Introduction
This essay examines how individuals in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby construct false appearances to pursue their desires—revenge in Hamlet’s case and the recovery of a lost relationship in Gatsby’s. Both protagonists adopt performative identities that ultimately isolate them and obstruct their goals. The discussion draws on key passages from the primary texts to illustrate how these performances generate blindness to personal limitations and prevent authentic connections with others. By focusing on the protagonists’ increasing detachment from reality, the analysis shows that manipulated appearances prove self-defeating. While the plays and novel differ in historical context, they both demonstrate the personal costs of sustained deception.
Hamlet’s Antic Disposition and the Illusion of Control
Hamlet adopts an “antic disposition” to mask his intentions and pursue revenge against Claudius. This calculated performance, however, gradually blinds him to his own indecisiveness and lack of genuine authority over events. When Hamlet encounters Claudius at prayer, he declares: “Now might I do it pat, now he is praying; / And now I’ll do’t. And so he goes to heaven” (Shakespeare, 1601, 3.3.73–74). He persuades himself that postponing the murder constitutes a strategic choice rather than hesitation. The feigned role therefore rationalises delay by recasting it as careful planning.
This self-deception becomes evident when Hamlet kills Polonius, believing he can determine the man’s spiritual fate. Such an action reveals his growing conviction that he possesses godlike power over others’ destinies, even though he cannot verify whether Polonius has repented. The performance thus encourages Hamlet to interpret his loss of control as continued mastery. Consequently, the antic disposition isolates him from advisors who might otherwise moderate his actions, reinforcing a solitary perspective that accelerates the tragedy.
Gatsby’s Persona and the Erasure of Daisy’s Autonomy
Jay Gatsby similarly manufactures a wealthy persona to reclaim Daisy Buchanan. He insists that her marriage to Tom resulted solely from his earlier poverty, asserting that “in her heart she never loved anyone but me” (Fitzgerald, 1925, p. 139). This narrative allows Gatsby to view economic status as the sole barrier between them, thereby preserving the illusion that the past remains fully recoverable. Yet the persona simultaneously prevents him from recognising Daisy as an autonomous individual capable of independent choice and ongoing emotional attachment to Tom.
Because Gatsby’s fabricated identity is validated by material success, he treats Daisy as an object to be regained rather than a person who has changed. His repeated assertions of certainty about her feelings distance him from her actual circumstances, including her maternal responsibilities and social position. The resulting misreading propels Daisy away from him, rendering the carefully constructed image counterproductive. Gatsby’s blindness thus stems not from external forces alone but from the internal logic of his performance, which equates wealth with absolute influence over another’s life.
Isolation Through Performative Barriers
Both characters’ adopted roles also sever them from meaningful relationships. Hamlet’s feigned madness leads others, notably Gertrude and Claudius, to interpret his behaviour as illness rather than distress. Claudius remarks that “so much was our love, / We would not understand what was most fit, / But, like the owner of a foul disease, / To keep it from divulging, let it feed / Even on the pith of life” (Shakespeare, 1601, 4.1.19–22). Although Claudius professes concern, the metaphor reduces Hamlet to a contagion requiring removal. Hamlet’s performance therefore conceals his genuine burden from those positioned to offer support, leaving him without allies and heightening his dependence on the antic role itself.
Gatsby experiences a parallel form of isolation within his own social sphere. Constant telephone calls from Chicago and elsewhere interrupt any sustained interaction at his parties. His habitual deflection—“Don’t mention it… Don’t give it another thought, old sport” (Fitzgerald, 1925, p. 58)—functions as a generic substitute for personal engagement. The wealthy persona is thereby sustained at the expense of reciprocal knowledge; guests admire the spectacle but never penetrate the man behind it. When the performance collapses, Gatsby finds himself abandoned, confirming that superficial connections cannot withstand the withdrawal of the illusion that created them.
Conclusion
In both works, the protagonists’ strategic appearances initially appear instrumental to their ambitions yet ultimately generate blindness and isolation. Hamlet’s antic disposition rationalises inaction and alienates potential confidants, while Gatsby’s cultivated success erases Daisy’s agency and precludes authentic intimacy. These outcomes suggest that sustained manipulation of identity carries the risk of substituting performance for genuine agency, leaving the individual less equipped to navigate the very circumstances the performance was designed to master. The parallels underscore a shared literary concern with the personal costs of conflating constructed image and lived reality.
References
- Fitzgerald, F. S. (1925) The Great Gatsby. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
- Shakespeare, W. (1601) Hamlet. Edited by G. R. Hibbard (1994). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
