Hamlet’s character has been interpreted differently over the centuries. He has been seen variously as a sensitive, ‘noble’ prince, a bloody avenger, a melancholic weakling and a neurotic procrastinator. What is your interpretation of Hamlet’s character?Hamlet, the protagonist of Elizabethan play The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, is arguably the most complex, relatable, and profound character ever created by Shakespeare.
This is a character focused essay, so this works quite well, but you may want to consider something a little more general than this to start with. Like, "Characters are interpreted differently across contexts," or something similar, might be something you extrapolate on BEFORE using Hamlet as an example. However, this works well already, just a suggestion 
Over the four centuries since the play was composed, the adroit characterization of the prince has been meticulously interpreted and re-interpreted, with Hamlet being labeled anything from a ‘sensitive, noble prince’ to a ‘bloody avenger’.
Good inclusion of the stimulus here. The prevalent fascination of Hamlets character lies in Williams Shakespeare’s masterful exemplification of the perplexing contradictions of the human mind in which many can resonate with.
That sentence was a little messy, might want to reconsider wording? From the moment audiences are introduced to the despondent, mourning prince, one is enthralled in the radical incongruities of his intense character; he is sensitive yet callous, cautious yet impetuous and solicitous yet barbarous. Perhaps one of the most enticing aspects of Hamlets character is that despite him being full of disastrous faults and grave imperfections, he is still considered to be a noble prince, and even the seemingly negative qualities of Hamlets persona, such as indecisiveness, brutality and hatred, appear to enhance Hamlet's position as a tragic hero.
Clever introduction, very unique, and it sets up the essay quite well. I'd suggest being a little bit more high modality with YOUR interpretation that you put in at the end, come to a more conclusive judgement to make it easier to carry through the essay (this judgement can still be "on the fence" if you like, but don't use language like "appears," be sure of your judgement!The juxtaposition of Hamlets initial acute sensitivity in the opening scenes of the play where he is mourning the loss of his father and the subsequent callousness demonstrated when he unflinchingly sends his friends to be executed is a jarring example of a contradiction within Hamlets character.
Again, you may want to start general before honing in on Hamlet! However, the question allows this approach as well.In Act 1, scene 2, Hamlet is presented as a deeply troubled young man, who is plagued by intense bereavement due to the loss of his father, King Hamlet. He cannot fathom how those around him- his mother in particular- can resume their everyday lives when he is still immobilized by grief. Hamlet himself admits that he displays all the ‘forms, moods and shapes of grief’ ( I.ii.82), although he insists his grief is substantially more than just a display.
Be careful not to slip into what is called "textual retell;" simply retelling the events of the play and what they mean. Focus on Shakespeare's presentation. At the start you say Shakespeare presents Hamlet as a deeply troubled young man, what TECHNIQUES achieve this? For they are the actions that a man might play,
But I have that within which passes show,
These but the trappings and the suits of woe. (I.ii.84-6)
Try to take only the most important bits of each quote, and use them WITHIN your sentences rather than presenting them separately as you do here. Hamlets obvious anguish when his mother refers to death as ‘common’ (I.ii.72), and suggests that he should ultimately forget his father, manifests the sensitivity of Hamlets character.
I appreciate these explanations of Hamlet's character, they are definitely great, but you MUST support them with techniques, how has Shakespeare created this interpretation for you?However, Hamlets apparent sensitivity is irrefutably undermined when he unflinchingly arranges for two of his “excellent good friends” (II.ii.223), Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to be put to death. Hamlet shows no compunction or remorse, even proclaiming that the two deserved to be executed.
Why, man, they did make love to this employment.
They are not near my conscience. Their defeat
Does by their own insinuation grow (V.ii.60-63)
In just three acts of the play, Hamlet went from being profoundly perplexed and perturbed by his mother’s bitter suggestion that death is common, to dismissively pronouncing that his two friends deserved the barbaric fate that he himself induced. The contradiction between sensitivity and callousness within the character of Hamlet, exemplifies how the human mind is constantly changing, and reacting to external situation.
