The tragic analysis of Hamlet Exposed on the Needle —— Hamlet's tragic fate and nature to be or not to be, which is a question worth thinking about; Which is more noble, silently enduring the cruel and sharp arrow of fate or standing up against the endless suffering of the world and sweeping it away through struggle? This is an eternal and classic question, which comes from an immortal artistic image. Hamlet, why on earth is he standing like this? Why is it so immortal? I want to make some analysis of his tragic fate and his character. The tragic significance of the image of Hamlet lies in: On the positive side, his struggle reflects the historical progress of the uncompromising struggle between humanist thinkers and feudal declining forces in the Renaissance, which is the inevitable product of historical development. Judging from summing up the experience and lessons, his tragedy originated from two aspects. First, the feudal forces of his time were still very strong. As a bourgeois humanist, Hamlet didn't trust the people and had to fight alone. Second, he clung to the ideal of "man" in the early Renaissance and could not adapt to the changing reality of man in the new historical environment. Hamlet's tragedy is a tragedy of late humanists and a tragedy of a specific era in the late Renaissance. —— Excerpted from A Brief History of World Literature, Li Mingbo Peking University Publishing House, 2005 (abridged). First of all, I want to say that the topic I want to discuss today is about the essence of Hamlet, not just regarding him as a pioneer or representative of thought. We can say that the image of Hamlet embodies the humanistic spirit of that great era, but we are not sure that Hamlet exists to publicize advanced ideas, so it is a rash decision. Because when Shakespeare created this melancholy prince, he just wanted to impress every audience in the theater with his tragedy, instead of preaching advanced humanism against feudal forces to future generations, which had nothing to do with the bourgeoisie and the masses. It is difficult for us to get rid of the current values and attach to the original work, and even clearly divide his humanity into bourgeoisie, and attribute the inevitability of his tragedy to the absurd reason of "distrust of the people." This kind of behavior itself is deeply disturbed by ideology and is extremely ridiculous in nature. I think this violates the principle of correctly understanding history and literature.