Hamlet Revenge Delay Essays - Characters In Hamlet, Prince Hamlet

Hamlet Revenge Delay The question of why Hamlet delays in taking revenge on Claudius for so long has puzzled readers and audience members alike. I would like to prove that Shakespeare didn't have a delay in killing Claudius just for the sake of having a longer play. I believe that he had a deeper meaning inside of it. I am going to show different reasons for Hamlet's delay, and my most probably one. Immediately following Hamlet's conversation with the Ghost, he seems determined to fulfill the Ghost's wishes and swears his companions to secrecy about what has occurred. The next appearance of Hamlet in the play reveals that he has not yet avenged his father's murder. In scene two, Act 2, Hamlet gives a possible reason for his hesitation. "The spirit that I have seen, May be a devil, and the devil hath power, T' assume a pleasing shape" (2.2.594-596). With this doubt clouding his mind, Hamlet seems completely unable to act. This indecision is somewhat resolved in the form of the play. Hamlet comes up with the idea of the play that is similar to the events retold by the ghost about his murder to prove Claudius as guilty or innocent. Due to the king's reaction to the play, Hamlet begins to believe that the Ghost was telling the truth the night of the apparition. In Hamlets mind, it is now his duty to avenge his father's murder. This is where the real problem of inaction enters the play. Later that night, Hamlet has a perfect opportunity to kill Claudius, when he comes across the king kneeling in prayer. He wonders if this is the time to kill him and get it over with, but decides not to. He claims that he does not want Claudius to go to heaven, so he would rather kill him when he is committing a sin. If this is the case, then the question is why doesn't he simply wait till Claudius has completed his prayer, accuse him of the murder and kill him in his sin of denial. That answer is beyond me. Instead, Hamlet goes to the chamber of his mother and passes up his best opportunity at revenge. The argument can be made, however, that it is not a fear of killing that causes this inaction. He does not display an inability to end someone's life when killing Polonius. He neither hesitates nor capitulates in sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their executions. Why then would the prince of Denmark hesitate to kill the one man he most justly could? Many literary believe that his inaction is the result of a vicarious oedipus complex. Those who concur with this theory say that Hamlet, in his subconscious mind, has a desire to do exactly what his uncle has done; that is, get rid of the king so that he can have Gertrude for himself. If this is true, Hamlet cannot act because he is fighting against his subconscious self. According to this interpretation, Claudius becomes an embodiment of himself, and thus he is unable to kill, in a sense, his other self. Although the oedipus theory is valid, I would like to present another alternative. In my opinion, Hamlet is paralyzed by an interpersonal battle resulting from over evaluation of his situation. Every time he has an opportunity to act, he counteracts with a doubt or reason for inaction. For example, he wants his revenge on Claudius to take place only when he can be sure he will go to hell and not heaven. Furthermore, he spends too much time planning and not enough time doing. He plans the play within a play, but seeks no immediate resolution upon its completion. Instead he becomes more careful around Claudius after the play because it revealed his guilt to the king. After the play within the play, Hamlet does not act until everybody is dying, including himself. Only in this final tragic moment does he realize that he should not have waited so long. But by the time he comes to this realization, it is too late. His father is murdered, his mother lays dying, he is mortally wounded and all he can do is finish the tragic killings. With all of his pent-up rage he takes his revenge on Claudius.

Why Some Conservatives Oppose Gay Marriage

Why Some Conservatives Oppose Gay Marriage While some conservatives oppose gay marriage, others do not. For conservatives who do oppose it, the issue has less to do with homophobia and more to do with protecting the Judeo-Christian view of marriage. Social Conservatives and Wedge Issues While it is true that social conservatives have been on the front lines of wedge issues, not all conservatives are as deeply passionate about them as others. In fact, a large portion of the conservative movement- fiscal conservatives and crunchy conservatives, for example- may find themselves disagreeing with social conservatives on issues like gay marriage. Nevertheless, simply identifying as a conservative is enough to earn the vitriol and condemnation of the LGBT movement. Opposition to Gay Marriage vs. Homophobia Most gay rights advocates voice opinions of their own. Conservatives are motivated by homophobia [or hate], they say. Conservatives use their religion as a way to oppose gay marriage, others opine. Still, others believe that conservatives dont harbor the same hatred for divorced people, vandals, or other sinners. They have a special hatred for gays and lesbians. Comments like these force even those who have no particular sentiment either way to take up sides and defend their loosely-held convictions (whether they lean to the right or the left on this issue). I dont support gay marriage is not the same as I hate gays, and those on the left are frequently too blinded by their advocacy to recognize it. Those that do simply refuse to acknowledge it. Not everyone who opposes gay marriage is a homophobe, and not everyone who opposes gay marriage hates people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender. By branding the religious end of an entire conservative movement as hateful, the people making such remarks come off as hateful of conservatives. It boils the issue down to one or the other, without considering those in between. Marriage As a Sacred Symbol For many people (not just religious conservatives), marriage is a sacred symbol of heterosexual love and commitment. Seeing it changed in such a profound way would be like the National Rifle Association suddenly claiming the rainbow flag as its symbol. Just as this would change the meaning of the flag in a way that is unpleasant to the LGBT community, so too would gay marriage change the meaning of marriage to a large part of the married community. Separation of Church and State? There is a common misconception among those on the left that the Constitution mandates a clear separation of church and state, yet that language is nowhere to be found in the document. The phrase was taken from a letter by Thomas Jefferson and bound into law by an activist Supreme Court in 1878. The Constitution deals with the issue of religion via the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. In the former case, Congress cannot pass laws based on religious principles and in the latter, the government cannot keep people from practicing their religion. National recognition of gay marriage is believed by many conservatives to be an example of government interfering with their right to practice their religion. They see it as akin to the government changing a basic tenet of their religion, not unlike forcing Orthodox Jews to eat pork or forcing Catholics to use something other than water in their baptisms. It reduces the covenant of marriage to a bureaucratic rubber stamp and also bastardizes the holiness of it. Recognition of Civil Unions vs. Marriage As it relates to the federal government, the trouble begins with how marriage is treated. There are very few mainstream or common-sense conservatives who will argue that a gay persons life-partner shouldnt be afforded the same rights as a married persons spouse, especially in instances where one of the parties is ill. The trouble with existing federal law is that it recognizes the institution of marriage, which is a holy, religious practice. While atheists will argue marriage is a legal covenant, most conservatives (and even many liberals) will concede that it is an act of religion. Most mainstream conservatives believe that civil unions would be a better way for the federal government to bestow benefits on couples. State vs. Federal While there are many conservatives who believe the institution of marriage should be defended as a covenant between a man and a woman, many more believe that the federal government shouldnt be dealing with the subject at all. Its a matter of jurisdiction. A large majority of conservatives believe the gay marriage issue is a states rights issue since there is no explicit language regarding the subject in the Constitution. According to the Tenth Amendment (Article X of the Bill of Rights), The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. If it were a matter of the states, there undoubtedly would be states in the U.S. that would permit gay marriage and others that wouldnt. For the majority of conservatives, this is fine as long as the voters of these states are the ones making the decisions (not the lawmakers). The Bottom Line For most mainstream conservatives, gay marriage isnt the issue it is for social conservatives. While there is a crossover for many on the right, political conservatism is less about wedge issues and more about limiting the size and scope of government, building a strong national defense and enabling the freedom of enterprise. Many conservatives who took a states right stance have put the issue on the back-burner since the Supreme Court decisions legalizing gay marriage and prohibiting state restrictions and bans.