Table of contentsBibliographyPrimary source:Secondary sources:Why has Hamlet captivated actors, critics, and audiences for centuries? What makes Hamlet himself so mysterious? Unlike most characters, who are defined by what can be seen on stage, Hamlet seems to be "built around an invisible or secret core." Shakespeare largely characterizes Hamlet, but there always seems to be something missing: passages contradict each other, scene narratives change, and sometimes it seems that even Hamlet himself cannot explain himself. In this article, I argue that traditional character analysis cannot define Hamlet; what best identifies it is rather the absence of a clearly defined identity. Hamlet's changing mood, state of mind, and behavior are not simply means of confusing his enemies, but rather a manifestation of his never-ending search for his true self. Hamlet fascinates us because it is in him that we see ourselves and our searches. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayIn general, Hamlet is observed – and therefore characterized – by almost everyone who speaks. Everyone in the court is watching him and trying to figure out who he is. However, these accounts present very different images of him. Sometimes the differences between two perceptions of the same man couldn't be greater. If we considered all these versions of the same character, it would be difficult to believe that they all constitute one man. In this sense, Brian O. States' notion of character can help us understand Hamlet. States (among others) believes that a character is composed of several small units, or "traits", which form the character of a figure. In this theory, a character does not change or acquire traits. What happens when a character reacts in a way that is not typical of their character is that an extreme situation generates an extreme response. However, depending on the state, all of these extreme responses are already “pre-implanted” in character traits. The tension in Hamlet is created by this divergence between the "dispositional attributes" of Hamlet's character and the variations of the "reactive traits," which include cruelty, irony, and isolation (39). Trait theory would be particularly suited to an analysis of Hamlet's character before the play (a reconstruction of sorts of his former self), since he claims that his traits must have remained the same beneath the surface of his outward actions. Indeed, Shakespeare allows us to see some “refracted glimpses of a more normal man,” as Granville Barker puts it. However, I think that trait theory is not sufficient to explain the changes that Hamlet undergoes after his encounter with the Ghost. The prince assumes madness and more than once deliberately oppresses his character to exchange it for another. In fact, over the course of the play, Hamlet seems to be constructed from personalities rather than traits of a single personality. For this reason, I like the character concept presented by Habib better. He claims that the moment of great shock (the encounter with the Ghost) destroys the outer shell of Hamlet's personality (a definitively shaped expression of his character) and brings out what is inside, a me indefinite and unformed. Because Hamlet does not have his final shell, he can now be remodeled and reidentified (117-120). I don't agree with everything in Habib's theory. It seems more plausible to me to say that all human beings are constantly being remodeled andreidentified. It is not necessary to suffer a shock to cause this remodeling. However, in Hamlet's case, the shock induces something else and this causes him to completely lose control of himself. Habib calls this “rotating characterization.” It refers to the main protagonist's painful questioning about his own nature and the universe around him. This questioning leads to chaotic actions and causes the figure to pass from one personality to another with “intense and disturbed rapidity” (111ff). This notion of a disturbed character accounts for the failure of so many different observers, including Hamlet himself, to discover the truth about the prince. The events in Hamlet's life disturb him and cause him to question his own existence. After having been melancholy for a long time, which gradually distanced him from reality and the people who make it up, he is particularly sensitive to this rotating movement. He goes through a variety of personalities and roles: he is cruel, sarcastic, idiotic, funny, evasive, melancholy and radical. He is a philosopher, a theater enthusiast, an avenger for his father's murder and an actor who feigns madness. He likes to change his personality because it helps him escape the unpleasant events in his life while remaining among them. The line between adopting a new personality and allowing oneself to be dominated by another is a thin one, and undoubtedly Hamlet himself cannot account for all of his actions or dispositions. He knows the changes he is undergoing, but he cannot always control them. As he explains to a bewildered Ophelia: “I myself am honest and indifferent; but yet I could accuse myself of such things that it would be better if my mother had not given birth to me. I am very proud, vengeful, ambitious, with more offenses at my service than I have thoughts to put into them, imagination to give them form, or time to act on them. What should guys like me crawling between earth and sky do? We are all real rascals; don't believe any of us. (III, i, 123-129) Of course, even in this speech it is not clear what he really means and what he adds for dramaturgical reasons. However, he clearly states that he knows his unstable character and the rotation from one character to another. In the rotation between roles and personalities, one role emerges as the basis for all others. It is the role of the player who assumes one personality after another. Hamlet expresses his admiration for the actors and the stage on several occasions - notably in scene II, ii, 527-582, where he feels inferior to the actor who plays a character on stage and seems to experience more emotions than him . For Hamlet, the answers to his constant self-questioning lie in acting. Since he can't make up his mind, he at least decides to act as if he had already done it. This reflection on the actor's true emotions constitutes a real turning point, because in front of the players, Hamlet was only thinking about what he should or should not do. Then, before and during the play within the play, Hamlet is still partly playing the role of the philosopher, but he also has the actual plan of finding out whether the king is guilty or not. Additionally, the prince seems to come alive and explore more of his silly and sardonic sides. Finally, after the play within the play, the audience is presented with a modified and still rapidly evolving Hamlet. He becomes more active and energetic.Harley Granville Barker describes Hamlet's abstraction from himself in an interesting image. He says that Hamlet's mind is made of mirrors and that Hamlet must constantly observe himself. Such constant observation causes him to feel constantly embarrassed. If a person has their every move monitored, their., 1992.