Tuesday, December 11, 2018

Foils to Hamlet

In Shakespeare's play, there are two glaring foils to Hamlet: young Fortinbras and Laertes. Fortinbras was also named after his father, who is dead at the beginning of the play, and struggles with the consequences of his death (although not to the same degree as Hamlet, since Fortinbras's father died nobly in combat). He is the prince of his country, and his uncle is the King of Norway, like Hamlet's uncle Claudius is the King of Denmark. Laertes, like both Fortinbras and Hamlet, is a nobleman and has lost a father (although it is a more recent death and part of the play's action). Fortinbras, Laertes, and Hamlet all have a common duty they struggle with: the obligation to avenge their fathers' deaths.

However, while Hamlet questions himself and puts off revenge time and time again, Fortinbras and Laertes both take action rather immediately. Not long after his father's death and subsequent loss of territory to the Danes, Fortinbras raises an entire army and prepares for battle, blatantly ignoring the wishes of his uncle, the King of Norway. As soon as Laertes learns of Polonius's murder, he seethes with murderous intent, saying he will "cut [Hamlet's] throat i' th' church," (Shakespeare 116), implying that he will do anything, even commit a murder on the holy ground of a church, in order to avenge his father's death. Laertes immediately forms a tangible plan with Claudius to murder Hamlet. All three men seemed to be concerned with their fathers' and their own honor, but while Fortinbras and Laertes take action, Hamlet does not do anything significant except talk about getting revenge for most of the play. There's a reason why most of the deaths occur in Act V: Hamlet delayed revenge for so long that things got out of hand, causing many pointless deaths. If Hamlet had just killed Claudius when he had the chance (when Claudius was praying), Polonius, Gertrude, Laertes, Ophelia, and maybe even Hamlet would still be alive.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I think Lainey's post will be really helpful in relation to our exam. Thanks!

Lainey's post discusses the struggle to choose between inaction and action; is it even a true choice? I think a lot of the action or inaction stems from the strength of the consciousness. Hamlet, Laertes, and (probably) Fortinbras struggle with their consciences. In my opinion, Hamlet struggles the most, and Fortinbras (seemingly) struggles the least. As a result, 1) Hamlet takes the least action/it takes him the longest amount of time to take action, 2) Laertes takes the "middle" amount of action, and 3) Fortinbras takes the most action.

1) HAMLET: Ultimately, Claudius dies. So in a sense, Hamlet gets "revenge." He "rights a wrong" and avenges his father's death. But, due to his hesitation, tons of other people end up being casualties. (Lainey lists them above.) Hamlet dies as well.

2) LAERTES: Although Laertes ends up being trapped in his own trap (i.e. his plan to kill Hamlet ends up killing him too), he avenges his father way more quickly than Hamlet does. Let's remember that even though he forgives Hamlet, he does so while dying. Like Hamlet, Laertes' conscience causes him hesitation during the duel. And guess what? Laertes ends up dying too.


3) Lastly, we get to the man Gabby fancies (in the movie at least): FORTINBRAS. He formulates a plot to avenge his father, and despite a slight hitch in his plan (a.k.a. his uncle tells him to back off of Denmark), he achieves great things. The world gets all of the avenging done for him--for the man who takes action. The Danish rules die (without him having to do anything), and then Hamlet, upon his own death, grants Fortinbras the Danish throne. Let's just summarize what has happened: the man whose conscience affects him the least accomplishes the most. Fortinbras keeps his eye on the prize, regardless of any grief he is enduring. He chooses to take action as soon as he can. And he's the one who has the best ending (due to his own actions and those beyond his control).

The world of this Shakespearian play seems to favor those who take action over those who do not. But it also seems to me that these characters' consciences are out of their control. While the play is driven by actions and choices, it still seems eerily fatalistic...