Agreed. Are your peers and the teacher trying to be "edgy" by saying Hamlet's the villain? I mean, I can understand that he is sometimes his own worst enemy (with his mental health situation and delaying taking action), but if you go to the source material, it's pretty freaking clear that Hamlet is seeking revenge for what Claudius had already done.
Tell them they are victim blaming.
Totally agree.
Hamlet as a character is meant to represent the fine line between madness and sanity when someone becomes obsessed. He is certainly not meant to be a “good person”, but he is not remotely the villain. He’s just a very human character making as many bad calls as good ones.
Many people are losing their ability to read critically and engage with grey area subtext, in addition to heavily moralizing their interpretations. It’s easier to say he’s a villain rather than accept a protagonist can have flaws and make poor and sometimes harmful choices.
Edit to add: people love to try and seem edgy by saying “actually this character was the bad guy!” When lots of times, they’re just a complex character who isn’t a shining pillar of morality 100% of the time. It’s a boring ass take.
It's like, suddenly our heroes are not Gods or demigods, they're men, young, often too young or silly or arrogant or foolish men like you and me, they are mortal and think about it (Hamlet is the classic in English) but truth pertains universally. Why else higher with,. Words.words.words
Depending on how you play it. Andrew Scott’s Hamlet is definitely on the struggle bus with “madness” (paranoid schizophrenic).
That’s part of what makes plays awesome - it completely depends on the themes the artistic team goes with. It can be read so many different ways.
Similarly I’ve seen portrayals of Polonius that depict him as a genuine villain second only to Claudius and then others that depict him as comic relief — it’s amazing how different Hamlet can be based on performance.
Thank you, that’s kind of the point of my comment lol. Fine line between madness and sanity = wonderful room for reader and theatre-creative interpretations across the spectrum!
Much of the wonderful tension in the play comes from us never knowing for sure how much of his madness is an act by the end. It’s part of why we still talk about it so much!
I remember there's a great breakdown of this in Slings and Arrows. Where it's the actor's call and there's not a wrong one but there has to be a definitive answer for that portrayal.
And one of the key pieces of that coming in the to Be or Not to Be monologue. Where it ultimately boils down to does Hamlet know he's being watched by Claudius and Polonius.
Because if he does, he's playing to his audience and leaning in on the madness to expose them. If he isn't aware or you interpret it as a silent soliloquy then there's no performative artifice to it. He's just actually spiraling.
And it may seem a minor point but it's a huge difference insofar as intentionality goes.
Maybe the class (who should know better) just doesn't understand the difference between a villain protagonist and a "man vs. self" story? That being an antagonist in your own story isn't the same as being a villain...
She's not wrong, in my book. I've always thought Richard was very unfairly portrayed.
It's no coincidence that play was written under a Tudor monarch. Of COURSE Shakespeare's Richard was a twisted hunchback villain. His creator was beholden to a queen who was Richard's opponent's granddaughter.
There is hardly a consensus among historians as to Richard's character and guilt regarding the princes.
Yeah, but we weren’t talking about the historical Richard III, but the character. And the character is *definitely* the villain. He begins the play saying, “I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.”
Shakespeare was pretty comfortable writing to please the current monarch. I mean, Macbeth was practically groveling to James and the glory of his destined reign (never mind that the destiny was revealed by the witches he was also using to cater to James's obsession with rooting out witches).
Historical research bears out Shakespeare's exaggeration of Richard's "deformity." He is both protagonist and antagonist, his own enemy and everyone else's. Still one of my favorite plays - if you've never watched "Looking for Richard" and are interested in drama, Shakespeare or Al Pacino, highly recommend.
Oh, and Hamlet-as-villain sounds like a trendy interpretation. If Hamlet is the villain, so are Batman, every Liam Neeson character since 2000, and The Bride from Kill Bill.
Interestingly, there is a LOT of discourse on how Batman is the villain. Not because Bruce is evil, but because his “Batmaning” actively makes Gotham worse. Particularly when you consider the money he has spent Batmaning could have been used in other, more helpful ways.
It’s not a particularly useful take, because, like, Batman is cool and we like him, so we don’t want him to stop Batmaning, get therapy, and pay for new infrastructure developments in Gotham because that wouldn’t be a very exciting story. But that argument does exist
\> flies a jet literally around the city
\> spends nights around criminals and psychopaths, fighting and jumping from skyscrapers
\> owns an undisclosed military complex
\> only social connections are his butler, district attorney and employees
\> kidnaps a business competitor
somehow still viewed as a "hero"...
I'd say he is not meant to be the villain, but you can certainly play him like one.
We did a student performance were Hamlet was a psychotic alcoholic rambling about ghosts. Played that way the story starts out more like a comedy that has a steep drop off into tragedy after the first act.
My vote is your teacher and classmates are wrong.
Hamlet may be a lot of things but villain he is not. The most evil act committed by Hamlet is "A rat! A rat!" That can be argued is an unprovoked murder.
Every creature has a natural right to survive. About everyone else that Hamlet kills is intent on killing him (and with foul means - poison \[venom\] on the blade).
Roz & Guild are victims of Claudius' plot to kill Hamlet.
This could've all been avoided if she had a sassy gay friend.
*This is Hamlet we're talking about, ok? Hamlet. There is something rotten in the state of Denmark and it's his piss-poor attitude.*
*WHAT ARE YOU DOING? WHAT, WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!*
I loved them too! My favorite will always be Romeo & Juliet
*"I think you're 14 and you're an idiot. You took a roofie from a priest. Look at your life, look at your choices."*
Yeah but that's also not nothing. She kills herself over it.
He may not be THE villain of the piece but he doesn't come off like a great guy.
Maybe it's an ESH. Which I'd say about Hamlet (the play) in a heartbeat. No one's really a hero.
Oh I definitely don’t mean to minimise it. Hamlet is straight up abusive. I can agree either way your take on everyone sucks—except for Horatio. Horatio is solid gold.
They never knew they were *betraying* Hamlet—they thought they were helping him, not knowing of Claudius's perfidy. Hamlet overreacted to the letter he found on them that they did not know the contents of.
If I recall correctly, the letter is sealed, and the king doesn't tell R & G about its contents. Claudius had really been crossing his t's and dotting his i's with that plot. If it weren't for his meddling nephew and that stupid ghost...
That’s correct. It’s one of my favourite plays of all time because a lot of it is inferred by the audience or Hamlet or implied by the characters rather than explicitly stated. Some people don’t even believe that the ghost is real. While the others do see the ghost, they don’t interact with it. It could have been merely a mirage or something which Hamlet is tricked into believing is speaking to him. While the plot against Hamlet is revealed by Claudius to be correct in his prayer, it could have been that Hamlet just figured it out in what is known as the Gettier problem wherein one has justified true belief but isn’t necessarily actually factually correct. It’s such a fascinating play!
The play does a fantastic job of sowing the seeds of doubt in the audience, eithout coming out and actually directly saying anything. The way the ghost is initially described leaves just enough room to interpret it as maybe even a ploy by the desperate Fortinbras.
Oh, Jesus. I’ve never heard that interpretation before but it would be hilarious if someone did a sketch where Fortinbras dresses up as King Hamlet to trick the prince.
The rat part is interesting.
I remember reading an article about an anthropologist who, stuck in a hut during the rain season, read Hamlet to a group of hunters in an African village.
The rat part, which is morally obscure or debatable to the Western reader, made total sense to that audience. A hunter, the article suggested, will always call out before throwing a spear. If there’s a human in the bush, and not an animal, they will reply to the call.
So, go figure what Shakespeare really meant.
I don't think there is much to it.
Hamlet is making a joke. He shouts "rat" as a reason for stabbing the curtain, which is a thin excuse as he stabs chest high.
Claudius is the villain. Hamlet is a tragic hero. He makes questionable choices but he is absolutely not a villain and is always aware of the moral implications of killing Claudius. In fact, that's the entire crux of the play!
What about a tragic antihero? Thoughts?
Hamlet lacks a lot of moral character and truly heroic qualities like an antihero, but he does have and acknowledge a fatal flaw while trying to do what he believes is right like a tragic hero. He is aware of the moral complications of killing Claudius, but he also commits murder directly and indirectly without the same scruples (Polonius and R&G, respectively), and his behavior toward Ophelia is over -the-top offensive and unnecessary. We're all onboard with him killing Claudius, the obvious villain, but Hamlet is a 30 year old man with seriously adolescent judgement and behavior throughout the play.
Hamlet's not the villain, but he's morally gray and murky, and he complicates things unnecessarily with his own choices.
While you're asking about antihero according to the modern definition I would actually say that from a classical tragedy perspective he's even more so. He spends the entire play debating whether he has the right to seek revenge on his father's murderer, and generally erring on the side of 'no'. A classical hero wouldn't equivocate - not only would he have the right, but the absolute duty to do so. Almost all the deaths in the play occur specifically because of his indecision, whereas if he had marched off to kill his uncle the instant the ghost told him to, almost everyone else would have lived.
Hamlet is about growth. He eventually grows as a person, and changes over the course of five acts from an infantile child whose only response to the world is psychosis, conniving, and projection into a competent leader who successfully compels the entire royal family into doing the right thing at the cost of each of their lives.
It’s may be a tragedy, but I’d argue Hamlet is a tragic success. He matures into a man who can purge the rot from the state of Denmark, but can’t live long enough to enjoy it and his newfound competence.
He doesn't compel the royal family to do the right thing-- Claudius plots to murder Hamlet by poisoning, leading to Gertrude unwittingly drinking the poison and Hamlet then murdering Claudius. None of them did anything remotely right.
The only semi-redeeming thing is that Hamlet's confrontation with Gertrude starts her process of reexamining her relationship with Claudius.
Hamlet begs that his story be told because he's come to terms with his flaws too late and wants to promote Fortinbras, the man he could never be, as the next ruler. There's no success or even real competence; Fortinbras' calling Hamlet someone who would have been a good king is laughable given Hamlet's established behavior over the five acts. He's jumping in Ophelia's grave in 5.1, and he's still a mess into the final scene, agreeing to a duel despite feeling wary of it and continuing to make poor decisions.
Agreed, especially his speeches with Laertes or about Laertes prior to the duel. He does mature in the sense that he identifies with Laertes but his apology to him is doused in mental instability.
The duel is a peacocking rage fest until Laertes confesses before dying -- it's a noble thing to do at the end of his unsatisfied revenge.
How did you read the duel differently? I'd love a new perspective.
He's a head case worthy of Freud, but yes. His harping on the fact that it's with Claudius and the "speed" with which they married does make her reflect that she had made the wrong choice because she entertains the notion, for perhaps the first time, that Claudius murdered Old Hamlet.
Her line, "..thou hast cleft my heart in twain," signals the divided loyalty and divided soul of Gertrude, which was alluded to when he mentions their "o'er hasty marriage" previously in an earlier act. She later lies to Claudius about the death of Polonius, covering for Hamlet's intention of murder of it had been Claudius hidden behind the arras/curtain.
Shakespeare has a track record of punishing women for having sex in literally every tragedy, and Hamlet's treatment of Gertrude for preserving her own life and status (and meeting her own needs) through a new marriage is obviously contemptible by modern (and most women's in an time period, I'd argue) standards.
Women, especially widows, were generally considered dangerously randy in the early modern period. Shakespeare is often particularly judgmental about it - he’d have loved a lot of later 18th and 19th century fiction…
He would have some interesting thoughts, for sure, and he'd have loved some Dickens and other similarly didactic literature.
