I really don't like writing essays, I just want to get some feed back before submitting the essay.
Hamlet: Deserved Deaths?
Hamlet is a famous play by William Shakespeare, one of his really famous ones. It's a tragedy, so basically the whole plot is: stuff happens, lots of people end up dead in really stupid and avoidable ways. While I personally find it to be a vastly overrated work, the sheer amount of death (it's one redeeming feature) begs an interesting question: do they deserve it? Over half the cast dies, with only one survivor, and a few really non-notable background extras. It's a tragedy, so even some of the least annoying characters die. However, they're all so stupid that I think they definitely deserved to die.
The first person to die in chronological order was Polonius. He's a really annoying old man, father of Larties and Ophelia, and advisor to Claudius and Gertrude. All of whome also die, surprise surprise. Anyways, he dies when Hamlet, in one of his crazy emo fits, stabs Polonius while Polonius is spying on him talking to Ophelia. Hamlet's really angry at Ophelia, hears a noise, and then kills Polonius. But he wouldn't have died if he wasn't so interesting in his daughter's relationship with Hamlet and wasn't such a greedy old man. He's a really worthless person, so he definitely deserved it.
Then come Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Shakespeare really likes weird, obnoxious names, I guess. They die when they go to France with Hamlet so he can get executed. They die because they have crap taste in friends - Hamlet seriously seems to dislike them, he gets them executed for gods sake! Then they betray that friend and just suck at life so much that they get executed. Good job, guys. And they're probably gay, too, I bet. So of course they had to die. They're way too close to explain it otherwise.
Ophelia's next. She dies when she's being all crazy and wacky and kills herself - or it was an accident, who knows? Shakespeare fails at the being mysterious, by the way. So obvious. And she's so dependent on her dad and brother that when they leave, she turns into one "crazy bitch," as a friend once described her. And her crush, despite him being a complete jackass, is (unsurprisingly) mean to her, and she goes crazy and sings weirdo songs and ends up dying. Why should I sympathetic to an whiny idiot like her?
Then comes that mass clusterfuck of deaths. It's really confusing, so let me get it straight - Gertrude, then Laeratiues (his name sucks to spell, by the way), and Claudius and Hamlet.
So, Gertrude's a slut, basically. It's mean, but she is. She's stupid enough to not suspect that her husband's death was murder and marries his brother/murderer less than 2 months later. Wow, I'm impressed. It makes sense that Hamlet is mad at her, though part of it is just him being an emo teen jackass. And she drinks that poisoned cup even after Claudius tells her not to. Know your place, you worthless hag. She doesn't even suspect it's a trap. And why's she suddenly so nice to Hamlet at the end? Cut the crap, Shakespeare.
Laritaes was really stupid throughout it. He's really creepy in the beginning to Ophelia. They probably had some weird incest relationship and that's why she's so screwed up. Then he totally abandons her, leaving her with their weird old father. He comes back, all pissy at the king who had nothing at all to do with it. And then he agrees to kill Hamlet, then switches back after he gets stabbed. Wuss, stick to your task once you start. So he gets no sympathy either.
Claudius is just a jackass, really. Killing the king so he can take over and sleep with the widow? Wow, that's cool. Except not, you know? Especially since the latter part isn't even guaranteed until it happens. And then, going through an elaborate scheme to off Hamlet, which is just not a good move. And he basically tells Hamlet he killed his father so blatantly is ridiculous. Way to control your impulses, idiot. He basically does nothing right in the whole play.
And finally, Hamlet. Wow, he's stupid. First he believes in a random ghost he has no proof of and acts like a whiny jackass who just needs to grow up and get over the situation. Absolutely annoying. He's angry at everyone, even his friends who like him for some inexplicable reason. He's paranoid and him killing Polonius because of that paranoia is basically why they all die. Good job dude, you just killed a ton of people. Him fencing Laureteus was stupid, too. Get a grip dude, stop being insane and obnoxious. Of all the things, he deserved it the most.
And they're probably gay, too, I bet. So of course they had to die. They're way too close to explain it otherwise.
I don't know what this means, but you are coming dangerously close to sounding hateful. Even if you are saying something about the mechanisms at work in the play, you chose the wrong words, because it sounds like you are being hateful.
I suspect that you are not being hateful, though. This essay really does show that you have read and understand the play (or at least the Sparknotes), and I can't say I disagree with you about all of it!! I just hope your teacher can appreciate it.
The thing is, in your irreverence you seem to possibly be missing the fact that all these nutty things that happen are intended to REPRESENT various human qualities. If you look at the play as a philosophy lesson, you'll see that the ridiculous decisions are intended to show important life lessons! So, there is something to appreciate here.
By the way, I think you also don't realize that you are a talented writer. Try a book by Ursula LeGuin or Stephen King. You'll see that your writng style is the kind that the masters use. I'm not talking about informal or irreverent writing; I'm talking about naturalness.
