Is Hamlet Truly Mad Or Truly Genius?

One of the most salient and oft-mentioned arguments that arise concerning Hamlet is whether he can be considered truly mad, or simply genius. Did these situations- the ghost’s arrival, The Murder of Gonzago, and Polonius’s murder in any way change his course? While it is true that all humans have the potential for deeds with magnitudes of great good and evil, was he already bloodthirsty, did he become bloodthirsty, or was his brutality simply awoken from its slumber? While some may argue that Hamlet did not truly lose his innocence in the pages following his pledge, and that he became murderous the second he promised- therefore remaining a static character for much of the book- careful analysis reveals otherwise. Before his otherworldly visitation, Hamlet is angered and depressed by the marriage of his
When he finally deals with Claudius in the final moments of Act 5, “he does so suddenly, without forethought, poisoning the King in revenge for conniving to poison him and for accidentally poisoning Gertrude” (Ryan): yet another example of his inability to act save on impulse. Had Hamlet truly been murderous for much of the play, why not kill his uncle sooner? Why act only on a personal affront and not on the behalf of others, and why put off his obligation if he was so eager? Hamlet had the ability to kill Claudius then, but not the mental capacity: several situations had to occur and he had to come to several conclusions before being able to end his quest for revenge once and for all. He killed by chance, not a meticulous plot, thus unnecessarily causing the deaths of almost all associated with him (Ryan). In retaining his innocence until merely minutes before his death, he proves he is not the vicious, enraged son he at times appeared to be. Rather, he a young man forced to step into a cruel world, unwilling to depart with the least remnants of that