In William Shakespeare's play, Hamlet, the title character's fight for revenge ultimately results in his downfall, and even though he succeeded in avenging his father's death, does not survive himself. This is very much like 'In The End' by the band Linkin Park, which has the recurring line, "in the end, nothing really matters," because revenge means nothing if one doesn't survive to at least see how the results turn out. It can be said that while Hamlet's fate is predictable and perhaps even fitting, it was not entirely expected, particularly when you consider his suicidal ruminations and that famous soliloquy beginning with "To be or not to be?" However, like 'In The End,' nothing really matters, because Hamlet's ultimate downfall is at the hand of Laertes, a man whose situation mirrors his own. It almost is like Hamlet committed suicide, because he and Laertes were in such remarkably similar frames of mind. Both had fathers that were murdered, and both were seeking revenge against their father's murderer. Both were young men, born into good names and were brought up well. And both die, on the same day, largely because of each other. It's reminiscent of the line from 'In The End' that reads "I had to fall to lose it all, but in the end it doesn't even matter." Both fell from grace, and both succeeded in their efforts, while still managing to lose their own lives.
Now, Fortinbras' rise to power in the kingdom of Denmark, immediately following the close of the curtain in this play, is purely speculation. However, it can be assumed what action must follow. Fortinbras now has control over the kingdom, as Hamlet's dying wish was to let Fortinbras be king. Why? Why let Fortinbras, a man who, again, mirrors Hamlet so brilliantly, take a throne he was on his way to usurp? Perhaps it is because Hamlet realized for himself that his struggle had been for nought but the death of his uncle, his father's murderer.
