The Conflict Between Good And Evil

On the other hand, Laertes wants to revenge his father’s death. Therefore this mistake murder leads Hamlet to his downfall as Claudius and Laertes want to kill him.

Hamlet kills Polonius and Gertrude becomes scared as to what is going to happen with Hamlet. Claudius betrays her trust by taking advantage of it and takes matter into his own hands. Claudius solution to the problem is to have Hamlet sent to England, where he is going to be safe from the law and will not have to deal with any consequences for his actions. " O Gertrude, come away! The sun no sooner shall the mountains touch. But we will ship him hence, and this vile deed. We must, with all out majesty and skill, Both countenance and excuse" (4.1.28-32). Claudius makes Gertrude believe he is setting this up because he wants to protect Hamlet. But even though the audience knows the real reason as to why he is doing this. He is sending Hamlet to England to be killed. " By letters congruing to that effect, The present death of Hamlet" (4.3.66-67).

The book To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee is often associated with a various number of themes such as racism, social inequality, the importance of family values, and much more. But one of the more hidden messages of the book centers around the idea that there is a coexistence of good and evil. This theme is really brought to life the more the reader is able to understand the book. Through sub themes such as coming of age, perspective, and intense characterization of many important characters the idea of good and evil is really brought to light.

Laertes also brings revenge and betrayal out of Hamlet. Though an enemy, Laertes is a foil to Hamlet. Laertes helps in the development of Hamlet through the similarities they share. These include anger over the death of their fathers, and desire to exact revenge. Betrayal is also relevant because Laertes betrays Claudius in the end, revealing his plan to kill Hamlet. Hamlet betrays his father by verbally abusing his mother, against the wishes of his father. The differences between the two men are very strong. Hamlet would not kill Claudius in the church because he was praying. Laertes, however stated that he would kill Hamlet in a church, praying or not. Another difference is that Hamlet cannot be a man of action and a man of thought at the same time. He does not use his mind when he acts. He just acts. When he is pondering something, he is unable to act out his thoughts, and keeps quiet. Laertes, however, is able to act while thinking. He finds out that Hamlet killed his father and immediately devises a plan to kill him. This flaw makes Hamlet dangerous to himself, and is ultimately his downfall.

Hamlet really wanted the revenge on Claudius but was really on the fence of what to actually do to follow through with then plan. Claudius was brave to feel so free, as Hamlet had opportunities to take advantage of him and had plenty of hate towards him for more than one reason. The action Hamlet may want and outcome of it, may be completely different as to what his father would do or like him to do.

36-38). King Claudius appears to be an honest, noble king, but in reality he is King Hamlet's murderer and a manipulative ruler. Near the end of the play, Claudius manipulates Laertes into a duel with Hamlet, so that he can murder Hamlet without suspicion when he says, "But you content to lend your patience to us,/And we shall jointly labor with your soul/To give it due content.". (4.7. ) This shows that Claudius is openly offering a chance for Laertes to seek revenge upon Hamlet for killing Polonius. Later on, Claudius also lays out the plan to murder Hamlet, when he says

This shows that Claudius penetrates Hamlet's deception, and by sending Hamlet to England, Claudius could arrange for Hamlet's execution, and have Denmark not know about the entire matter. Claudius triumphs over Hamlet's antic disposition, ruining Hamlet's characterization.

In order to define a character as purely good or purely evil, one must take into consideration all of their actions and words. However, even then it may be hard to complete the task. The presence of these morally ambiguous characters are shown in the Shakespearean play, Hamlet, but by far the most morally ambiguous of all is Hamlet himself. The inability for the reader to place Hamlet’s true moral intentions fully into the realm of either evil or innocent gives meaning to the play’s overall message: while individuals can be mostly good or mostly evil, it is impossible to be just one or the other.

   The legendary drama, Hamlet, written by William Shakespeare is a play illustrating the theme of virtue vs. villainy. The 17th century tragedy is plagued with treachery and deceit as it opens with the news of a foul murder in the kingdom of Denmark. Prince Hamlet, by word of his late father's ghost, is informed that his uncle Claudius is to blame for his father's sudden demise. Prince Hamlet's mission is to uncover the secrets surrounding the murder and to avenge his father's death. Thus, the insidious web of disease and corruption is formed. The relationship between disease leading to the greater corruption of Denmark plays a significant role in the lives of the principle players.

