ngly arbitrary killing of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is justified in the fact that they plotted with the King to destroy him. His killing of Polonius, although not justifiable in the fact he thought him to be Claudius (“…I took thee for thy better”). The fight with Laertes in the grave of Ophelia, is explained that Laertes attacked Hamlet first. Hamlet does not want a confrontation as of yet (“…take thy fingers from my throat”). We see as time goes on and the treachery against Hamlet increases, so does Hamlets anger and desire to right the wrongs. He becomes more cunning, asking Ophelia where her father is, knowing she will lie and NOT say “Watching us”. He starts to realize that he must now fight fire with fire. He is much sterner with Ophelia, “Get the to a nunnery”, as well as with his mother (“…as kill a king, and marry his brother.”), (“This was your husband. Look what now follows…”). We see him become decidedly bloodthirsty, (…my thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth!”). I think the end of act 4 scene 4 is where Hamlet finally decides on his course of action. I believe this is where he can stand the injustices no longer. The conclusion of this play is more justification to prove Hamlet sane. At the end all of the plotting and treachery he perceived is brought to life. The killing of his father by his uncle, and the plot against his life by the king through Laertes proves his suspicions correct. Moreover, does not only Hamlet see this, but the whole of the court present. The court sees the use of poison, which the Queen inadvertently takes as well as the poison on the sword of Laertes. Had Hamlet only been more decisive and direct, and had killed Claudius much sooner, the Queen, Ophelia, Laertes, Polonius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern would not have died. ...
