The Ghost

[Thorwench]

That's true but the name is pretty pretty similar, my name exists in at least 4 different spellings all meaning the same (not to speak of the diminuitive versions). The name "Hamnet" was not that uncommon anyway, Shakespeares had a neighbour or something called Hamnet too.

[Regit]

Very good analysis Regit. However, is a coincident that who sees the ghost also serves Shakespeare's purposes as dramatist?

So does whoever that does not see the ghost. In fact, the entire play, cast and plots, serves Shakespeare's purposes as a dramatist. Thus, statements of that nature are of little value. Characters have their own personalities and purposes, sometimes surpassing the expectation and control of the author. Besides, if they do serve Shakespeare's dramatic purposes, perhaps you could explain how with more than a statement.

Under your analysis why would the ghost show himself to the guards? He could have appeared in Hamlet's bedroom to Hamlet alone, not on that Danish field.

The ghost, like all other characters, is subject to characterisation. Meaning, again, that its course of action is determined by its person and purposes. Its ghostly nature does give it different physical abilities and activities, yet changes nothing of its mental existence. Therefore, the dead King does not know exactly how Hamlet recieves his death. Whilst the rest of the royal family recover quickly and their grief is clearly but "the strappings and suits of woes" and forget underneath, it is perhaps natural for the ghost to doubt others' devotion to it, including Hamlet's. For, though Hamlet's grief is and does not seem, he does have on him, as the rest of them have, the similar "customary suits of solemn black", the "windy suspiration of forc'd breath", the "fruitful river in the eye", and the "dejected havious of the visage," identical to an outside eye; and it is a difficult task to separate him, who is with real grief from those without. Yet...

"He could have appeared in Hamlet's bedroom to Hamlet alone," you say?

"Why, what should be the fear?
I do not set my life at a pin's fee;
And for my soul, what can it do to that,
Being a thing immortal as itself:
It waves me forth again; I'll follow it."

The enthusiasm of Hamlet to follow Horatio to see the ghost that might be his father's spirit is a testiment to his devotion (his soul and, thus, his purpose is as immortal as the ghost). It also proves Hamlet's bravery and determination, brought about only by his faithful interpretation of the ghost's appearance. For if his doubt that it might be a spirit of "goblin damn'd", or had "wicked" intents is more than his yearning to know what the spirit of his father has to say and to have justice, he would not have come, and he would not have followed it. YET, after all proofs, the ghost still has to be further reassured:

"list, Hamlet, oh list.
If thou didst ever thy dear father love."

The ghost's goal is decidedly revenge. Therefore, one aspect of the ghost's purpose is to find its ally; and it must embark upon this with care. It could have also appeared in Gertrude's room; her duty to avenge it is as heavy as Hamlet's if not more. It could also have appeared and spoken anywhere, for it is also a people's duty to avenge its King. Yet, trust is not a murdered, betrayed, and forgoten soul's quality.

[Virgil]

"He could have appeared in Hamlet's bedroom to Hamlet alone," you say?

"Why, what should be the fear?
I do not set my life at a pin's fee;
And for my soul, what can it do to that,
Being a thing immortal as itself:
It waves me forth again; I'll follow it."

The enthusiasm of Hamlet to follow Horatio to see the ghost that might be his father's spirit is a testiment to his devotion (his soul and, thus, his purpose is as immortal as the ghost). It also proves Hamlet's bravery and determination, brought about only by his faithful interpretation of the ghost's appearance. For if his doubt that it might be a spirit of "goblin damn'd", or had "wicked" intents is more than his yearning to know what the spirit of his father has to say and to have justice, he would not have come, and he would not have followed it. YET, after all proofs, the ghost still has to be further reassured:

"list, Hamlet, oh list.
If thou didst ever thy dear father love."

That proves my point. The ghost serves Shakespeare's purposes rather than having any consitent rules of it's being. If revenge were the the ghost's motivation, then he could have shown himself to every loyal Dane in the country and they would have ganged up and killed the king. The rules which govern who and why see the ghosts are arbitrary within the world of the play, but conveniently serve Shakespeare as story teller to tell the tale.

