The Ghost

[Regit]

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.

Correct, that it is an argument that Hamlet has learnt and not one that he has invented. Aren't they all? But the point I put accross was not about the origin of the argument that he uses, but to stress the fact that it is employed only after the killing of Polonius. Where, before this point in the play, is such an argument used? Hamlet always has it at his disposal, yet he would not use it before. He could kill Claudius given a chance and having the physical ability to do so (that, you argue, the ghost does not have) yet he would not before. After this point, he would.

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.

What point do you think I was talking about? Not the point where he rationalises his action, no. But the "sticking of the sword into Polonius" is itself the point, the turn of event where Hamlet has for the first time blood on his hand for the cause of revenge. The killing of Polonius is arguably the only action up until then that Hamlet has not comtemplated carefully, which resembles the decisiveness of his father that he does not normally have. It is a rash action, he misreads the plot (thinking Claudius was behind the curtain and not Polonius). Before that every plot they set up to try and spy on him has been read by him correctly: hiding in the closet, sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. It also seems a rash action since he, though suspicious that Claudius is behind the curtain, initially does not really care whom it is that he had killed.

"Nay, I know not, is it the King?"

Later, he repents yet reasons: It seems that the act of hiding and intruding is enough to be killed:

"You wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell,
I took thee for thy better: take thy fortune,
Thou find'st to be too busy, is some danger."

If one makes it his business to intrude, it is up to fortune what happens to him, since what he intrudes upon may be very dangerous without his knowledge. Hamlet's reasons indeed apply perfectly for Polonius. But though it is his fortune that Polonius dies, it is still a punishable offence that Hamlet has comitted by killing him. The same would apply had Claudius been killed, thus answering the following:

And have Hamlet doomed to hell for the murder?

It is a non-factor, for Hamlet would be doom'd anyway even if it were Claudius behind the curtain. Claudius' sin is not for Hamlet nor for the ghost to punish. Personal revenge is not an act tolerated by heaven, not in Hamlet's mind anyway.
After the killing of Polonius and only a moment, though of great consequences, of rash behaviour, Hamlet regains his reasons. But it is changed: "I must be cruel, only to be kind". Indeed, immediately after this event, Hamlet reveals that he has discovered another plot (the letters) and himself is going to react to it very differently from before:

"But I will delve one yard below their mines,
and blow them at the moon."

This time, those that wrong him will receive more than his criticism and contemplation of their sins. A revengeful soul is not a clean one. Thus to be a successful one, it is important to get one's hands dirty first. No, I don't think that it is a weak argument. The ghost's hands are already dirty, it does not hide it:

"Until the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purg'd away."

Its cause may be just in its own mine; but that's it. And it is fully aware that Hamlet will also burn like itself for the tasks it asks of him. There's no reason for it to interfere with Polonius' death.

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.

I am afraid it is not so. First of all, a ghost is an entity that exists only in theory. Thus the ghost in the play is only another theory and whatever happens cannot be deemed illogical. How are you going to argue, in the strict sense, that an action belongs to a ghost is illogical when the existence of the ghost alone is already illogical. You can't, the ghost is theoretical and so are its actions. There are no rules "set up" for the ghost but one that includes all actions belonging to it in the play. If, at the end, it appears and kills everybody (yes, even though that is a ridiculous possibility) that action, its meaning, purpose, and rules would also be included in, as you call it, the rule of the ghost. Thus, up for debate is not whether the ghost's actions are logical or illogical, but how to interpret them to fit the events and morality of the play. Personally, there is nothing wrong with the ghost as a character. And if I find it difficult to interpret something satisfyingly or to come to a logical conclusion, I would try harder. Yes, I know there are sources supporting what you say; but one ultimately has to be responsible for his own words. You say that the ghost is a flawed character; and it is your own insertion.

[Virgil]

Correct, that it is an argument that Hamlet has learnt and not one that he has invented. Aren't they all? But the point I put accross was not about the origin of the argument that he uses, but to stress the fact that it is employed only after the killing of Polonius. Where, before this point in the play, is such an argument used? Hamlet always has it at his disposal, yet he would not use it before. He could kill Claudius given a chance and having the physical ability to do so (that, you argue, the ghost does not have) yet he would not before. After this point, he would.

What point do you think I was talking about? Not the point where he rationalises his action, no. But the "sticking of the sword into Polonius" is itself the point, the turn of event where Hamlet has for the first time blood on his hand for the cause of revenge. The killing of Polonius is arguably the only action up until then that Hamlet has not comtemplated carefully, which resembles the decisiveness of his father that he does not normally have. It is a rash action, he misreads the plot (thinking Claudius was behind the curtain and not Polonius). Before that every plot they set up to try and spy on him has been read by him correctly: hiding in the closet, sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. It also seems a rash action since he, though suspicious that Claudius is behind the curtain, initially does not really care whom it is that he had killed.

