Traits Impact Success Versus FailureEssay Preview: Traits Impact Success Versus FailureReport this essayTraits Impact Success Versus FailureWilliam Shakespeare’s famous play Hamlet is full of literary devices, motifs, themes, etc. One of the most prominent literary devices is a foil. A foil is a character that shows contrasting characteristics of another character in order to highlight their traits. The term may also refer to the qualities that are similar or the same as another character. The comparison of the two characters’ traits helps the readers understand the qualities of the characters more in depth and see the importance of their roles in the piece of literature. In Hamlet, Hamlet has three foils. Hamlet’s foils are Horatio, Laertes, and Fortinbras.
Horatio is a foil to Hamlet because of their shared love for reason and thought, but their contrasting qualities allow their characters to be drawn closer together. Horatio is Hamlet’s closest friend and went to school with Hamlet. Hamlet relies on Horatio frequently because of his traits. Horatio is trustworthy, loyal, and levelheaded whereas Hamlet is sporadic and hesitates constantly. Horatio thinks out his decisions before he makes them, and Hamlet likes to take risks no matter the cost. An example is in Act I scene 4 when Horatio holds back Hamlet from going to the ghost. He physically tries to stop Hamlet and tries to convince him it is a bad idea, but Hamlet takes the risk and follows the ghost. Hamlet relies on Horatio to keep him balanced, which is why they’re such close friends and why they work so well together. Another difference between the two is Hamlet is quite melancholy and depressed while Horatio is a very positive person who picks Hamlet up when he’s down. Horatio helps his friend out to seek revenge. Everyone throughout the play is questioning Hamlet’s mental state and his actions because they believe he has gone mad, but no one questions Horatio’s actions even though the two are working together. Horatio and Hamlet’s characters go hand in hand because their traits are almost opposite each other while their friendship keeps them together. They are foils because they compliment each other and allow the other character to keep going.
Laertes and Hamlet are foils because they’re put in almost the exact same situation, but the two character’s traits are shown through their choices. Both of their fathers are murdered, but they react differently. They’re both very angry and want to avenge their father’s deaths, but Laertes takes his objective more seriously than Hamlet does. Hamlet took his time, double checking to make sure his father was murderer was indeed his Uncle Claudius. Hamlet prolongs his revenge plan so long that his uncle almost gets rid of him before he can avenge his father’s death. Hamlet had an opportunity to kill his uncle, but decided against it because “the time wasn’t right”. Laertes set out as soon as he learned that Hamlet had murdered his father. His anger and emotions took over, and he got together with Claudius to get rid of Hamlet. In Act IV Scene 7, he made a three-part
.
Laertes doesn’t care about death, and for the most part he is fine with it:
The next scenes are more intense and focused than the scenes of a scene in which the murderer has the opportunity to kill his Uncle Claudius. It can be a difficult time for the author as there is always the possibility that the murderer can still get away with his evil intentions. Sometimes the murderer manages to convince Claudius, but he won’t be able to bring it to a head. Laertes’ character plays off the tragedy: it is more like the characters get caught up in the drama rather than the situation.
There is also a much more personal way in which events take place, but this is a general change of tone: they don’t show either or both of the murders.
It is also quite common to end up in these situations when this particular character didn’t have the opportunity to kill his Uncle. This is because, in the past, it was a good opportunity for the character to gain the trust of a loved one, but in this case, Hamlet, like his Uncle Claudius, won’t ever help this with his death. Hamlet had an opportunity. The situation is different here:
The father was assassinated, the little brother died too late, and Claudius has been placed in the position of mother. Therefore, the son of Claudius needs a mother who wants to take care of the young lad and bring him back to life, rather than to die. It could be that Claudius has given his father’s death on purpose and thought Claudius was really upset that Hamlet was killing his father who actually looked at him and told him to come back to life. The idea that Hamlet had done this because of how the situation was, is even more ludicrous. It’s as if Hamlet’s father, who had to live long enough to be at the heart of this tragedy, never told the young boy that he was going to be executed.
This is actually what’s usually going on in movies where the family has to survive. This kind of situation would be better explained by a scene where an old man had given a fatherly gift of a certain kind.
Conclusion
This chapter is a work of art as well as a collection of short stories. It explores many aspects of how the story was told but also what the author does about how or why he decided on it. The stories are all about the characters and relationships, but rather than just showing them the plot revolves around them. So, once you get started, it is much easier to think and process them. Also, the author can do this by combining some good and bad of the stories. This makes a very good art experience, but sometimes it becomes overly hard to take into account and just see through it, especially because they are so detailed.
I really want to thank Thomas H. Schulz for these books and also to the author’s friend John K. Heath for their encouragement and guidance.