Having read Shakespeare's "Hamlet", I cannot agree with T. Eliot's comment that " the play is most certainly an artistic failure." (Eliot p.2026) In Hamlet, we find a powerful tragic character that is at the same time filled with guilt that comes from the prospect of murder and with the burning passion to avenge his father's death. We find the extent of Hamlet's passion in his soliloquy in the third act where he considers the murder of his uncle while he is praying.
Had Hamlet killed his uncle, as he suggests: "Now might I do it pat-, the play would have ended.(Shakespeare p.1466) The play wouldn't have been much of a tragedy. Without the delay, the play would have been the simple realization of the Ghost's command. Yet, Hamlet's delay in killing his uncle isn't evidence that he was suffering "from an acute depressive illness with some obsessional features." (Shaw, Pickering p.1) But rather, the delay demonstrates Hamlet's desire to perfect his revenge and ensure his uncle's loss in a situation "that has no relish of salvation in't." (Shakespeare p. 1467).
The tragedy of the whole affair, while not only in the cost of Hamlet's delay, is found in the deepest recess of his being. Given to melancholy, he has plenty of time to reflect on the issue. Now we can understand that Hamlet's procrastination and his "reflectiveness certainly might prove dangerous to him, and his genius might even become his doom." (Bradley p. 27) As we know, that is true. As Hamlet states "that would be scann"d", he realizes that in order to truly avenge his father's death, he needs to be certain that his uncle's death wouldn't result in him going to Heaven. (Shakespeare p1467) Indeed, "this is hire and salary, not revenge." (Shakespeare p1467) Yet, in seeking that perfect revenge, he brings death not just to one but to seven individuals that need not die. These are Gertrude, Ophelia, Laertes, Polonius, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and Hamlet, himself.