"Nay, I know not, is it the King?"

Later, he repents yet reasons: It seems that the act of hiding and intruding is enough to be killed:

"You wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell,
I took thee for thy better: take thy fortune,
Thou find'st to be too busy, is some danger."

If one makes it his business to intrude, it is up to fortune what happens to him, since what he intrudes upon may be very dangerous without his knowledge. Hamlet's reasons indeed apply perfectly for Polonius. But though it is his fortune that Polonius dies, it is still a punishable offence that Hamlet has comitted by killing him. The same would apply had Claudius been killed, thus answering the following:
It is a non-factor, for Hamlet would be doom'd anyway even if it were Claudius behind the curtain. Claudius' sin is not for Hamlet nor for the ghost to punish. Personal revenge is not an act tolerated by heaven, not in Hamlet's mind anyway.
After the killing of Polonius and only a moment, though of great consequences, of rash behaviour, Hamlet regains his reasons. But it is changed: "I must be cruel, only to be kind". Indeed, immediately after this event, Hamlet reveals that he has discovered another plot (the letters) and himself is going to react to it very differently from before:

"But I will delve one yard below their mines,
and blow them at the moon."

This time, those that wrong him will receive more than his criticism and contemplation of their sins. A revengeful soul is not a clean one. Thus to be a successful one, it is important to get one's hands dirty first. No, I don't think that it is a weak argument. The ghost's hands are already dirty, it does not hide it:

"Until the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purg'd away."

Its cause may be just in its own mine; but that's it. And it is fully aware that Hamlet will also burn like itself for the tasks it asks of him. There's no reason for it to interfere with Polonius' death.

Nice discourse. But we are going astray of the issue. Why doesn't the ghost focus Hamlet's actions on carrying out the revenge? He starts him up and lets him go, and yet he can stop Hamlet from abusing his mother. All willy-nilly.

I am afraid it is not so. First of all, a ghost is an entity that exists only in theory. Thus the ghost in the play is only another theory and whatever happens cannot be deemed illogical.

I have no idea what any of that means. In theory? I think the ghost is quite real.

How are you going to argue, in the strict sense, that an action belongs to a ghost is illogical when the existence of the ghost alone is already illogical.

Not within the world of the play. A sci-fi flick has Martians. Of course in our world they don't exist. But in the world of the movie they are a fact and logical.

You can't, the ghost is theoretical and so are its actions. There are no rules "set up" for the ghost but one that includes all actions belonging to it in the play.

Oh yes there are. Any author sets up the rules within his work and must be consistent.

If, at the end, it appears and kills everybody (yes, even though that is a ridiculous possibility

Quite right that is rediculous. Why? Because Shakespeare has established rules at the beginning of the play.

Personally, there is nothing wrong with the ghost as a character. And if I find it difficult to interpret something satisfyingly or to come to a logical conclusion, I would try harder. Yes, I know there are sources supporting what you say; but one ultimately has to be responsible for his own words. You say that the ghost is a flawed character; and it is your own insertion.

I never said the ghost's character is flawed. I said the play is flawed by the way Shakespeare uses the ghost.

Look, you're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. I am going to make one last attempt to convince anyone in posterity that might open this thread. The fact that Shakespeare has a ghost enter at the beginning of the play, come up in the middle, and then never brings him up again, despite situations where he can provide guidence to resolving his motivation of revenge, smacks of authorial convenience. Why does the ghost not come back after the middle of the play, when the author no longer needs him? You never answer that. You can't answer that. It is a motif that is left hanging, and strikingly so. If in a sci-fi flick if martians start a war between nations at the beginning of the movie, and are never seen or mentioned again, and we just see the war and earthling soldiers, then it is a structural flaw to the movie. The martians were just a convenience to start the war. We forget about the ghost because Shakespeare has great characters, intense plot, and sublime language. But he leaves that motif hanging.

[Regit]

Look, you're not going to convince me

Point well-taken.

[kindlybeaver]

Just a theory, and maybe it's been mentioned, but could it be that, at first, the Ghost appears to everyone as it is there, in an ethereal form. However, during Hamlet's confrontation of Gertrude, he may be imagining it, due to his encroaching madness. This of course depends on whether you believe that Hamlet has actually gone mad in the play, or whether it is still an act.

