Final+thoughts+on+Hamlet

Absolutes- revenge, identity, sins Shakespeare though Hamlet and Laertes, shows that he believes that revenges leads to a person’s downfall and eventual death. Hamlet seeks attempts to seek revenge on Claudius for his father and in doing so he loses his sanity. Laertes’ decisions also become blurred for his thirst for revenge. Claudius easily manipulates Laertes because he wants to kill hamlet so badly to avenge his father. Laertes eventually loses his ability to make decisions for himself-eventually leading to his death. I think Shakespeare is trying to prove that revenge is not the way to solve things, though it may be the most noble, it is not the most effective. He wants people to see that revenge cannot help a person in any way; instead it lessens their ability to see clearly and think with a composed mind. Shakespeare also shows his belief that a person must have and identity. Ophelia does not have an identity of her own so she eventually dies. Shakespeare is proving that a person must know who they are and what they believe in order to be able to survive in the harsh world we live in. Then Shakespeare gets religious on us by showing that sins and guilt will lead to a person’s downfall. This is proven through Claudius’ character. He also dies after murdering his brother. Shakespeare also leaves the Hamlet's decision to kill Claudius in a liminal state. The audience doesn't really know whether or not Hamlet has decided to kill Claudius or if Hamlet kills him because he watched Claudius poison his mother. Was it planned or spontaneous? I think that Hamlet is left in his liminal state, the liminal state that he as been in the entire book (whether or not to kill his uncle), to leave the decision up to the audience and their interpretation. I also think that the audience has to decide whether or not Hamlet is crazy or sane in the last scene. To me, he seems to be the only character in control, but there is evidence that supports his insanity.