Does Hamlet need to embrace life rather than standing back doing nothing?

Needs to embrace life rather than standing back and criticising 

The story of Hamlet is one of a tragic hero. He is a character whose words, according to Harold Bloom, “seem almost as real as our own thoughts.” To judge him is therefore difficult, he is a complex character. Arguably this is why debates, such as the rationality behind his actions, are so strongly debated. 

Johnson, an early critic of Hamlet, argued that Hamlet is an instrument rather than an agent. It is true that in the story Hamlet, at times, stands back and lets things happen to him. On multiple occasions we hear Hamlet profess the problems with Denmark, saying other countries see us as “Drunkards” and that customs would be better followed in “breach(ing)” rather than the “observance”. Yet Hamlet never does act, A.C.Bradley wonders why he “doesn't just become king” if he has all these solutions, especially when as far as we know he should be king, he was after all heir to the throne.  

Along with a lack of action Hamlet is also slow to act upon the information he comes to understand about Claudius. However I disagree with the statement, “Hamlet needs to embrace life,” in the play Hamlet has very valid reasons for “standing back”. The ghost that gives Hamlet the little precious information would have, and should have, been viewed with caution at the time of the play – especially considering it asks Hamlet to commit “revenge,” which at the time was extremely un-holy. Furthermore, if Hamlet were to act, he wonders whether the general public would understand, if he had, for example, slain Claudius he fears, correctly, that without proper proof and justification his committing an impromptu murder would leave the Hamlet’s with a ‘wounded name’. 

Throughout the play Hamlet’s key problem is irresolution(Coleridge). He does ‘stand back’ frequently. But in my opinion, it is always justified. 

Hamlet does, according to Ophelia, proclaim his love for her and then fail to further his claims by taking Ophelia’s hand into marriage, or even a public relationship. However, we know the disgust his mother’s speed to his uncle’s ‘incestuous sheets’ causes him. G.Wilson.Knight explains that Hamlet cannot love because for him love “has become synonymous with sex.” 

A.C.Bradley tells us Hamlet wants to do the very opposite of embrace life, he tells us “Hamlet wants death immensely,” yet again we come to understand Hamlet’s rational reasoning behind not acting when he prostrates, “yet the fear of something after death... makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others we know not of.” 

Despite Coleridge’s claim that Hamlet’s key problem is irresolution at times he does act, and act fast. Despite the shouts of his friends, he quickly follows the spirt of his “father.” He soliloquizes and then does put on a play, he even saves himself from pirates. 

So whilst we are shown Hamlet’s moments of inky darkness and indecisiveness, he does act. The intense focus on Hamlet’s inner thoughts that makes William Hazlitt call him “the first character who is actually human” is what makes this play so inticising, and the moments of action so much more curious. 

Unfortunately for Hamlet, but unsurprisingly since this is a tragedy, when Hamlet does act it does not always go as we might like. For Hamlet, the cautious approach eventually seems sensible. When he is not cautious, he commits rash actions: the execution of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, which Hamlet explains to Oscric, they received for messing in politics, seems particularly Machiavellian.