The Hero Must Respond

Taking responsibility implies being able to respond to change and the ability to switch behavior when the opportunity arises. In the song change by Tracy Chapman, she sings about the hypothetical situations in which someone finally makes that change. In hamlet's case he makes his change only after a series of very grim sufferings take place. In the Brothers Karamazov, Ivan never makes this change, he simply becomes paralyzed by indecision and goes insane.
In Chapman's song, her central thesis is, "if you knew that you would die today and see the face of god and love would you change?" In many ways, She's asking both Hamlet and every other character based off of him (including Ivan) what they would do in the waning moments of their life? Would they change to the persons they try to portray? Would they finally fall into the archetype of the hero instead of bounce vaguely between several inferior ones? Ultimately that's the goal of both hamlet and Ivan; they want to be the hero and only one succeeds.
Hamlet actually fulfills the role of the hero because be responds, he changes his behavior in the face of God. Ivan, however, is essentially only a third of Hamlet's entire character. The closest hero in the Brothers Karamazov is Smerdyakov because he's the character that responded the most! The other brothers basically tip-toed around the situation and left it up to the "lesser known" Karamazov to act. In order for a character to fit the hero archetype, they must overcome the conflict, not assign it to their younger brother. If Hamet had assigned the killing of his father to Guildenstern then Guildenstern would be the hero.

The central plot of the Brothers Karamazov is the killing of Fyodor Karamazov. Several characters had an indirect role in the murder, but Smerdyakov had the most direct role, so technically he can only claim the title. Without his contribution, Fyodor would have lived and the central plot would have been far more disjointed. The three brothers would have been seen as more boring people because it would seem that they had done less. The same can be said if Hamlet never killed his father and the play simply stopped at Act V, scene i. Hamlet would be responsible for the deaths of a lot of other people, but not the one in which the reader truly wants dead. The plot of the play is centered around the atrocity that has taken place at the thrown and Hamlet must respond and rectify the conflict to be seen as a true hero. Would he still be a hero if the play ended where he didn't kill King Claudius? I'm not convince he would be and that is essentially Ivan's role in the Brothers Karamazov. He talks about how his father's death would make the world a better place and yet he doesn't actually murder him. Actions speak louder than words and in the case of the hero archetype, one must act and not plan on becoming the tragic hero.