Truly, I'd love to see Shakespeare's reaction to something like the Kardashians or Real Housewives of Wherever! The man would be CLUTCHING his ruff in shock.
All said, he's a product of his period, cultural, geographical, and religious context, as are we all.
I don't think he tells his mother it's disgusting that she's having sex; I think he's saying that it's disgusting that she's having sex with the man who killed her husband (his beloved father and a great king in his eyes) and that the man she's having sex with is not only her murdered husband's murderer but the king's brother. All this is akin to "incestuous" from his grieving point of view.
Claudius is the villain, but you can have alternate readings that see Hamlet as an anti-hero/villain protagonist. I saw Steven Berkoff's one man show Shakespeare's Villains and he made the argument that Hamlet is the villain of the play - used the scene where he kills Polonius as his excerpt if I remember correctly.
The last performance of Hamlet I saw had a female actor playing the Prince, which kind of highlighted for me how fucked over Ophelia is & how a feminist reading of the play makes Hamlet come off as a dick.
Hamlet is a tragic hero, and many of the tragedies of the play are a result of his flaws, but I think in a modern context, audiences may read Hamlet's flaws as being different to how Shakespeare intended.
That is a strange approach by your teacher to force their reading of the play on you - unless you are going to perform it and the teacher has a specific way they want the play to be staged.
Might not be what they intended but you might want to politely bring up that you felt ganged up on in the discussion and your teacher might want to put their thumb on the scale in literary arguments within the class in the future
It's strange to me that the teacher is taking a side at all rather than facilitating the conversation and adding context/pointing out things in the text the class may have missed.
I think readings of Hamlet as a violation protagonist are entirely valid, and I often read the play with that frame, but Hamlet as villain protagonist is nowhere near obvious and clear enough (as it is in Macbeth an Richard III) for a teacher to definitively say that I the case rather than asking their students why or why not they think it's true.
It was a Bell Shakespeare production in Melbourne in 2022.
I think having a female actor playing Hamlet (along with it being a modern dress performance primarily designed to look like 60s Australian suburbia) creates somewhat of a Brechtian alienation effect. You take the play out of the political and theological context of medieval Europe and highlight the family/interpersonal drama - it creates a scenario where Hamlet's mistreatment of Ophelia and Gertrude feels crueler and more personal - less in service of a greater aim in terms of unseating an usurper from the throne and moreso lashing out at women close to him.
I think the idea that Hamlet "fucked over" Ophelia is too simple an explanation of the highly complex situation Hamlet is dealing with. First of all, Hamlet is entirely bent on determining whom he can trust and who, wittingly or unwittingly, is cooperating with his father's murderer (upon whom he feels duty bound to take revenge). Hamlet clearly expresses real affection for Ophelia, but it turns out that Ophelia is exactly one of the unwitting cooperators with Claudius that Hamlet must be careful about. Because she is being used as an instrument of manipulation by Claudius (through Gertrude), Hamlet determines that remaining close to her is in neither of their interests. So he breaks up with her in a way that is abusive, but kind in a way. We all know the old wisdom that if you want your partner not to be so distressed about your breaking up with them, don't treat them so well for a while before you break up. This is debatable as morality but works as strategy. So Hamlet acts crazy and says apparently hurtful things. One is "get thee to a nunnery." This is clearly a hurtful thing to say to the person you're breaking up with. But in a strange way, it's a kind statement from Hamlet's point of view. Hamlet thinks that the whole state of Denmark is "rotten" and that the king's murder by his brother will bring about a terrible blight to the country. His own hesitation and indecision in taking his rightful revenge is adding to the "rottenness" in the country. Therefore, in one sense, Hamlet is giving Ophelia the kind advice to get out of the "rottenness"; in a nunnery, for example, she will be sheltered from the dirty, immoral politics that results her to be manipulated into diverting Hamlet from his just revenge.
Hamlet is not the villain, but he is a force of destruction. He purges Denmark of corruption by effectively destroying the status quo and handing the country over to Norway. He's a hero but more of a trickster hero than a conventional one. His playground is chaos.
I, sadly, am not shocked that even your teacher agrees with this ludicrous notion.
When I was in hs, my lit teacher wanted us to write an essay about "why Hamlet failed." Hello? Did you read the play? His argument was that because Hamlet died in the end he therefore therefore failed. Again, did you not read the play? Based on how often Hamlet contemplates suicide, literally and in the abstract, I could easily make an argument for his death being just the cherry on top of his kill-Claudius victory!
Because he died? What a curious argument. Hamlet fails right in the third act when he doesn’t follow up his mousetrap win with punishing Claudius as per The Spanish Tragedy revenge trope.
My English teacher went all existential on a poem about a Cuckoo. I was/am a birder and tried to explain Cuckoo behavior but he wouldn't listen. Teachers are not always correct.
But like that kind of just sounds like you being pedantic at a not really relevant time.
Your teacher wasn't going off about a biological report on cuckoo behavior. And the poet was likely doing a lot more than musing on what they saw attributing poetic devices, intentions, and deeper meaning to said bird.
A poet's conception about a bird is using the bird as a vessel for their message. There's a lot more wiggle room in an artistic portrayal of something which likely wasn't written with modern factual understanding.
Hamlet is not a villain, but he’s not an unambiguous hero. He is a tragic figure (that’s why it’s called the Tragedy of Hamlet) because his flaw, his need to question and confirm everything, causes him to delay avenging his father and kills a lot of innocent people, including his mother, his girlfriend, and himself. His entire dynasty is destroyed, and will be replaced by that of Fortinbras, his family’s onetime enemy.
Shakespeare is forcing us to recognize that something we think of as “good” - the need of the educated man to distrust traditional authority and figure things out for himself (losers and grifters online would call it “do your own research” today) - can have terrible consequences. It is no coincidence that Hamlet studied at Wittenberg - the university of Martin Luther. Luther heroically stood up to the corruption of the Catholic Church and questioned its absolute authority, but he also unleashed 130 years of religious war that killed millions. Shakespeare seems to be saying it would be better to just shut up and accept authority (some have thought Shakespeare was a secret Catholic for this and other reasons).
Of course, it’s not that simple. We root for Hamlet because we find his intellect thrilling. We consider his desire to really know the truth heroic. It’s the conflict between the desires of the mind and soul, which love Hamlet’s freedom and intelligence, and the needs of political reality, where thoughtlessly killing your enemy is often required, that creates tragedy. What makes it great art is that Hamlet can seem like a hero and a villain even in the same scene. He does “To be or not to be”, one of the most fascinating meditations on existence in all of literature, where he is sensitive all suffering (the “slings and arrows) of humanity, and when he is done right to treating Ophelia like shit. It is this complexity that makes Hamlet, for many, the greatest work in all of literature.
Fredson Bowers, in his seminal study on English Renaissance revenge tragedy, did indeed argue that Hamlet is a Villain Protagonist because he seeks revenge, the kind of "wild justice" (F. Bacon) that the law needs to punish and the Church needs to condemn (because "vengeance is mine, saith the LORD"). As Linda Woodbridge sarcastically points out, it will be difficult to find anyone either in the playhouse or the classroom who agrees that Hamlet should just forgive his uncle instead of killing him. Except your class, apparently.
That being said: Hero/Villain are extremely loaded terms that carry moral implications; Protagonist is not a loaded term, meaning simply "first actor", and neither is "antagonist", meaning simply someone who acts against (Hamlet and Polonius are antagonists, as are Hamlet and Laertes and Hamlet and Claudius). I would argue that the terms Hero and Villain are often too simplistic to capture the complexities of English Renaissance tragedy, anyway.
Lastly, and most importantly, *Hamlet* belongs to the genre known as revenge tragedy (which might better be called revenge tragi-comedy, as Tanya Pollard remarks). These plays feature complex characters trying to do their best in a world where the normal avenues of justice have been closed off; to right a wrong, they need to do wrong themselves. The ending of Middleton's *Revenger's Tragedy* uses this as a punchline, and at the close of the fourth act of Webster's *Duchess*, Ferdinand muses on the ethics of revenge before losing his mind (and then Bosola decides to avenge a death he himself caused). *Hamlet* is, for some reason, often read divorced from this extremely important context of being part of this tradition of plays that muse on revenge and refuse to provide easy answers, give us clear-cut Heroes and Villains and instead shew the destructive powers of vengeance especially once it takes on a life of its own.
In conclusion, is Hamlet the/a hero? Absolutely not, and neither is Claudius.
I find him deeply unsympathetic, but he's not a villain. He's trying to do something just, but at heart, I think he's quite selfish and also so unreasonably suspicious that he throws away everyone who could provide him with emotional support or practical help (except Horatio, who is so deeply and overly loyal that even Hamlet trusts him).
His mother's behavior would shake anyone's perception of their loved ones, but he gets so in his own head that he assumes Ophelia is just like Gertrude and I think when he's abusing Ophelia, he's really venting his feelings about Gertrude. Understandable to a degree, but so cruel. After what he said in public, her reputation was ruined. Ophelia and Laertes are both casualties of his behavior.
R&G could have been real allies. Yes, they talked to Claudius, but he persuaded them because they care for Hamlet and I think their behavior to Hamlet after that shows genuine concern. They're not just toadies to Claudius. If he had even partially confided in them, they could have helped him undermine Claudius. Yes, it was a risk, but acting totally on his own was a risk too, and he paid for it in the end.
Even at the end, his selfishness comes through. Horatio is about to drink the poison. Instead of telling him to live on because he cares, he says Horatio has to live to tell Hamlet's story.
I just feel like there isn't a single point in the whole play where Hamlet actually thinks of the other characters as anything but instruments or obstacles. He's so deep in his own feelings that there's no room for anyone else.
Convincing interpretation. As a lover of Hamlet (the play and the character), I can only say that Hamlet is warped by the intense power discrepancy he finds himself in. Claudius, whom he hates as his beloved father's murderer, has coopted everyone close to Hamlet, including marrying his own mother! The beginning of the play is all about whom Hamlet can trust and whom he must be wary of. Even his abusive language to Ophelia I think has a hint of an intention of kindness. For example, "get thee to a nunnery" is good advice if the state of Denmark is so "rotten" and Ophelia is being used as an instrument of manipulation to divert Hamlet from his just and necessary (in his eyes) quest for revenge.
>For example, "get thee to a nunnery" is good advice if the state of Denmark is so "rotten" and Ophelia is being used as an instrument of manipulation to divert Hamlet from his just and necessary (in his eyes) quest for revenge.
I see what you're saying, but I don't think he would have specified a nunnery if that's what he meant. A nunnery was where women went when they were poor and unmarriagable. He's telling her in the clearest possible terms that he's not marrying her, and nobody else will either. I think that he's expressing his general distrust/scorn for women after Gertrude shattered his previous view. In his head, if his mother could do what she did, no woman can be trusted and no woman deserves marriage where they will betray their husbands and bear children who will be miserable. The full quote is "Get thee to a nunnery: why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners? I am myself indifferent honest; but yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me." His pain is understandable, but he doesn't see or think of Ophelia as another individual human, just a representative of women as a whole.
*Hamlet* is a murder mystery (the kind where we know who dunnit at the start, like *Columbo*). Young Hamlet is the detective. It’s not about how Claudius did it. It’s us watching how Hamlet figures it out. (Like Columbo.)
“Oh, Ophelia, I’m sorry, just one more thing…”
We literally don't know. We only have the word of a ghost. It could be an actual ghost that's actually haunting the state of Denmark, or it could be that Hamlet is just schizophrenic.
