IndexBibliographyPrimary source:Secondary sources:Why has Hamlet fascinated 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 appears to be “built around an invisible or secret core.” Shakespeare characterizes Hamlet extensively, but it still feels like something is missing: passages contradict each other, accounts of scenes change, and, at times, it seems like not even Hamlet himself can explain himself. In this article I argue that a traditional analysis of character cannot define Hamlet; rather, what identifies it best is the lack of a clear identity. Hamlet's change of mood, state of mind, and behavior are not simply devices to confuse his enemies, but rather the manifestation of his endless search for his true self. Hamlet fascinates us because in him we see ourselves and our research. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In general, Hamlet is observed - and therefore characterized - by almost everyone who speaks. Every person in the court looks at him and tries to figure out who he is. However, these accounts present very different pictures of him. Sometimes, the differences between two perceptions of the same man couldn't be greater. If we were to consider all these versions of one character, it would be hard to believe that they are all one man. In this sense, Brian O. States' notion of character can help understand Hamlet. States (among others) believes that a character is made up of several small units, or “traits,” that make up the character of a figure. In this theory, a character neither changes nor gains traits. What happens when a figure reacts in a way that is atypical for his character is that an extreme situation generates an extreme response. However, according to States, all these extreme responses are already “pre-rooted” in character traits. Tension in Hamlet is created through this discrepancy between the “dispositional attributes” of Hamlet's character and the variations of “reactive traits,” which include cruelty, irony, and self-isolation (39). The trait theory would be particularly suitable for a pre-play character analysis of Hamlet (a kind of reconstruction of his previous self), since it states that his traits must have remained the same beneath the surface of his external actions. Indeed, Shakespeare allows us to see some “refracted glimpses of a more ordinary man,” as Granville Barker calls him. However, I think the trait theory is not enough to explain the changes Hamlet undergoes after meeting the Ghost. The prince assumes that he is crazy and more than once deliberately oppresses his character in order to exchange him for another. In fact, throughout the play, Hamlet seems to be constructed based on personalities rather than personality traits. For this reason I like the character concept presented by Habib more. He claims that the moment of great shock (the encounter with the Ghost) destroys the outer shell of Hamlet's personality (a decidedly patterned expression of his character) and brings out what is within, an undefined and formless self. Since Hamlet lacks his defined shell, he is now open to being reshaped and re-identified (117-120). I don't agree with everything in Habib's theory. It seems more plausible to me to say that all people are constantly being reshaped and reidentified. A shock is not necessary to induce this remodeling. However, in Hamlet's case, the shock induces something else and this causes him to losecompletely in control of himself. Habib calls it “the revolving characterization.” It refers to the main protagonist's painful question about his own nature and the universe around him. These questions lead to chaotic actions and cause the figure to change from one personality to another with an “intense and disturbed rapidity” (111ff). This idea of ​​a disturbed character explains the fact that so many different observers, including Hamlet himself, fail to discover the truth about the prince. Events in Hamlet's life disturb him and lead him to question his own existence. After having been melancholic for a long time, which has gradually distanced him from reality and the people who live there, he is particularly sensitive to this rotational movement. He goes through a variety of personalities and roles: he is cruel, sarcastic, silly, funny, escapist, melancholic and drastic. He is a philosopher, an enthusiastic theater lover, the avenger of his father's murder and the actor who feigns madness. He likes to change his personality, as it helps him escape unpleasant events in his life by staying in the center of them. The line between taking on a new personality and being overwhelmed by one is thin, and no doubt Hamlet himself cannot explain all of his actions or dispositions. He knows the changes he is going through, but he is not always able to control them. As he explains to a bewildered Ophelia: 'I myself am indifferently honest; yet I might have accused myself of such things that it would have been better if my mother had not borne me. I am very proud, vindictive, ambitious, with more offenses at my disposal than I have thoughts to carry them out, imagination to shape them, or time to put them into practice. What should people like me who crawl between earth and sky do? We are all scoundrels; believe none of us." (III, i, 123-129) Of course, even in this speech it is not clear how much of this he actually means and how much he adds for dramaturgical reasons. However, he clearly states that he knows his unstable character and the passage from one character to another. In the alternation between roles and personalities, one role emerges as the basis of all the others. It is the role of the player who takes on one personality after another. Hamlet expresses his admiration for the actors and the stage on several occasions, particularly in scene II, ii, 527-582, where he feels inferior to the actor who played a figure on stage and seemed to have more emotions than himself. For Hamlet, the answers to his constant questions are found in acting. Since he cannot make a decision, he at least decides to behave as if he had already done so. These reflections on the actor's true emotions are a real turning point, since in front of the actors Hamlet only reflected on what he should or did. it shouldn't have done. So, before and during the play within the play, Hamlet is still partly in the role of the philosopher, but he also has the actual plan to find out whether the king is guilty or not. Additionally, the prince seems to come to life and explore more of his silly and sardonic sides. Ultimately, after the play within the play, the audience is presented with a changed and still rapidly changing Hamlet. Become 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 up of mirrors and Hamlet must constantly observe himself. Such constant observation leads him to constantly feel uncomfortable. If a person has their every move monitored, behavior inevitably changes. The person assumes certain attitudes and thus distorts the truth about himself. Reflecting on his own self-image with every move he makes, Hamlet moves further and further away from the find, 1992.