[Regit]

Just a theory, and maybe it's been mentioned, but could it be that, at first, the Ghost appears to everyone as it is there, in an ethereal form. However, during Hamlet's confrontation of Gertrude, he may be imagining it, due to his encroaching madness. This of course depends on whether you believe that Hamlet has actually gone mad in the play, or whether it is still an act.

It is an interesting thought. Though "enter ghost" may indicate that there is a ghost in the scene. The entire audience would see a ghost as Hamlet does, leaving Gertrude the odd one out. And I never even doubt that Hamlet might be mad (though is that a necessary condition for your theory?). But I think that there could certainly be a strong argument for your theory. Would you like to produce it? I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

[ShoutGrace]

Thus, it is arguable that only after this point that Hamlet was fully committed to the task set by his murdered father.

I remain curious about this point. I believe he was much changed, indeed (as I said above). I’ve seen it argued, however, that Hamlet still has “fighting in his heart” up until Act V scene II. Horatio offers to “forestall” the fencing match, whereupon Hamlet recites the following:

“Not a whit, we defy augury: there's a special
providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now,
'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be
now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the
readiness is all: since no man has aught of what he
leaves, what is't to leave betimes?”


“Hamlet now seems to have resolved all doubts as to whether he functions as minister or as scourge. Finally he no longer fears death or what may await him after death.”

C.S. Lewis described Hamlet’s world in the following manner (he references the above passage):

“The world of Hamlet is a world where one has lost one’s way. The Prince also has no doubt lost his, and we can tell the precise moment at which he finds it again.”

Its cause may be just in its own mine; but that's it. And it is fully aware that Hamlet will also burn like itself for the tasks it asks of him.

That was one of my stumbling blocks in the play. I lightly concluded that the Ghost 'hoped' that Hamlet would later confess and be exculpated from his crimes.

Either that, or the Ghost is just too bitter to care about the effects on his son, rather caring more about the vengeance. Which disagrees mildly with the image we get of him from other parts of the play (characters, comments, etc.), I think.

Not within the world of the play. A sci-fi flick has Martians. Of course in our world they don't exist. But in the world of the movie they are a fact and logical.

Who says they don’t exist?

Why does the ghost not come back after the middle of the play, when the author no longer needs him?

Surely there are a nearly unlimited number of possible reasons for this, though, right? You’re saying that your theory is the most probable?

[Virgil]

Surely there are a nearly unlimited number of possible reasons for this, though, right? You’re saying that your theory is the most probable?

I had finished with my argument, but the other day I recalled this in the critical commentary. Observe this famous soliloquy:

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action. - Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.

Notice these lines: "But that the dread of something after death,/The undiscover'd country from whose bourn/No traveller returns" The place where no traveler returns? Well the ghost has returned. Shakespeare has forgot his own the rules of the Hamlet world he has created. The ghost has returned to the human world and Hamlet has very much seen it. Could he had forgotten his own father's ghost? No Shakespeare has forgotten, because the ghost is a convenience. Shakespeare himself has forgotten it.

And do not credit me with any brilliant insight. I didn't think this up. It's in the critical commentary.

[Regit]

I remain curious about this point. I believe he was much changed, indeed (as I said above). I’ve seen it argued, however, that Hamlet still has “fighting in his heart” up until Act V scene II. Horatio offers to “forestall” the fencing match, whereupon Hamlet recites the following:

“Not a whit, we defy augury: there's a special
providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now,
'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be
now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the
readiness is all: since no man has aught of what he
leaves, what is't to leave betimes?”


“Hamlet now seems to have resolved all doubts as to whether he functions as minister or as scourge. Finally he no longer fears death or what may await him after death.”

C.S. Lewis described Hamlet’s world in the following manner (he references the above passage):

“The world of Hamlet is a world where one has lost one’s way. The Prince also has no doubt lost his, and we can tell the precise moment at which he finds it again.”

I agree with your insertion, that the change in Hamlet's mentality is a breakthrough, but there are still endless doubts in his mind. But, then, I don't think these doubts ever go away.

"The readiness is all" may even imply that he is still not convinced. The readiness is all, yet, regardless of the readiness, the fall of the sparrow is inevitable. So, maybe, he realises now that more and more reasons would do no good: readiness is not the realisation of a wisdom that he has long searched for, but simply an acceptance despite reason. But, none the less, only with sufficient reason can the "fighting in his heart" stop, and it, thus, has not. Maybe it is not that he has found his way, but accepts that he would never find it and that getting on with his goal is the more realistic goal.

Indeed, we are not told here why Hamlet has finally succumbed to his fate, other than because it is inevitable. And without his struggles to find a right path, there is not much left for him to do but to complete his task and die: hence, he speaks that way. And because I firmly believe in the cause of Hamlet's struggles and his sense of justice, I do not think that this surrender can be viewed as "finding [his way] again". His quest for understanding is a great one, only his life does not allow it. Thus, I do not agree with C S Lewis' insertion above.

