The Tragic Nature of Inaction
Macbeth’s ambition, Romeo’s rashness, and Othello’s jealousy: three great heroes in their own right, all brought down by the very force driving their actions. These three are classic examples of the typical Shakespearean “tragic hero”, suffering from one “tragic flaw” that inevitably leads to their downfall. It is natural, then, to look at the story of the Danish Prince, and ponder on the idea of this “tragic flaw”. By analyzing key moments in the play in which Hamlet can have a great impact on the outcome of the story as a whole, his flaw becomes painfully obvious. Moments such as his skepticism of the ghost’s integrity, his unwillingness to commit his own perfect solution, and, the arguably most frustrating, unwillingness to kill Claudius in supposed prayer, show his overly thoughtful nature. Hamlet’s constant mental gymnastics are the driving force behind his “tragic flaw”, his gratuitous inability to take action in key moments of his own play and life.
Immediately after the confrontation with the ghost, we see the first signs of Hamlet’s inaction. He reflects on the situation, rather than going straight to kill his uncle, deciding that he must validate the ghost’s retelling of events, somehow. When a group of players come into town, an idea strikes him, “The play’s the thing Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king.” (Hamlet, 119). This decision is especially baffling to the reader, since, not even a page prior, Hamlet scolds himself for not taking action, “O vengeance! Why, what an ass am I! ... That I, the son of a dear father murdered, Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell, Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words” (Hamlet, 119). Hamlet simply cannot push himself to act and, consequently, offend his own agonizingly thoughtful conscience. His need for absolute certainty and perfection is just one of many distractions that Hamlet creates for himself, almost as if to validate his choice of inaction over action. This proves to be detrimental to Hamlet and anyone with whom he comes into contact.
Another blemish on Hamlet’s already tarnished record is his rather morbid obsession with death and obvious desire to end his own life. From Hamlet’s first scene, we gain insight into his suicidal thoughts, “Oh, that this too, too sullied flesh would melt, Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew,” (Hamlet, 29), his nature, however, is also shown, immediately finding an excuse not to commit the act right then, “that the Everlasting had not fixed His canon 'gainst self-slaughter!” (Hamlet, 29). This theme continues, in his famous “to be or not to be,” (Hamlet, 127) soliloquy, wherein his suicidal tendencies are fully flushed out, likening death to an eternal sleep: “To die, to sleep-No more … we end The heartache and the Thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to-’tis a consummation Devoutly to be wished.” (Hamlet, 127). Within this philosophical self-dialogue, Hamlet seems to have found a solution to his many issues, but, like always, overthinks: “To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there’s the rub, For in that sleep of death what dreams may come” (Hamlet, 127). Hamlet is permanently haunted by his thoughts, as if they chain him to inaction like a prisoner in his own mind. If Hamlet were to have the strength to escape from these mental shackles and commit the deed, as morbid as it may be, many lives would be spared, and Hamlet would have achieved his “consummation Devoutly to be wished” (Hamlet,127).
Lastly, the fact that Act 3, Scene 3, ends with Claudius’ laughter, is undoubtedly the most obvious and disappointing confirmation of Hamlet’s blatant inability to take action. His excuse, this time, is the presumption that Claudius is praying, “Now might I do it pat. Now he is a-praying. And now I’ll do ’t. And so he goes to heaven.” (Hamlet, 167). This becomes even more frustrating when Claudius reveals that he is unable to repent whatsoever, “My words fly up, my thoughts remain below; Words without thoughts never to heaven go.” (Hamlet, 169). While there is an argument to be had about how Hamlet could not have known that Claudius’ prayer was not true, the circumstances in which he has found the King could hardly fulfill Hamlet's need for perfection any more than they do. It is midnight, the castle is in chaos, and Claudius is unsuspecting and completely alone. Frustration arises when Hamlet can see this seemingly perfect setting and still manage to find an excuse not to act, when even someone with a skull as empty as Yorik’s would be able to take this as the “perfect” opportunity that Hamlet so craves. This moment forces the audience to lose sight of Hamlet’s intentions, especially as all the remaining deaths in the play lie completely on this dismal nondecision.
Hamlet’s inability to act is a continual stench that lingers throughout the course of the play, but becomes prominent in key moments. Hamlet's inaction is so well-developed throughout, that, when he does act, it is on a whim, and often causes more trouble, (i.e., his killing of Polonius, baselessly assuming it was Claudius) than any of his intended good. Hamlet simply cannot act in critical moments, letting his mind ponder freely to find excuses at every possible opportunity. This makes the true tragedy of this play the fact that its hero is a philosopher, a man of thought rather than a man of action. Although this type of psyche may be valued and respected in other walks of life, it is clearly out of its depth in this evil, manipulative, and deceitful landscape, that is Denmark. Destiny eventually catches up with him, making Hamlet pay dearly for his own shortcomings. Even as he faces his own death, his mind continues to try to find an excuse to not accept his inevitable outcome, death itself.
Comentarios