Antiheroism in Hamlet by William Shakespeare

​The story of Hamlet is based on the information the ghost gave to Hamlet regarding his father's death. He told Hamlet that his father was killed by his own brother and that Hamlet had the responsibility of taking his father's revenge from his uncle. Acting on an impulse, Hamlet decided to check if his uncle is guilty and then he would kill him by any means. If one ponders upon the question if the ghost was a good or a bad spirit, one comes to realize that either of the cases could be true. If it was the conspiracy of the devil to render the whole of the royal family dead, then it was a good plotting because royal family members all kill each other by the end of the play. Antiheroism can be seen dominant throughout the play as Hamlet fails to depict the peculiar features of a hero.

​If Hamlet had calculated the possibilities rationally, then he might have acted in a more organized way. Just in case the ghost was a devil spirit, then he became successful in misguiding Hamlet and ending up the royal family. It might be his mission to make use of naive Hamlet to cause disruption among the members of the family and see the drama sitting aside. Devil's spirit could have been around all the time, and he might have enjoyed the conflicts created due to his lie which was trusted unquestionably. It is generally known that the devil is always around us trying to detract us from our tract and this is what might have happened with Hamlet. One proposition to be made here is that Hamlet should have collected some evidence of his uncle killing his father. Moreover, maybe Shakespeare himself wanted to highlight the place of evil spirit in our lives.

After all, Shakespeare does not just say Hamlet, but at least one of the hired killers in Richard III: she “conscience” (as this fellow says), “makes a man a coward.” And before you commit an evil deed, he waits until his 'conscience' calms down, passes away as if he could not. Hamlet does not have this conflict of conscience, and this is his tragedy. The tragedy is that he seems to have found nothing to support once and for all the dependence on otherworldly, inhuman authority, for support and action, in order to replace the “dislocated joints” of the era. He has to judge one epoch by the norms of another, already a bygone era, and this, according to Shakespeare, is unthinkable. “Both lights are despicable to me,” he says. For Hamlet, they are not contemptible, and this is the tragedy of his position. The psychological split of Hamlet’s consciousness is historical: its cause is the dual state of the “contemporary,” in whose minds voices suddenly began to speak and forces from other times began to act. He talks about his madness as “I am mad but north-north-west. When the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a shadow”.

Hamlet often speaks of death. Already shortly after the first appearance before the audience, he gives a hidden thought: life has become so disgusting that he would have committed suicide if it were not considered a sin. He thinks about death in the monologue 'To be or not to be?' Here the hero is concerned about the very mystery of death: what is it - or the continuation of the same torments that earth life is full of? Fear of the unknown, in front of this country, from which no traveler has returned, often causes people to shy away from the struggle for fear of entering this unknown world. He suffers from melancholy and is unable to cope with it; “I have of late, — but wherefore I know not, — lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed, it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory…”.

Hamlet focuses on the thought of death, when, attacked by stubborn facts, and doubtful doubts, cannot yet consolidate the thought, in the fast current everything moves around, and there is nothing to catch, you cannot even see the saving straw. The affair of revenge is postponed, tarnish before the deepest questions about the destinies of the century, about the meaning of life, which confront Hamlet in all its breadth. His doubt is expressed in his own words; “I’ll have grounds more relative than this”. To be - for Hamlet, this means thinking, believing in a person and acting in harmony with his convictions and faith. But the deeper he knows people, life, the more clearly he sees the triumphant evil and realizes that he is powerless to crush him with such a lonely struggle.

Disorder with the world is accompanied by internal discord. Hamlet's former faith in man, his former ideals are crushed, broken down in a collision with reality, but he cannot abandon them to the end. Otherwise, he would cease to be himself. Hamlet is a man of the feudal world, called upon by a code of honor to avenge the death of his father. Hamlet, striving for integrity, is experiencing the pain of a split; Hamlet, rebelling against the world - the agony of prison, feels his chains. All this creates intolerable grief, heartache, doubts. It is not better to end all suffering. Leave Die. Hamlet rejects the idea of ​​suicide but not for long. After the vengeance has been accomplished, the hero dies, he is reduced to the ground by a burden that he can neither carry nor throw off. What proves that Hamlet himself is unable to live in this society, cannot resist him. Revenge took all his strength.

Hamlet as an egoistic person is devoid of faith. His whole inner world is imbued with the spirit of skepticism and revolves around his own alter ego. He is unable to find an ideal in the world. Therefore, he is doomed to a vain search for the meaning of life within himself. He is aware of all his shortcomings, is full of contempt for himself and at the same time lives this self-deprecating reflection. He is not able to find anything outside of himself, deprived of love and faith, and therefore infinitely alone. After him there is no trace; the results of his life are fruitless. “The rest is silence” is what he utters at the end of his life. Thus, of course, the sympathies of the writer are on the side of Hidalgo. However, this does not mean that Hamlet is absolutely negative for him.

The cold-blooded resolve of Hamlet, who sent out without any pity his two childhood friends to death, deeply angers the reader. Hamlet himself does not give them a chance to learn any other truth than the one that all the subjects of the Danish kingdom know: in their eyes the prince is insane. Hamlet underestimated the circumstances of their complete lack of freedom and lack of independence. The main task of the “anti-Hamlet” interpretation consists, in essence, in emphasizing all those negative qualities of a prince, which make it possible to construct his theory, which would explain the content and give answers to numerous emerging questions or at least some of them.