[Regit]

That proves my point. The ghost serves Shakespeare's purposes rather than having any consitent rules of its being. If revenge were the the ghost's motivation, then he could have shown himself to every loyal Dane in the country and they would have ganged up and killed the king. The rules which govern who and why see the ghosts are arbitrary within the world of the play, but conveniently serve Shakespeare as story teller to tell the tale.

I've already acknowledged your point: It's little more than stating the obvious. Shakespeare is a dramatist; "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark" is a dramatic work written BY Shakespeare. HENCE, the play, including its entire plots and cast, must serve the purpose of Shakespeare as a dramatist. The "rules" within "the world of a play" should conveniently serve the story teller, since he is one who created them. That doesn't need to be proven.

The paragraph of mine the you quoted does not prove your point. It attempts to explain how the ghost's characteristics and reasonings lead to its specific course of action. As I have already said, characters have their own person and purposes (created by the author, yes, but, none the less, they are completely entitled to individuality).

[Virgil]

The "rules" within "the world of a play" should conveniently serve the story teller, since he is one who created them. That doesn't need to be proven.

That I'm afraid is wrong. Once the storyteller establishes the rules of the created world, he cannot willy-nilly change them just to serve his purposes. And that is what Shakespeare does with the ghost. The whole episode of the ghost within the rules of the "Hamlet" world is incongruous. Hamlet is a great play; but it is a flawed play, for several reasons.

The paragraph of mine the you quoted does not prove your point. It attempts to explain how the ghost's characteristics and reasonings lead to its specific course of action. As I have already said, characters have their own person and purposes (created by the author, yes, but, none the less, they are completely entitled to individuality).

I have no idea what you mean by this. If the rules of the ghost with the "Hamlet" world is that he is seen by people when he appears, then Shakespeare violates that rule in the Hamlet and mother scene for his own purposes.

[Regit]

I have no idea what you mean by this. If the rules of the ghost with the "Hamlet" world is that he is seen by people when he appears, then Shakespeare violates that rule in the Hamlet and mother scene for his own purposes.

Now that, I'm afraid, is wrong. Your logic here is flawed. I argue that the ghost can chose who sees it and who doesn't. Just because everyone sees it when the ghost appears in the first scene, that doesn't mean that it does not have the ability to 'not be seen' by a particular person at that time. (In other words, if you want to talk logic, the condition that 'the ghost has the power to choose who can see it when it appears' does not exclude the possibility of 'everyone in its presence seeing it'. Hence the fact that 'everyone in its presence does see it' does not void the initial condition that 'it does possess that power').
If it wanted one of the guards, or Horatio not to see it, that might still happen. But, if it did that, then they would not agree that it is real, which is something it is trying to convince them of (arguably the main point of the first scene), and Hamlet would not hear of it:

"Horatio says 'tis but our fantasy,
And will not let belief take hold of him
Touching this dreaded sight, twice seen of us:
Therefore I have entreated him along
With us to watch the minutes of this night;
That if again this apparition come,
He may approve our eyes and speak to it."

The ghost had to let all of them see it, else this doubt will never defeated, as Horatio himself remarks:

"Before my God, I might not this believe
Without the sensible and true avouch
Of mine own eyes."

Thus the events serve the ghost's purpose (which is, yes of course, also Shakespeare's purpose for it), and that's why it doesn't use here the power that it evetually does in Act III. The fact that everyone in its presence can see the ghost, hence, is NOT a "rule" of the world of "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark". It is merely what happens in the first scene.

The whole episode of the ghost within the rules of the "Hamlet" world is incongruous. Hamlet is a great play; but it is a flawed play, for several reasons.

You would allow yourself to be critical before attempting to analyse (if you have on your own time, you would understand that it is important to make that clear). None of your previous posts amount to anything more than mere statements; when I, as a reader, naturally demand explanation and analysis. A dramatic master piece that took the greatest playwright of our time many years to complete, yet it would be summed up and broken down by: "The whole episode of the ghost within the rules of the "Hamlet" world is incongruous. Hamlet is a great play; but it is a flawed play, for several reasons"?
Perhaps Shakepeare deserves the benefit of the doubt and our best effort to make sense of his work (though even that may not be good enough), and not to be briefly criticised. Your efforts are pale in comparison even to my deficient attempts at criticising your deficient criticism, let alone the great master piece. Be it that it must inevitably have flaws, it is of no value whatsoever to make that remark without any expanded explanation.

