Hamlet: The Ambiguous Character In Shakespeare's Hamlet

As of 2016, you can type into the Google search bar “Am I good person” and almost immediately 430,000 quizzes are available. Although the quizzes aren’t genuine, it is entertaining and ensuring to know that you are not completely evil. Unfortunately, in the 1600’s these quizzes weren’t available to Laertes, a character in Shakespeare 's play Hamlet. Laertes would have left the computer program puzzled because of his contradictory actions. The once wise and compassionate Laertes, became hasty and revengeful at the discovery of his father’s homicide. He gave brotherly advice to Ophelia to be cautious around Hamlet, but returned seeking revenge against Hamlet, who Laertes blames for the death of Polonius and Ophelia.His good intentions for Ophelia …show more content…
Other players, like Hamlet and Claudius, are considered ambiguous as well, but they’re abiguity contributes to the moral theme in a different way. Laertes showed the audience that, having good intentions can be corrupted by the actions taken for pride and honor. For example, he forgives Hamlet for killing his father, but continues to fight him for his family’s honor. As he was about to kill Hamlet, he felt a drop of remorse, and proceeded to kill him saying . . .. This shows that Laertes is like many people, who feel symapthy, but complete their responsibility. He didn’t do it for power, or to simply kill someone. He did it for family pride. Eventhough it is wrong to kill someone, he accepted the apology and regretted killing him. He wasn’t a sociopath, ruthless, or greedy. Differently from Claudius, killed his brother to gain power, and Hamlet, who also killed to avenge his father, but didn’t show sympathy for Claudius. In this sense, Laertes is like a man in the army. Most of the time, they kill to protect their country, but are revoulted by actually killing another human being. Laertes’s ambiguous character was an example of what people have acted like throughout …show more content…
Laertes, in general, was a good person, but his simple misdeed would have changed his future if he hadn’t died minutes after. Compared to Claudius and Hamlet, he appears to be more honest and empathetic. Nonetheless, he was morally ambiguous, like many humans are. He’s a character that continues to represent common folk, and the heroic soliders. Killing a person isn’t a requirement for being morally ambiguous; everyone is more or less morally abiguous. It is up to the individual to decide if they want to be a better person and positivly affecting