Essay, Research Paper: Hamlet: A Man Of Action?

Hamlet: Man of Action or ah A Man Not of Action?
When Hamlet receives his order for revenge from the ghost of his dead father, he is shocked and outraged. He vows to avenge his father by the death of Claudius. However, the following scenes do not show the undying dedication to the avengement of a father, but the unproductive meandering of a man unsure, a reluctant son. When compared to the actions of Laertes and Fortinbras, two other mean of power who lost their fathers, the differences are clear.
Almost the first thing that Hamlet does after speaking to the tortured soul of his father is to seek out more proof. Apparently for Hamlet the words of the actual victim of the murder from beyond the grave does not suffice the need for proof. He sets up some weak plot to watch the reaction of his uncle when he sees a play that reflected the events of his father s death. After he becomes certain of his uncle s guilt, he still does not kill Claudius. He starts to once, but Claudius is praying, and Hamlet decides to wait. What follows in the next scenes are more and more instances of lack of action, a lack of a plan by Hamlet. He begins to act mad, to try and convince everyone that he is in fact mad, but how does this contribute to his efforts of avenging his father? Why can t he just walk up to Claudius and stab him? He doesn t, instead he fools around with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, agrees to go to England with them. He escapes, and asks to be returned to Denmark, which means that his entire trip to England was pointless because he just wants to turn around and go home anyway. And when he does come back, he enters in a duel with an infuriated Laertes, a duel that he knew he would most likely die in. He does end up finally killing Claudius, but only after the deaths of Polonius, Ophelia, Laertes, Gertrude, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and himself. Had he killed Claudius right at the beginning, there would ve been one death. But Hamlet did not, he never could. He was always on some other tangent. He was worried about Ophelia, about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, about his mother. He was dealing with other people while he ignored the main issue: Claudius
Fortinbras, Prince of Norway, had almost the same thing happen to his father. Fortinbras father was killed by Hamlet s father, Hamlet Senior. Fortinbras is not walking through the halls of his castle acting insane, or setting up little plays. Fortinbras is out in the freezing weather with his army plotting to invade an entire nation to avenge the death of his father. Hamlet can t even kill one murderous lying sleaze who sits on what should be his thrown. Fortinbras is the exact opposite of Hamlet in that he is a man of action while Hamlet is not.
Then there is Laertes. When Laertes comes to find about the death of his father, he abandons all thought and reluctance that Hamlet is dwelling in, and rallies his allies and storms the castle. Laertes is prepared to murder a King because of the death of his father, putting himself at grave danger. Laertes is seen in such a rage and fury that is never seen in Hamlet, even in the end when he finally does kill Claudius. It is not because Hamlet does not have the right to be as angry, it is not because he loved his father any less or wanted to avenge him any less, it is because Hamlet is just simply not a man of action.
Hamlet is an extremely intelligent character. He can often see plots unfold before they even occur, he can tell what others are thinking. But beside his positive attributes, Hamlet is not one to take chances, to do before thinking. And because of this reluctance and over-analyzing, he does not get things done. He talks about them, he thinks about them, but it takes him a much longer time to actually do them. And in contrast, he is nothing like Laertes and Fortinbras, too men who put their lives on the line without thought for their fathers.