A statistician would be against the idea of ​​analyzing women in Hamlet: since there are only two members of the fairer sex in the entire cast, surely any observations made are unreliable. 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 emotions than logic. In Hamlet, both women are extraordinarily weak characters. They show very little character growth (if any) and seem to exist for the sole purpose of being a backdrop to the strength and masculinity of the rest of the cast. A closer reading, however, gives more value to these defenseless women. On the one hand, 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 a sane person sees (in addition to the layers of deception that the average person legitimately sees). Furthermore, with the entire female cast portrayed as damsels in distress (while Shakespeare has clearly created stronger women in other plays), it makes a statement about the danger of weakness. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay This is a manipulation game. When Hamlet's mother asks him why he "seems" to suffer so intensely, he explodes, saying that he "seems" to be nothing, that unlike the others, he "[has] inside what passes show / These but the ornaments and the clothes of pain". " (I.ii.78-89). From the beginning he has declared himself the only authentic person in the whole court. He basically claims that everyone else only fakes their pain when it is socially appropriate, but he legitimately feels it - and this, in his eyes, makes him a better man than those who lie about what they feel. It should be noted that this statement is quickly invalidated when Hamlet sees fit to feign madness. However, most readers pause on the manner whom Hamlet treats his mother. She may be less intelligent than Hamlet (she lets many of her sly and harsh remarks pass), but she cares for him She tries to ease his suffering by asking for the source of it, and instead he attacks her, almost willingly interpreting bad his words so he can make his point. This brings to the reader's attention the possibility that a grieving Hamlet may 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's guilt also incriminated Gertrude, although she maintains her innocence: "What have I done, that you dare wag your tail / With so unkind a noise at me?" he asks (III.iv.47-48). If she had known about Claudius' plan against the late King Hamlet, then she would surely have confessed: Gertrude is not a strong woman and her love for her son is overwhelming. Although she is not always sincere, she “lies to protect” (Mabillard). Surely this is an example that does not deserve a “white lie”; he would tell the truth if there was truth to be told. Instead, she remains unaware of the crimes she is accused of, while Hamlet, unable to see it, continues to cry like a madman, hurling the most offensive words he can find at her. reminds the prince not to be so harsh on Gertrude. Mabillard even argues that, although "incestuous", Gertrude is not an adulteress; “To adulterate,” as used by the ghost to describe Gertrude, “by definition, means to pass into a worse state by intermingling; contaminate with vile matter. And Claudio actually has,according to the Ghost, he defiled his precious Gertrude, but this does not mean that Claudius did it before Hamlet's father died. Despite Hamlet's angry accusations, Gertrude shows no signs of having known that Claudius had killed King Hamlet, making it highly unlikely that she shared Claudius' bed before King Hamlet's death. Therefore, Hamlet sees his mother as a monstrous villain, while the audience sees only a strong-willed, misguided woman. In Denmark, where nothing is as it seems, this revelation pushes the audience to realize that Hamlet himself is what he claims to be, thus radically altering the perception of the text. The audience, however, can understand why Hamlet is inclined to assign excessive guilt. to Gertrude. After all, she “betrayed” her father by marrying her late husband's brother. Ophelia, however, is innocent. In their famous exchange "Go to a nunnery" (III.i.131-162), Hamlet repeatedly orders Ophelia to go to a nunnery - or, colloquially, a brothel. The scene can be read in three ways: first, he may literally want Ophelia to enter the convent, to prevent her from being “a begetter of sinners” (III.i.131-132) and corrupting humanity; two, he might send her to a house of ill repute, where he feels she belongs, as she has been "prostituted" by her father; or three, he might send her to a convent to protect whatever virtues she has left. Even in the case of the third reading, the gentlest, the ambiguity of his statement makes it unnecessarily harsh. Ophelia did nothing to deserve his wrath, nor did she say anything to offend him. Yet, like Gertrude, he attacks Ophelia without regard for her feelings. “The key to the nunnery [scene] lies in the difference between what the audience sees on stage and what Hamlet sees in his mind's eye. He projects onto the innocent and, as the audience can see, unpainted Ophelia, the disgust he feels for his mother's sexual sins” (Brooks). Here, Hamlet openly attacks a woman who has done nothing to him, undermining his self-portrait as a noble, selfless man who seeks 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 sinful woman as his mother), they see only a beautiful maiden. This causes the audience to question Hamlet's reasoning and removes some of the validity of his revenge. How justified is his fury of revenge if he can't even distinguish a virtuous waitress from a corrupt one? More than innocent, Ophelia is a standard of female obedience. When Hamlet declares that he loves her, only to retract the statement a line later, his only response is a quiet, “I have been deceived more” (III.i.125-130). He makes no movement to defend himself; he doesn't question him; she just nods calmly and accepts what he has to say. Whether he said he loved her or hated her, the audience saw only the same placid acceptance. Mabillard suggests that “she is incapable of defending herself.” Hamlet plays with her cruelly, sometimes trying to get up from her: he quickly dissolves into screams and ravings, and yet she manages to speak without saying anything. His words are carefully chosen with only the slightest substance behind them; if she says nothing, she presumably cannot be accused of any wrongdoing. This logic, unfortunately, is wrong. It is her weakness that ultimately drives her mad. She has depended on the three men in her life, and now they are all gone: Hamlet, apparently mad, killed his father while his brother was at school. Unable to sustain his support, he collapses. “The madness gives her license to say things that in a healthy state she wouldn't be allowed to express,” Atwood says. His obscene songs reveal, perhaps, more>