That was one of my stumbling blocks in the play. I lightly concluded that the Ghost 'hoped' that Hamlet would later confess and be exculpated from his crimes.

I found that the only words that might support this idea are: "taint not thy mind". And even these words can be interpreted in the other direction. In fact, in Act III when the ghost appears, it mentions two things: Hamlet's blunted purpose and Gertrude. It seems to be a repetition of earlier commands: "Taint not thy mind, nor let thy soul contrive against thy mother aught", which further convinces me that "taint not thy mind" here is a command to Hamlet not to change his purpose (revenge), and not a reminder that Hamlet should not let his mind be dirty. But I am not denying the other possiblity completely.

Either that, or the Ghost is just too bitter to care about the effects on his son, rather caring more about the vengeance. Which disagrees mildly with the image we get of him from other parts of the play (characters, comments, etc.), I think.

Maybe. But maybe it does care, yet still decides that the revenge tradition is more important. It is fully aware of the consequences of sins, being an example itself - surely, having been punished for its sins, it must know what they are.
I think that the ghost's approach to persuading Hamlet changes:

"If thou didst ever thy dear father love
Revenge his foul and most unnatural murther."

Here 'love' is to be Hamlet's reason, yet...

"If thou hast nature in thee bear it not"

...directs that Hamlet's constitution and sense of duty to his father should be the motive. Is it just listing things that might obligate Hamlet to its plan?
Which leads me to believe that, to the ghost, it is more important to achieve its goal, than to have a defined reason for it (at least this specific goal). This especially contradicts with Hamlet's mentality, who curses himself for the lack of his father's resolution.
And I think the comments on Hamlet the King's character only supports this view. Most of them come from Hamlet, and praise him as a man (in many places stresses masculinity): We see the dead King compared to mythology figures such as Jove, Mars, and Mercury: all masculine figures that Hamlet deems himself not to be, as he remarks on the difference between himself and Hercules (Hercules very readily takes revenge on wrongs done against him, often without much deliberation - so does Jove). And by the context of the comparison, we understand that Hamlet deems Hercules' quality good, and his own, bad. So we see that Hamlet the King is praised as a "man" indeed: but the nature of these praises does not prevent but in fact does promote the Ghost's choice of action, one that would "give the world assurance of a man."
Furthermore, notice how Hamlet does not react to Horatio's "goodly King" comment. Instead he ignores it completely with the "he was a man, take him for all in all" remark. And is "I shall not look upon his like again" necessarily praising? What were these "foul deeds" that the dead King has done? We are never told - Jove has endless foul deeds, often associated with lust and anger, as Hercules, his son.

[toni]

Oooohh.. Looks like Virgil ran out of things to say.
Interesting argument, that one with King Hamlet's ghost. Regit explained it clearly and precisely. I actually felt like I was listening to an English Professor.
Hamlet is my favorite Shakespeare play, I never get tired reading it over and over but I never thought of questioning why Hamlet is the only one who could speak to the ghost..




If A is success in life, then A is equals to X+Y+Z.
Work is X; Y is play; and Z is keeping your mouth shut.
-Albert Einstein

[Virgil]

Oooohh.. Looks like Virgil ran out of things to say.

I've made might case. I don't see anything that refutes my assertion that Shakespeare drops the ghost mid way because he doesn't find him useful. Compare the use of the ghost with the use of the witches in MacBeth. There Shakespeare gets it right.

I'm putting forth that the way Shakespeare uses the ghost is a structural flaw to the play. Regit's arguments (and good arguments, don't get me wrong; he's trying to do his best) are rationalizations through character's words. Those tell me that Shakespeare understood the flaw (remember he inherited the story, he didn't make it up himself) and tried to soften it. But a structural flaw in a work cannot be washed away with rationalizations. Like I described in the story with the martians and the war up above some where. Structure takes precendence over rationales. It is much more critical.

Interesting argument, that one with King Hamlet's ghost. Regit explained it clearly and precisely. I actually felt like I was listening to an English Professor.

Hahaha, LOL. You just put the kiss of death to him. That probably means he's definitely wrong. I've never met a college professor who really understood the art of writing, unless those few who were writers themselves. And for your information I have a Master's degree in lit, which is pretty much useless.

Hamlet is my favorite Shakespeare play, I never get tired reading it over and over but I never thought of questioning why Hamlet is the only one who could speak to the ghost..

It is a great play, despite it's structural flaw.

