Hamlet - Tragic Hero?
Because Hamlet is my first introduction to a Shakespearean tragedy, I'm afraid I do not have much to compare it with. I will say that after reading most of the play, I am left a little disappointed with the so called "Tragic Hero", Hamlet. From what I've gathered so far, all Hamlet has done is sit back and watch his 'evil' uncle marry his widowed mother and take over the kingdom of Denmark. Hamlet appears to be in right mind and have a good moral judgement, but all he does is talk of the evils around him. He doesn't seem to want to make a difference or feel an obligation to set things aright. He gives a very pretty speech starting in Act I.ii.129, but that is all it is, a speech! He knows his marriage will be decided for him as a way to gain allegiance with another country, and yet he foolishly woos Ophelia, know it will not go anywhere. Be does appear bright, I'll give him that; with an excellent idea of playacting and drama. This is all happening, however, while some other king is about to go to war with Denmark, even though he has no holding. Hamlet, on the other hand, has every right to stake his ground, but he is tossed and turned with the wind like a leaf. This is exemplified with his famous but, in my opinion, flimsy speech starting in Act III.i.58. I believe he has some real insight into human difficulties, but that is not what we want to see! As a tragic hero we want to see sacrifice, torture, gallant deaths and every last breath of his being used to sway us that he is a HERO. I just see a spoiled boy who cant decide what he wants, and who is now, kind of sideways, going to avenge his father's death. Or at least call his uncle out on murder, have not read the end and don't know if he REALLY does something heroic and self sacrificial. THE END
Intersting point of view
Up until I did my research as to what a shaeksperian tragic hero is, I used to feel the same way that you do. i could almost mimic you word fopr word. But after reading what aristotle hasd to say abou tbeing a tragic hero in shakespears writting I have developed a new point of view I do feel that according to Aristotles definition Hamlet is a tragic hero.
According to Aristotle:
The tragic hero is a man of noble stature. He is not an ordinary man, but a man with outstanding quality and greatness about him. His own destruction is for a greater cause or principle. Other common traits
■His downfall is usually due to excessive pride (hubris)
■He is doomed from the start, he bears no responsibility for possessing his flaw, but bears responsibility for his actions.
■He has discovered fate by his own actions, and not by things happening to him
■He is usually a king, a leader of men - his fate affects the welfare of a whole nation or number of people. Peasants do not inspire pity and fear as great men do. The sudden fall from greatness to nothing provides a sense of contrast.
■The suffering of the hero must not be senseless: it must have meaning!
■The hero of classical tragedies is almost all male: one rare exception is Cleopatra, from Antony and Cleopatra
hubris
. . . is the tragic quality most commonly attributed to Oedipus, and because of that, a quality often transferred to all tragic figures. But if one could be tragic based upon just one quality, we'd have a lot less in the way of tragedy. I'm not sure Hamlet has excessive pride as his downfall, though he is no shrinking violet by any stretch of the imagination.
Another female is Antigone, who has her own play, one of three in the Oedipal trilogy (she's the daughter of Oedipus).
Bradley