Laertes serves a foil to Hamlet, although they are not similar in birth, they are similar in that they both have a dear father murdered. Using this parallel, Shakespeare uses Laertes to show what Hamlet should be doing, contrasting Laertes’s words of action to Hamlet’s own words of action. We see this most clearly when Laertes is talking with Claudius and he says that he will “cut [Hamlet’s] throat i' th' church” to avenge his father, this contrasts directly with Hamlet who decides not to kill a praying Claudius when he has the chance (4.7.144). Laertes also serves as external conflict as he challenges Hamlet to a fight and is convinced by Claudius to kill Hamlet with a poisoned sword. Without this fight, who knows if Hamlet would have gotten around to kill Claudius? But when we really look at Laertes’ words and consequent action, we see another similarity with Hamlet, both are rash and passionate. This is significant because

     Claudius’ lies are effective enough to persistently deceive to play’s antagonist, Hamlet. Despite Hamlet’s disgust with Claudius for marrying Gertrude, and his view of Claudius as “a king of shreds and patches” (III.iv.104), Hamlet suspicion of Claudius as a murderer is preliminarily nonexistent. The appearance of a spirit claiming to be Hamlet’s dead father first alerts Hamlet to the actions of “that incestuous, that adulterate beast, /With witchcraft of his with, with traitorous gifts” (I.v.42-3). And yet still, Hamlet remains hesitant to believe that Claudius was the murderer, searching for complementary evidence. The play that Hamlet enacts -- designed to “catch the conscience of the king” (II.ii.562) --succeeds in revealing Claudius’ guilt, but does not provoke instant action on Hamlet’s part. So effective is Claudius’ manipulation of the royal circle that he manages to almost permanently stay the revelation of his guilt, and if it weren’t for supernatural intervention against an injustice, he may never have been exposed.

Claudius’ manipulation takes advantage of surrounding characters’ affection for Hamlet. Paired with Hamlet’s apparent madness, he easily sways them into doing his bidding by feeding them incorrect information, thus influencing their decisions and actions. While innocent characters like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern believe their duty is to simply diagnose the reason for Hamlet’s madness, Claudius uses their care for Hamlet and blind loyalty to plot Hamlet’s death. This along with several other attempts of spying on and murdering Hamlet eventually lead to the deaths of multiple characters including Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Not only that, but all the while he is attempting to take Hamlet’s life, he is fearing for his own and desperately

Laertes found out about his father's death, and immediately returned home. He confronted the King and accused him of the murder of his father. Claudius told Laertes that Hamlet was responsible for his father's death. He then decides to kill Hamlet to avenge the death of his father. He and Claudius concoct a plot to kill Hamlet.

Laertes, a foil to Hamlet in the play, faces similar problems as Hamlet. Laertes learns Hamlet is responsible for the death of his father, Polonius by Claudius. But, in Act III Scene iv, Polonius was hiding behind the arras of the Queen Gertrude’s room and Hamlet killed him accidentally. Claudius took the opportunity to use his manipulative skills and convince Laertes he should kill Hamlet for what he did (Cruttwell). Claudius’ speech to Laertes implies that not acting would show no love for his father, “Not that I think you did not love your father, but that I know love is begun by time, and that I see in passages of proof”(IV. vii. 111-113). Claudius’ tone influences Laertes to immediately seek revenge on

Hamlet aspires to resolve his father’s murder with “bloody” action (IV.v.69). For that reason, when Hamlet succeeds in impaling his uncle upon the rapier and forcing him to consume the poisoned elixir, “[Shakespeare] has depicted in [Hamlet] a true national hero” (Crawford). According to this belief, as Hamlet has taken the life of the man that killed King Hamlet and was powerless to stop Denmark from falling to Fortinbras, the Danes have been lifted from danger and the prince Hamlet can be deemed a “savior.” Yet, this victory is short lived when compared to the impairment Hamlet has brought his nation and the amount of lives he has spent in his whirlwind of destruction. Crawford’s idealistic view of Hamlet fails to support itself when weighed against the unfortunate truth—Hamlet cannot be savior of Denmark.