Fortinbras' description of hamlet as a "soldier" and likely "to have proved most royal", is quite accurate in a way. He was most royal in that he avenged his father and he didn't run from Laertes when he proposed a duel he stood and fought like a prince, like a king. Claudius certainly didn't prove as royal and he plotted and lied to get to where he did.
However, Hamlet did show that some of his qualities weren't royal. Such as, killing Polonius in a passionate act and continuing to feel no remorse towards his death. Also, not doing the brave and soldierly thing of storming in and killing Claudius as soon as he heard his fathers depiction of how he was murdered.
The definition of a King and therefore royal seems to be galiant and brave; storming in and killing everyone in sight. Although wouldn't a king be better if he planned and plotted his eventual outcome? As Hamlet does. So he may have been a great king although he led himself to his own downfall.
Fortinbras' description does seem to make the audience think of Hamlets character overall and how royal he was and may have proved to be.
I agree with the fact that he stood up to Laertes and had a sword fight like a king.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your last bit about the audience :) because it kind of makes you think what if done this? what if he didnt act mad? :)
So F allows us to put H's tragic demise in context? We can see that he acted nobly and was just caught up in events? Does it take F to remind us that H started out with good intentions? Doesn't he make us realise that people can be forgiven for making mistakes if their intentions were honourable in the first place?
ReplyDelete