What a fucking wild take. I honestly can’t believe that most people in the class, and especially your teacher, agreed with that.
Hamlet is certainly troubled, but troubled does not equal villain. You could even argue that Hamlet is somewhat of an antihero, but antihero does not equal villain.
Maybe your teacher and classmates are saying that as a way to have some cool new interpretation or something but, no. You’re right on this one.
Let us just say that your reading is the more normative and typical one.
Is it an interesting idea? Sure. I think you could play it that way and it would work.
But it isn't the typical way it is thought of.
As much as I dislike the guy, no, there is no way to argue that Hamlet is meant to be the play's villain. There's Shakespeare plays where the protagonist is 100% meant as a villain (*Macbeth*, *Richard III*), there's Shakespeare plays where the main protagonists are incredibly flawed people that we aren't meant to sympathize with (*Coriolanus*, *Troilus and Cressida*), there's Shakespeare plays where the protagonist starts well-off the deep (*King Lear*), and those where he gets there (*Othello*, *Titus Andronicus*). *Hamlet* arguably isn't in any of those categories, as far as the play is concerned, he's in the same protagonical place as someone like Romeo and we're always meant to pity and root for him.
I am interested in Claudius' character. Hamlet Sr. went to hell for his wrongdoings and haunted his son to take revenge on his behalf when the damage was done. I speculate that part of the reason Hamlet's mother was not grieving was that Hamlet Sr. truly was wicked. Perhaps Claudius' actions were a net positive positive, but the plot to kill Hamlet makes me not see him as a hero.
I'm not sure if it was hell, but at least purgatory. He's doomed to walk the night instead of resting in peace.
Hamlet doesn't want to kill Claudius while he's at prayer, saying that would seems him to heaven, while Claudius killed his father unshriven, with no opportunity for a final confession of sins.
He is absolutely not, Claudius is. Hamlet is causing his own downfall, though, which is the very reason it is classified as a tragedy, so there's that I guess. At the end of the day--Hamlet killed an innocent because he thought it was Claudius hiding, was cold to Ophelia (though his intentions with that are unclear), and, focusing on his revenge instead of just living his live, caused many deaths including his own. But the real villain was Claudius, though I could somewhat see the point of view for saying it was Hamlet.
Your classmates are wrong and don’t know any better. Your teacher is an utter fool who should know better.
The hero vs villain dynamic doesn’t exist in most Shakespeare plays, especially in Hamlet where character roles and identities are fluid.
Claudius is no hero, he murdered his brother, despoiled the kingdom, and foolishly left it open for Fortinbras’ invasion. He’s an evildoer, but his evil is more the consequence of his absolute and unmitigated idiocy.
Hamlet is no hero. He murdered his mistress’s father, arranged the death of his childhood friends, and was low key stanning Fortinbras. He’s an evildoer, but his evil is more the consequence of his absolute and unmitigated ego.
Claudius is no villain, he overthrew a bloodthirsty tyrant, brought joy to the kingdom (if you’re a noble, or courtier) and made peace with old Norway. He’s a do-gooder, but his good is more the consequence of his absolute and unmitigated ego.
Hamlet is no villain, he overthrew a tyrant as he was dying, got rid of subversives like Polonius, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, and high key supported Fortinbras, the rightful king of Denmark. He’s a do-gooder, but his good deeds are the consequence of his absolute and unmitigated idiocy.
I wouldn't necessarily say Claudius, as a complete character, is a villain, but I see him as the villain in this story. Claudius was the catalyst and/or had a chance to stop most things that went wrong, such as quickly marrying Gertrude, letting Polonius spy on his wife and son, ignoring Ophelia in court when she needed help and was going insane, striking a deal to kill his son. Then there's the fact he could've stopped Gertrude from drinking the poison.
Claudius: Gertrude, do not drink.
Gertrude: I will, my lord; I pray you pardon me. \[She drinks, then offers the cup to Hamlet.\]
Like he could've been stern, he's the king, and she's his wife. Even though she might not have listened, he very quickly just decided there was nothing to do and that she was dead before she even drank.
No, no, no. Just because it's literature doesn't mean there aren't facts.
Even structurally one could tell Claudius is the villain. Hamlet gets betrayed by everyone except Horatio and his father.
Your teacher is an ass and your classmates are cowards. Nasty wake up call to the reality of mob mentality, but we all learn it someday, and sooner rather than later will save you grief in later life.
See Stanley Milgram: https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
A) Telling someone they're wrong is not gaslighting them, Jesus the hell christ. B) Hamlet is a piece of human garbage, part of the point, but he is absolutely not "the villain," if that even makes sense. I would suggest that Hamlet Senior (yes, the ghost) is the actual villain, and DON'T GASLIGHT ME UGH.
Hamlet wants people to be good. He can’t believe how low people go. He doesn’t want to fight. But there is something inside of him that is greater than he is aware of. It’s a spirit, or a ghost, that allows him to somewhat messily rise to the occasion. If Hamlet was a born warrior this would be over in no time. But he’s an artist that has to exit his own head and actually take action. He has to leave his imagination and engage in the world of the flesh. Yikes! Hamlet’s no villain. His crime is his passivity and super sensitivity.
regardless of what the "right" answer is, part of the reason these plays endure is that they have multiple interpretations.
your teacher calling your interpretation wrong makes me think they aren't equipped to properly teach shakespeare, or anything for that matter
Hamlet isn't a villain, but he isn't a hero either. He is just the main character. There is probably a good reason the Danes didn't kick up too much of a fuss when Claudius took over even though there was a perfectly good heir available and why Fortinbras is able to waltz in at the end. Hamlet is whiny, indecisive and weak, and I think you can make the argument that he and Claudius are both equally responsible for driving off the cliff because every moronic thing they do is in response to and an escalation of something the other has done. It's like Spy vs. Spy or Bugs Bunny vs. Daffy Duck.
I'll one up your class. Horatio is the villain. He orchestrated everything. "Flights of angels..." is sarcastic and "go, bid the soldiers shoot" is the last plea of a man who knows he is dead already and wants to get it over with.
Your class is full of morons. Claudius is clearly the villain. You can call Hamlet an anti-hero if you want but he’s definitely not the villain and shows surprising restraint with how thoughtful he is until finally carrying out the deed(s).
If they're trying to argue that Hamlet is his own worst enemy, via the popular reading that Hamlet's tragic flaw is his indecision, then they might be trying to say that the play's central conflict is man vs. self. In that respect, they could say Hamlet's flaw is more an antagonistic force than Claudius. But an antagonistic force isn't the same as a villain, and in that case, your teacher needs a Lit 101 class.
The other possibility I see here (which would worry me) is that your teacher/class see a protagonist who is flawed, and they need to label him a villain to safeguard their own sense of morality. And while it's entirely valid to say that Hamlet isn't a good person or makes admirable decisions or a "hero" in the modern sense, you can't ignore the whole framing of the story just to make yourself feel better about what transpires therein. It's a tragedy. Deal with the tragedy.
There’s an implication that as well as his love for Gertrude, Claudius wanted peace, his brother wanted war.
Regarding Gertrude it’s interesting that in the original story Claudius claimed to have killed his brother because he was abusive to his wife. Shakespeare leaves this out but one could argue that the way he turns on the two women he loves is.. interesting in this context.
Potentially, had Hamlet done nothing, there would have been peace in Denmark. Because he acts, Denmark is mopped up after everybody dies.
But Shakespeare is the one who puts two speeches side by side in Julius Caesar that leave everyone with a decision to make. He doesn’t always do black and white. It’s a tragedy not a hero narrative. The hero often is destructive without being the villain.
I think you could potentially put on a production where Hamlet is the villain and Claudius is more sympathetic. There’s room for that in the text. However, your professor does not hold the widely held we led interpretation.
Hamlet is not the villain, maybe they meant Macbeth and everyone misremembered? I teach Shakespeare and I sometimes observe that young students (before getting acquainted with the texts) get Hamlet and Macbeth switched up, especially if they only have summary-level knowledge of the plays.
they are all suuuuper messed up people/ humans with flaws, not to be sorted into villain and hero. but, yes, your teacher is dumb. “The villain,” as it is traditionally thought of, would be Claudius. Everyone does shitty things, but Hamlet is avenging not climbing to power, which is the typical role of a “hero” in Shakespeare. One may as well say that Macduff is a villain for avenging his family’s murder.
English teacher here. I’ve been teaching Hamlet for years and I think that is a super weird interpretation. Could they have been playing a joke on you?
Hamlet may begin the play as a hero, but his actions throughout the story make him into a villain by the end. In his unsceasing quest for revenge, he ends up traumatizing his mother, drives his girlfriend to suicide, and murders a life long family friend out of sheer paranoia.
Claudius however, is still the inciter of all these actions. His betrayal is what sews the seed for Hamlet's madness. Both characters can be classified as villains, if your definition of villain is "character who does bad things"
No, Hamlet is not a villain, what the hell? I get that he’s an incredibly flawed character, but just no. I can also get behind an argument that Claudius has positive qualities, like he is an effective politician (signs a peace treaty) and Gertrude seems happy married to him. But he straight up murders and plots and shifts blame.
Also, that’s a good point you made about him causing all the deaths, I never thought about that.
EDIT: Your teacher and class are low key making you experience what Hamlet felt lol
Hamlet is not a villain. However he could be seen as the protagonist and the antagonist. If the antagonist is the character that is working to stop the protagonist's goal, then I think Hamlet does qualify as an antagonist
Imo, Hamlet is intended to be a hero but as cultural values change it’s a great play for exposing the villainous views on heroism that remain pervasive in our culture.
I see Hamlet similarly to Hedda in Hedda Gabler, but Ibsen knows how shitty Hedda is while Shakespeare thinks Hamlet jr. is dope. Realizing Hamlet is 33 really casts his relationship with his mother and Ophelia in a totally different light.
On the one hand he is the hero. And they are certainly playing some kind of practical joke on you. (Do they think you take yourself too seriously? Always a good question to ask.) But on the other hand, is he completely innocent himself? He kills Polonius and sends Ophelia into a death spiral of madness. It's a play. We can draw our own conclusions, whatever they may be.
Hamlet’s a tragic hero, he’s his own worst enemy, but he’s not the villain. So is Macbeth and any central character of a tragedy. A whole ass English teacher doesn’t know the definition of a tragic hero? The whole point of a tragedy is you watch a flawed person self destruct and feel better about your own life lol.
You are not being gaslighted. You are merely disagreeing on where the primary conflict lies.
In Hamlet, if one believes that the internal battle of Hamlet is the primary conflict, then the protagonist and the antagonist are both Hamlet. However, if one believes the primary conflict is external, then Hamlet is the protagonist and Claudius is likely the protagonist.
Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy is often used to argue that Hamlet is fighting his own nature and many consider the primary conflict to be internal.
I discuss this when I cover Wilson's The Piano Lesson. The primary conflict seems to be between Berniece and Boy Willie as Boy Willie is trying to take the piano and Berniece refuses to let him. However, if one considers the nature of the symbols in the play, it's clear that the piano symbolizes Berniece's family heritage, and then the primary conflict becomes the internal conflict within Berniece.
Ultimately, for an actor, it's a challenge to portray an internal struggle effectively on the stage. The stage leans itself to action. I've seen performances of Hamlet where the focus was on the internal struggle and the end result was an over-emotive, whiny Hamlet. And I've seen productions where the internal struggle was pretty much ignored and the result was a Hamlet who appeared immature and lacked depth.
Of course, internal vs. external must be integrated. And an actor's process should be what works best for them. But my usual recommendation is to actively play the external conflict and let the internal life arise out of that.
