment,
which led him to the truth. This is a case in which taking action
provided answers to a serious problem. Hamlet’s decision to fence Laertes
is another example of the benefit of taking action. Before this scene,
Hamlet is often caught up in his thoughts trying to find solutions to problems
and he fails to act on them. He begins to understand this at the
beginning of his voyage to England. Upon his return, he gradually
refrains rom his antic disposition and demonstrates more determination to act
and set his problems right. His fearless and immediate decision to fence
Laertes is evidence of his willingness to act for honor. During the
fencing match, Hamlet is finally able to witness the true evil of his uncle and
has the internal strength and courage to eventually kill him. If Hamlet
hadn’t decided to fence Laertes, he would not have seen his uncle for who he
truly was nor would he have been been able to expose his actions.
Shakespeare shows how this decision Hamlet made influenced the rest of
the play. It gave him the opportunity to execute his revenge and exchange
forgiveness with those whom he cared for before his death. If Hamlet
hadn’t taken the initial action to fence Laertes, his situation could not have
been fully resolved. Fortinbras is another character whose actions
allowed him to achieve his goal of reclaiming the land he lost to King Hamlet.
His action of moving his troops through Denmark allowed him to reclaim
the land and be elected by Prince Hamlet, before his death, as the new King of
Denmark. These instances all exemplify the need for action in order to
obtain results.
As demonstrated by the actions and
thought processes of the characters throughout the play, Shakespeare’s ultimate
message about one’s decision to act or think on life’s circumstances is one of
a necessity for a balance between thought and action in order to overcome
situations and achieve goals. The play promotes a message that thinking
and acting to either extreme is ineffective. Overall, knowing when to
think and when to act is the essence of making the right decisions and
effectively handling life’s circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment