Comparison Essay

Kevin Lis 

Mr.Cohen 

ENG3U

January 16, 2026

Comparison Essay

Society has always demanded that individuals fit into certain roles, but these pressures can fracture identity and leave people questioning who they truly are. In Hamlet, Shakespeare explores how political corruption and moral expectations divide Hamlet's sense of self,  while in Fight Club, Chuck Palahniuk shows how consumerism and rigid ideas of masculinity break the narrator’s identity. Although written over four hundred years apart, Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Palahniuk’s Fight Club use divided identity to criticize the societies they were written in, showing how social expectations and pressure fracture personal identity through contrasting language and structure. This essay will first examine how Hamlet's divided identity reflects the effects of corrupt leadership, then analyze how the narrator’s fractured identity exposes the damaging influence of consumer society and rigid masculinity and finally compare how both authors use language and structure to reveal these pressures. 

In Hamlet, Shakespeare uses Hamlet’s divided identity to criticize Claudius’s corrupt leadership, showing how immoral political decisions create inner conflict and moral paralysis. Hamlet’s divided identity is shown clearly when he hesitates to kill Claudius' corrupt leadership. In Act 3, Scene 3, Hamlet reflects, “Now might I do it pat, now he is a-praying, And now I’ll do ’t. And so he goes to heaven, And so am I revenged”(3,3,77). Here, Hamlet debates whether killing Claudius while he is praying would truly achieve injustice, demonstrating the conflict between moral action and revenge. This internal struggle illustrates how Claudius' immoral decisions fracture Hamlet’s sense of self, supporting the thesis that Shakespeare uses Hamlet’s divided identity to critique the consequences of corrupt leadership. In the line “now might I do it pat, now he is a-praying” (3,3,77), the word “praying” is used to represent moral purity and forgiveness. Hamlet believes that killing Claudius while he is praying would cleanse Claudius’s soul and allow him to go to heaven. This reveals Hamlet’s divided identity, although he wants revenge, he is also deeply concerned with justice and moral consequence. The word “praying” highlights Hamlet’s internal conflict between acting as a moral thinker. Through this hesitation, Shakespeare shows how Claudius’s corruption forces Hamlet into paralysis, reinforcing the idea that Hamlet‘s fractured identity is a direct result of Claudius’s immoral leadership. Shakespeare also uses repetition and religious imagery to show Hamlet’s indecisiveness  on making decisions. The repeated word “now’ reflects Hamlet’s unstable thinking, while references to “praying” and “heaven” emphasize his concern with moral justice rather than revenge. This language reveals Hamlet's divided identity, caused by Claudious’s corruption. Shakespeare places this moment in a soliloquy, allowing the audience direct access to Hamlet's private thoughts. The pause in action during this scene slows the plot and emphasizes Hamlet’s hesitation, showing how Claudius’s authority prevents decisive action. This delay highlights Hamlet's divided identity and reinforces the consequences of corrupt leadership. H. Gohain argues that Hamlet’s struggle is political rather than purely personal, stating that “the play shows his endeavour to carry out this mission of establishing the commonwealth on the lawful basis” (Gohain 38). This supports the idea that Hamlet's divided identity is caused by Claudius’s corrupt leadership, as Hamlet is torn between his moral duty to restore justice and his position as a subject under a legitimate king. Gohain’s interpretation reinforces that Shakespeare critiques Claudious’s decisions rather than society as a whole by showing the psychological cost of political corruption on Hamlet. This source is reliable because it is written by Hiren Gohain, a respected literary and social critic, and published in  Economic and Political Weekly, a peer-reviewed academic journal. During the Elizabethan era, society was undergoing massive changes, from religion and politics to art and culture. Theatre became a central part of daily life and play playwrights like Shakespeare reflected the concerns and values of the time. As Mortimer notes, “And Shakespeare above all others meets the challenge of the age by holding up a mirror to mankind and showing people what they really are – and not what they think they are in the eyes of God. This is something truly original and one of the reasons the rabble in the theatre yard does fall quiet, and strains to hear the words of the great soliloquies and speeches; and, in so doing, becomes a little more like us” (Mortimer 358). This shows that Shakespeare’s work not only entertained but also made the audience reflect on human nature, morality and society, providing insight into the values and mindset of Elizabethan England. 

In Fight Club, Palahniuk uses the narrator’s fractured identity to criticize modern consumer society, revealing how materialism and rigid ideas masculinity leave individuals disconnected from their true sense of self. In Fight Club, Palahniuk uses the narrator's divided self to expose the damaging effects of modern consumer society. The narrator states, “I am the toxic waste byproduct of God’s creation”(Palahniuk 126). This line highlights how the narrator views himself as damaged and worthless, which reflects the emotional emptiness created by modern consumer society. His self perception shows that materialism and harsh expectations of masculinity have stripped him of a stable identity, leaving him disconnected from any genuine sense of purpose. Palahniuk uses this moment of self hate to criticize a society that reduces individuals to disposable products rather than allowing them to form meaningful identities. The phrase “toxic waste” suggests something dangerous, unwanted and discarded, emphasizing how the narrator sees himself as disposable within consumer society. The term “byproduct“ implies that his identity is accidental and without purpose, reinforcing the idea that materialism reduces individuals to meaningless outcomes rather than valued human beings. Together, these words highlight the narrator’s broken sense of self and show how Palahniuk criticizes a society that dehumanizes people and disconnects them from their true sense of self. Palahniuk uses first person narration to place the reader directly inside the narrator's fractured mind, emphasizing his unstable sense of identity. The short, declarative sentence structure reflects his emotional detachment and lack of self worth. By presenting the narrator's thoughts in a fragmented and blunt way, Palahniuk mirrors the disconnection caused by consumer society, reinforcing the novel's criticism of materialism and harsh masculinity. Suzanne Clark argues that “totalitarianism now resides in a thorough dislike for all things social, public, and collective” (Clark 1). This highlights how modern society isolates individuals, creating culture where people are disconnected from each other and from their own identities. In Fight Club, the narrator’s fractured identity reflects this societal alienation, showing how consumerism and harsh ideas of masculinity prevent individuals from understanding who they truly are. Chuck Palahniuk has also described the central concern for his work as loneliness and connection, noting that “all my books are about a lonely person looking for some way to connect with other people” (Britannica). This personal focus helps explain Fight Club’s critique of consumer society; the narrator's fractured identity is not a literary device but a reflection of the alienation Palahniuk sees in real life as people try to define themselves through materialism and rigid social expectations. Clark’s analysis is reliable because it is published in a peer-reviewed journal (JAC) and written by a scholar specializing in media and cultural studies, ensuring the argument is credible.

Both Shakespeare and Palahniuk use divided identity to criticize their societies, however, Shakespeare focuses on how political corruption and moral responsibility fracture identity, while Palahniuk exposes how consumerism and rigid masculinity dismantle personal identity. The quote “To be, or not to be? That is the question” (3.1.57) reveals Hamlet's divided identity as he struggles between action and inaction. His hesitation reflects how Claudius’s corrupt leadership has created a moral environment where clear decisions feel impossible, criticizing the psychological consequences of political corruption. The quotation “Only after disaster can we be resurrected… ‘It's only after you’ve lost everything,’Tyler says, ‘that you’re free to do anything’” (Palaniuk 70). The narrator’s fractured identity through Tyler’s extreme beliefs. Palahniuk suggests that consumer society traps individuals in material expectations and only complete loss allows escape from those pressures, revealing how rigid masculinity and materialism distort identity. Shakspere uses serious and reflective language in Hamlet’s soliloquy, like “to be, or not to be,” to show his moral struggle and hesitation. The repetition emphasizes his divided identity, torn between action and morality. Palahniuk uses strong, direct words like “disaster” and “lost everything" to show the narrator’s extreme emotions. This harsh language mirrors the chaos of modern society, showing how consumerism and strict masculinity fracture identity. Shakespeare focuses on moral thinking, while Palahniuk focuses on emotional and societal rebellion. Hamlet’s soliloquy pauses the action, giving the audience access to his private thoughts showing his internal conflict. This slow, reflective structure mirrors how corrupt leadership causes personal paralysis. Palahniuk uses first-person narration with short, punchy sentences, reflecting the narrator’s unstable mind. This fragmented structure mirrors the chaos of consumer society and strict masculinity. Shakespeare emphasizes reflection, while Palahniuk emphasizes emotional and societal pressure. 

Both Hamlet and Fight Club show how society can fracture personal identity. Shakespeare highlights how corrupt leadership and moral expectations create internal conflict and hesitation in Hamlet, while Palahniuk emphasizes how consumer culture and rigid ideas of masculinity leave individuals feeling lost and disconnected. Even though the two works were written over four centuries apart, both Shakspeare and Palahniuk explore how social pressure and expectations divide one’s self, using language and structure to reveal the consequences on personal identity. By examining Hamlet's struggle with moral duty and the narrator's battle with consumerism and social expectations, we see how both authors expose the damaging effects of social pressures. These works remind us that the pressures of society are not just historical or fictional, they continue to shape how we understand ourselves today.

Work Cited

Boyne, John. Boy in the Striped Pajamas. Random House Children's Books, 2007.

Clark, Suzanne. “‘Fight Club’: Historicizing the Rhetoric of Masculinity, Violence, and Sentimentality.” JAC, vol. 21, no. 2, 2001, pp. 411–20. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20866410. Accessed 15 Jan. 2026.

GOHAIN, HIREN. “Political Hamlet: Player Scenes.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 47, no. 29, 2012, pp. 37–40. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41720013. Accessed 15 Jan. 2026.

Mortimer, Ian. The Time Traveller's Guide to Elizabethan England. Random House: UK, 2013. Olusoga, David. Black and British: A Forgotten History. London: Pan Books. 2017.

Shakespeare, William, and SparkNotes. Hamlet: No Fear Shakespeare Deluxe Student Editions - Shakespeare Side-By-Side Plain English. SparkNotes, 2020.

Volle, Adam, and Kenneth Rexroth. “Chuck Palahniuk | Biography, Books, Fight Club, Guts, & Haunted.” Britannica, 12 December 2025, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Chuck-Palahniuk. Accessed 16 January 2026.