Minor Characters In Hamlet

Through Shakespeare’s use of minor characters in his play, Hamlet, the playwright was able to subtly develop Hamlet’s character. In using minor characters, Shakespeare emphasized certain traits which the main character held. These minor character also personify the motifs of contrast between a sickly interior versus healthy exterior and contrasting life and death; the minor characters’ embodiment of these motifs further establish for the audience the importance of these motifs within the play.

Through the different minor characters, the true feelings and personalities of the main character in a novel or a play come out. Hamlet's weaknesses, strengths, thoughts, and desires came out because of his relationships with others. Without Horatio, Fortinbras, or Laertes, the small aspects of Hamlet's

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are foils to Hamlet. The two are introduced as friends to Hamlet. But also they are like messengers for the king. Hamlet learns of their

The final way that Laertes acts as a foil to Hamlet occurs once again when Claudius and Laertes are discussing Laertes’ actions to achieve his vengeance. Claudius gives Laertes advice saying, “That we would do/ we should do when we would; for this ‘would’/ changes” (4.7.134-136). Claudius is warning Laertes that if he waits long enough, he will probably end up not doing anything at all and will not achieve his goal of vengeance. This quote spoken by Claudius is quite similar to when King Hamlet’s ghost meets with Hamlet earlier in the play to warn him about how he was killed by Claudius and that he must get revenge. King Hamlet’s ghost also warns Hamlet saying, “Taint not thy mind” (1.5.92), telling him to not over think his plan because otherwise he will not pursue his vengeance. After Claudius warns Laertes to not get side tracked, the audience is reminded of King Hamlet’s ghost telling Hamlet to not over think because then their plans will not be pursued. This scene acts as a foil towards Hamlet because soon after the conversation, Laertes does pursue his plan of seeking vengeance, whereas Hamlet has been working on his plan the whole play, and has still not started to execute it.

“To be, or not to be, that is the question,” (3.1.64). This famous line in William Shakespeare's Hamlet perfectly encapsulates Hamlet’s internal struggle throughout the play. Hamlet tells the story of the young prince of Denmark and his desire for revenge on the uncle, Claudius, who murdered his father. As is the case in many works of literature, Hamlet changes greatly throughout the play. However, because of his attempts to act insane, it can be difficult to precisely map the changes in Hamlet’s character. By carefully investigating his seven soliloquies, where he is alone and has no need to “put on an antic disposition,” one can understand and interpret how Hamlet’s character develops throughout the play.

Characters may possess both the ability to intrigue whilst maintaining a commonplace and dry persona, essentially, Hamlet attains the ability to break from his compulsion to abject based on the inept character(s) of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. In retrospect, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are the same person as they are sparsely differentiated and never are they seen apart from one another—thus the question remains as to why Shakespeare created such characters based on the same superficial mould. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern prove to be a clever satire of the capacity for human conformity, and of course the entirety of their characters is summed upon their agreement to spy on Hamlet for King Claudius. Therein is revealed the essential flaw of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, their otherwise ‘pack’-mentality.

In the conclusion of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the audience gains an understanding of the importance of Justice to each character. In the final act both Hamlet and Laertes seek to find justice for the wrongs committed against them and their families. This leaves both men trying to identify how to right these misdeeds

Evans asserts that friendship is the most important but neglected themes in Hamlet, making his case through the close reading of relationships and interactions between characters. He analyzes nearly every exchange between characters who might be friends in chronological order, recognizing the complexities and double sidedness of the interactions. Through his analysis, he alerts readers to the vast number of interpretations that can be applied to these relationships. Evans only asserts one character, Horatio, as the a clear cut and unquestionably true friend in the play. By doing this, he highlights Hamlet’s isolation and questions the motives of other characters.

   The main plot of Shakespeare's Hamlet centers around Prince Hamlet's desire to repay King Claudius for his evil deeds. Around this central action revolve the stories concerning the minor characters of Polonius and Ophelia. Though they do not motivate Hamlet's actions towards the King, these characters act as forces upon Hamlet himself, trying to spur him to do things he does not want to do. Both Polonius and Ophelia try, unsuccessfully, to manipulate Hamlet into a place of inferiority.

