Hamlet believers?

We are all entitled to our own opinions. You may think Hamlet would’ve made an excellent king, but I am convinced otherwise.

Hamlet allowed his many insecurities and troubles to get in the way of his mission. Hamlet’s instability, self-doubt and indecisiveness eventually worsened his deadly contemplations and urged his inaction to continue, all of which promoted his incapability of being a good king.

Hamlet couldn’t quite handle the emotional truth and doubt that plagued his mind about his father’s death and his mother’s abrupt union with his uncle. He’s constantly questioning himself with the threat of “to be or not to be” (3.1). A king can’t rule without a stable mindset and a passion for his country; both of which Hamlet doesn’t possess. He is constantly preoccupied with his personal dilemmas that he disregarded the state that Denmark was in since the old King’s death. Similar to Hamlet, the entire population of Denmark had to adapt to the change of a new king. Yes, in Hamlet’s defense, he had a much harder time adapting, because it was more personal, but a king must prioritize the population over one, himself.

Not only was Hamlet unstable, he was in an endless battle with himself. He was unsure of whether or not he’s in a “bestial oblivion” and claimed he is “one part wisdom and ever three parts coward” (4.4). Hamlet is persistently comparing himself to others, such as the actors and Fortinbras and Fortinbras’ army. However, instead of making necessary changes to better himself, he delayed his action and allowed things to continue forward unchanged. Hamlet is the definition of what some people say “all talk and no action.” He “unpacks [his] heart with words” (2.2)  and fails to apply those words into real life. Hypothetically, if a war were to erupt, Hamlet wouldn’t be deciding for the sakes of Denmark, but rather questioning why he’s acting with such cowardice. Hamlet lacks the strength and self-trust that are essential to be a good king.

Even though Hamlet’s inaction was mostly produced by his need to confirm that the ghost wasn’t a “devil [that] hath power to assume a pleasing shape” (2.2),  he still deferred the retaliation of his father’s death after he overheard Claudius’s admission of guilt. In Act 3.3, Claudius prayed to heaven above for forgiveness; unknown to Claudius, Hamlet heard the entire pray. Hamlet again debated against and for the murder of Claudius in that moment. He is never certain of when he’ll take action. King Hamlet would’ve been avenged right then and there, but Hamlet’s uncertainty allowed for vengeance to take play later. Referring back to the war situation, would Hamlet have been certain enough to send out troops to protect Denmark or would he have been convinced differently? With Hamlet, the choice of which he’ll choose is never clear when it comes down to what he must and mustn’t do.

Hamlet can be compared to an athlete, who doesn’t meet the requirement to be team captain. All athletes go through losses and wins, but team captain must stay head strong to represent the team and be the shoulder to cry on when the team needs it most. Hamlet, in contrast, is emotionally unstable, especially when it comes to family issues; team captain cannot let personal matters affect his/her mindset. A captain must also be quick and definitive with the game plan, at the same time, trusting his/her instincts that it’ll work. In the contrary, Hamlet was filled with self-doubt, which urged him to be hesitant with his proceed relating to the revenge he must take for the wrongful death of his father.

So if you were a coach and you had to pick a player to be team captain, who would you have chosen? One who is certain and strong, with quick instincts and a set mind or one who is indecisive, mentally weak and lacks self-trust?

An