Shakespeare's style of mixed modes was a pioneer of style in the 16th century world of literature. Shakespeare defied traditional classification of literature and cultural norms, creating works that could fall into more than one category of genre. However, this brings about challenges in analyzing these texts. The Tragical History of Hamlet Prince of Denmark is one of these works that can be categorized into more than one genre. This tragedy-satire has aspects of both genres, however the question arises: Is Hamlet best defined as a tragedy or a satire? Though an argument could be made for both, Hamlet is better defined as a satire. On the surface, it is a political satire, but it is more than just a political satire, it is a satirical argument against absolutism and nihilism. This is furthermore illustrated by a similar mode in Torn Stoppard's Rosencrantz  & Guildenstern Are Dead .

A satire is "a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn." (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Satire is usually used by the author to influence the audience away from the vice showcased. In the case of Hamlet, Shakespeare uses certain characters to represent different types of rulers to satirize politics; for his deeper argument, he creates Hamlet as a symbol of absolutism in order to revolt the audience away from this kind of ideology.

"As practiced in Renaissance England and in classical Greece and Rome, tragedy is an intense exploration of suffering and evil focused on the experience of an exceptional individual, distinguished by rank or character or both. Typically, it presents a steep fall from prosperity to misery and untimely death, a great change occasioned or accompanied by conflict between the tragic character and some superior power. It might be said, therefore, that conflict and change ... together constitute the essence of tragedy." (Torn McAlindon "What is a Shakespearean tragedy?" Page 2) A fall from prosperity to misery is essential to the plot of a tragedy, however, what makes Hamlet such a unique literary tragedy is that the story does not begin with Hamlet in a state of prosperity, but in misery and falls into something deeper than misery and death-the darkness of epistemological and ethical suicide. However, if Hamlet is a tragedy, it does not fulfill the genre's aspect of "a great change" in any traditional sense. Hamlet's conflict with Claudius is a continuance of Hamlet's absolutist tendencies, part of this tragic hero's state of misery, and ultimately results in his death. This is the major push-back against classifying Hamlet as more of a tragedy than a satire. While fulfilling the fall aspect of a tragedy, Hamlet is lacking in the second significant movement of a tragedy, the change. In a tragedy, the author makes the audience sympathize with the tragic hero, but in Hamlet, we do not feel much pity for Hamlet, rather the exact opposite. Eventually in the play, we are driven away from Hamlet by his madness and, in so doing, we learn to rebuke that which Hamlet exudes, absolutism.

When analyzing any literary work in light of its genre, one must discern why the author chose the given mode to communicate his message. In other words, how is the chosen genre tied to authorial intent? Granted, a select literary work can have more than one purpose, however a main goal of Shakespeare's Hamlet is to illustrate the deadly results of absolutism and nihilism. How does Hamlet as a satire achieve this goal? Hamlet is initially portrayed as having good intentions, but eventually we see him for the madman that he is. This is the art of a satire: that Hamlet is developed in the eyes of the audience as mad, marked by his absolutism, in order to teach the audience exactly that which we are not to emulate. However, we must be clear on what exactly this "madness" is. The madness that Hamlet is plunged into is his epistemological suicide of tyrannical absolutism. In so doing, he has doomed himself to a deadly inevitable end. The irony of this is that his goal was death anyways in seeking revenge on Claudius, however the tables have turned and he is now the one, unknowingly, at the end of his tyrannical saber. In his nihilism, Hamlet has made himself the ultimate judge of truth, diving head first into the dark abyss of relativism. In this epistemological tyranny, he has devised a prison for himself. He has locked into a cyclical validation where his opinion rules. This assumption that all knowledge is internally derived is pride. And this pride is the drive behind his actions which neglect the significance of human life.