[Virgil]

Now that, I'm afraid, is wrong. Your logic here is flawed. I argue that the ghost can chose who sees it and who doesn't. Just because everyone sees it when the ghost appears in the first scene, that doesn't mean that it does not have the ability to 'not be seen' by a particular person at that time.

Very well. But if the ghost can appear to who he wishes, why doesn't he appear to all the Danes to kill the King? Or appear to the Queen before she marries his brother and stop the wedding? Or tell Hamlet that Polonius is behind the curtain and not the King? Or why doesn't the ghost appear again after the middle of the play?

Thus the events serve the ghost's purpose (which is, yes of course, also Shakespeare's purpose for it), and that's why it doesn't use here the power that it evetually does in Act III. The fact that everyone in its presence can see the ghost, hence, is NOT a "rule" of the world of "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark". It is merely what happens in the first scene.

I maintain that it is willy-nilly. There is no rhyme or reason. The ghost has every motivation to show himself to the Queen to prove that Hamlet's motivations are honorable and not insane.

You would allow yourself to be critical before attempting to analyse (if you have on your own time, you would understand that it is important to make that clear).

Hey, I've been reading Shakespeare and Hamlet before you were even born. We've discussed this in class. The person who asked the question probably didn't think of it on his own; it was probably a class discussion. The question is not absurd, has been asked before, and is the subject of commentary. You shouldn't be such a snot-*** kid all your life.

None of your previous posts amount to anything more than mere statements; when I, as a reader, naturally demand explanation and analysis. A dramatic master piece that took the greatest playwright of our time many years to complete,

Well, that just proves how ignorant you are on the subject. Shakespeare averaged three or four plays per year through most of his career. He never spent even a single year on any work.

Perhaps Shakepeare deserves the benefit of the doubt and our best effort to make sense of his work

Of course he does. But are you saying he's infallable? Are you saying that every one of his 38 plays are masterpieces? They are not.

[Scheherazade]

Please do not personalise your comments.

[Regit]

We've discussed this in class. The person who asked the question probably didn't think of it on his own; it was probably a class discussion. The question is not absurd, has been asked before, and is the subject of commentary.

When did I say that it was an absurd question? In fact, I spent the best part of an hour and a half trying to answer it, because I thought it an interesting question.

But are you saying he's infallable? Are you saying that every one of his 38 plays are masterpieces? They are not.

I said Hamlet was a masterpiece. And I also said that even this masterpiece must "inevitably have flaws". Thus, I did not say that Shakespeare is infallable, just a lot less so than you are (or than, indeed, I am).

Hey, I've been reading Shakespeare and Hamlet before you were even born.

Plenty of people did plenty of things before I was born; some efforts were remarkable, and some were mediocre. When and for how long you've read Hamlet, then, is really not a strong argument. If your understanding of it is so much better than my "ignorant" part, why not show it? Is it unreasonable on my part to take into account only what I can read and learn? And what have you written here that would teach me of your extensive knowledge on Hamlet?

Very well. But if the ghost can appear to who he wishes, why doesn't he appear to all the Danes to kill the King? Or appear to the Queen before she marries his brother and stop the wedding? Or tell Hamlet that Polonius is behind the curtain and not the King? Or why doesn't the ghost appear again after the middle of the play?

The ghost has every motivation to show himself to the Queen to prove that Hamlet's motivations are honorable and not insane.

I believe I have already explained my reasons for believing otherwise. But you have not done the same. I do not say that I am right and you are wrong; I do not say that I am wise or knowing, I simply demand that, if you want to challenge my view, you must be prepared to put in reasonable effort, since I know that I have. And that effort must be HERE, not more than 20 years ago when you discussed it in class before I was born.

I maintain that it is willy-nilly.