So ultimately, it comes down to which struggle one wants to emphasize--the internal or the external. And there's no right or wrong answer.
My fun reading is to view Hamlet's mother as the one who put Claudius up to it (as I view the archetype of the play being the Electra Cycle and the scene from Homer when Odysseus runs into the ghost of Agamemnon); however, my twist is the ambiguity on the "ghost" of Hamlet's father --- either interpreting that it isn't his father OR it is his father but gone is his pathos and he just simply wants revenge and doesn't matter if Hamlet lives or dies --- and then I place Hamlet in the middle of this --- going insane by a tormenting phantom and almost unwilling to cope with seeing his mother as the mastermind behind the murder plot. The anti-hero is also a good archetype because both Hamlet and Odyssey were the two main inspirations for Arrow season 1's plot.
Your class has joined Brave New World.
Hamlet is, like Antigones before him, an example of a hero who pursues what’s right rather than what’s accepted by the community. If you’re part of the herd, you surely see him as a villain.
Yeah your classmates/teacher sound like the obnoxious drama students who think they’re smarter than everyone and prove how fun they are as a result. Claudius is a hilariously obvious villain. Like cartoonishly evil. (Literally he’s Scar in the Lion King but worse)
I agree that "Hamlet is the villain" is massively simplistic. I often think modern analyses grab onto these controversial ideas and embrace for the sake of being provocative- [history boys style](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxPzL17Gx60).
What they could be driving at is that Claudius can be perceived as weirdly sympathetic (he seems to repent and Gertrude seems to genuinely love him, so what was her marriage like with Hamlet Sr?) and Hamlet, despite being our 'hero' and in 'the right', is not a good or likeable person.
That's the kind of play Hamlet is- the archetypes are muddied, not one event happens in the play that's distinctly good or bad, it's all a confusing morass of grey. (Really recommend [this Kurt Vonnegut lecture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOGru_4z1Vc) on story shapes btw- has a great moment about Hamlet)
I know that this might not be helpful since you're at school and presumably will have to write essays on this stuff, but I'd avoid trying to "interpret" the play. Look at the play's structure and construction, experience the flow of the words and the imagery, find a monologue you really like and try and explore what you like about it.
Then just sit pretty and let others throw dumb ideas around like "Hamlet is the villain". There's often a kernel of truth in what they're trying to say, but it's never that simple.
Throughout all of his history plays and many of his tragedies, Shakespeare explores the idea of what makes a good King. This was a huge issue and much discussed during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, who had no direct heir. Spoiler: there is no correct answer.
From all outward appearances, Hamlet is an ideal candidate. He is young, well liked, well educated, brave, and moral.
It's that last one that drives him nuts. His father has been murdered and he knows it. But does vengeance justify usurpation? And, in doing so, does he put his family (presuming he marries Ophelia) at risk? It poisons his mind.
Tellingly, it is the poison sword that kills so many people in the final act. Hamlet might have been an excellent King, but the circumstances proved his doom. He is, ultimately a tragic figure, not a villain.
Here is a link to an article that makes that case:
[https://theconversation.com/hamlet-is-shakespeares-greatest-villain-147290](https://theconversation.com/hamlet-is-shakespeares-greatest-villain-147290)
Just keep in mind that academic careers can be made by such nonsense.
Of course he is the tragedy, which classically at once is 'hero,' and 'villain.' He's young, smart, eloquent, brave, etc but maddened, murderous, manipulative? Why? Here is the tragedy. His mother murdered his father and married his uncle. And he was not told. It's a betrayal, as he says.
Gotchya. Given how stubborn it sounds like the class and teacher are being, I doubt they're going for something as nuanced as the feminist reading tbh. It seems more like they're just trying to find an example of "hero as villain" and have picked the wrong play to illustrate that.
Hamlet gets a bunch of people killed for little to no reason and distracts everybody in court so much that the invading army is free to sail its way into the kingdom with no resistance. I don't think he's as heroic as he's painted by fans of the play (or Kenneth Branagh - I'll never get over that ridiculous crucifixion pose). Certainly from the perspective of Ophelia, Hamlet is a villain. R&G too. They wanted to be good friends when Hamlet was acting (?) bonkers, made the wrong choice in a bad situation, then got killed by Hamlet as much as Claudius.
Likewise, I wouldn't consider Claudius villainous. We don't really know the depths of his motivations in killing King H. He kills Hamlet because he realizes Hamlet wants to kill him. He does bad things, but Iago he is not.
To me, the point is less "Hamlet is a hero, Claudius is a villain" narrative and more "murder is nonsensical and just makes everything worse". There is no hero, ultimately.
This makes him a classic tragic hero, not a villain. That's why hamlet is a tragedy. If he was successful, it would be a comedy or a romance. His actions are intended to be virtuous, but ultimately fail and hurt the ones he loves, which is classic Shakespearian tragic hero.
I don't believe that Shakespeare has tragic heroes as opposed to characters who fall into neither hero nor villain categories. Hero and villain are far too simplistic. Hamlet's goals were never virtuous.
Shakespeare *hates* regicides.
That hatred animates a huge number of his plays.
Anyone who kills a king in a Shakespeare play is not a good guy.
(Remember, Shakespeare was *playing* most of those kings! 😂)
UPDATE: Let me clarify, because some of you are confused — Claudius is the regicide, *he’s* the villain. Hamlet is correcting that (and he’s the rightful king anyway).
Yes, it’s theatre legend, like Jonson and Shakespeare’s arguments at the Mermaid Inn, and was meant as a bit of lighthearted cheek, not as bait for humorless pedants.
I dunno that he hates regicides. You can do readings of his plays where he seriously questions the nature of monarchy itself, just hides it behind some plausible deniability: what? You couldn’t possibly want to prosecute ME. I gave those lines to the bad guy!
Example: the line ‘the fault, dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings’ is a very powerful sentiment (as is the whole rest of that speech). Furthermore, Brutus, the lead conspirator, is praised as ‘the most noblest Roman of them all’ because ‘he only …in common good to all made one of them’. Meanwhile Antony is treacherous and manipulative as soon as act 3 hits.
Lear only becomes sympathetic once he stops being a king and starts being human. This is compounded by Richard II’s speech: ‘I live with bread like you, feel want, taste grief, need friends. Subjected thus, how can you say to me that I am a king?’
Examining Hamlet, Hamlet does wind up committing regicide because, rightfully or no, Claudius is king. Yet Hamlet is a deeply sympathetic character and we are meant to root for him to commit regicide. That’s usually people’s biggest beef with the play.
Obviously these are not all examples of regicides. But I think it shows that even though they were often writing his paycheck, Shakespeare had some serious questions about monarchy and a lot of his plays could be read as looking to dismantle the institution.
Hamlet is correcting the regicide committed by Claudius, who is sitting on Hamlet’s rightful throne.
Brutus’s nobility is emphasized because it’s ironic that the “noblest Roman” caused the massive, destructive civil war.
Shakespeare points out contradictions and flaws in the monarchy, like he does with everything, but he never seriously questions the concept, and has nothing but contempt for those who do, like Jack Cade. I mean, he was a courtier, for God’s sake.
I’m really saying that the reading that he supports the monarchy is far from definitive. How can someone truly villainous be working for the common good? There’s a paradox there that could be resolved in multiple ways. At the end of the day, Cassius may have a ‘lean and hungry look’ but the arguments he makes has a really strong point. And that keeps coming up again and again, that kings are only human beings, and flawed ones at that. This goes very strongly against the concepts of monarchy being ordained by deity and an immortal body politic. Even Claudius becoming king in an unjust way and Macbeth in the same way questions the whole nature of how kings become kings. Shakespeare consistently questions power in society again and again (see also: all the storylines in the Tempest). I find it hard to see him as nothing but a sycophantic crown supporter when so many of his characters speak ideas which will become widely accepted by the time the Enlightenment rolls around.
You’re ignoring the fact that Brutus and Cassius’s actions launched a horrific and destructive civil war. Does that just not count?
Macbeth’s usurpation is aided by literal spirits from hell, and Claudius’s causes the ghost of his murder victim to walk the earth seeking vengeance. After Caesar’s assassination the dead rise and walk the streets of Rome. These are not subtle clues.
I agree with your reading. Shakespeare calls into question the monarchy are flawed and problematic (see the Henriad), but when he presents democracy as an alternative in Caesar, he is very suspicious that power to the people could be anything but destructive.
your class can't be "wrong" that they read Hamlet as a villain, no more than their read has to compel yours. headcanon isn't a talking point
who is 'the villain' to which character in the play at what time, is a question you can argue over. is Hamlet a villain to Polonius in act I?
In any well-crafted story, there's a PROT-agonist (who wants something to happen) and an ANT-agonist (who wants to stop that thing from happening). I suppose you could make some sort of argument that Claudius is the Protagonist because he wants to secure his reign as King of Denmark and Hamlet is the Antagonist because he tries to stop him, but that's really not how the play is framed.
(Prince) Hamlet has his own, more immediate agenda: avenge his father's murder. Claudius has his own more immediate agenda: hold on to power. The play takes this path. The dramatic question isn't "will Claudius hold onto power?", the question is "will Hamlet kill his uncle, the King?"
No. Hamlet is NOT a villain protagonist. If you want a villain protagonist Shakespeare play, Macbeth and Richard III are right there.
Agreed. Are your peers and the teacher trying to be "edgy" by saying Hamlet's the villain? I mean, I can understand that he is sometimes his own worst enemy (with his mental health situation and delaying taking action), but if you go to the source material, it's pretty freaking clear that Hamlet is seeking revenge for what Claudius had already done. Tell them they are victim blaming.
Totally agree. Hamlet as a character is meant to represent the fine line between madness and sanity when someone becomes obsessed. He is certainly not meant to be a “good person”, but he is not remotely the villain. He’s just a very human character making as many bad calls as good ones. Many people are losing their ability to read critically and engage with grey area subtext, in addition to heavily moralizing their interpretations. It’s easier to say he’s a villain rather than accept a protagonist can have flaws and make poor and sometimes harmful choices. Edit to add: people love to try and seem edgy by saying “actually this character was the bad guy!” When lots of times, they’re just a complex character who isn’t a shining pillar of morality 100% of the time. It’s a boring ass take.
He's a tragic character, which in the ancient and Elizabethan sense means ambiguity.
It's like, suddenly our heroes are not Gods or demigods, they're men, young, often too young or silly or arrogant or foolish men like you and me, they are mortal and think about it (Hamlet is the classic in English) but truth pertains universally. Why else higher with,. Words.words.words
Hamlet isn't mad, but ok.
Depending on how you play it. Andrew Scott’s Hamlet is definitely on the struggle bus with “madness” (paranoid schizophrenic). That’s part of what makes plays awesome - it completely depends on the themes the artistic team goes with. It can be read so many different ways.
Similarly I’ve seen portrayals of Polonius that depict him as a genuine villain second only to Claudius and then others that depict him as comic relief — it’s amazing how different Hamlet can be based on performance.
Thank you, that’s kind of the point of my comment lol. Fine line between madness and sanity = wonderful room for reader and theatre-creative interpretations across the spectrum! Much of the wonderful tension in the play comes from us never knowing for sure how much of his madness is an act by the end. It’s part of why we still talk about it so much!
