Shakespeare crafts the play so Laertes can have an illogical need and desire for revenge. Laertes is determined to make Hamlet pay: “I am satisfied in nature, / Whose motive in this case should stir me most / To my revenge". Laertes’s need for revenge indicates his desire for closure and his wish to find inner peace. Laertes believes that the solace he desires will come through revenge: "But in my terms of honor / I stand aloof, and will no reconcilement / Till by some elder masters of known honor / I have a voice and precedent of peace.” Again, this demonstrates the need for closure and shows the reasoning behind Laertes’s thirst for justice, reinforcing Shakespeare’s theme of…
They are both high-class males placed in strenuous positions. Without Laertes, the audience would have no one else to compare Hamlet to, other than Fortinbras, who rarely appears. Laertes is almost the standard to which Shakespeare wants his audience to compare the Prince to. Comparing the two almost intensifies their different characteristics.…
My queen, Hamlet has accursed our family, our court and country. Is Laertes wrong in wanting to avenge his father’s death? It is no secret, at the hands of the heinous Hamlet, our trusted adviser, Polonius, was slain. Would you have this malicious deed pass unpunished? It is our hands bloodied by his actions if we do not act.…
Time and time again, we as a complex society have recognized in many pieces of great literature the idea of man and revenge. Throughout history, the idea of vengeance has destroyed large communities, populations and entire civilizations. The problem with man and revenge is that one may be side-tracted of why or whom he is avenging. This similar idea is conveyed in the theme of Shakespear's Hamlet , "Vengeance can confuse a man's mind and soul to the point where he may not be sure of whom he is really avenging." Shakespear uses foils in this play to allow us readers to understand Hamlet as a man and why and whom he is really avenging, and Laertes and the ghost are foils for Hamlet in this play which help us readers understand his character and his actions.…
Perceptions and understanding of Shakespearean language evolve as time passes. It is reasonable to believe that Laertes is more of a tragic hero than Hamlet. In order for this to be seen effectively, a comparison must be made between Laertes and Hamlet. In the play Hamlet, Laertes is a character who grabs the audience's attention. His devotion to succeed, despite disadvantages is both motivational and tragic situations, is inspirational to some extent. His portrayal as the antagonist is very effective in conveying the message that, the easy way may not always be the right path to pursue. In the end, people are accountable for their own actions. To Laertes, the urge to avenge a loved ones death was worth taking, and is understandable in all cultures. One must remember that Laertes is not only after revenge, but also after loyalty to avenge. If Laertes were to take revenge on Hamlet, this would show only that he is interested in satisfying his own needs. However, by performing these acts in the name of loyalty, Laertes is ensuring that his father Polonius does not die in vain. Laertes can be thought of as more of a tragic hero than Hamlet due to greater loss in his fall, the fact that he is optimistic, his nobility and him showing a tragic flaw.…
Hamlet contains foil characters that are made to be very obvious. Hamlet and Laertes presumably grew up together, and…
According to Hamlet, Laertes is “passion’s slave” (III.ii.67); instead of acting on reason, Laertes acts on his emotions, disregarding any of the moral principles that Hamlet weighs heavily.…
takes on its more traditional role, as a place of grief, rather than a place of…
There are many foils used for the antagonist Hamlet in the play Hamlet, written by Shakespeare. We get a list of characters that amplify all Hamlet’s distinct qualities by the contrast of their own. Laertes bears one of the strongest contrast with Hamlet. Laertes and Ophelia being the children of Polonius- the chief counselor for the late Hamlet Sr, grew up in the castle with Hamlet. They all developed a close relationships with one another and a sense of loyalty.…