I like the link back to a greater, more general concept at the end. THIS is why modern audiences remain interested in the play Throughout the play, a consequential internal contradiction evident in Hamlets character is his tendency to be cautious, yet impetuous. The cautiousness and indecisiveness that Hamlet shows in avenging his fathers alleged murder is dissonant when compared to the irrationality and impetuosity displayed through the stabbing/murder of Polonius.
Act 3, scene 4 begins in Queen Gertrude’s room with Polonius concealed behind a tapestry. When Hamlet arrives, he is vehemently critical of his mother, confronting her both physically and verbally.
This is a perfect example of retell. Words like "when" and "then" immediately indicate to a marker that you are just telling me what happens in the text, remember, your marker has read the text! They only want to see your interpretations and ideas about the text!“Come, come, and sit you down; you shall not budge./You go not till I set up a glass/Where you may see the inmost part of you” (III.iv.18-20)
Gertrude is so frightened by Hamlet’s callousness and murderous demeanour that she despairingly adjures “Thou wilt not murder me? Help ho!” (III.iv.26)
In response to the cries of Queen Gertrude, Polonius, still hidden behind the tapestry, also yells for help. Hamlet, impetuously stabs at the tapestry, killing Polonius. As with the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet disturbingly expresses no penitence for murdering Polonius in such an imprudent manner. Previously, Hamlet was dubious to act and was immensely cautious of the ghost. The Prince had the opportunity to murder Claudius who was immersed in prayer, but after deep cogitation, deliberated that killing him while he was praying would send him straight to heaven. This level of cautious contemplation is void in the ensuing scene, as Hamlet does not stop to ponder who the person behind the tapestry is or what the potential consequences to lashing out erratically are.
The ideas you are presenting are quite clever, for sure, you have given this a great deal of thought! However, again, it is the lack of textual analysis that is letting you down right now.The relationship existing between Hamlet and Ophelia is one pervaded by contradiction. We see Hamlet treating Ophelia with inordinate cruelty by telling her to “get thee to a nunnery” (III.i.143) and declaring that only a fool could marry her because a wise man would know that she is an unfaithful monster. The prince makes a conspicuously obtuse contradiction when he professes to Ophelia that he once loved her, only to tell her shortly after that she should not believe him.
“I loved you once… you should not have believed me. I loved you not” (III.i.120/123-125)
Such cruel behaviour indicates that Hamlet harbours no solicitous feelings for Ophelia; however when Hamlet learns of Ophelia’s death he plunges into her grave and emotionally pronounces his profound love for her.
“I loved Ophelia; forty thousand brothers
Could not with all their quantity of love
Make up my sum…” (V.i.254-256)
Hamlet seems to be engulfed in an intense internal struggle, as he alternates between loving and not loving Ophelia. Perhaps he truly did love her but by her suddenly refusing his letters, he felt betrayed and hurt. Hamlet may have subconsciously tried to convince himself that he never loved Ophelia in the attempt to eradicate the enduring pain. Once again, this contradiction in Hamlets character makes him increasingly human. Love is a universally complex emotion, and Hamlets conflicting feelings for Ophelia and his solicitous/ cruel behaviour resonates with the responder, and with societies as a whole.
Very similar to above paragraphs, good ideas, but you need some textual analysis to back yourself up!In conclusion, Hamlet is the quintessential tragic hero who has beguiled responders for over 400 years with his profound character and intense demeanor.
That sentence would be improved ten fold if you cut out "In conclusion." 
The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is so relatable because through Hamlet, the play explores the complexity of the human condition in a way that resonates with people of all ages, and exemplifies how one can simultaneously have several contradicting thoughts and/or traits. Hamlet begins with the noblest motivations- to punish his father’s alleged murderer- but by the conclusion of the play, he is indecisive, brutal and fuelled by ardent fury. Hamlets character is comprised of contradiction, a common flaw seen in all societies, irrespective of time and place.
Solid conclusion! Succinct and touches on the important ideas. 
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: English Advanced Essay Marking (Modules Only) (Read 698286 times)