A statistician would balk at the idea of ​​analyzing the women in Hamlet: as there are only two members of the fairer sex in the entire cast, the observations drawn do not are certainly not reliable. However, when approaching Hamlet, it is best to remember that numbers and statistics can never fully explain the motivations of people who are driven more by emotion than logic. In Hamlet, both women are remarkably weak characters. They show very limited character growth (if any) and seem to exist for the sole purpose of serving as a backdrop to the strength and masculinity of the rest of the cast. A closer reading, however, gives more value to these helpless women. In a way, they are still used as tools of comparison: it is through Hamlet's interactions with the women in his life that the audience understands that there is a disparity between what Hamlet perceives and what he a sound person sees (in addition to the layers of deception that the average person legitimately sees). Additionally, with his entire female cast positioned as damsels in distress (while Shakespeare clearly created stronger women in other plays), he makes a statement about the danger of weakness. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay This is a manipulative piece. When Hamlet's mother asks why he "seems" to cry so intensely, he explodes saying that he "seems" to be nothing, that unlike the others, he "[a]n what passes only shows the traps and the costumes of misfortune. » (I.ii.78-89). From the beginning, he declared himself the only authentic one in the entire court. He's basically claiming that everyone only fakes their grief when it's socially appropriate, but he legitimately feels it — and that, in his eyes, makes him a better man than those who lie about how they feel. It should be noted that this statement is quickly invalidated when Hamlet sees fit to feign madness. However, most readers wonder about Hamlet's treatment of his mother. She may be less intelligent than Hamlet (she lets many of his snide and scathing remarks slide), but she cares about him. She tries to ease his suffering by asking him what his source is, and instead he attacks her, almost deliberately misinterpreting her words so that he can make his point. This draws the reader's attention to the possibility that a grieving Hamlet might exaggerate people's misdeeds. This theory is solidified in the confrontation between Gertrude and Hamlet after "The Murder of Gonzago". For Hamlet, the play that so clearly revealed Claudius' guilt also incriminated Gertrude, even as she pleads her innocence: "What have I done that you dare to wag your tongue/In such a rude noise against me?" she asks (III.iv.47-48). If she had known about Claudius' plan against the late King Hamlet, she would surely have confessed: Gertrude is not a strong woman and her love for her son is overwhelming. Even if she does not always tell the truth, “she lies to protect” (Mabillard). This is certainly an example that does not merit a “white lie”; she would tell the truth if there was the truth to be told. Instead, she ignores the crimes she is accused of, while Hamlet, unable to see it, continues to cry madly, hurling the most hurtful words at her he can muster. This goes so far that the ghost of the elder Hamlet seems to remind the prince not to be so hard on Gertrude. Mabillard even suggests that, although “incestuous”, Gertrudeis not an adulterous woman; “Adulterate,” as used by the ghost to describe Gertrude, “means by definition to pass into a worse state by intermingling; contaminate with basic materials. And Claudius did, according to the Ghost, infect his precious Gertrude, but that does not mean that Claudius did it before the death of Hamlet's father. Despite Hamlet's wrathful accusations, Gertrude shows no signs of having known that Claudius had killed King Hamlet, making it highly unlikely that she would have shared Claudius's bed before King Hamlet's death. Thus, Hamlet sees his mother as a monstrous villain, where the audience only sees a weak and misguided woman. In Denmark, where nothing is what it seems, this revelation prompts the audience to realize that Hamlet himself is who he claims to be, thus fundamentally changing their perception of the text. The audience, however, can understand why Hamlet is inclined to overestimate guilt. to Gertrude. After all, she “betrayed” her father by marrying her late husband’s brother. Ophelia, however, is innocent. In their famous exchange “Take thyself to a convent” (III.i.131-162), Hamlet repeatedly orders Ophelia to go to a convent – ​​or, colloquially, to a brothel. The scene can be read in three ways: first, he may literally want Ophelia to enter a convent, to prevent her from being "a begetter of sinners" (III.i.131-132) and corrupting the humanity; second, he can entrust her to a house of bad reputation, to which he believes she belongs, because she was "prostituted" by her father; or three, perhaps he orders her to go to a convent to protect the virtue she has left. Even in the case of the third, kinder reading, the ambiguity of his statement makes it unnecessarily harsh. Ophelia has done nothing that deserves his anger, nor said anything that could offend him. Yet, like Gertrude, he attacks Ophelia without caring about her feelings. “The key to the convent [scene] is the difference between what the audience sees on stage and what Hamlet sees in his mind. He projects onto the innocent and—as the audience can see—unpainted Ophelia the disgust he feels at his mother's sexual sins” (Brooks). Here, Hamlet openly attacks a woman who has done nothing to him, thereby undermining his self-portrait as a noble and devoted man who attempts to do only what is right. The audience is once again uncomfortably aware that where Hamlet sees a monster (largely due to his portrayal of every woman as sinful as his mother), he sees only a beautiful young girl. This causes the audience to question Hamlet's reasoning and takes away some of the validity of his vendetta. How justified is his desire for revenge, if he cannot even tell a virtuous servant from a corrupt one? More than innocent, Ophélie is a model of feminine obedience. When Hamlet declares that he loved her, only to retract a line later, his only response is a calm: “I was the more deceived” (III.i.125-130). She makes no move to defend herself; she does not question him; she just nods slowly and accepts what he has to say. Whether he says he loved her or hated her, the audience sees only the same placid acceptance. Mabillard suggests that “she is incapable of defending herself.” Hamlet plays with her cruelly, sometimes trying to make her rise - he quickly dissolves into screams and delirium, and all the same, she manages to speak without saying anything. His words are carefully chosen with only the slightest substance behind them; if she doesn't say anything at all, she probably can't be accused of wrongdoing. Unfortunately, this logic is flawed. It's her weakness that ends up driving her crazy. She depended>