This same mode is demonstrated through Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead. In the beginning of the play, basic principles are abolished and the world in the play is nihilistic. It is a scary thing when the groundwork of all things is stripped away, there can no longer be progress, there can no longer be meaning. Axioms provide a basis on which to build, with these building blocks eliminated, language itself begins to lose meaning. This is precisely what is demonstrated in Stoppard's satire. Throughout the entire play the absence of antecedents is prevalent, which further illustrates this idea of nihilism. With a similar goal as Shakespeare, Stoppard constructs Hamlet's reality in order to demonstrate the repercussions of absolutism and nihilism. Like Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are stuck in a cyclical prison that has lost its origin. This is why at the end of the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern welcome death. In a circle that has no beginning, an end is a destination and gives them a significant point, a reference, a place. The concept of liminality is often illustrated. In Stoppard's play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are in a liminal state begin origin and destination, due to the nature of their cyclical prison. Liminality if generally a negative thing and the fact that death for them is their best option, the audience sees just how dark that nihilistic abyss is. The way Stoppard creates this illustrates for the audience the utter depravity in a world where Hamlet's reality is true.

Hamlet's true epistemological tyranny is most particularly exercised in his conversation with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Act 2 Scene 2 of Hamlet. In their initial greetings, Rosencrantz gives Hamlet the news that "the world has grown honest." Hamlet immediately dismisses this news as false, corning of course from his self-appointed position as judge/tyrant of truth. This news displeases him and since truth in his reality is validated by his own opinion, it can't be true. Hamlet continues to tell them next to say anything they want because he knows what is true. In this first part of their conversation, Hamlet exercises his power as tyrant in his reality by judging that which is true or not. Hamlet then proceeds to tell Rosencrantz and Guildenstern why they were sent for. He tells them how he has gone into a state where the earth seems a "sterile promontory," where the skies appear to him a "foul and pestilent congregation of vapors," where neither man nor woman delights him. The audience sees Hamlet as this being lacking the faculty to appreciate or admire. In sympathy towards Hamlet, one might blame Claudius for murdering Hamlet's father and marrying Gertrude and thus causing Hamlet's misery. Claudius may have had some influence on this; however, Hamlet doomed himself to this miserable, decrepit state by locking himself into the hopeless entrapment of epistemological tyranny. By becoming the tyrant that Hamlet now is, he slammed the door on any external influences on his mind. Perhaps unintentionally at first, Hamlet also burned the bridge for that which is beautiful and true to influence him. Again, Shakespeare is demonstrating the destructive repercussions of such views.

Shakespeare's political argument is a subtle motif throughout the entire play of Hamlet. Shakespeare ties certain characters in his play to different types of rulers who derive their power from different sources and, in so doing, argues for that which he believes to be right. Hamlet is the ruler by power of heredity, Laertes is the ruler by power of public appeal, Claudius is the ruler by power of usurpation and rhetoric, and Fortinbras is the ruler by power of conquest. In Shakespeare's play, Hamlet is a madman and has similar shortcomings as his father, namely pride in regards to honor, and is therefore not fit for the throne, thus rule by power of heredity is depicted as ineffective. Laertes's public appeal does not actually get him anywhere and the public appeal in this play is rather flippant because it changes so often. Claudius is equipped for the throne, but is guilty, having achieved the throne by means of murder and incest. (This is a slight jibe at Queen Elizabeth, part of his audience, since she was possibly the cause of murder that secured her throne.) The interesting aspect of this political satire is that in the end of the play, Fortinbras, the ruler by conquest, is the last man standing, however he also is favored by the people and has some power from public appeal. By doing this, it seems that Shakespeare sees that rulers by power of heredity and public appeal alone are not fit to be monarchs. Rather, he sees conquest and usurpation, arguably a form of conquest, as more effective sources of power for monarchs to rule from.

Why does Shakespeare present this utter darkness in Hamlet's reality? Shakespeare illustrates for the audience the misery and death in the abyss of absolutism and nihilism so that we might be naturally be opposed to it. Hamlet's reality is a road that is worse than one which ends in death, it is a road that leads absolutely nowhere, a cyclical road turning back on itself infinitely, lost in its liminality. Stoppard captures this in Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead and we are again witnesses to the prison that is nihilism. Shakespeare teaches his audience to be humble, to exercise humility in knowledge and in judging whether something is true or not. This is a natural antidote to absolutism and nihilism, which would be the natural authorial intent of a satire like this. Shakespeare also depicts the necessity of hope in this satire. The immense absence of hope is precisely what kept Hamlet stuck in his cyclical prison and therefore, as an audience, we should strive to maintain hope to inhibit that miserable closed loop.