Was Hamlet wrong in his quest for revenge?

I guess these same authors and critics didn't really read "Hamlet". It's Hamlet's duty to seek revenge. Hamlet says to the Ghost, "Speak; I am bound to hear." He means that it is his duty to listen to the spirit of his father. The Ghost replies that it is also his duty to take revenge: "So art thou to revenge, when thou shalt hear"

A moment later, the Ghost repeats the message, but more strongly. He says that if Hamlet ever loved his father, he will "Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder". Hamlet promises to prove his love and do his duty. He tells the Ghost to tell the story of the murder, and the revenge will follow: "Haste me to know't, that I, with wings as swift / As meditation or the thoughts of love, / May sweep to my revenge"

But, back to your question. A simple act would have been Hamlet shanking Cladius when he had the chance. That was his fatal error. Hamlet comes up behind Claudius as he prays, and questions his resolve.

If Hamlet had done away with Claudius right then and there, none of the proceeding deaths would have occurred. It could also be interpreted that, in letting the perfect opportunity for justice go by, Hamlet's fate becomes a punishment of his avoidance of the act. Destiny forces his hand, and things don't go as well when it's not on his own terms.

But then, Hamlet wouldn't be Hamlet anymore, would he? He would just be another rash fool in a corrupt society. Hamlet's moral dilemmas which causes him to procrasinate profusely (which, I must admit, is quite irksome at times) is what makes him an admirable person and not just another bumbling Polonious or malicious Claudius.

It seems that there is no possible way for Hamlet to save himself. If Hamlet did not avenge his father's death, he would be rebelling against the whole Elizabethan code of honour, and he would be placing his country, Denmark, in the hands of a scheming maniac. Not to mention that he would be living out the rest of his days (possible very short) in agonised torment as he will have to withstand the gruesome images of his uncle and mother's incestuous, bloody marriage.

But then, how can Hamlet avenge his father's death quickly and still retain his integrity? My conclusion is that he cannot, but Hamlet's obvious reluctance to revenge shows that he at least attempts to balance revenge with morality, unlike Laertes who quickly leaps rashly to avenge Polonious' death. Unfortunantly, they both die anyway.

The ultimate conclusion of Hamlet: you are doomed if you do and you are doomed if you don't. There is absolutely no way Hamlet can escape his fate and still remain the pensive, moralistic and tormented character we know him as. It's the lesson driven home: you can't escape fate, and in trying, you can only wriggle horizontally, not get out from under it. Weird stuff.

Revenge In Hamlet

They say Hamlet was wrong because the author tries to convey it that way in the writing. By the end of the book everyone is dead, as well as Hamlet. All the harm and destruction happened because of his actions (except maybe Ophelia, cause she drowned).

Usually people argue that it was written to convey what hate does to your mind and soul. If you sit there and loathe somebody, nobody really notices it except you - meaning it doesn't bother anyone but you. The other person is off being happy with no idea you even hate them. It festers in you and gnaws at your mind until you can't take it, like Hamlet, and snap.

Usually it's thought that he should have confronted his mother about or taken a more peaceful route in exposing the king, not just straight up trying to kill the guy.

However, the great thing about literature is that you can think of it and interpret it however you want.

No, "Hamlet" is not just a love story. Hamlet's (complicated) relationship with Ophelia certainly drives many parts of the action, but is not the main focus of the play. To continue with your sight metaphor, while Hamlet might not be seeing straight, his relationship with Ophelia is strictly part of his peripheral vision. Avenging his father's murder is Hamlet's main focus, and everything else that happens is incidental to that. Hamlet is not responsible for Ophelia's suicide in the sense of encouraging her to do it, but responsible in the sense that he contributed (along with Laertes and Polonius) to putting her in an untenable and hopeless position from which she finally, in her madness, saw suicide as the most expedient means of escape. Which circumstances of her drowning do you mean? Her insanity? Insanity is used as a criminal defense, but I'm not so sure that the Catholic or Protestant religions make a moral distinction like that where suicide is concerned. I certainly don't think they would have made such a distinction in Shakespeare's day. Post script: So the person for whom "Hamlet" is really all about Ophelia is you... : ) Seriously, I think it's great that you're watching the film - it's a magnificent spectacle (shot on 70mm, which very few films are) and the full text provides much illumination missing from abbreviated versions (Polonius winds up appearing more manipulative and devious, for one thing).

Forgiveness, I guess.