I reread Hamlet awhile ago and was reminded of how much i love Shakespeare. He manages to cram so much meaning into exceptionally beautiful prose. The question of whether there is life after death, a continued relationship with the deceased as per the catholic faith, or not as per the protestant decree made a few decades earlier. The placement of Hamlet as a renaissance man in a pagan story, admiring of Greek heroism but intelligent enough to see it's drawbacks, Christian enough to waver about vengeance, and unable to act the stoic as Horatio does. It's his multi-faceted character that is his downfall.
He's a failed hero because he takes the wrong path. The murder of the monarch creates a metaphorical wasteland, it breaks the Elizabethan chain of the cosmos, in which the monarch is the path through which God's grace is delivered. Claudius created the wasteland by killing Hamlet Snr, but he was also legitimately elected by the court to become king afterwards, so Hamlet Junior committing yet another regicide would not provide the healing the land needed. Hamlet being diverted from returning to Wittgenstein and his studies put him on the wrong path.
Hamlet the senior is like the perfect Greek hero, a good warrior, but not necessarily a good king or father. (and considering how quickly queen Gertrude remarried, maybe husband) but he lacked a Machiavellian factor which Claudius did have. Laertes and Horatio are the alternatives of Hamlet. Horatio "more ancient roman than Dane" is the stoic, he would not take vengeance and would not be incensed by emotions. Laertes is overly emotional, easy to manipulate but goes and demands restitution immediately - he is more in line with the pagan/danish way. Hamlet is stuck in the middle of them. Paralyzed by his own intelligence and mind. Too Christian to kill a man in prayer, but too emotional and proud to let vengeance go, too impulsive to return to Wittgenstein and inherit the throne legitimately later as Claudius implied he would want.
He could have alerted his mother and the court, they hold elections for who should be king, similarly they could put him on trial, no? This has happened before. He would have to find evidence and witnesses, but that way he could have legitimately deposed Claudius and taken his place - righting the corruption, the rot, that has festered in the kingdom.
A lot of representations of Hamlet show him as kind of a weakling, a coward, but he does have ruthlessness to him, he does have a Machiavellian streak, and he refers to himself 'as Hamlet the Dane' implying ambition for the throne, effectively calling himself king already. He's the one with highest kill count and yet at other times he sounds like a preacher, calling everything dust, showing typical medieval christian contempt for this world and worldliness, all glory is transitory, the sky and earth's beauty and women's beauty all worthless or empty to him.
He really is a renaissance man, educated on the Greek classics and philosophy, with a christian conscience but not kindness (kindness in the Elizabethan sense, not niceness and generosity, but a true empathetic understanding of other people being just as human and worthy as oneself. the kind of kindness lady Macbeth laments about Macbeth having. (too much of the milk of human kindness)) a contempt for danish/pagan culture and tradition, but still with a compulsion to fulfill the expectations that culture has of him in regards to vengeance and upholding honor. The typical Greek hero and the renaissance hero have radical differences that Shakespeare had to work around. Renaissance heroes had to be good Christians, while Greeks most certainly did not.
You could view Laertes, Ophelia and Hamlet as failed heroes all of them, actually. The adults are the antagonists for sure. Hamlet is led off his path by his father's ghost, his father imposing his own will on him uncaring of the consequences for his son instead of showing up in a typical catholic ghost way - asking to be remembered and prayed for so that his time in limbo is shortened, as well as by Claudius and Gertrude keeping him from returning to his studies which would have made him into the man he was supposed to become. Laertes is kept from going to France by Polonius and further forced to comply with his father's wishes and goals. Ophelia is suffocated by her father imposing his own will on her as well. He worries more about his reputation and honour, calls her stupid and naive, implies she can't trust herself or Hamlet, and because Hamlet acts like a cad as well, she is driven mad by a world where she cannot trust anyone - not even herself.
The adults leading the young ones astray is another possible interpretation.
Hamlet feigning madness could be a reference to Lucius Brutus who feigned madness in court of the Tarkic kings and was key in overthrowing the tyrant and establishing the Roman Republic. What Hamlet should have done, had he been a successful hero.
The course I took asked the question of what the spirit could be. I thought it might be the manifestation of guilt and grief. Hamlet wasn't there, he couldn't be with his father at the end and we tend to blame ourselves when our loved ones die. Wonder what we could have done differently, if we could have saved them, it's human nature, no? Hamlet is consumed by the guilt and grief, unable to to let go and that creates a metaphorical ghost that haunts him, infects him like an illness and drives him to act out like he does. That could also be an explanation for his instability and lack of action.
If his father had not appeared to him, if he had been able to grieve him properly and let go, none of them would have ended as tragically as they did.
He would have left the prison called Denmark (there it is again, the medieval idea of all the world is a prison, and denmark is among the worst of them? the only world worth any is the one beyond this life), disgusted by his mother's remarriage and unwilling to remain near Claudius, gone back to university and gone traveling, becoming a philosopher or otherwise studious man. Throughout the play he expresses much distaste for his own country and people, he even spends his dying breath recommending a norseman as the next king.
Fortebas ends the play by claiming Hamlet would have been a good king - but I don't think so. It being the last sentence written also creates doubt around its meaning. He had a more melancholic, introverted, thoughtful nature - a character quite like Prospero from the play The Tempest who was divested of his throne by his brother. He had been a popular man, but wasn't necessarily a good duke as he had been much too hermitlike and obsessed with his books to be aware of the everyday life and issues as a good ruler should be. (this is one of the main questions of the play, what constitutes a good ruler. The rightful one despite his flaws or the usurper who was perhaps more suited personality-wise and skill-wise?)
On another note, Hamlet was also clearly suicidal. The man wanted to die, but he is too much of a Christian to be able to commit suicide. Him being an amalgamation of danish pagan values and christian values keeps him from committing suicide, but really, that is what he wants to do. The way he jumps into Ophelia's grave, his machiavellian traits, that man was very capable of scheming - how else would he have survived and sent r&g to England to die in his stead? I think he knows quite well that he is stepping into a plot when he agrees to duel Laertes, he knows what Laertes is doing when he picks and chooses between weapons that are all the same. Hamlet knew there was a murder plot afoot, but he got what he wanted, vengeance for his father's death, and then he sought salvation on his own account, just like ophelia, but in a way that did not violate christian rules about suicide. He walked to his death, pleased to find peace in a way that could not consign him to hell