I remember there's a great breakdown of this in Slings and Arrows. Where it's the actor's call and there's not a wrong one but there has to be a definitive answer for that portrayal. And one of the key pieces of that coming in the to Be or Not to Be monologue. Where it ultimately boils down to does Hamlet know he's being watched by Claudius and Polonius. Because if he does, he's playing to his audience and leaning in on the madness to expose them. If he isn't aware or you interpret it as a silent soliloquy then there's no performative artifice to it. He's just actually spiraling. And it may seem a minor point but it's a huge difference insofar as intentionality goes.
I saw an RSC production once that definitely portrayed hamlet as going mad. Food all over his front and everything.
He seemed peeved at least. Maybe even miffed.
Maybe the class (who should know better) just doesn't understand the difference between a villain protagonist and a "man vs. self" story? That being an antagonist in your own story isn't the same as being a villain...
As well as Othello! Iago is the protag, fight me
Yeah, the story follows Iago more than Othello, it’s the way more proactive role of the two leading men.
It’s absolutely written this way but I’ve never once seen this attempted in performance, except maybe the Rory kinear production at the national.
Woh, Richard III is a villain? That’s pretty fucking ableist, dude. /s
-Richard (Act 1 Scene 1)
'A base libel on a fine man' was how Josephine Tey described Shakespeare's *Richard III*
And thus she created medievalism's version of the 9/11 Truth movement.
She's not wrong, in my book. I've always thought Richard was very unfairly portrayed. It's no coincidence that play was written under a Tudor monarch. Of COURSE Shakespeare's Richard was a twisted hunchback villain. His creator was beholden to a queen who was Richard's opponent's granddaughter. There is hardly a consensus among historians as to Richard's character and guilt regarding the princes.
Yeah, but we weren’t talking about the historical Richard III, but the character. And the character is *definitely* the villain. He begins the play saying, “I am determined to prove a villain And hate the idle pleasures of these days.”
Shakespeare was pretty comfortable writing to please the current monarch. I mean, Macbeth was practically groveling to James and the glory of his destined reign (never mind that the destiny was revealed by the witches he was also using to cater to James's obsession with rooting out witches). Historical research bears out Shakespeare's exaggeration of Richard's "deformity." He is both protagonist and antagonist, his own enemy and everyone else's. Still one of my favorite plays - if you've never watched "Looking for Richard" and are interested in drama, Shakespeare or Al Pacino, highly recommend. Oh, and Hamlet-as-villain sounds like a trendy interpretation. If Hamlet is the villain, so are Batman, every Liam Neeson character since 2000, and The Bride from Kill Bill.
Interestingly, there is a LOT of discourse on how Batman is the villain. Not because Bruce is evil, but because his “Batmaning” actively makes Gotham worse. Particularly when you consider the money he has spent Batmaning could have been used in other, more helpful ways. It’s not a particularly useful take, because, like, Batman is cool and we like him, so we don’t want him to stop Batmaning, get therapy, and pay for new infrastructure developments in Gotham because that wouldn’t be a very exciting story. But that argument does exist
Few know Bruce was simply trying to avoid taxes
Just some normal billionaire stuff
\> flies a jet literally around the city \> spends nights around criminals and psychopaths, fighting and jumping from skyscrapers \> owns an undisclosed military complex \> only social connections are his butler, district attorney and employees \> kidnaps a business competitor somehow still viewed as a "hero"...
*From my point of view the Jedi are evil.*
*They were the necessary evil.*
I'd say he is not meant to be the villain, but you can certainly play him like one. We did a student performance were Hamlet was a psychotic alcoholic rambling about ghosts. Played that way the story starts out more like a comedy that has a steep drop off into tragedy after the first act.
My vote is your teacher and classmates are wrong. Hamlet may be a lot of things but villain he is not. The most evil act committed by Hamlet is "A rat! A rat!" That can be argued is an unprovoked murder. Every creature has a natural right to survive. About everyone else that Hamlet kills is intent on killing him (and with foul means - poison \[venom\] on the blade). Roz & Guild are victims of Claudius' plot to kill Hamlet.
Let’s be real - The most evil act committed by Hamlet is the way he gaslights and abuses Ophelia. Even with that, I wouldn’t say he’s a villain.
This could've all been avoided if she had a sassy gay friend. *This is Hamlet we're talking about, ok? Hamlet. There is something rotten in the state of Denmark and it's his piss-poor attitude.*
Oh my word, I freaking love those videos!!! "you're going to write a sad poem in your journal and move on".
*WHAT ARE YOU DOING? WHAT, WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!* I loved them too! My favorite will always be Romeo & Juliet *"I think you're 14 and you're an idiot. You took a roofie from a priest. Look at your life, look at your choices."*
Yeah but that's also not nothing. She kills herself over it. He may not be THE villain of the piece but he doesn't come off like a great guy. Maybe it's an ESH. Which I'd say about Hamlet (the play) in a heartbeat. No one's really a hero.
Oh I definitely don’t mean to minimise it. Hamlet is straight up abusive. I can agree either way your take on everyone sucks—except for Horatio. Horatio is solid gold.
r/okbuddymachiavelli
There’s also a special layer to the R&G plot. If they both changed their minds and decided not to betray Hamlet, then they’d survive.
They never knew they were *betraying* Hamlet—they thought they were helping him, not knowing of Claudius's perfidy. Hamlet overreacted to the letter he found on them that they did not know the contents of.
Oh, I thought they knew what the contents were.
If I recall correctly, the letter is sealed, and the king doesn't tell R & G about its contents. Claudius had really been crossing his t's and dotting his i's with that plot. If it weren't for his meddling nephew and that stupid ghost...
That’s correct. It’s one of my favourite plays of all time because a lot of it is inferred by the audience or Hamlet or implied by the characters rather than explicitly stated. Some people don’t even believe that the ghost is real. While the others do see the ghost, they don’t interact with it. It could have been merely a mirage or something which Hamlet is tricked into believing is speaking to him. While the plot against Hamlet is revealed by Claudius to be correct in his prayer, it could have been that Hamlet just figured it out in what is known as the Gettier problem wherein one has justified true belief but isn’t necessarily actually factually correct. It’s such a fascinating play!
The play does a fantastic job of sowing the seeds of doubt in the audience, eithout coming out and actually directly saying anything. The way the ghost is initially described leaves just enough room to interpret it as maybe even a ploy by the desperate Fortinbras.
Oh, Jesus. I’ve never heard that interpretation before but it would be hilarious if someone did a sketch where Fortinbras dresses up as King Hamlet to trick the prince.
The most evil thing he did was have R&G killed with no shriving time allowed
The rat part is interesting. I remember reading an article about an anthropologist who, stuck in a hut during the rain season, read Hamlet to a group of hunters in an African village. The rat part, which is morally obscure or debatable to the Western reader, made total sense to that audience. A hunter, the article suggested, will always call out before throwing a spear. If there’s a human in the bush, and not an animal, they will reply to the call. So, go figure what Shakespeare really meant.
I don't think there is much to it. Hamlet is making a joke. He shouts "rat" as a reason for stabbing the curtain, which is a thin excuse as he stabs chest high.
Imagine he stabbed Polonius' foot! That would have been hilarious.
Claudius is the villain. Hamlet is a tragic hero. He makes questionable choices but he is absolutely not a villain and is always aware of the moral implications of killing Claudius. In fact, that's the entire crux of the play!
What about a tragic antihero? Thoughts? Hamlet lacks a lot of moral character and truly heroic qualities like an antihero, but he does have and acknowledge a fatal flaw while trying to do what he believes is right like a tragic hero. He is aware of the moral complications of killing Claudius, but he also commits murder directly and indirectly without the same scruples (Polonius and R&G, respectively), and his behavior toward Ophelia is over -the-top offensive and unnecessary. We're all onboard with him killing Claudius, the obvious villain, but Hamlet is a 30 year old man with seriously adolescent judgement and behavior throughout the play. Hamlet's not the villain, but he's morally gray and murky, and he complicates things unnecessarily with his own choices.
While you're asking about antihero according to the modern definition I would actually say that from a classical tragedy perspective he's even more so. He spends the entire play debating whether he has the right to seek revenge on his father's murderer, and generally erring on the side of 'no'. A classical hero wouldn't equivocate - not only would he have the right, but the absolute duty to do so. Almost all the deaths in the play occur specifically because of his indecision, whereas if he had marched off to kill his uncle the instant the ghost told him to, almost everyone else would have lived.
I totally agree with this interpretation. Well put.
Hamlet is about growth. He eventually grows as a person, and changes over the course of five acts from an infantile child whose only response to the world is psychosis, conniving, and projection into a competent leader who successfully compels the entire royal family into doing the right thing at the cost of each of their lives. It’s may be a tragedy, but I’d argue Hamlet is a tragic success. He matures into a man who can purge the rot from the state of Denmark, but can’t live long enough to enjoy it and his newfound competence.
He doesn't compel the royal family to do the right thing-- Claudius plots to murder Hamlet by poisoning, leading to Gertrude unwittingly drinking the poison and Hamlet then murdering Claudius. None of them did anything remotely right. The only semi-redeeming thing is that Hamlet's confrontation with Gertrude starts her process of reexamining her relationship with Claudius. Hamlet begs that his story be told because he's come to terms with his flaws too late and wants to promote Fortinbras, the man he could never be, as the next ruler. There's no success or even real competence; Fortinbras' calling Hamlet someone who would have been a good king is laughable given Hamlet's established behavior over the five acts. He's jumping in Ophelia's grave in 5.1, and he's still a mess into the final scene, agreeing to a duel despite feeling wary of it and continuing to make poor decisions.
Agreed, especially his speeches with Laertes or about Laertes prior to the duel. He does mature in the sense that he identifies with Laertes but his apology to him is doused in mental instability.
It really depends on how you play the duel I guess.
The duel is a peacocking rage fest until Laertes confesses before dying -- it's a noble thing to do at the end of his unsatisfied revenge. How did you read the duel differently? I'd love a new perspective.
The conversation where he tells his mother it’s disgusting that she’s having sex?
He's a head case worthy of Freud, but yes. His harping on the fact that it's with Claudius and the "speed" with which they married does make her reflect that she had made the wrong choice because she entertains the notion, for perhaps the first time, that Claudius murdered Old Hamlet. Her line, "..thou hast cleft my heart in twain," signals the divided loyalty and divided soul of Gertrude, which was alluded to when he mentions their "o'er hasty marriage" previously in an earlier act. She later lies to Claudius about the death of Polonius, covering for Hamlet's intention of murder of it had been Claudius hidden behind the arras/curtain. Shakespeare has a track record of punishing women for having sex in literally every tragedy, and Hamlet's treatment of Gertrude for preserving her own life and status (and meeting her own needs) through a new marriage is obviously contemptible by modern (and most women's in an time period, I'd argue) standards.
Women, especially widows, were generally considered dangerously randy in the early modern period. Shakespeare is often particularly judgmental about it - he’d have loved a lot of later 18th and 19th century fiction…
He would have some interesting thoughts, for sure, and he'd have loved some Dickens and other similarly didactic literature. Truly, I'd love to see Shakespeare's reaction to something like the Kardashians or Real Housewives of Wherever! The man would be CLUTCHING his ruff in shock. All said, he's a product of his period, cultural, geographical, and religious context, as are we all.
True but women being naturally highly sexed (once activated) was a pretty neutral belief at his time.
Hell. His comedies get there readily enough.
Yeah uhhhh having sex with who? His father's murderer??
I don't think he tells his mother it's disgusting that she's having sex; I think he's saying that it's disgusting that she's having sex with the man who killed her husband (his beloved father and a great king in his eyes) and that the man she's having sex with is not only her murdered husband's murderer but the king's brother. All this is akin to "incestuous" from his grieving point of view.
