Harley Granville-Barker, Francis Fergusson, and Jean Paris have crafted Fortinbras as a "second Horatio" who serves as Hamlet's "alter ego" and thus, since he is a second version of a character with a much stronger presence in the play, he becomes expendable (Kobialka 197). Furthermore, many directors found that when it came to Fortinbras "rather than trying to understand the character, it was easier to ignore him entirely" (Kobialka 196-197). However, Fortinbras is separate from Horatio in that he represents a component of Hamlet's decision. He is what Hamlet wants to be; that motivation drives his decision. Hardison comments that "Fortinbras is always shown at a distance. We never learn of his inner struggles," while we do learn of Hamlet's. He further observes that "The effect created by this treatment is idealization" (Hardison 158). Kobialka discusses why Fortinbras is idealized by stating that "though he is not an intellectual," he "will view the pressures, constraints, and necessities of his new world through his common sense" (Kobialka 199). Shakespeare displays Hamlet's idealization of Fortinbras when Hamlet exclaims: Why yet I live to say, "This thing's to do," Since I have cause and will and strength and means To do't. Examples gross as earth exhort …show more content…
Hardison observes that Shakespeare writes Laertes so that "there is no doubt that the kind of revenge taken by Laertes is shown to be wrong" (Hardison 159). Hardison observes how contrary to how "Hamlet fears damnation, resists the implse [sic] to act, and seeks verification" Laertes "enters the court defying damnation" and "makes only a token effort to learn the true reason for his father's death" and "is easily swayed by Claudius" (Hardison 157). However, like Hamlet, Laertes went into the duel knowing he could die, and displayed contemplation of death like Hamlet when he asks to be buried with