I already knew that you would maintain that, what I asked for was an explanation, not another statement. And look what I found to accompany your statement: "There is no rhyme or reason." Would you consider this a satisfactory explanation? You spent more words to ridicule me, having assumed that I have intentionally offended your person, than you did on Hamlet.

Well, that just proves how ignorant you are on the subject. Shakespeare averaged three or four plays per year through most of his career. He never spent even a single year on any work.

Ignorant? You decide that I am ignorant on the subject simply because I said that it took Shakespeare many years to write Hamlet without explaining myself further? Shouldn't you ask for it if you don't understand what I mean? Yet my demand for explanation before rediculing is a snot-*** one.

Yes, I know that Hamlet is believed to have been written within one or two years shortly before 1600 or 1601 when it was first staged. But in the first authorised publication of the second Quatro in 1604 appeared great changes, indicating that Shakespeare had continued to work on his masterpiece until then. The first folio of Shakespeare's complete work published in 1623 also included Hamlet with yet further significant changes. This suggests that Shakespeare never stopped working on Hamlet until he died. It is for this reason that Professor Harold Bloom praises "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark" as the Mona Lisa of literature (because Da Vinci never stopped working on the latter either). Professor Harold Bloom also suggests that, since he believes that Ur-Hamlet was written by Shakespeare, the play was only re-written after his infant son died though with major changes: it is a questionable claim, yet, still a valid possibility. Thus, to consider any of these elements would mean that it did take Shakespeare many years to write Hamlet. Even if you only mean to talk about its first completion, that's your stance; it doesn't make me wrong, and it certainly doesn't prove that I am ignorant on the subject.

And, to be clear, I never meant to make an attack on your person. Such is the nature of an argument. I was once told: "That's ok if you disagree with me. We disagree quite often and vigorously here on lit net. We don't hold grudges in our disagreements, at least I don't."

[Virgil]

I believe I have already explained my reasons for believing otherwise. But you have not done the same.

Very well. But if the ghost can appear to who he wishes, why doesn't he appear to all the Danes to kill the King? Or appear to the Queen before she marries his brother and stop the wedding? Or tell Hamlet that Polonius is behind the curtain and not the King? Or why doesn't the ghost appear again after the middle of the play?

I believe I have already answered the question. I cannot prove a negative within the context of the play, so therefore there is no quote I can cite to prove the point. I answer it by showing that the rules of the ghost within the play are inconsistent with the motivations of the ghost. If the ghost can decide who he wishes to see him, and he can communicate with living people, then there is no reason for him to not coordinate all the people to take revenge. Here's the ghost's motivation, from Act 1, Scene 5:

Ghost
So art thou to revenge, when thou shalt hear.

HAMLET
What?

Ghost
I am thy father's spirit,
Doom'd for a certain term to walk the night,
And for the day confined to fast in fires,
Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purged away. But that I am forbid
To tell the secrets of my prison-house,
I could a tale unfold whose lightest word
Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood,
Make thy two eyes, like stars, start from their spheres,
Thy knotted and combined locks to part
And each particular hair to stand on end,
Like quills upon the fretful porpentine:
But this eternal blazon must not be
To ears of flesh and blood. List, list, O, list!
If thou didst ever thy dear father love--

HAMLET
O God!

Ghost
Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.

HAMLET
Murder!

Ghost
Murder most foul, as in the best it is;
But this most foul, strange and unnatural.

HAMLET
Haste me to know't, that I, with wings as swift
As meditation or the thoughts of love,
May sweep to my revenge.

Ghost
I find thee apt;
And duller shouldst thou be than the fat weed
That roots itself in ease on Lethe wharf,
Wouldst thou not stir in this. Now, Hamlet, hear:
'Tis given out that, sleeping in my orchard,
A serpent stung me; so the whole ear of Denmark
Is by a forged process of my death
Rankly abused: but know, thou noble youth,
The serpent that did sting thy father's life
Now wears his crown.

So clearly the we know the ghost's motivation. So now, Regit, if you're so smart you answer my questions which I'll repeat here again:

But if the ghost can appear to who he wishes, why doesn't he appear to all the Danes to kill the King? Or appear to the Queen before she marries his brother and stop the wedding? Or tell Hamlet that Polonius is behind the curtain and not the King? Or why doesn't the ghost appear again after the middle of the play?

