William Shakespeare’s Hamlet presents an accessible and universal protagonist who surpasses the conventions of Aristotelian tragedy to embody the struggle of the human condition. The human condition is fuelled by the discrepancy between humankind’s desire and its circumstances. Hamlet provides a unique introspection into the destructive consequences of internal struggle on international politics as the “high strung dreamer” (E.K. Chambers) forfeits his father’s kingdom. Shakespeare’s dramatic meditation on power and leadership employs dramatic techniques and form to demonstrate that neither romantic idealism or barbarity are desirable in our leaders. Hamlet’s frustration derives from his inability to reconcile living in an imperfect …show more content…
This is evident in Shakespeare’s adoption of the revenge tragedy genre, whereby Hamlet plays villain and hero in equal measure. In the Aristotelian tradition, as the play progresses this conflicted hero undertakes actions he once found repulsive. Shakespeare achieves this through character doubling, pairing Hamlet and Claudius, Hamlet and Laertes, and Hamlet and Fortinbras as foils. Hamlet and Claudius are bound by blood and distrust. Hamlet’s soliloquy in Act 2 Scene 2 embodies the struggle between rational thought and emotional action, Hamlet is torn between proving the guilt of his uncle and revenging his father. Hamlet’s simile that he is “A dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak, / Like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause” (2.2) demonstrates his struggle between the moral need for proof and the filial desire for vengeance. Hence, Claudius is irrevocably compared to Hamlet as a man undergoing similar internal conflict. He is “a man to double business bound, / I stand in pause” (3.3) who tries to hold onto the spoils of his fratricide while struggling with guilt. Laertes is the foil to Hamlet the filial avenger. Laerte’s assertions that “I’ll be revenged / Most thoroughly for my father” (4.5)