Hamlet: "A play obsessed with death."
Shakespeare poses two ways of life through Hamlet, whether to live and suffer in fear of what comes after or to take matters into one’s own hands and fight against any troubles. In a plot full of revenge and power, Shakespeare introduces two foil characters to Prince Hamlet, Claudius, and Fortinbras, who allow for contrast to existing between the ideas that Shakespeare presents.
Claudius’ one-act, the murder of his brother, Hamlet Sr., sets off the entirety of the play and establishes his character as a man of action. He killed the one thing standing in the way of kingship, and in doing so, set Hamlet on a vengeful journey. Unlike Fortinbras, Hamlet does not immediately try and take revenge through murdering Claudius, he chooses to plot out a satisfying retaliation, but through this process, Hamlet faces the pivotal question: is the revenge worth it?
Hamlet has made the realization, evident through his infamous soliloquy, “to be or not to be,” that his whole plan means nothing. In the major scopes of life, nobody who comes after him will remember him for the injustice which he fought against. “Imperious Caesar, dead and turned to clay, / Might stop a hole to keep the wind away” (Shakespeare, 2012, 220-221). Caesar was a mighty man, yet he has been reduced to a pile of ash that is no longer significant. “Where be your gibes now? your gambols? your / songs?” (Shakespeare, 2012, 196-197). Yorick, a jester who cared for Hamlet, reduced to a pile of bones without a story to tell. Life seems so futile in the discovery of the lives buried in the graveyard, therefore, Hamlet challenges the life that Claudius and Fortinbras have chosen and thinks about one which is more passive. “To suffer / The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” (Shakespeare, 2012, 65-66), Hamlet could simply choose to let Claudius reign over the kingdom as in the end, it will not matter, it is simply awaiting for the dreaded day to come. He finds that many people choose this path because they fear the afterlife, making life a waiting game for death. Yet, in the same soliloquy, he argues that life may be nobler when one “takes arms against a sea of troubles” (Shakespeare, 2012, 67).
Nobody knows when their time is up and there is no contract which promises anyone life until a certain age, thus, matters should be taken into one’s own hands, to live a life that one’s happy with. Claudius may have had to get his hands dirty to get to where he was, but he was the one who ended up with the kingship and the wife. He was tired of waiting and he probably would not have gotten to where he was, had he chosen to live more passively. He may, in turn, suffer the consequence in the afterlife, but he decided to live a life that he wanted, rather than wait in fear of something which is entirely unknown. Understanding this idea creates a critique of one’s own life. People often choose to do things the “safe” way, which often includes tasks that are meaningless in the long run and are unenjoyable. If life tomorrow, may not exist, why should one waste their time on something that they hate? Death is inevitable and the time left on Earth for everyone is fading away, therefore, there may be no point in things such as sitting in a classroom every day, knowing that tomorrow could be the end, but following the waiting path can result in greatness.
It is up to oneself to decide which life one will choose to live, as both have their pros and cons. Is there a point to waiting in life, considering that it may end tomorrow?