I really would like to see your answers, mister smarty-pants.

[Regit]

I believe I have already answered the question. I cannot prove a negative within the context of the play, so therefore there is no quote I can cite to prove the point.

If the play is flawed, then, surely, the evidence for those flaws would be in the play, no? And I asked for explanation, not quotes. Yes, I know you think that you've explained it. But:

I answer it by showing that the rules of the ghost within the play are inconsistent with the motivations of the ghost.

This is only a valid explanation (valid, not good - of course, you're entitled to say the same about mine) if you make clear what you believe the ghost's motivation is (and no, the word "revenge" alone is not enough an answer). You have not.

So clearly the we know the ghost's motivation.

And what is that? I see here a quotation and an instruction saying: that's the ghost motivation. You can do better, can't you? The ghost doesn't just say "I want revenge", does it? It says many other things that must be of significance. So I will ask you again, what, do you think, is the ghost's motivation? I am not being patronising. It is important to establish exactly what the ghost's purpose is, as the smallest differences would lead to different outcomes. "Revenge" is only a general term; each person wants revenge in a different way. For example, eventhough we both agree that the ghost's goal is to tell Hamlet to take revenge, yet we have different reasonings for its action to appear to the guards first instead of directly to Hamlet. Yours is, of course, that Shakespeare's ghost is a flawed character. Here's to remind you of mine (which will also serve the purpose for my reasonings proceeding it):

The ghost, like all other characters, is subject to characterisation. Meaning, again, that its course of action is determined by its person and purposes. Its ghostly nature does give it different physical abilities and activities, yet changes nothing of its mental existence. Therefore, the dead King does not know exactly how Hamlet recieves his death. Whilst the rest of the royal family recover quickly and their grief is clearly but "the strappings and suits of woes" and forget underneath, it is perhaps natural for the ghost to doubt others' devotion to it, including Hamlet's. For, though Hamlet's grief is and does not seem, he does have on him, as the rest of them have, the similar "customary suits of solemn black", the "windy suspiration of forc'd breath", the "fruitful river in the eye", and the "dejected havious of the visage," identical to an outside eye; and it is a difficult task to separate him, who is with real grief from those without. Yet...

"He could have appeared in Hamlet's bedroom to Hamlet alone," you say?


"Why, what should be the fear?
I do not set my life at a pin's fee;
And for my soul, what can it do to that,
Being a thing immortal as itself:
It waves me forth again; I'll follow it."

The enthusiasm of Hamlet to follow Horatio to see the ghost that might be his father's spirit is a testiment to his devotion (his soul and, thus, his purpose is as immortal as the ghost). It also proves Hamlet's bravery and determination, brought about only by his faithful interpretation of the ghost's appearance. For if his doubt that it might be a spirit of "goblin damn'd", or had "wicked" intents is more than his yearning to know what the spirit of his father has to say and to have justice, he would not have come, and he would not have followed it. YET, after all proofs, the ghost still has to be further reassured:

"list, Hamlet, oh list.
If thou didst ever thy dear father love."

The ghost's goal is decidedly revenge. Therefore, one aspect of the ghost's purpose is to find its ally; and it must embark upon this with care. It could have also appeared in Gertrude's room; her duty to avenge it is as heavy as Hamlet's if not more. It could also have appeared and spoken anywhere, for it is also a people's duty to avenge its King. Yet, trust is not a murdered, betrayed, and forgoten soul's quality.

The introduction of the story of Fortinbras and his father is a clear suggestion that, in the world of Hamlet, the son's duty to his father is higher than the law or the man's honour to obligate himself to it. I will explain this. The young Fortinbras is determined to take back his father's land eventhough it is undeniably and fairly won by Hamlet the King. This prompts the world (expressed through the words of Horatio here) to assume on him the same flaws that are his father's ("unimproved mettle", "emulate pride"). Yet, we learn later that the young Fortinbras is noble and wise. But it is his duty to revenge his father that has him put aside his obligations to honour the law to perform it. Thus, it is only through the duty of a son to his father that the ghost can most expect help no matter what. YET, it still has to test Hamlet. TEST. And even after Hamlet has agreed to perform, it still has to monitor his actions.