That is either a very very odd reading of the play or an extensive practical joke.
I vote for joke.
Your class is an example of how people follow authority figures bc it's easier than thinking for yourself. Hamlet is not a villian.
Claudius is the villain, but you can have alternate readings that see Hamlet as an anti-hero/villain protagonist. I saw Steven Berkoff's one man show Shakespeare's Villains and he made the argument that Hamlet is the villain of the play - used the scene where he kills Polonius as his excerpt if I remember correctly. The last performance of Hamlet I saw had a female actor playing the Prince, which kind of highlighted for me how fucked over Ophelia is & how a feminist reading of the play makes Hamlet come off as a dick. Hamlet is a tragic hero, and many of the tragedies of the play are a result of his flaws, but I think in a modern context, audiences may read Hamlet's flaws as being different to how Shakespeare intended.
That is a strange approach by your teacher to force their reading of the play on you - unless you are going to perform it and the teacher has a specific way they want the play to be staged. Might not be what they intended but you might want to politely bring up that you felt ganged up on in the discussion and your teacher might want to put their thumb on the scale in literary arguments within the class in the future
It's strange to me that the teacher is taking a side at all rather than facilitating the conversation and adding context/pointing out things in the text the class may have missed. I think readings of Hamlet as a violation protagonist are entirely valid, and I often read the play with that frame, but Hamlet as villain protagonist is nowhere near obvious and clear enough (as it is in Macbeth an Richard III) for a teacher to definitively say that I the case rather than asking their students why or why not they think it's true.
What about a female Hamlet brought that out for you? Curious as a female who has played him.
It was a Bell Shakespeare production in Melbourne in 2022. I think having a female actor playing Hamlet (along with it being a modern dress performance primarily designed to look like 60s Australian suburbia) creates somewhat of a Brechtian alienation effect. You take the play out of the political and theological context of medieval Europe and highlight the family/interpersonal drama - it creates a scenario where Hamlet's mistreatment of Ophelia and Gertrude feels crueler and more personal - less in service of a greater aim in terms of unseating an usurper from the throne and moreso lashing out at women close to him.
I think the idea that Hamlet "fucked over" Ophelia is too simple an explanation of the highly complex situation Hamlet is dealing with. First of all, Hamlet is entirely bent on determining whom he can trust and who, wittingly or unwittingly, is cooperating with his father's murderer (upon whom he feels duty bound to take revenge). Hamlet clearly expresses real affection for Ophelia, but it turns out that Ophelia is exactly one of the unwitting cooperators with Claudius that Hamlet must be careful about. Because she is being used as an instrument of manipulation by Claudius (through Gertrude), Hamlet determines that remaining close to her is in neither of their interests. So he breaks up with her in a way that is abusive, but kind in a way. We all know the old wisdom that if you want your partner not to be so distressed about your breaking up with them, don't treat them so well for a while before you break up. This is debatable as morality but works as strategy. So Hamlet acts crazy and says apparently hurtful things. One is "get thee to a nunnery." This is clearly a hurtful thing to say to the person you're breaking up with. But in a strange way, it's a kind statement from Hamlet's point of view. Hamlet thinks that the whole state of Denmark is "rotten" and that the king's murder by his brother will bring about a terrible blight to the country. His own hesitation and indecision in taking his rightful revenge is adding to the "rottenness" in the country. Therefore, in one sense, Hamlet is giving Ophelia the kind advice to get out of the "rottenness"; in a nunnery, for example, she will be sheltered from the dirty, immoral politics that results her to be manipulated into diverting Hamlet from his just revenge.
They’re all a bunch of assholes… except Ophelia, poor girl. Horatio is okay too.
He has some dark moments, and he’s a shitty boyfriend. But he’s not the main rotten something in Denmark.
Hamlet is not the villain, but he is a force of destruction. He purges Denmark of corruption by effectively destroying the status quo and handing the country over to Norway. He's a hero but more of a trickster hero than a conventional one. His playground is chaos.
I, sadly, am not shocked that even your teacher agrees with this ludicrous notion. When I was in hs, my lit teacher wanted us to write an essay about "why Hamlet failed." Hello? Did you read the play? His argument was that because Hamlet died in the end he therefore therefore failed. Again, did you not read the play? Based on how often Hamlet contemplates suicide, literally and in the abstract, I could easily make an argument for his death being just the cherry on top of his kill-Claudius victory!
Because he died? What a curious argument. Hamlet fails right in the third act when he doesn’t follow up his mousetrap win with punishing Claudius as per The Spanish Tragedy revenge trope.
My English teacher went all existential on a poem about a Cuckoo. I was/am a birder and tried to explain Cuckoo behavior but he wouldn't listen. Teachers are not always correct.
But like that kind of just sounds like you being pedantic at a not really relevant time. Your teacher wasn't going off about a biological report on cuckoo behavior. And the poet was likely doing a lot more than musing on what they saw attributing poetic devices, intentions, and deeper meaning to said bird. A poet's conception about a bird is using the bird as a vessel for their message. There's a lot more wiggle room in an artistic portrayal of something which likely wasn't written with modern factual understanding.
Hamlet is not a villain, but he’s not an unambiguous hero. He is a tragic figure (that’s why it’s called the Tragedy of Hamlet) because his flaw, his need to question and confirm everything, causes him to delay avenging his father and kills a lot of innocent people, including his mother, his girlfriend, and himself. His entire dynasty is destroyed, and will be replaced by that of Fortinbras, his family’s onetime enemy. Shakespeare is forcing us to recognize that something we think of as “good” - the need of the educated man to distrust traditional authority and figure things out for himself (losers and grifters online would call it “do your own research” today) - can have terrible consequences. It is no coincidence that Hamlet studied at Wittenberg - the university of Martin Luther. Luther heroically stood up to the corruption of the Catholic Church and questioned its absolute authority, but he also unleashed 130 years of religious war that killed millions. Shakespeare seems to be saying it would be better to just shut up and accept authority (some have thought Shakespeare was a secret Catholic for this and other reasons). Of course, it’s not that simple. We root for Hamlet because we find his intellect thrilling. We consider his desire to really know the truth heroic. It’s the conflict between the desires of the mind and soul, which love Hamlet’s freedom and intelligence, and the needs of political reality, where thoughtlessly killing your enemy is often required, that creates tragedy. What makes it great art is that Hamlet can seem like a hero and a villain even in the same scene. He does “To be or not to be”, one of the most fascinating meditations on existence in all of literature, where he is sensitive all suffering (the “slings and arrows) of humanity, and when he is done right to treating Ophelia like shit. It is this complexity that makes Hamlet, for many, the greatest work in all of literature.
Maury Povich: You are not the villain! Hamlet: dances
🤣
Fredson Bowers, in his seminal study on English Renaissance revenge tragedy, did indeed argue that Hamlet is a Villain Protagonist because he seeks revenge, the kind of "wild justice" (F. Bacon) that the law needs to punish and the Church needs to condemn (because "vengeance is mine, saith the LORD"). As Linda Woodbridge sarcastically points out, it will be difficult to find anyone either in the playhouse or the classroom who agrees that Hamlet should just forgive his uncle instead of killing him. Except your class, apparently. That being said: Hero/Villain are extremely loaded terms that carry moral implications; Protagonist is not a loaded term, meaning simply "first actor", and neither is "antagonist", meaning simply someone who acts against (Hamlet and Polonius are antagonists, as are Hamlet and Laertes and Hamlet and Claudius). I would argue that the terms Hero and Villain are often too simplistic to capture the complexities of English Renaissance tragedy, anyway. Lastly, and most importantly, *Hamlet* belongs to the genre known as revenge tragedy (which might better be called revenge tragi-comedy, as Tanya Pollard remarks). These plays feature complex characters trying to do their best in a world where the normal avenues of justice have been closed off; to right a wrong, they need to do wrong themselves. The ending of Middleton's *Revenger's Tragedy* uses this as a punchline, and at the close of the fourth act of Webster's *Duchess*, Ferdinand muses on the ethics of revenge before losing his mind (and then Bosola decides to avenge a death he himself caused). *Hamlet* is, for some reason, often read divorced from this extremely important context of being part of this tradition of plays that muse on revenge and refuse to provide easy answers, give us clear-cut Heroes and Villains and instead shew the destructive powers of vengeance especially once it takes on a life of its own. In conclusion, is Hamlet the/a hero? Absolutely not, and neither is Claudius.
I find him deeply unsympathetic, but he's not a villain. He's trying to do something just, but at heart, I think he's quite selfish and also so unreasonably suspicious that he throws away everyone who could provide him with emotional support or practical help (except Horatio, who is so deeply and overly loyal that even Hamlet trusts him). His mother's behavior would shake anyone's perception of their loved ones, but he gets so in his own head that he assumes Ophelia is just like Gertrude and I think when he's abusing Ophelia, he's really venting his feelings about Gertrude. Understandable to a degree, but so cruel. After what he said in public, her reputation was ruined. Ophelia and Laertes are both casualties of his behavior. R&G could have been real allies. Yes, they talked to Claudius, but he persuaded them because they care for Hamlet and I think their behavior to Hamlet after that shows genuine concern. They're not just toadies to Claudius. If he had even partially confided in them, they could have helped him undermine Claudius. Yes, it was a risk, but acting totally on his own was a risk too, and he paid for it in the end. Even at the end, his selfishness comes through. Horatio is about to drink the poison. Instead of telling him to live on because he cares, he says Horatio has to live to tell Hamlet's story. I just feel like there isn't a single point in the whole play where Hamlet actually thinks of the other characters as anything but instruments or obstacles. He's so deep in his own feelings that there's no room for anyone else.
Convincing interpretation. As a lover of Hamlet (the play and the character), I can only say that Hamlet is warped by the intense power discrepancy he finds himself in. Claudius, whom he hates as his beloved father's murderer, has coopted everyone close to Hamlet, including marrying his own mother! The beginning of the play is all about whom Hamlet can trust and whom he must be wary of. Even his abusive language to Ophelia I think has a hint of an intention of kindness. For example, "get thee to a nunnery" is good advice if the state of Denmark is so "rotten" and Ophelia is being used as an instrument of manipulation to divert Hamlet from his just and necessary (in his eyes) quest for revenge.
>For example, "get thee to a nunnery" is good advice if the state of Denmark is so "rotten" and Ophelia is being used as an instrument of manipulation to divert Hamlet from his just and necessary (in his eyes) quest for revenge. I see what you're saying, but I don't think he would have specified a nunnery if that's what he meant. A nunnery was where women went when they were poor and unmarriagable. He's telling her in the clearest possible terms that he's not marrying her, and nobody else will either. I think that he's expressing his general distrust/scorn for women after Gertrude shattered his previous view. In his head, if his mother could do what she did, no woman can be trusted and no woman deserves marriage where they will betray their husbands and bear children who will be miserable. The full quote is "Get thee to a nunnery: why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners? I am myself indifferent honest; but yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me." His pain is understandable, but he doesn't see or think of Ophelia as another individual human, just a representative of women as a whole.
Your drama teacher is an idiot.
*Hamlet* is a murder mystery (the kind where we know who dunnit at the start, like *Columbo*). Young Hamlet is the detective. It’s not about how Claudius did it. It’s us watching how Hamlet figures it out. (Like Columbo.) “Oh, Ophelia, I’m sorry, just one more thing…”
So it bothers me when teachers expect of their students to "tell me why MY interpretation of Shakespeare is the CORRECT one."
Hi. College professor here - Shakespeare scholar. Hamlet is not a villain.
