The Tragedy of Hamlet

According to Harold Bloom, all characters in fiction can be divided among two classes: Hamlet and Don Quixote.  One literature blogger describes Hamlet as the “egoist (focused on self), pessimist, thinker, slow to act (very), above the law,” and Don Quixote as the “altruist (focused on others), optimist, doer, quick to act.” Of course, not all characters in literature fit perfectly as a Hamlet or a Don Quixote; some possess elements of both, but the two can be thought of as opposite ends of a spectrum.

Most of the plotline in Hamlet is driven by self-centeredness.  Claudius, lusting for power, poisons King Hamlet and then attempts to secure his throne.  Hamlet desires revenge against Claudius.  Although Hamlet takes a long time—the duration of the play—to summon up the will to avenge his father’s death, his ambivalence stems from his own conscience and desire to not allow Claudius to go to heaven.

Hamlet’s behavior is incredibly self-centered throughout the play.  Now, this may not be a bad thing.  Perhaps his actions can be justified, but that is another question altogether.   In fact, there hardly seems to be any significant act of altruism in the entire play.  From the moment we are told in Act I that “something is rotten in the state of Denmark,” the monarchy of Elsinore devolves into a downward spiral, fueled by selfish desires. 

The Marxist literary critics, unsurprisingly, seize this as an opportunity to critique monarchy as a self-centered, insidious form of government.  Psychoanalytic critics characterize Hamlet as an id-dominant person, seeking to primarily satisfy his selfish, subconscious desires, even his Oedipal Complex.

Other literary critics have attempted to diagnose Hamlet with a psychological illness.  If Hamlet is, in fact, mentally ill, does that explain his egoistic behavior?  Or does that view simply stigmatize the mentally ill?

If there is a Quixotic character to be found in Hamlet, it has not yet occurred to me.  In essence, that is the tragedy.