Insanity Versus Reason in “Hamlet”

Excerpts from the Paper

Insanity Versus Reason in "Hamlet"
Outline
Introduction to the paper
The ghost
Hamlet is not the only one who sees a ghost
Horatio appears to be a solid person
Horatio and Marcellus seeing the ghost is corroborative proof that Hamlet is not imagining things
The play
The play is designed to show that Claudius did, indeed, kill Hamlet’s father
The play mimics the apparent manner in which Hamlet’s father was killed
Hamlet receives corroborative support from Horatio – a stalwart fellow who saw the same reaction (proof that Hamlet is not simply imagining the reaction he witnessed)
Hamlet does not kill for no reason
He only kills Rosencrantz and Guildenstern after they betray him
He only kills the king after the king poisons him
Throughout the...

.....make the man who did the dastardly deed pay before he, himself, expires – or Hamlet will simply continue to ruminate on about what he should do. There was, in the end, a ghost that everyone saw; there was also proof – as evidenced by the play – that Claudius is wracked by a guilty conscience. That Horatio also bore witness to these things proves to us that Hamlet is not simply imagining things; real evil has occurred and his father’s ghost walks the earth to remind his son that he must take vengeance upon the man who shortened his life. The key thing to bear in mind is that Hamlet is a man of reason placed in a situation that calls for irrationality – the killing of a human being. In the end, he responds as he perhaps feels he must respond.