Hamlet’s character drastically develops over the first four acts of Hamlet, and his character development is most evident through the soliloquys he delivers throughout the play. The most character development can be seen from the first soliloquy, to the second, the third, the sixth, and the seventh and final soliloquy. Hamlet’s inner conflict with his thoughts and his actions are well analyzed in his soliloquys, as well as his struggles with life and death, and his very own existence. He begins the play wondering what purpose he has in life now that his father is dead and his mother has remarried to his uncle. After finding out foul play was involved in his father’s death, he is motivated by revenge. Finally, he wonders how he can enact his revenge while continuously overthinking and overanalyzing his actions.

Will Hamlet accept the new changes in his life? What is he capable of to be happy? After his father’s death, Hamlet will have to face the new changes in his hometown, Denmark. Shakespeare develops Hamlet’s character in relation to other characters in these soliloquies.

What would a play be if the main character were to talk on and on without giving other characters time to speak or what would a play be if the main character had no enemies or friends? The obvious answer is boring, so Shakespeare as a playwright, writing to make money, added secondary characters to develop Hamlet as a character, give the audience a break, entertain the audience, and provide external conflict. The secondary characters allow us to know the context of the character's actions and to better connect with the character.

Of Horatio we know best that what distinguishes him from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and indeed from Polonius, Ophelia, Laertes, and Gertrude, is that Claudius cannot use him. Critics have remarked upon Horatio’s ambiguously shifting status at the court of Denmark, and the late William Empson confessed a certain irritation at Hamlet’s discovery of virtues in Horatio that the prince could not find in himself. Yet Shakespeare gives us a Hamlet we must love while knowing our inferiority, since he has the qualities we lack, and so he also gives us Horatio, our representative, who loves so stoically for the rest of us. Horatio is loyal, and limited; skeptical as befits a fellow student of the profoundly skeptical Hamlet, yet never skeptical about Hamlet. Take Horatio out of the play, and you take us out of the play. The plot could be rearranged to spare the wretched Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, even to spare Laertes, let alone Fortinbras, but remove Horatio, and Hamlet becomes so estranged from us that we scarcely can hope to account for that universality of appeal which is his, and the play’s, most original characteristic. (5)

The Tragedy of Hamlet Prince of Denmark is William Shakespeare’s most well-known and analyzed work of literature. As the play unfolds, Hamlet has to face the difficult task of seeking revenge against his uncle, Claudius, for the murder of his father, King Hamlet. Hamlet has captured audiences and readers for centuries and has caused much inquiry and debate. Shakespeare’s Hamlet is a very psychologically complex character. Throughout the play, Hamlet conveys two different sides; the young, emotional and intelligent prince, who is committed to honesty and loyalty; and his destructive and impulsive side which led to the death of Polonius and nonchalantly sent Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths as

Hamlet is obscure and surprising, and, therefore, confounding because he subverts others’ expectations and never reacts with a predictable response to his own emotions or the expectations of other characters. In addition, it is worth noting that it is not only Hamlet’s curious speech that alienates others. Hamlet’s obsessive pessimism also begins to affect all of his relationships and becomes a large part of who he is as a character. In an otherwise superficial conversation with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet insists that the world has become a prison with “Denmark being one o’ th’ worst” (2.2.265), and he presses the men to explain why they would want to visit him in the place that torments him. Hamlet’s relationship with his mother is also troubling. While he is justified in questioning her decision to marry Claudius before her husband’s corpse has even cooled, Hamlet is sarcastic and demeaning towards her, provoking her to ask “What have I done, that thou darest wag thy tongue/In noise so rude against me?” (3.4.47-48) These brief and often sarcastic interactions with other characters help define Hamlet as a pessimistic character and cause the reader to anticipate that his perceptions of events will be, almost always, clouded with this characteristic darkness of