Everyone contains a tinge of Hamlet in his feelings, wants, and worries, and proudly so, for Hamlet is not like the other tragic heroes of his period. Shakespere was a hero but it was hidden because he had an unsure cause and delayed with his actions, this is why he stands apart from other Shakespeare's heroes in his widely talked about confusion. Is this supposed to be a tragic hero, maybe an ideal hero -one without the tragic flaw, which has been apart of the formula for the tragedy since Ancient Greece? This is a question that has been the field for many literary critics' battles. The most often, the only flaw that has been attributed to Hamlet is his delay. .
This seems to constitute the central part in Hamlet. Critics seem to cling to this detail, as if trying to save the status of Hamlet as a typical tragedy of revenge. From the definition of tragedy, there should be a flaw in the character of the main hero, who is a great personality that is engaged in a struggle that ends badly. If Hamlet had no flaw, what kind of tragic hero is he? No doubt, Hamlet is a tragic drama, because many characters lose their lives. It is just the play wouldn't lose its tragic tone if Hamlet was an ideal hero instead of tragic one, which is exactly the case. If all critics realized this, maybe today we wouldn't have that much trouble trying to understand Hamlet's character, just like many people never raised any questions concerning Hamlet's delay. It is not obvious to most but for a few it is which causes this confusion concerning the character that was created by Shakespeare for a common observer. .
Hamlet is like a soldier that is thrown into a war who doesn't want to be there yet he still manages to do his duty. In this so called war his dead father leaves a destroyed country, with a painful truth, which leaves so much hatred and resentment in his heart. Being a loyal prince and son, and one whom entire kingdom respected, he should seek revenge and bring justice back to his family.