"Understanding kills action." With these three simple words Nietzsche explains the idea behind Shakespeare's development of the agency of thought as inaction, and also why Hamlet hesitates for over 3000 lines of blank verse and prose to avenge his father's murder. The motif of delay and inaction as thought can be seen in several instances throughout the play, the main one being that of Hamlet, although secondary representations are given by Laertes, Pyrrhus and Lucian (in The Mousetrap) . These scenes serve as support and emphasis for the central part of the work. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Hamlet expresses his thoughts primarily through his soliloquies, Shakespeare's vehicle for presenting inaction and delay; in essence, to put Hamlet's thoughts into action. The theory is that if the character is portrayed "thinking out loud at the beginning [in the show] and then again and again and again... [the audience] will realize that thinking with him is an ongoing process" (De Grazia 1). Nietzsche offers an explanation for Hamlet's tendency towards internal contemplation: "What we can find words for is something already dead in our hearts; there is always a kind of contempt in the act of speaking." This statement provides a reason for both Hamlet's constant inaction (in thought) and his sharp wit. Hepeppers his speech with contempt, because what he says is dead to him, but full of meaning, giving rise to many interesting conversations, especially with the adults, Claudius, Gertrude and Polonius. The nineteenth-century critic Coleridge identifies Hamlet as "representative of modern tragedy because unlike the Greek tragedies, Hamlet is moved not by an external agent or principle, but by his own internal drive, by his prophetic soul" (De Grazia 5 ).This "internalization of the self" represents one of Shakespeare's major contributions and provides the basis for understanding the fundamental idea of ​​the play (Bloom 408-9). as indeed Hamlet's inaction. This is demonstrated by the opinion that if only one discovered the reason for Hamlet's delay, one would have "the answer to Hamlet's character which is also the key to the whole play (because the play is his character)" (De Grazia 4). The most accepted explanation for Hamlet's hesitation is that Hamlet is too great a character for the revenge tragedy that is Hamlet. Indeed, without the prince (as Shakespeare presents him ), becomes "Hamlet's Revenge," not The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (Bloom 415). Without Hamlet's hesitation, his constant, deliberate thinking, and "antiquated disposition" (De Grazia 11), the plot would go directly from Hamlet's briefing by the Ghost to the murder of Claudius, no questions asked. Hamlet's questioning of the validity of the ghost, and consequently his questioning of everything else, writes the play (Bloom 187). Critic Harry Levin describes Hamlet as "a play obsessed with the word 'question,'" and Bloom makes clear that "Hamlet's question must always be Hamlet himself" (Bloom 386-7), because everything in the play depends on the Hamlet's ideas. answer to everything in the play, starting with the ghost of his father. Nietzsche, in his explanation of Hamlet's hesitation, distinguishes between Hamlet's inaction due to knowledge and inaction due to reflection. Because of the Ghost's revelation, Hamlet gains knowledge that, in effect, destroys the desire and ability to act on that knowledge. From his work The Birth of Tragedy (1873): "Knowledgekills the action; action requires the veils of illusion: this is Hamlet's doctrine, not that cheap wisdom [which]...reflects too much and, as it were, from an excess of possibility does not pass into action. Not reflection, no: true knowledge, the vision of the horrible truth, surpasses any motive...". This idea of ​​knowledge and reflection and their effect on action provides insight into Hamlet's dilemma: without "the veils of illusion", or the absence of knowledge, cannot carry out his revenge. Hamlet's knowledge of blindness and injustice Action surpasses all motives of action. The ugliness of truth in the Danish monarchy disgusts him so so much so that he cannot act. "Denmark is a prison" (Hamlet II, ii, 262) - or so Hamlet claims. But of all Shakespeare's characters, Hamlet begins as the freest (Bloom 417-8). Hamlet's interiority and constant questioning deny himself that freedom. And this self-denial itself forms an ambiguity in Hamlet's reasoning, because, as stated by Harold Bloom, "Hamlet implicitly defines personality as. a mode of freedom" (Bloom 427), but more as something originating in freedom, rather than as a product of freedom. Thus Hamlet, perhaps the best-known personality in Western culture, denies himself a means of creating that personality .This paradox also serves to create delay. Hamlet deprives himself of choices, and thus denies himself the ability to act. As a result of Hamlet's intellect and Hamlet's dependence on Hamlet, much of Hamlet is in Hamlet's spirit. . In a simple and grotesque revenge tragedy, Hamlet's internal monologue and jokes drive much of the plot between the introduction and the conclusion. Hamlet knows that Denmark's corruption is in him too, creating a connection between his ". disposition to think" and his "disposition to act" (De Grazia 2). Hamlet is aware that this burden weighs on him, which influences his own actions as well as his reactions to events (those few outside his control ). So his hesitation in his actions can be attributed to this overwhelming burden. As TS Eliot stated, "we find Shakespeare's Hamlet not in action... so much as in unmistakable tone." The essence of Hamlet lies not in the minimal action of the revenge play, but in Hamlet's theories, witticisms, and, above all, internal deliberation (Eliot 3). Understanding the core of the play is not based solely on Hamlet, although he carries most of it. of it. Hamlet's hesitation and inaction drag Hamlet down, but the very characteristics of the minor characters serve to emphasize the essence of the play. The most deliberate of these assistant scenes is Pyrrhus' hesitation in the murder of Priam, in the Actor's recitation of Priam's massacre. There are thirteen whole lines that fall between the raising of his sword and the striking of the sign: "...For behold, his sword, which fell upon the milky head of the reverend Priam, seemed to stick in the air. So as a tyrant painted Pyrrhus stood and, as one neutral to his will and his matter, did nothing But as we often see against some storm, a silence in the skies, the wheel stands still, the winds bold without words, and the sphere below , silent as death, immediately the terrible thunder pierces the region; so, after Pyrrhus' pause, the vengeance aroused puts him back to work, and never did the hammers of the Cyclopes fall on the armor of Mars, forged for eternal test, with less remorse than Pyrrhus' bloody swordNow falls on Priam" (II, ii, 502-17). The gods inflict the "Pause of Priam", whose wills are against Priam's death. But it reflects Hamlet's hesitations in allowing a pause for reflection, a moment of inaction. Furthermore,, 1992.