How, then, can it trust the general "Danes" for its onerous task?

The reason why it would not ask the Queen was explained in my first post: it wants the Queen to be prick'd and stung by the thorns of heaven too. And her help for revenge would redeem her and prevent this punishment. And, even if this was overlooked, the Queen is already deemed to be without "virtue" in the first conversation the ghost has with Hamlet. I will quote again:

"But virtue, as it never will be moved,
Though lewdness court it in a shape of heaven,
So lust, though to a radiant angel link'd.
Will sate itself in a celestial bed,
And prey on garbage."

Thus, she is not to be trusted.

The reason why it did not tell Hamlet not to kill Polonius is because that event does not affect its goal whatsoever. In fact, it aids it. Only after killing Polonius, Hamlet has blood on his hands for the first time; and, more than that, it is for the cause of revenge (Hamlet thought he was killing Claudius). Thus, it is arguable that only after this point that Hamlet is fully committed to the task set by his murdered father. Indeed, appears after the event a philosophy not from before:

"For this same lord,
I do repent: but Heaven hath pleas'd it so,
To punish me with this, and this with me,
That I must be their scourge and minister."

and

"I must be cruel, only to be kind"

For the first time, Hamlet has to reason his own murderous action, and he does not fail. Before this event (the killing of Polonius), the closest Hamlet gets to acting upon his dead father’s request is to stand and watch as Claudius confesses to his sins right in front of him unaware of his presence. This is a break-through in his quest; and there is no reason why the ghost should prevent that from happening.

So now, Regit, if you're so smart you answer my questions which I'll repeat here again:

I really would like to see your answers, mister smarty-pants.

You can accuse me of being smart, Virgil (an accusation I would humbly deny); but you cannot accuse me of inserting that I am smart. When did I? In fact I even stated clearly that "I do not say that I am wiser or more knowing". You are the one who implied that, because you read Hamlet before I was born, I have to assume, without any evidence, that you know what you're talking about. That doesn't work in my idea of a discussion.

First "snot-*** kid", and now "mister smarty-pants"? Do you think our age difference allows you to speak to me in that tone? I must remind you that respect, at least in our case if not in all cases, can only be a mutual understanding. I have already said that I did not mean to attack your person.

[Logos]

Hey, I've been reading Shakespeare and Hamlet before you were even born. ...
You shouldn't be such a snot-*** kid all your life.

I really would like to see your answers, mister smarty-pants.

Not really 'helpful' to your end of the discussion.

[Virgil]

You would allow yourself to be critical before attempting to analyse (if you have on your own time, you would understand that it is important to make that clear). None of your previous posts amount to anything more than mere statements; when I, as a reader, naturally demand explanation and analysis.

Let me explain my visceral reaction to your recent posts. It started with those sentences. Before those sentences I was humoursly engaging with you and the subject. I read those sentences as having a supercilious tone, actually quite snobbish. None of my statements amount to much BUT YOU ARE CRITICAL. Perhaps it just came across that way and I reacted. I'll assume now you didn't mean it to come out that way.


So you're saying that there is more than meets the eye with this statement from the ghost:

Ghost
Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.

OK, but rather convenient.

The reason why it would not ask the Queen was explained in my first post: it wants the Queen to be prick'd and stung by the thorns of heaven too.

But why does the ghost stop Hamlet from emotionally torturing the Queen in that bedroom scene?

The reason why it did not tell Hamlet not to kill Polonius is because that event does not affect its goal whatsoever. In fact, it aids it. Only after killing Polonius, Hamlet has blood on his hands for the first time; and, more than that, it is for the cause of revenge (Hamlet thought he was killing Claudius). Thus, it is arguable that only after this point that Hamlet was fully committed to the task set by his murdered father.

And have Hamlet doomed to hell for the murder? What do you mean only after this point he is fully committed? He just stuck a sword into Polonious thinking he was the King. No, I think this is a weak argument.

