21 May 2011
My article looked into the idea that Hamlet was a particular form of tragedy, where fate, fortune nor God seemed to be in control of the outcomes. The author points out how Young Fortinbras and Hamlet were nearly parallel. Both were trying to make a name for themselves while living in the shadow of each of their fathers who shared their names. He also pointed out that Fortinbras had much better luck than Hamlet in the play. He believes that Fortinbras’ point in the story was to contrast the bad luck of Hamlet. An example of Fortinbras’ good luck is how he inherited the throne after carrying out his back up plan after not being allowed to fight for the throne of Denmark.
Another point that he brings up in his essay is that he believes that Hamlet was nearly guilted into the revenge against Claudius by the ghost. The bloody climax was also a strong indication that the outcomes were random, starting with the number of deaths and ending with the British arriving after the massacre to announce that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern had been executed when in fact that was supposed to be Hamlet.
The author pictures Hamlet as the lead role in a cliché play, alongside completely unaware and incompetent actors. He is supposed to be the hero, but spends much of his time watching rather then acting heroic. He delays his actions so long that he loses his window of opportunity, which causes his bad luck to continue and have his plan backfire on him.