Indirect characterization is seamlessly applied through the author's usage of subtle instances where the protagonist’s key traits and tragic flaws are highlighted in the behavior of another character. Within the novel “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen, the strengths and weaknesses of Elizabeth Bennet are disclosed through her comparisons with Jane, Charlotte, and Lydia; similarly, Hamlet, the protagonist of Hamlet by William Shakespeare, is juxtaposed with Laertes, Fortinbras, Horatio .
We learn more about Hamlet’s hesitancy from Laertes, the son of Polonius, who in his desire to avenge his father contradicts Hamlet. Hamlet's delay came from a conflict between action and awareness where he constantly contemplated the consequence of his actions. …show more content…
Even though both of these characters are trying to avenge their fathers, Fortinbras's status as a man of immediate action, challenges Hamlet’s erratic actions towards the same goal. Though the the presence of Fortinbras is limited to the mere twenty-seven lines where he speaks, and his mention in some scenes, Knapp states that he is an important part of the play due to his decisiveness: “Fortinbras is the man of action, but something more; he is the man of action as the head of the State.” (Knapp 78) When Hamlet observes Fortinbras marching through Denmark along his Norwegian army he is inspired and states: “How all occasions do inform against me/And spur my dull revenge!...My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!” Hamlet realizes that with everything spurring him to revenge right now, he can longer delay his actions; the consequences of the murder that he must commit have made him hesitant, but now that he assess the willingness of the Norwegians and especially Fortinbras, as they lay down their lives for a small piece of land, he realizes his own inadequacy in avenging his
We learn more about Hamlet’s hesitancy from Laertes, the son of Polonius, who in his desire to avenge his father contradicts Hamlet. Hamlet's delay came from a conflict between action and awareness where he constantly contemplated the consequence of his actions. …show more content…
Even though both of these characters are trying to avenge their fathers, Fortinbras's status as a man of immediate action, challenges Hamlet’s erratic actions towards the same goal. Though the the presence of Fortinbras is limited to the mere twenty-seven lines where he speaks, and his mention in some scenes, Knapp states that he is an important part of the play due to his decisiveness: “Fortinbras is the man of action, but something more; he is the man of action as the head of the State.” (Knapp 78) When Hamlet observes Fortinbras marching through Denmark along his Norwegian army he is inspired and states: “How all occasions do inform against me/And spur my dull revenge!...My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!” Hamlet realizes that with everything spurring him to revenge right now, he can longer delay his actions; the consequences of the murder that he must commit have made him hesitant, but now that he assess the willingness of the Norwegians and especially Fortinbras, as they lay down their lives for a small piece of land, he realizes his own inadequacy in avenging his