Difference Between Hamlet And Fortinbras

If it is not already abundantly clear, the perspectives of Hamlet and Fortinbras are quite different. As has been shown, Hamlet is much more of a thinker, needing to think through every aspect of an issue before he is able to act. He also seems to require far more justification in order to be willing to carry out an act. For example, it is extremely likely that Hamlet would not have reacted similarly to the way Fortinbras acted in the example last provided. Instead of immediately seeking to honor the man he immediately is able to sympathize with, it is likely that Hamlet would have asked an abundance of questions about what had happened before he would be willing to act at all. Fortinbras, on the other hand, needs much less in the way of justifications.
Looking at the example used to help outline Hamlet’s views, Fortinbras likely would have acted differently than Hamlet did. It is very likely that Fortinbras would have killed Claudius were he in Hamlet’s situation and he found Claudius alone praying. Fortinbras would know that simply killing Claudius and getting it over with would end his obligations, restore his mother’s image, and likely give him the throne of Denmark. Being Fortinbras’s dedication to honor what it is, it is unlikely he would have wanted to send Claudius to hell, as Hamlet did, as such a devious intention is far from honorable. Hamlet and Fortinbras have wildly different views on justification, and these contrasting views greatly affect their behavior in many ways, which has been shown. Now that the contrasts of the two men’s perspectives have been explained and the significance of the contrasts outlined, it is valuable to view the example given in the play of an issue that one gets to see the perspective of both men. This example appears in Act IV scene iv and allows one to get to concretely see the contrasting perspectives of both men one a specific
In searching for information about Fortinbras as a character, there is very little that can be found and what can be found often just brushes him aside. Rudiger Imhof states in “Fortinbras Ante Portas: The Role and Significance of Fortinbras in Hamlet”, another great article that attempts to explore Fortinbras’ significance, that “The majority of critics have been more moderate in their suggestions and are, by and large, agreed inasmuch as they attribute to him the dramatic purpose of acting as a parallel and foil to Hamlet.” (Imhof 11) Most who write critical articles about Hamlet are perfectly satisfied to leave Fortinbras’ role at this. The neglect of Fortinbras has even gone so far as to effect productions and printings of the play in many cases. As once again stated by Imhof “The stage history of the play has seen, surprisingly, many productions that … have chosen to omit Fortinbras’s last-minute entrance at the end of the play, or, what is more, have even cut his brief appearance and couple of lines about his Polish campaign” (Imhof 8). As has here been proven, this is entirely unjust. While Fortinbras’s perspective on justification is, as has been proven here, certainly a counterpoint to the perspective Hamlet, Fortinbras is more than just a simple foil for Hamlet. Fortinbras represents an entire way of thinking that stands opposed to that of