Bryan Zheng

March 30, 2015

AP English Period 1
Conflict in Hamlet
Throughout Shakespeares tragedy, Hamlet, the hero endeavors to find the elusive
balance between thought and action. While Hamlets external conflict is as simple as
killing Claudius to avenge his father, his inner battle against his own conscience
precipitates his death. Hamlets thoughts, which manifest themselves in his self-loathing
and contemplative soliloquies, form a psychological barrier suffocating any potential
action. By comparing Hamlet to Claudius, Shakespeare reveals that the true villain of
the tragedy is not Claudius, but Hamlet himself. However, Hamlet adds another
dimension to the battle between thought and action when Hamlet suddenly and
impulsively murders Polonius with nearly no thought. The series of unfortunate events
that Poloniuss death leads to shows that, while Hamlet struggles act on his thoughts,
abandoning all inhibition is comparably, if not more, detrimental. Furthermore, the ironic
comparison between Hamlets external and internal antagonists and the manifestation of
his mental state through self-critical and melancholic diction demonstrate how Hamlets
fundamental dilemma is a consequence of his inability to reach an equilibrium between
thought and action.
Hamlet always possesses the material resources and emotional motivation to kill
Claudius and consequently resolve his external conflict. In the comparison between him
and the player in Act II, scene ii, he comments that he has the advantage of both the
motive and the cue for passion over the player (II, ii, 588-589). Yet, the players capacity
to feign emotion with respect Hecuba, who only holds value in fiction, shames Hamlet
since he cannot produce anything other than melancholy for his fathers murder.

Moreover, the player provides the antithesis to Hamlet since he is a character who can
act in the sense that he is able to perform fabricated events while Hamlet cannot act
in the sense that he cannot produce an iota of practical action from his genuine thoughts.
Also in the Act II, Scene ii soliloquy, Hamlet produces a despondent irony by using the
motif of villainy to describe both his internal and external antagonists. By asking Who
calls me villain?, Hamlet realizes that he is his own enemy, and that he is the only
character criticizing himself and obstructing his revenge (II, ii, 599). In his Act I, Scene v
soliloquy, he names his uncle as the villain, villain, smiling, damned villain, indicating
a shift in the primary conflict (I, v, 113). While Shakespeare uses Act I to set up a simple
external battle between Hamlet and Claudius, he uses Act II to generate a multifaceted
conflict by redirecting the focus to within Hamlet, whose thoughts increasingly diverge
from his actions, or lack thereof. Claudius is generally not characterized as more than the
evil murderer of King Hamlet. He is comparatively static in relation to the Hamlets
perpetual alternation between spirited motivation for vengeance to idle melancholy,
which is a characteristic developed by Shakespeares utilization of Claudius, the exterior
villain, uncover Hamlets basic weakness.
After several scenes of accomplishing nothing more than contemplating about his
misfortune, Hamlets impulsive and thoughtless murder of Polonius is an apparently
anomalous development that shows that action without any thought is as invalid of a
solution as thought without action is. After Gertrude asks if Hamlet knows what he has
done, Hamlet responds Nay I know not, which is a complete reversal of Hamlets
overly deliberate nature (III, iv, 32). While Hamlet appears to have finally broken free of
the trap that is his own mind and taken action, his accidental assassination of Polonius is

not heroic or vengeful, but rather described as a rash and bloody deed by Gertrude (III,
iv, 33). Thus, when Hamlet finally acts upon his anger in this moment of catharsis, he
exposes the foolishness in himself that he is capable of by blindly stabbing through the
arras. Although he seems to have finally resolved his incapacity to manifest his thoughts
in concrete measures, he only reveals that he still does not have his emotions and actions
in control; rather, they control him. Considering how Poloniuss death both alienates
Ophelia from Hamlet further, eventually leading her to insanity and ultimate suicide, as
wells as angers Laertes in challenging Hamlet to the bloody duel, Hamlets unexpected
impulsiveness proves to be a deadly turn for both his internal and external war. Even in
the aftermath of Poloniuss death, Hamlet shows no thought of regret or guilt for hurting
his lover, Ophelia, or his acquaintance, Laertes. His use of dark and inappropriate humor
by joking how Polonius is at supper , not where he eats, but where he is eaten,
furthers the idea that Hamlet is unable to ever effectively couple action with thought (IV,
iii, 20-22). His failure to acknowledge the consequences of his actions is a stark contrast
to his over-analysis of the consequences of suicide or killing Claudius while he is at
prayer. While Hamlet painfully and meticulously calculates how and when to kill
Claudius, a greedy murderer, he pays dedicates no thought to the consequences of
murdering the innocent, albeit verbose, Polonius. This contrast illustrates the eternally
dichotomous nature of the relationship between analysis and activity within Hamlet. They
cannot coexist in harmony, as one appears to succumb to the other, resulting in either
recklessness or lethargy.
Hamlets comparison of himself to Fortinbras cements his inability to combine
action with theory. To emphatically proclaim, My thoughts be bloody or be nothing

worth, highlights how he is either violently impulsive or careful to a fault (IV, v, 69).
The goldilocks region where just the right amount premeditation leads to effective action
does not exist to him. Eric Levy similarly presents a similar central paradox in one of
his arguments in the article, The Problematic Relationship Between Reason and Emotion
in Hamlet. Referring to the same vow for blood by Hamlet, Levy states that Instead of
disciplining emotion, here the function of thought is to excite emotion so that irrational
violence results. Levy notes that throughout the development of Hamlets character, he
uses his thoughts to rationally control his emotion, which simultaneously prevents
unnecessarily bloody action but also prevents Hamlet from gaining vengeance for his
father. Further, the floodgates to his thoughts seem to burst when he kills Polonius and
passionately censures Gertrude for her immediate marriage that appeared equally
thoughtless. Thus, Levy supports the idea Hamlet is unable to use thought in an effective
manner, since he consistently uses thought to stifle or completely obstruct action or
allows himself to commit violent and rash acts. Finally, following his emotional
confession of his love for Ophelia, Hamlet exhibits his paradoxical character by
permitting his emotion to cloud both his, and Horatios, reason by accepting the duel
versus Laertes. While Horatio detects how Claudius is beguiling Hamlet and presents his
suspicion by telling Hamlet, You will lose, my lord, Hamlet disregards the voice of
reason and somewhat arrogantly declares I do not think so (271). Thus, the conflict
between emotion, thought, and action, which never align for Hamlet, proves to be the
central conflict, as Hamlet must conquer his own conscience before he can conquer
Claudius. His inability to let thought moderate, and not prevent or succumb to, his
emotions and deeds ultimately leads to his ruin. While the climactic killing of Claudius

fulfills Hamlets vengeful duties and terminates his external conflict, he never appears to
convincingly find the internal balance where his conscience does not hinder, but rather
propagates, his actions.
Shakespeare develops Hamlets complex, at times contradictory, character
through the contrast of his external and internal conflicts. While he has the ingredients to
complete the task given to him by King Hamlets ghost, overcoming the incapacity to
combine emotion, thought, and action into a harmonious balance proves to be far more
troubling than the physical act of assassinating someone and the guilt that usually
accompanies murder. While at first Hamlet is completely passive due to his mind
controlling his body, he worsens his conflict when his inhibition gives way to a him
violently and bloodily stabbing Polonius. While Hamlet spent mere seconds, granted
some of his last, killing Claudius, the inner struggle between deliberation and
manifestation pervades the entire tragedy.