And what happens to the ghost after the middle of the play, when Shakespeare doesn't need him for dramatic purposes any more? Where is the ghost to guide Hamlet through all the difficulties of the revenge scenes, such as the killing of Polonious? But he shows up to stop Hamlet from arguing with his mother. The totality of the conveniences and the absence of the ghost from the middle of the play on when Shakespeare no longer needs him, leads me to conclude that the ghost is there more for Shakespeare's convenience as a dramatist than for any real thematic reason.

First "snot-*** kid", and now "mister smarty-pants"? Do you think our age difference allows you to speak to me in that tone? I must remind you that respect, at least in our case if not in all cases, can only be a mutual understanding. I have already said that I did not mean to attack your person.

I explained why I reacted the way I did. I apologize for my tone and reaction. You are a smart young man. We are only electronically connected, so I can only virtually offer you my hand to shake.

[ShoutGrace]

Is it unreasonable on my part to take into account only what I can read and learn?

Absolutely.

You just aren't trying hard enough, Regit.

But why does the ghost stop Hamlet from emotionally torturing the Queen in that bedroom scene?

Both the Ghost and Regit have explained this already, I believe. Furthermore:

“Hamlet indeed has spoken daggers in his “shenting” of Gertrude. But when the Ghost appears and not only rebukes him for procrastination but also urges him to “step between [Gertrude] and her fighting soul” (113), Hamlet seems to be aware that he has violated the Ghost’s earlier admonition – tainting his mind by striving against his mother, rather than lending her to heaven.”

What do you mean only after this point he is fully committed? He just stuck a sword into Polonious thinking he was the King. No, I think this is a weak argument.

How do you interpret the following lines?

“But heaven hath pleased it so,
To punish me with this, and this with me,
That I must be their scourge and minister.”

“I must be cruel only to be kind.” (Does this sound like something the pre-murder Hamlet would say?)

And what happens to the ghost after the middle of the play, when Shakespeare doesn't need him for dramatic purposes any more?

Are we really expected to engage in hypothetical inquiries about what Ghosts might be up to when not intervening in the corporeal world?

Where is the ghost to guide Hamlet through all the difficulties of the revenge scenes, such as the killing of Polonious?

Again, are we supposed to theorize about what an immaterial Ghost, allegedly absconded from Purgatory, is doing with his time?

The totality of the conveniences and the absence of the ghost from the middle of the play on when Shakespeare no longer needs him, leads me to conclude that the ghost is there more for Shakespeare's convenience as a dramatist than for any real thematic reason.

Maybe we should then ask, “Why didn’t Shakespeare just have the Ghost become corporeal and kill Claudius?” Sure, it ruins a lot of thematic aspects of the play, but it is a lot simpler dramatically.

[Virgil]

How do you interpret the following lines?

“But heaven hath pleased it so,
To punish me with this, and this with me,
That I must be their scourge and minister.”

“I must be cruel only to be kind.” (Does this sound like something the pre-murder Hamlet would say?)

Yes, actually it is. Hamlet was a divinity student at Wittenburg, and "scurge and minister" is a religious argument. I don't have resources at my disposal, but it refers to the possibility that Hamlet is an evil minister of justice. Which is one of the possibilities for what the ghost is as well.

Are we really expected to engage in hypothetical inquiries about what Ghosts might be up to when not intervening in the corporeal world?

No, because that is not how Shakespeare sets up the world of the Hamlet play. He sets it up as the ghost wanting revenge, and that he can communicate with people, and that he can make himself visible. If the ghost violates some basic logical conclusions, then the audience has a right to pick it apart. You would do it for any movie that you see.

Again, are we supposed to theorize about what an immaterial Ghost, allegedly absconded from Purgatory, is doing with his time?

The ghost took the time to set the revenge in motion. Yes, it does mean something.

Maybe we should then ask, “Why didn’t Shakespeare just have the Ghost become corporeal and kill Claudius?” Sure, it ruins a lot of thematic aspects of the play, but it is a lot simpler dramatically

I take it that the world of the Hamlet play does not allow for that.

Look Hamlet is a great play. It is a great play in spite of some documented flaws.