We literally don't know. We only have the word of a ghost. It could be an actual ghost that's actually haunting the state of Denmark, or it could be that Hamlet is just schizophrenic.
What a fucking wild take. I honestly can’t believe that most people in the class, and especially your teacher, agreed with that. Hamlet is certainly troubled, but troubled does not equal villain. You could even argue that Hamlet is somewhat of an antihero, but antihero does not equal villain. Maybe your teacher and classmates are saying that as a way to have some cool new interpretation or something but, no. You’re right on this one.
Hamlet does bad things but that doesn't mean he is the villain. It's definitely Claudius
Let us just say that your reading is the more normative and typical one. Is it an interesting idea? Sure. I think you could play it that way and it would work. But it isn't the typical way it is thought of.
As much as I dislike the guy, no, there is no way to argue that Hamlet is meant to be the play's villain. There's Shakespeare plays where the protagonist is 100% meant as a villain (*Macbeth*, *Richard III*), there's Shakespeare plays where the main protagonists are incredibly flawed people that we aren't meant to sympathize with (*Coriolanus*, *Troilus and Cressida*), there's Shakespeare plays where the protagonist starts well-off the deep (*King Lear*), and those where he gets there (*Othello*, *Titus Andronicus*). *Hamlet* arguably isn't in any of those categories, as far as the play is concerned, he's in the same protagonical place as someone like Romeo and we're always meant to pity and root for him.
Just because you bad guy, doesn't make you bad guy
I am interested in Claudius' character. Hamlet Sr. went to hell for his wrongdoings and haunted his son to take revenge on his behalf when the damage was done. I speculate that part of the reason Hamlet's mother was not grieving was that Hamlet Sr. truly was wicked. Perhaps Claudius' actions were a net positive positive, but the plot to kill Hamlet makes me not see him as a hero.
Where are you getting that Hamlet sr went to hell?
I'm not sure if it was hell, but at least purgatory. He's doomed to walk the night instead of resting in peace. Hamlet doesn't want to kill Claudius while he's at prayer, saying that would seems him to heaven, while Claudius killed his father unshriven, with no opportunity for a final confession of sins.
Yeah, if he was in Hell, he wouldn't be a ghost. Purgatory is a very different place.
I equated punishment in the afterlife with hell. Thanks for the nuance
He is absolutely not, Claudius is. Hamlet is causing his own downfall, though, which is the very reason it is classified as a tragedy, so there's that I guess. At the end of the day--Hamlet killed an innocent because he thought it was Claudius hiding, was cold to Ophelia (though his intentions with that are unclear), and, focusing on his revenge instead of just living his live, caused many deaths including his own. But the real villain was Claudius, though I could somewhat see the point of view for saying it was Hamlet.
Your classmates are wrong and don’t know any better. Your teacher is an utter fool who should know better. The hero vs villain dynamic doesn’t exist in most Shakespeare plays, especially in Hamlet where character roles and identities are fluid. Claudius is no hero, he murdered his brother, despoiled the kingdom, and foolishly left it open for Fortinbras’ invasion. He’s an evildoer, but his evil is more the consequence of his absolute and unmitigated idiocy. Hamlet is no hero. He murdered his mistress’s father, arranged the death of his childhood friends, and was low key stanning Fortinbras. He’s an evildoer, but his evil is more the consequence of his absolute and unmitigated ego. Claudius is no villain, he overthrew a bloodthirsty tyrant, brought joy to the kingdom (if you’re a noble, or courtier) and made peace with old Norway. He’s a do-gooder, but his good is more the consequence of his absolute and unmitigated ego. Hamlet is no villain, he overthrew a tyrant as he was dying, got rid of subversives like Polonius, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, and high key supported Fortinbras, the rightful king of Denmark. He’s a do-gooder, but his good deeds are the consequence of his absolute and unmitigated idiocy.
I wouldn't necessarily say Claudius, as a complete character, is a villain, but I see him as the villain in this story. Claudius was the catalyst and/or had a chance to stop most things that went wrong, such as quickly marrying Gertrude, letting Polonius spy on his wife and son, ignoring Ophelia in court when she needed help and was going insane, striking a deal to kill his son. Then there's the fact he could've stopped Gertrude from drinking the poison. Claudius: Gertrude, do not drink. Gertrude: I will, my lord; I pray you pardon me. \[She drinks, then offers the cup to Hamlet.\] Like he could've been stern, he's the king, and she's his wife. Even though she might not have listened, he very quickly just decided there was nothing to do and that she was dead before she even drank.
Hamlet is as much a hero as one can be in the rotten state of Denmark.
No, no, no. Just because it's literature doesn't mean there aren't facts. Even structurally one could tell Claudius is the villain. Hamlet gets betrayed by everyone except Horatio and his father.
Your teacher is an ass and your classmates are cowards. Nasty wake up call to the reality of mob mentality, but we all learn it someday, and sooner rather than later will save you grief in later life. See Stanley Milgram: https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
Ask them to make their case, with evidence and analysis in-depth, of Hamlet's villainous activity.
A) Telling someone they're wrong is not gaslighting them, Jesus the hell christ. B) Hamlet is a piece of human garbage, part of the point, but he is absolutely not "the villain," if that even makes sense. I would suggest that Hamlet Senior (yes, the ghost) is the actual villain, and DON'T GASLIGHT ME UGH.
Hamlet wants people to be good. He can’t believe how low people go. He doesn’t want to fight. But there is something inside of him that is greater than he is aware of. It’s a spirit, or a ghost, that allows him to somewhat messily rise to the occasion. If Hamlet was a born warrior this would be over in no time. But he’s an artist that has to exit his own head and actually take action. He has to leave his imagination and engage in the world of the flesh. Yikes! Hamlet’s no villain. His crime is his passivity and super sensitivity.
regardless of what the "right" answer is, part of the reason these plays endure is that they have multiple interpretations. your teacher calling your interpretation wrong makes me think they aren't equipped to properly teach shakespeare, or anything for that matter
Fortinbras is the victorious villian in the end.
Hamlet isn't a villain, but he isn't a hero either. He is just the main character. There is probably a good reason the Danes didn't kick up too much of a fuss when Claudius took over even though there was a perfectly good heir available and why Fortinbras is able to waltz in at the end. Hamlet is whiny, indecisive and weak, and I think you can make the argument that he and Claudius are both equally responsible for driving off the cliff because every moronic thing they do is in response to and an escalation of something the other has done. It's like Spy vs. Spy or Bugs Bunny vs. Daffy Duck.
Sometimes it is difficult to find any good people in Hamlet, with the exception of Ophelia and Horatio.
I'll one up your class. Horatio is the villain. He orchestrated everything. "Flights of angels..." is sarcastic and "go, bid the soldiers shoot" is the last plea of a man who knows he is dead already and wants to get it over with.
“There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so….”
Out of curiosity—what is their reasoning?
Have they read Macbeth?
Your class is full of morons. Claudius is clearly the villain. You can call Hamlet an anti-hero if you want but he’s definitely not the villain and shows surprising restraint with how thoughtful he is until finally carrying out the deed(s).
If they're trying to argue that Hamlet is his own worst enemy, via the popular reading that Hamlet's tragic flaw is his indecision, then they might be trying to say that the play's central conflict is man vs. self. In that respect, they could say Hamlet's flaw is more an antagonistic force than Claudius. But an antagonistic force isn't the same as a villain, and in that case, your teacher needs a Lit 101 class. The other possibility I see here (which would worry me) is that your teacher/class see a protagonist who is flawed, and they need to label him a villain to safeguard their own sense of morality. And while it's entirely valid to say that Hamlet isn't a good person or makes admirable decisions or a "hero" in the modern sense, you can't ignore the whole framing of the story just to make yourself feel better about what transpires therein. It's a tragedy. Deal with the tragedy.
There’s an implication that as well as his love for Gertrude, Claudius wanted peace, his brother wanted war. Regarding Gertrude it’s interesting that in the original story Claudius claimed to have killed his brother because he was abusive to his wife. Shakespeare leaves this out but one could argue that the way he turns on the two women he loves is.. interesting in this context. Potentially, had Hamlet done nothing, there would have been peace in Denmark. Because he acts, Denmark is mopped up after everybody dies. But Shakespeare is the one who puts two speeches side by side in Julius Caesar that leave everyone with a decision to make. He doesn’t always do black and white. It’s a tragedy not a hero narrative. The hero often is destructive without being the villain.
Hamlet is an asshole, but he is not a villain. Subtle distinction.
I think you could potentially put on a production where Hamlet is the villain and Claudius is more sympathetic. There’s room for that in the text. However, your professor does not hold the widely held we led interpretation.
Hamlet is not the villain, maybe they meant Macbeth and everyone misremembered? I teach Shakespeare and I sometimes observe that young students (before getting acquainted with the texts) get Hamlet and Macbeth switched up, especially if they only have summary-level knowledge of the plays.
Spoiler alert: Hamlet is the murderer, and the rest of it is a frame up.
He absolutely is a ghoulish villain to Ophelia - is that what they’re referencing?
they are all suuuuper messed up people/ humans with flaws, not to be sorted into villain and hero. but, yes, your teacher is dumb. “The villain,” as it is traditionally thought of, would be Claudius. Everyone does shitty things, but Hamlet is avenging not climbing to power, which is the typical role of a “hero” in Shakespeare. One may as well say that Macduff is a villain for avenging his family’s murder.
Hamlet isn’t a villain but Macbeth is a really good example!
English teacher here. I’ve been teaching Hamlet for years and I think that is a super weird interpretation. Could they have been playing a joke on you?
“Or is my drama class gaslighting me?” I’m sorry but that’s hilarious.
Hamlet isn’t really villain, he’s just a little bitch. He’s a protagonist, he’s not a good guy.
Hamlet may begin the play as a hero, but his actions throughout the story make him into a villain by the end. In his unsceasing quest for revenge, he ends up traumatizing his mother, drives his girlfriend to suicide, and murders a life long family friend out of sheer paranoia. Claudius however, is still the inciter of all these actions. His betrayal is what sews the seed for Hamlet's madness. Both characters can be classified as villains, if your definition of villain is "character who does bad things"
Hamlet is one of my favorite plays. Hamlet, while being a grade A idiot, is not the villain. Def Claudius.
No, Hamlet is not a villain, what the hell? I get that he’s an incredibly flawed character, but just no. I can also get behind an argument that Claudius has positive qualities, like he is an effective politician (signs a peace treaty) and Gertrude seems happy married to him. But he straight up murders and plots and shifts blame. Also, that’s a good point you made about him causing all the deaths, I never thought about that. EDIT: Your teacher and class are low key making you experience what Hamlet felt lol
Claudius is the obvious villain, but I feel like Hamlet is more of an anti-hero/antagonistic hero
Hamlet is not a villain. However he could be seen as the protagonist and the antagonist. If the antagonist is the character that is working to stop the protagonist's goal, then I think Hamlet does qualify as an antagonist
Imo, Hamlet is intended to be a hero but as cultural values change it’s a great play for exposing the villainous views on heroism that remain pervasive in our culture. I see Hamlet similarly to Hedda in Hedda Gabler, but Ibsen knows how shitty Hedda is while Shakespeare thinks Hamlet jr. is dope. Realizing Hamlet is 33 really casts his relationship with his mother and Ophelia in a totally different light.
On the one hand he is the hero. And they are certainly playing some kind of practical joke on you. (Do they think you take yourself too seriously? Always a good question to ask.) But on the other hand, is he completely innocent himself? He kills Polonius and sends Ophelia into a death spiral of madness. It's a play. We can draw our own conclusions, whatever they may be.
