A murder for a murder will make a pile of bodies.
             "I am justly killed by my own treachery," says Laertes (V.ii.308). If the reader agrees with Laertes, then he must acknowledge the fact that Hamlet, too, is guilty of "treachery" as both are in the same situation of a dutiful son seeking to avenge a father's death. Depending upon whether or not one thinks that human beings can or should avenge misdeeds, Shakespeare's Hamlet can either be the tragic story of a son killed in the process doing his duty or as a satire on the attempts of human beings to interfere with the workings of fate. Although Hamlet, prince of Denmark, never questions whether or not murdering his guilty uncle is justified, Hamlet does.
             The main scene that causes a reader to doubt the validity of revenge is the final scene in which numerous people are killed one after another. This bloodbath makes the reader ponder whether or not the seeking and gaining of revenge actually serves a purpose. Both Hamlet and Laertes are successful in avenging their fathers; this revenge, however, costs them their lives. Why does Laertes say that he is "justly killed?" Does he not have the right to punish those that sin against his father? The question that is raised is who, if anyone, has the right or power to punish those who sin.
             In Hamlet, Shakespeare leaves no doubt of Claudius's guilt; the king confesses: "O my offense is rank, it smells to heaven;/ It hath the primal eldest curse uponn't,/ A brother's murder" (III.iii.36-8). Once Claudius's guilt is ascertained, the reader agrees it is Hamlet's duty to avenge his father's "foul and most unnatural murder" (I.v.25); however, the prince's "tragic flaw" of procrastination prevents the immediate execution of the ghost's commands. Hamlet's musings while he procrastinates convey the idea that human beings...