I've found out through now reading four Shakespeare books that this is just not a happy guy. There is never a "happy ending" or any of that. Something tells me he had a rough childhood.
"A Shakespearean tragedy is a five act play ending in the death of most of the major characters" (David Chandler). Even the definition of what Shakespeare does is in line with death. Chandler also does state "Defeat, shattered hopes, and ultimately death face us all as human beings." So I guess Shakespeare may have been one who simply accepted the glum reality of life. Still, not an optimist.
Hamlet fits into Shakespeare's realm of pessimism by obviously dying, and also by the continuous struggles he is faced with throughout the play. Gertrude's act of incest, Ophelia dying, his inner struggle of not being able to genuinely voice his emotions, along with many other aspects of his life post Old Hamlet's death all fit into Shakespeare's puzzle.
In my opinion, the most tragic event was the death of Old Hamlet. He seems to have been one of the rare good people in Denmark, and his death lead to the downward spiral for everyone else. The death of all others was, to a degree, understandable or deserved. Old Hamlet on the other hand did not deserve to die, and only died because of the greed of power from Claudius. One thing led to another, and boom, everyone's dead. Horatio was the one exception, but it wasn't necessarily tragic that he had to go with young Fortinbras. It was his death that predominantly led to there being "something rotten in the state of Denmark", and the story only goes down from there.
Shakespeare obviously is a classic author, and his writing will always be remembered, but enjoying his tragic style of writing was something I would rather not endure through again.
http://www.lcurve.org/writings/Tragedy.htm
