Hamlet and a Brief History of the Antihero

It goes without saying that literature has changed immensely since the beginning of the written word. Every conceivable aspect of storytelling has morphed in a drastic way. While some have changed more than others, few have seen an evolution as fascinating as that of the hero, and one way to understand the journey of the hero (throughout literary history; I’m not talking about Joseph Campbell) is by viewing it as a descent. Essentially, the literary hero began as a virtually perfect being with Godlike strength,

intelligence, and wit. For example, Gilgamesh of Akkadian and Sumerian myth literally wrestled two-hundred-foot tall Gods into submission. After that, we saw epic heroes, who while not demigods still represented all that was strong and good in humanity, such as Odysseus or Achilles. Then characters began to take on human flaws, creating the tragic hero, take Sophocles’ Oedipus, for example. This trend continued over centuries, progressively stripping away “heroic” qualities until we arrived at the antihero, someone entirely unlike Gilgamesh or Hercules.

An antihero is defined as “a prominent character in a play or book that has characteristics opposite to that of a conventional hero” (“Anti-Hero”). In other words, while conventional heroes are usually marked by courage, idealism, and admirable moral ideology, antiheroes are often morally gray, lack courage or agency, and are decidedly cynical. For example, think of the difference between Superman, a conventional hero, and Batman, an antihero. Other examples of antiheroes include Tyrion Lannister, Walter White, and any character Clint Eastwood has ever played.

Prince Hamlet of William Shakespeare’s appropriately named Hamlet fits the role of antihero well. First of all, he is cynical and dark and brooding as evidenced by his constant struggle with his own mortality. By the second scene of the play, we already know that Hamlet is considering suicide when he says “Oh, that this too, too sallied flesh would melt,/Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew,” (I.ii.129-130).

Secondly, he lacks traditional heroic courage. While Hamlet shows an inability to act throughout the entire play, his lack of courage is best illustrated in Act 3 scene 3, when he fails to kill Claudius, the man who murdered his father. In the scene, Hamlet stages a play that parallels King Hamlet’s murder at the hands of Claudius. After seeing Claudius’ unease in response to the play, Hamlet is certain his uncle is guilty. He follows Claudius and finds him kneeling in prayer. The vengeful prince draws his sword, but cannot deliver the final blow. Instead, he turns away and says “Up, sword, and know thou a more horrid hent” (III.iii.88).

Lastly, Hamlet’s morality is flawed. He is not the righteous Odysseus; he is a man corrupted by hatred and paranoia. In his quest for revenge–something morally questionable to begin with–Hamlet murders Polonius and Laertes, two innocent men, and indirectly kills both Ophelia and his mother. Once again, Act 3 scene 3 is a crucial scene in Hamlet’s development. When Hamlet creeps behind his uncle to deliver the killing blow, lines 76-79 show that he has been corrupted by his mission. He says “A villain kills my father, and for that/I, his sole son, do this same villain send/to heaven/Why, this is base and silly, not revenge” (III.iii.76-79). What this means is that Hamlet has been so twisted by his quest for revenge that he cannot kill Claudius in this moment because the possibility remains that the king will go to heaven. Instead, Hamlet wants to be sure his uncle will be tormented forever in hell. He has been so corrupted that he abandons his morals and sinks to the level of his fratricidal uncle.

While the definition of antihero is as complicated and fluid as any concept in literature, it is clear to me that Hamlet is one. Traditional heroes are brave, righteous, and idealistic, and Hamlet is none of those. Few characters have been analyzed more than Hamlet, (besides maybe Katniss Everdeen if my two teenage sisters are any indication) and with good reason. He is the most perfect representation of the fickle human mind to ever appear in print, and a compelling antihero who will continue to captivate readers and audiences for years to come.

Images from www.dromgcg.top and www.internetshakespeare.uvic.ca