During her funeral procession Laertes and Hamlet react similarly when they both jump into her grave and declare their love for Ophelia (enotes). Afterward, Hamlet asks for forgiveness for killing Polonius and Laertes pretends to accept it. But Laertes still determined to avenge his father’s death agrees with Claudius to have a sword duel with Hamlet in which Laertes blade has been covered with a poison that will kill Hamlet with just a slight nick to the skin. Both men are nicked with the poisoned blade. As Laertes lies dying he has a moral enlightenment “Exchange forgiveness with me, noble Hamlet. Mine and my father's death come not upon thee, nor thine on me!” (5.2.337-339) and tells Hamlet of the deceit and plot that the king had created. At the same time the queen who has no idea of what Claudius had plotted drank from a poisoned challis that contained poison also meant for Hamlet. She falls down but warns Hamlet of the poison and then dies. Without hesitation Hamlet stabs the king and forces him to drink the poison. The revenge at this point seems bittersweet.…
He was great man and prince, with great potential and virtue. Another person whose virtue parallels that of Hamlet was Laertes, the son one of the Courtiers in Claudious's court. Both of these men also share the trait of impulsiveness, achieving spontaneous reactions when angered. In Laertes this revealed in his return to Ellisenore after his father's death. He returns with fire in his veins and revenge seething from his breath ready to kill the king. "To Hell, Allegiance! Vows, to blackest devil!". In Hamlet this is seen in his rash reaction in stabbing Polonious with his rapier. In thinking it was the king behind the aras, he lashes out and kills Polonious. In both cases the men have been willing to commit regicide in order to attain revenge for the loss of a father.…
1) Laertes and Hamlet both have different approaches to revenge. Laertes basically says that he will not be messed with and just wants to get to the point of the revenge, and uses a lot of religious language to deal with the problem. He also mentions how he doesn’t care what happens to him after he sets revenge, he doesn’t care what’s right and what’s wrong and doesn’t want to hear anything but his own views on the story and especially not Hamlet’s. However hamlet uses a lot of aggression in his speech, he is more natural at plotting revenge and just wants to stay loyal to his father after swearing on an oath; however hamlet doesn’t want to endanger any of his friends in the mission to plot revenge which contrasts with Laertes revenge. Laertes doesn’t care what happens as long as he gets what he wants, whereas Hamlet is actually loyal to his friends as well as his father. Hamlet see’s all the pain that Claudius has caused and says that he’s killed his king so now Hamlet wants to sit and plot revenge to kill him. Laertes just wants to go out and set revenge whereas Hamlet takes things into consideration and plots it.…
In Hamlet, many think of Hamlet as being the main or only tragically flawed character within the play. However, in actuality, the play contains many other characters that possess varying severities of imperfection, some of which put the shortcomings of Hamlet, the title character of Hamlet, to shame. Despite the tragically flawed nature of Hamlet’s character, other characters in the play are clearly more flawed in comparison to Hamlet. As a result of this character’s imperfection, many of the characters within the play Hamlet are considered tragic; however, those in which this trait is predominant are Claudius, Laertes and Gertrude.…
Common practice in the sixteenth century was to place a leaf of foil under a gemstone to make it shine more brightly. From this practice arose the current use of the word, whereby a literary character’s qualities are enhanced by a ‘foil’- another character who seems to be the polar opposite. In Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part I, Prince Harry (nicknamed Hal) has a number of foils, and in contrast to all of them he certainly is a gem. While his foils share with him some similarities, they are also largely different, and this serves to accentuate Hal’s better qualities. The similarities and differences between Hal and both Falstaff, a lowlife friend, and Hotspur, a young enemy warrior, are worthy of examination. Throughout the play, it is Hal’s noble qualities which become increasingly evident due to the characteristics of Falstaff and Hotspur.…
Over the centuries many people have complained that William Shakespeare did an inadequate job of steering the readers of Hamlet to a specific interpretation of each character. Each reader is left to decide the true extent of Hamlet's evil and insane ways or to realize that he clearly is a victim of circumstances beyond his control, therefore declaring him innocent. Because of William Shakespeare's writing style, the reader receives little help in discovering who is truly innocent and who is as guilty as Claudius.…