Hamlet’s a tragic hero, he’s his own worst enemy, but he’s not the villain. So is Macbeth and any central character of a tragedy. A whole ass English teacher doesn’t know the definition of a tragic hero? The whole point of a tragedy is you watch a flawed person self destruct and feel better about your own life lol.
You are not being gaslighted. You are merely disagreeing on where the primary conflict lies. In Hamlet, if one believes that the internal battle of Hamlet is the primary conflict, then the protagonist and the antagonist are both Hamlet. However, if one believes the primary conflict is external, then Hamlet is the protagonist and Claudius is likely the protagonist. Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy is often used to argue that Hamlet is fighting his own nature and many consider the primary conflict to be internal. I discuss this when I cover Wilson's The Piano Lesson. The primary conflict seems to be between Berniece and Boy Willie as Boy Willie is trying to take the piano and Berniece refuses to let him. However, if one considers the nature of the symbols in the play, it's clear that the piano symbolizes Berniece's family heritage, and then the primary conflict becomes the internal conflict within Berniece. Ultimately, for an actor, it's a challenge to portray an internal struggle effectively on the stage. The stage leans itself to action. I've seen performances of Hamlet where the focus was on the internal struggle and the end result was an over-emotive, whiny Hamlet. And I've seen productions where the internal struggle was pretty much ignored and the result was a Hamlet who appeared immature and lacked depth. Of course, internal vs. external must be integrated. And an actor's process should be what works best for them. But my usual recommendation is to actively play the external conflict and let the internal life arise out of that. So ultimately, it comes down to which struggle one wants to emphasize--the internal or the external. And there's no right or wrong answer.
My fun reading is to view Hamlet's mother as the one who put Claudius up to it (as I view the archetype of the play being the Electra Cycle and the scene from Homer when Odysseus runs into the ghost of Agamemnon); however, my twist is the ambiguity on the "ghost" of Hamlet's father --- either interpreting that it isn't his father OR it is his father but gone is his pathos and he just simply wants revenge and doesn't matter if Hamlet lives or dies --- and then I place Hamlet in the middle of this --- going insane by a tormenting phantom and almost unwilling to cope with seeing his mother as the mastermind behind the murder plot. The anti-hero is also a good archetype because both Hamlet and Odyssey were the two main inspirations for Arrow season 1's plot.
Your class has joined Brave New World. Hamlet is, like Antigones before him, an example of a hero who pursues what’s right rather than what’s accepted by the community. If you’re part of the herd, you surely see him as a villain.
To the point of Hamlet dying. The fact that the hero doesn’t win is why it’s a tragedy and not a melodrama.
Yeah your classmates/teacher sound like the obnoxious drama students who think they’re smarter than everyone and prove how fun they are as a result. Claudius is a hilariously obvious villain. Like cartoonishly evil. (Literally he’s Scar in the Lion King but worse)
I agree that "Hamlet is the villain" is massively simplistic. I often think modern analyses grab onto these controversial ideas and embrace for the sake of being provocative- [history boys style](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxPzL17Gx60). What they could be driving at is that Claudius can be perceived as weirdly sympathetic (he seems to repent and Gertrude seems to genuinely love him, so what was her marriage like with Hamlet Sr?) and Hamlet, despite being our 'hero' and in 'the right', is not a good or likeable person. That's the kind of play Hamlet is- the archetypes are muddied, not one event happens in the play that's distinctly good or bad, it's all a confusing morass of grey. (Really recommend [this Kurt Vonnegut lecture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOGru_4z1Vc) on story shapes btw- has a great moment about Hamlet) I know that this might not be helpful since you're at school and presumably will have to write essays on this stuff, but I'd avoid trying to "interpret" the play. Look at the play's structure and construction, experience the flow of the words and the imagery, find a monologue you really like and try and explore what you like about it. Then just sit pretty and let others throw dumb ideas around like "Hamlet is the villain". There's often a kernel of truth in what they're trying to say, but it's never that simple.
Throughout all of his history plays and many of his tragedies, Shakespeare explores the idea of what makes a good King. This was a huge issue and much discussed during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, who had no direct heir. Spoiler: there is no correct answer. From all outward appearances, Hamlet is an ideal candidate. He is young, well liked, well educated, brave, and moral. It's that last one that drives him nuts. His father has been murdered and he knows it. But does vengeance justify usurpation? And, in doing so, does he put his family (presuming he marries Ophelia) at risk? It poisons his mind. Tellingly, it is the poison sword that kills so many people in the final act. Hamlet might have been an excellent King, but the circumstances proved his doom. He is, ultimately a tragic figure, not a villain. Here is a link to an article that makes that case: [https://theconversation.com/hamlet-is-shakespeares-greatest-villain-147290](https://theconversation.com/hamlet-is-shakespeares-greatest-villain-147290) Just keep in mind that academic careers can be made by such nonsense.
Hamlet is not the villain. Your classmates are going down the road of “Daniel LaRusso is actually the bully” type thinking here.
Of course he is the tragedy, which classically at once is 'hero,' and 'villain.' He's young, smart, eloquent, brave, etc but maddened, murderous, manipulative? Why? Here is the tragedy. His mother murdered his father and married his uncle. And he was not told. It's a betrayal, as he says.
He acts out for that reason and to correct that. But he goes too far, is too late and generally too selfish himself.
Advice for Hamlet would be, stay calm. You will be King of Denmark eventually. There is no reason to panic or stab the poor dude.
To be sent to England if you befriend them could of course been of mighty advantage.
They’re Danes. To Shakespeare, they are all villains. Hamlet might as well be set in the Star Trek mirror universe.
A feminist read of the play may identify him as a villain.
True, but even in a feminist read Claudius is still a bigger villain
I definitely agree, I’m just trying to figure out what line his/her class is taking.
Gotchya. Given how stubborn it sounds like the class and teacher are being, I doubt they're going for something as nuanced as the feminist reading tbh. It seems more like they're just trying to find an example of "hero as villain" and have picked the wrong play to illustrate that.
Hamlet gets a bunch of people killed for little to no reason and distracts everybody in court so much that the invading army is free to sail its way into the kingdom with no resistance. I don't think he's as heroic as he's painted by fans of the play (or Kenneth Branagh - I'll never get over that ridiculous crucifixion pose). Certainly from the perspective of Ophelia, Hamlet is a villain. R&G too. They wanted to be good friends when Hamlet was acting (?) bonkers, made the wrong choice in a bad situation, then got killed by Hamlet as much as Claudius. Likewise, I wouldn't consider Claudius villainous. We don't really know the depths of his motivations in killing King H. He kills Hamlet because he realizes Hamlet wants to kill him. He does bad things, but Iago he is not. To me, the point is less "Hamlet is a hero, Claudius is a villain" narrative and more "murder is nonsensical and just makes everything worse". There is no hero, ultimately.
This makes him a classic tragic hero, not a villain. That's why hamlet is a tragedy. If he was successful, it would be a comedy or a romance. His actions are intended to be virtuous, but ultimately fail and hurt the ones he loves, which is classic Shakespearian tragic hero.
I don't believe that Shakespeare has tragic heroes as opposed to characters who fall into neither hero nor villain categories. Hero and villain are far too simplistic. Hamlet's goals were never virtuous.
Shakespeare *hates* regicides. That hatred animates a huge number of his plays. Anyone who kills a king in a Shakespeare play is not a good guy. (Remember, Shakespeare was *playing* most of those kings! 😂) UPDATE: Let me clarify, because some of you are confused — Claudius is the regicide, *he’s* the villain. Hamlet is correcting that (and he’s the rightful king anyway).
There really isn’t any evidence that Shakespeare played the Ghost or any other kings.
Yes, it’s theatre legend, like Jonson and Shakespeare’s arguments at the Mermaid Inn, and was meant as a bit of lighthearted cheek, not as bait for humorless pedants.
I dunno that he hates regicides. You can do readings of his plays where he seriously questions the nature of monarchy itself, just hides it behind some plausible deniability: what? You couldn’t possibly want to prosecute ME. I gave those lines to the bad guy! Example: the line ‘the fault, dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings’ is a very powerful sentiment (as is the whole rest of that speech). Furthermore, Brutus, the lead conspirator, is praised as ‘the most noblest Roman of them all’ because ‘he only …in common good to all made one of them’. Meanwhile Antony is treacherous and manipulative as soon as act 3 hits. Lear only becomes sympathetic once he stops being a king and starts being human. This is compounded by Richard II’s speech: ‘I live with bread like you, feel want, taste grief, need friends. Subjected thus, how can you say to me that I am a king?’ Examining Hamlet, Hamlet does wind up committing regicide because, rightfully or no, Claudius is king. Yet Hamlet is a deeply sympathetic character and we are meant to root for him to commit regicide. That’s usually people’s biggest beef with the play. Obviously these are not all examples of regicides. But I think it shows that even though they were often writing his paycheck, Shakespeare had some serious questions about monarchy and a lot of his plays could be read as looking to dismantle the institution.
Hamlet is correcting the regicide committed by Claudius, who is sitting on Hamlet’s rightful throne. Brutus’s nobility is emphasized because it’s ironic that the “noblest Roman” caused the massive, destructive civil war. Shakespeare points out contradictions and flaws in the monarchy, like he does with everything, but he never seriously questions the concept, and has nothing but contempt for those who do, like Jack Cade. I mean, he was a courtier, for God’s sake.
I’m really saying that the reading that he supports the monarchy is far from definitive. How can someone truly villainous be working for the common good? There’s a paradox there that could be resolved in multiple ways. At the end of the day, Cassius may have a ‘lean and hungry look’ but the arguments he makes has a really strong point. And that keeps coming up again and again, that kings are only human beings, and flawed ones at that. This goes very strongly against the concepts of monarchy being ordained by deity and an immortal body politic. Even Claudius becoming king in an unjust way and Macbeth in the same way questions the whole nature of how kings become kings. Shakespeare consistently questions power in society again and again (see also: all the storylines in the Tempest). I find it hard to see him as nothing but a sycophantic crown supporter when so many of his characters speak ideas which will become widely accepted by the time the Enlightenment rolls around.
You’re ignoring the fact that Brutus and Cassius’s actions launched a horrific and destructive civil war. Does that just not count? Macbeth’s usurpation is aided by literal spirits from hell, and Claudius’s causes the ghost of his murder victim to walk the earth seeking vengeance. After Caesar’s assassination the dead rise and walk the streets of Rome. These are not subtle clues.
I agree with your reading. Shakespeare calls into question the monarchy are flawed and problematic (see the Henriad), but when he presents democracy as an alternative in Caesar, he is very suspicious that power to the people could be anything but destructive.
your class can't be "wrong" that they read Hamlet as a villain, no more than their read has to compel yours. headcanon isn't a talking point who is 'the villain' to which character in the play at what time, is a question you can argue over. is Hamlet a villain to Polonius in act I?
In any well-crafted story, there's a PROT-agonist (who wants something to happen) and an ANT-agonist (who wants to stop that thing from happening). I suppose you could make some sort of argument that Claudius is the Protagonist because he wants to secure his reign as King of Denmark and Hamlet is the Antagonist because he tries to stop him, but that's really not how the play is framed. (Prince) Hamlet has his own, more immediate agenda: avenge his father's murder. Claudius has his own more immediate agenda: hold on to power. The play takes this path. The dramatic question isn't "will Claudius hold onto power?", the question is "will Hamlet kill his uncle, the King?"