Shakespeare specialists, directors and actors have been arguing hotly for years about just exactly why Hamlet does not, at the end of Act 1 Scene 5, make a dash for the room where "the king keeps his revels" and stab him then and there. AC Bradley, in 1906, listed 4 or 5 ideas of his contemporaries which he himself disagreed with, including the idea that Hamlet is a coward and abhors violence because it sickens him and the idea that Hamlet has his head in the clouds and does nothing as a result of "thinking too precisely on the event."
Therefore, the question, in suggesting that there are only two ways of looking at Hamlet's behaviour, makes a false assumption. It makes a false dichotomy between "cowardice" and "thoughtfulness", and suggests that there are no shades of grey between contemptible and "admirable and understandable".
Consider this possibility. Hamlet has a conflicted nature. Sometimes he thinks revenge is a good idea and sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes he thinks you have to take violent action and sometimes he thinks you have to stand back. Unfortunately the times when he thinks he should take violent action are the ones where he would be better served by standing back and vice versa.
Or how about this? Hamlet is a perfectionist. He wants to stage manage his revenge which is why he spends so much time getting ready for it. And then in the end he gives up and says, "If it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all." Only by becoming a fatalist can he actually start taking purposeful action, an ironic state of affairs.
John Proctor is basically an admirable character. He was a good man who briefly went astray and became the protagonist in Act II.
He was not brought down by a tragic flaw, but by honor, not a flaw but a key charactaristic in his admirable personality.
That he is brave, compassionate, responsible and righteous are ways in which Oedipus is an admirable character in "Oedipus Rex" by Sophocles (495 B.C.E. - 405 B.C.E.).Specifically, Theban King Oedipus demonstrates bravery in his encounter with the monstrous Sphinx. He exhibits compassion in his interactions with his citizens and with his daughters. He expresses responsibility in his persistence in investigating Laius' murder even when he becomes a prime suspect. He manifests righteousness in his struggles against a horrifying fate.
For the same reason they marry now: to set up a household, have children, have companionship. Also for the less admirable but still just as common reasons, then and now, as marrying for money or an increase in social status.
That he refuses to listen to reason and that he will not give up on a murder investigation are ways in which Oedipus is stubborn in "Oedipus Rex" by Sophocles (495 B.C.E. - 405 B.C.E.).Specifically, stubbornness refers to an unwillingness to change words, thoughts or deeds in accordance with shifting circumstances. This description fits Theban King Oedipus. For example, he refuses to listen to Creon's reasonable self-defense against the unreasonable charge of conspiracy to commit treason. This is not at all admirable. But his stubbornness is admirable when he persists in carrying the investigation into King Laius' murder to its dreadful conclusion.
His motives were admirable.
Jane's dedication to her work was admirable. The speaker made his points with admirable clarity.
to be admirable or it can be admirable
Miranda is a name with the meaning "admirable".
The verb of admirable is admire. As in "to admire something or someone".
You look very admirable.
Perhaps you could read The Admirable Crichton, and just write a sentence about something you felt made Crichton so admirable. There is something admirable about the way David cares for his family.
No, it would be correct to say: You admire her, or, You find her admirable.
Her attempt at doing a bicycle kick was admirable.
"Admirable hieroglyphics."
Admirable Campaign happened on 1813-06-24.
The Admirable Crichton - film - was created in 1957.