Throughout the entire play of Hamlet, Hamlet battles with the question of, "will I or will I not kill King Claudius?" There are times during the play where he allows his passion to take over and almost commit the crime, but then his reason takes hold of him and changes his mindset. He does not outright say why it is he prolongs the killing of Claudius, but if one reads the text carefully many theories explaining why can be deduced.
             During the play Hamlet constantly reasons rationally about the pros and cons of killing King Claudius and the consequences he will face. He carefully looks at both extremes - taking action or dealing with and accepting reality- and is in constant flux between both as evident in his soliloquy.
             To be or not to be- that is the question:
             Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer
             The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
             Or to take arms against a sea of troubles...
             In his soliloquy it is apparent that he is weighing both options, but is unsure of which one he should act on. He is trying to decipher between dealing with his harsh reality and changing it dramatically through killing Claudius. Due to the fact that he is debating between both ends of the spectrum it is clear that he is not ready to lean more towards one end then the other. Consequently, his internal turmoil does prolong his debate about killing the King.
             In addition to the theory that Hamlet is caught between two extremes, it is also possible to believe that he is too depressed to commit such a crime. It is apparent when Hamlet speaks and when others speak about him that he is upset and extremely angry about the outcome of his life due to his father's murder. Whether he is putting on an antic disposition or if he truly is bi-polar he is still associating himself with signs of depression. Therefore one can conclude that he is too preoccupied with his own feelings to be able to rationally commit the ...