Vengeance In Shakespeare And Literature English Literature Essay

Numerous dramas and works of literature by William Shakespeare are known for their intensely dramatic scenes. And because of violence enhancing the deaths of literature works, it is in favor for writers of literature to put much violence and death in their works and literature, after annotating Shakespeare’s use of revenge, and how it brings out the life of his plays. Shakespeare’s works use vengeance because it leads to the root of violence as well as draw excitement to readers, and by also showing the consequences of revenge, his works leave a notable and significant message that vengeance is not necessarily the best way to solve problems, and yet his use of vengeance in his works encourage the use of vengeance in literature.

What is vengeance exactly? Vengeance is basically an infliction of injury, harm, or humiliation on a person who has been harmed by that person. Revenge and vengeance can be best described by the term “an eye for an eye”, a quotation from several passages of the Hebrew Bible (Leviticus 24:19-21, Exodus 21:22-25, and Deuteronomy19:21) in which a person who has injured the eye of another is obligated to give the value of his or her own eye in compensation. This mythological perspective is the main basis for many works of literature; most notable is that of Shakespeare’s Hamlet (DiYanni).

The idea of vengeance for family honor causes great chaos and madness throughout the play Hamlet, and causes many more people who were beloved to get caught up in this circle of chaos, madness, and vengeance. Revenge causes the characters in Hamlet to act blindly and inattentively through anger and emotion, rather than through reasoning, intuition, and reliable thinking between actions and consequences. Based on the principle of “an eye for an eye”, this action is not always the best means to an end, nor is it righteous. The three characters Fortinbras, Laertes, and Hamlet urged to avenge the deaths of their beloved fathers, whom were all murdered. All three characters acted on the emotion of rage driven by the thirst for revenge for their father’s deaths, and this led to the tragic death of both Laertes and Hamlet, and the rise of power for the Norwegian crowned prince Fortinbras who was heading for Denmark. This further leads to the perception that one’s desire for vengeance can lead to their downfall.

“Lost by his father, with all bonds of law, to our most valiant brother”, provides information of Fortinbras, King of Norway’s, death which leads to the basis and understanding of how Fortinbras’s thirst for vengeance arose (Hamlet I.ii.24-25). Fortinbras then aspires to recover the lands and power lost by his father as a way of honoring and avenging him (pinkmonkey).

Polonius was an advisor to King Claudius and was a devoted member to Claudius’s ruling. Not only being a simple advisor, Polonius was the father to Laertes and Ophelia. “How now! A rat? Dead, for a ducat, dead,” gives detail of Prince Hamlet killing Polonius while he was secretly listening in on a conversation between Hamlet and his mother (Hamlet III.iv.25). Once Laertes figures out his father’s murder, he does not hesitate and proceeds for vengeance quite hastily. King Claudius asked Laertes, “to show yourself you’re your father’s son in deed more than words” (Hamlet IV.vii.137-138). Laertes then replies back stating, “to cut his throat i’th’ “, thus proving Laertes’s inner desire for retribution of the death of his father.

As for Hamlet; after hearing of his father’s death, Hamlet’s initial reaction was not vengeful nor did a desire for retribution occur. Hamlet first fell into a state of melancholy and depression. Not until King Hamlet’s ghost reveals the truth to Hamlet that his whole melancholy and depressed attitude changes. King Hamlet’s Ghost says to Hamlet,” Murder most foul, as in the best it is, but this most foul, strange and unnatural” (Hamlet I.v.31-32). Hamlet then replies to his father’s ghost stating, “Haste me to know’t that I with wings as swift as meditation or the thoughts of love may sweep me to my revenge”, thus interpreting that a whole new drive for vengeance has arose. Hamlet is almost totally sure that his uncle King Claudius had killed his father in order to take the power of the throne of Denmark (Hamlet I.v.33-35). But unlike Fortinbras, Hamlet does not act quickly or hastily because he is paralyzed by his own indecision and fear (pinkmonkey). The inability for Hamlet to take immediate action becomes his main obstacle throughout the play. Eventually Hamlet does get his revenge, but the irony in the play is that Hamlet, by fulfilling his revenge, has destroyed the family whose honor he sought to avenge, which is a major turn around in the whole work, and gives readers an inner depth of feeling to this work (“pinkmonkey”). Fortinbras, Hamlet, and Laertes are burdened with the responsibility of avenging the murders of their respective fathers. The most interesting fact about Shakespeare’s work in context, that most readers would overlook, is the fact that while both Hamlet and Laertes find themselves in similar situations, they do not respond to their situations in a corresponding way for revenge (Sexton). Their display for vengeance is quite significantly different. Hamlet spends much of the play plotting on ways to take vengeance against his father’s murderer and is held back by his fear, while Laertes, on the other hand, reacts to the news of his father’s murder very quickly and rapidly (Sexton). These differences are based on both Laertes and Hamlet’s personality, values, initiative, and anger, which are the building blocks and glue to all acts of vengeance. Laertes’ can be described as an inflexible person and has a different sense of honor. Laertes acts out of great aggressiveness and pure anger, while Hamlet’s code of honor, on the other hand, can be portrayed as extremely different, because throughout Shakespeare’s work. Hamlet attentively plots and questions himself on which course of action is the utmost proper and effective way for his act of vengeance to take forth. This continues to support the theory that different men tend to different acts when it comes to vengeance. Unfortunately, this decision leads to the death of them both. Rather than approach vengeance as a task to be carried out in the most acceptable fashion, Hamlet and Laertes brainwash in their heads that murder is the only means of revenge, which is portrayed as a sociological aspect in literature: that a means of vengeance, particularly to men, has to involve death (pinkmonkey). Whatever happened to placing itching powder in one’s underwear? Or just plain out of forgiving them, as one is supposed to in The Bible? Society now refers to vengeance as mere violence and bloodshed. Overall the play’s conclusion makes it clear that the great distinction between Hamlet and Laertes is quite significant to Shakespeare because it develops a conflict in his work, and leads to deeper questioning whether vengeance is truly the best means to an end.

