Hamlet: futility of conflict

Hamlet essay #2

Something Is Rotten in the State of Denmark

Last week, I wrote about how Hamlet explores grief and how it leads to the destruction of both Hamlet and his environment. Today, however, I want to touch upon something different that is equally as important a factor in his downfall. Before we do though, we need to look towards a character in the play that does not even appear until the very last act: Fortinbras.

Fortinbras: The Silent Spectre

The interesting thing about Fortinbras is that while we don’t exactly meet the character, we certainly gain enough intel about him to clearly understand his motivations, what he’s doing, and what he hopes to achieve. Shakespeare expertly crafts such magnificent, immersive characterization that we don’t even need to meet him until the very end.

But I have often wondered why his character is even included in the story. He has almost zero impact on the story on its surface, and yet we gain so much about him. He hangs like a cloud in the background—a spectre you can’t fully see in a fog.

Fortinbras as Hamlet’s Antithesis?

I did some digging and found out that the majority of people believe that Fortinbras is only added as a contrast to Hamlet. He’s the antithesis to everything Hamlet is but also so similar to him.

He, just like Hamlet, inherited the name of his father. He also wants revenge for his father’s humiliation at the hands of the king. The only difference, however, is that he is quick in his actions. He’s not exactly waiting around and trying to sound out his inner turmoil to the audience (can someone please make that as a retelling of Hamlet? Pretty please?).

He’s a man of action… or so it seems.

I don’t exactly buy this theory, honestly. It never sat right with me. If Shakespeare wanted to add a character contrast to Hamlet, it could easily have been Laertes. Hell, they even hold a duel at the end. It would be kind of perfect.

So, I propose to you my own theory: Fortinbras is a metaphor for the consequences of war itself.

Sins of the Fathers

What is the first thing we hear about Fortinbras? That he is preparing his armies to come and take the land back that Hamlet’s father took from his father.

This, to me, clearly indicates that because of his father’s involvement with war and the destruction of someone else’s land, the people in present time will have to take the brunt of it all. Sins of our fathers and all.

Afterward, however, we hear news that his father has talked with his son, and Fortinbras has decided to hold back from the attack. To me, this is a metaphorical holding off of your own consequences.

Claudius, the new king, is successful in his attempts to hold off any kind of conflict involving actual war. But he, along with everyone in the kingdom of Denmark, is not done yet.

Casualties of Conflict

Throughout the play, we see that almost everyone is scheming and plotting against each other. Polonius sends a spy after his own son, Claudius took the throne from Hamlet’s father, his brother, and everyone is collectively trying to one-up Hamlet. In turn, Hamlet is scheming against Polonius and Claudius.

Interestingly, however, there are only five characters that die completely innocently.

• The three gravediggers.

• Ophelia.

• Arguably, Gertrude.

You might argue whether Gertrude is innocent or not, depending on how you read it, but I always viewed her as innocent myself.

All five of those innocent deaths in the story are a prime example of the casualties of conflict and war—how seemingly self-centered issues often drag others unwillingly into the conflict and cause major, irreversible damage.

This also explores, to me, the inevitability of death. No amount of revenge or plotting can bring back Hamlet’s father. No amount of bloodshed can solve any issue. And people like Ophelia and the gravediggers are the main casualties of such conflict.

Fortinbras and the Spectre of War

Back to Fortinbras, because he’s clearly not done yet. Despite Claudius’ attempts to hold him back, he still decides that he will gather his armies and attack Denmark once and for all.

Why does he do it so late? What prompts Fortinbras to mount an attack this late in the play with no reason at all?

Pretty sure I missed some in-play reason for it, as Shakespeare is a bit hard for me to comprehend personally, but to me, the subtextual reason behind it is clear:

You can avoid your doom and manage things as long as you are not committing violence, creating conflicts, and scheming. Because in the end, nobody truly wins a conflict. Death claims us all.

So, while Hamlet is on his revenge plot, killing half the people in his kingdom by accident, Fortinbras marches. He is not just an outside enemy; he is the spectre that looms over Denmark.

At the end of the play, all Fortinbras really has to do is sit on the throne of his new kingdom because everyone did his job for him.

Conflict as the Key to Hamlet

Personally, I think the word “conflict” is the key to understanding Hamlet.

Because while it is quite domestic in its nature—with everything pertaining to private jealousy and revenge rather than world-shattering consequences like actual war—its implications about the nature of conflict itself make it feel that much more powerful and epic.

At its heart, I feel that Shakespeare intended this tale to not be about an angsty 30-year-old taking revenge for his more-than-problematic dead father, but about a kingdom in ruins and what happens in war.

What happens when everyone is out there busy in their own plots and schemes?

Death wins in the end.