Another Shakespearian work that displays a theme of vengeance in literature is Macbeth. In Macbeth the characters Malcolm and Macduff portray a desire for retribution for the deaths of their loved ones, whom Macbeth has murdered in his thirst for tyranny. “He has no children. All my pretty ones? Did you say all? O hell-kite! All? What, all my pretty chickens and their dam at one fell swoop,” explores Macduff’s grief for the loss of his wife and son (Macbeth IV. iii. 216-219). “Tyrant, show the face! If thou beest slain and with no stroke of mine, my wife and children’s ghost will haunt me still”, explains that Macduff considers that he has the right to carry out vengeance (Macbeth V.vii.15-17). He may just have the right towards “an eye for an eye”, but just because one has a right to an action, doesn’t necessarily mean that taking that action is the utmost right thing to do. For every action there is a consequence.

In Hamlet the consequences of vengeance are exceedingly displayed. Although it never directly states that vengeance is the best means to an end, one can easily interpret that vengeance is not the correct motive. Hamlet proves that vengeance leads to more death that could have easily been avoided. To further display the negative aspects are sacred books such as the Holy Bible.

The Holy Bible gives great detail of avoiding vengeance, and is the major source of answer to the question of whether vengeance is the best means to an end through a mythological perspective. God speaks out in the Bible stating: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them”, thus stating that God only has the right to avenge anyone, while we as his people do not the right to seek any vengeance (Deuteronomy 32:35; Romans 12:19; Hebrews 10:30). God says that he will take care of everything. God never accepts vengeance from impure motives, such as taking part in vengeance for emotional distress. In Psalm 94:1, the psalmist asks God to avenge the righteous, not in a sense of anger, but out of justice from God, whose judgments are perfect.

Although vengeance is a sin, and causes a negative impact to our society, it should still be encouraged to be placed in works of literature, and maybe movies, that’s if the people who view such movies are competent enough to not act out upon such viewings. Who doesn’t like a good story filled with vengeance? Vengeance in literature can play the role of an end to a magnificent plot, a ground-breaking intro, or encouragement for a friend to get his hands off the PlayStation every once in a while. To further prove vengeance’s impact on literature take note of best-selling books: Grendel by John Gardner, and The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, and how vengeance gives these works great value in the eyes of many readers.

The Great Gatsby is basically the basic soap opera that ends with death, due to misunderstanding and the need of vengeance. In the Fitzgerald’s work, George Wilson’s wife, Myrtle, is killed in a car accident. And by just assuming that his wife was intentionally murdered, and that it’s the will of God for him to act put upon vengeance; he shoots Tom Gatsby while he is floating in the swimming pool. Tom Gatsby’s death played the dramatic climax in Fitzgerald’s work, leaving thoughts in the minds of readers as the story concludes. For instance, the most captivating quote was about the basis of Tom’s death and George’s revenge – “When a man gets killed I never like to get mixed up in it in any way. I keep out. When I was a young man it was different…I stuck with them to the end…Let us learn to show friendship for a man when he is alive and not after he is dead” (Fitzgerald, 147). By placing vengeance in literary context, Fitzgerald’s work went from simplistic to captivating, in the eyes of many readers.

Grendel by John Gardner possesses vengeance as well, and some may argue that it possesses greater value of vengeance than The Great Gatsby. Grendel’s mother and Beowulf display the best aspects of vengeance. Beowulf is assigned the task to slay Grendel, and cease his routinely devastating raids. The slaying of Grendel plays the role of vengeance, and also redemption within Gardner’s work. After her son’s dismemberment Grendel’s mother also takes her place to seek revenge, although vengeance was not needed, for it was Grendel who had it coming. However, Grendel’s mother is still a “mom” who loves her child, and her task is to obtain vengeance for her son. This epic story reveals how vengeance can make literature into a visionary cinematic pleasure.

Most great authors themselves promote vengeance in their work opposed to philosophers. Peter A. French is one of the many authors that defended vengeance and demonstrate its prevalence throughout our history and our literature -“Although most moral philosophers reject vengeance as a barbaric sentiment, Peter French argues that it has fallen into disrepute without being seriously examined with respect to its real moral value. In beginning his philosophical examination of the virtues of vengeance, he investigates the use of vengeance themes in literature and popular culture. Literary works from the Iliad to Hamlet and modern film Westerns such as Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven are reviewed in his exploration of the philosophical and ethical aspects of vengeance. He then concentrates on the conditions that could make acts of vengeance virtuous”(kansaspress).

Vengeance is the main foundation of a plethora of literary works, but most notable is that of Shakespeare’s. Vengeance plays a theme of most of Shakespeare’s plays, and is main component of its success. The portrayal of the consequences of vengeance shows that vengeance is most definitely not the best means to an end, and for those who are of Christianity, portray vengeance as a sin, because God strictly prohibits it. On the other hand vengeance, can be a positive impact in not just Western literature, but worldwide. By displaying vengeance in books, people can learn from mistakes, and speak towards their own thoughts on vengeance. Vengeance is an endless matter, and should also be endless theme of literature works throughout our time.