I agree with your insertion, that the change in Hamlet's mentality is a breakthrough, but there are still endless doubts in his mind. But, then, I don't think these doubts ever go away.

"The readiness is all" may even imply that he is still not convinced. The readiness is all, yet, regardless of the readiness, the fall of the sparrow is inevitable. So, maybe, he realises now that more and more reasons would do no good: readiness is not the realisation of a wisdom that he has long searched for, but simply an acceptance despite reason.

So make up your mind. At first you claim, with so much confidence I may add, that Hamlet crosses a threshold when he kills Polonius. Now you say he may not still be convinced. "So maybe" you say? It doesn't strike me as someone who is confident in his assertions. You sound as ambivalent as Hamlet. Can't make up your mind?

[Regit]

So make up your mind. At first you claim, with so much confidence I may add, that Hamlet crosses a threshold when he kills Polonius. Now you say he may not still be convinced. "So maybe" you say? It doesn't strike me as someone who is confident in his assertions. You sound as ambivalent as Hamlet. Can't make up your mind?

O dear, am I in trouble or am I in trouble: the great critic of our forum who looks upon literature professors with disdain has turned his critical eyes at me. What am I to do!

Virgil, with all due respect, I am afraid your logic has betrayed you once more. Either that or you didn't really read what I wrote. Let us review:

I said:

I agree with your insertion, that the change in Hamlet's mentality is a breakthrough, but there are still endless doubts in his mind.

This means that I agreed to an insertion, and that insertion was that: "the change in Hamlet's mentality is a breakthrough, but there are still endless doubts in his mind." This is an addition to my argument earlier:

What point do you think I was talking about? Not the point where he rationalises his action, no. But the "sticking of the sword into Polonius" is itself the point, the turn of event where Hamlet has for the first time blood on his hand for the cause of revenge. The killing of Polonius is arguably the only action up until then that Hamlet has not comtemplated carefully, which resembles the decisiveness of his father that he does not normally have. It is a rash action, he misreads the plot (thinking Claudius was behind the curtain and not Polonius). Before that every plot they set up to try and spy on him has been read by him correctly: hiding in the closet, sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. It also seems a rash action since he, though suspicious that Claudius is behind the curtain, initially does not really care whom it is that he had killed.

"Nay, I know not, is it the King?"

Later, he repents yet reasons: It seems that the act of hiding and intruding is enough to be killed:

"You wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell,
I took thee for thy better: take thy fortune,
Thou find'st to be too busy, is some danger."

If one makes it his business to intrude, it is up to fortune what happens to him, since what he intrudes upon may be very dangerous without his knowledge. Hamlet's reasons indeed apply perfectly for Polonius. But though it is his fortune that Polonius dies, it is still a punishable offence that Hamlet has comitted by killing him. The same would apply had Claudius been killed, thus answering the following:

"And have Hamlet doomed to hell for the murder?" - Originally Posted by Virgil

It is a non-factor, for Hamlet would be doom'd anyway even if it were Claudius behind the curtain. Claudius' sin is not for Hamlet nor for the ghost to punish. Personal revenge is not an act tolerated by heaven, not in Hamlet's mind anyway.
After the killing of Polonius and only a moment, though of great consequences, of rash behaviour, Hamlet regains his reasons. But it is changed: "I must be cruel, only to be kind". Indeed, immediately after this event, Hamlet reveals that he has discovered another plot (the letters) and himself is going to react to it very differently from before:

"But I will delve one yard below their mines,
and blow them at the moon."

This time, those that wrong him will receive more than his criticism and contemplation of their sins. A revengeful soul is not a clean one. Thus to be a successful one, it is important to get one's hands dirty first. No, I don't think that it is a weak argument. The ghost's hands are already dirty, it does not hide it:

"Until the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purg'd away."

Its cause may be just in its own mine; but that's it. And it is fully aware that Hamlet will also burn like itself for the tasks it asks of him. There's no reason for it to interfere with Polonius' death.

I have highlighted some of the key points to improve lazy-reader-friendliness.

Now, please tell me, which of the points of my argument suggests to you that I have forbidden the possibility that Hamlet might still have doubts? Is it the argument that he defends his murderous act despite knowing that it is wrong? Is it the argument that his action at the time was a rash one? Is it the one that mentions his contemplation as to whether he is a minister or a scourge? Is it the one that he continues to reason? Which is it?
Does the decision to finally act upon his revenge deny Hamlet of having any more doubts? Surely it doesn't. I'm replying to your post right now, my fingers typing, but my mind is clustered with doubts about my action: "is it worth my effort?"

No, there is no "maybe" in my argument in the sense that you suggested. Although I do have a problem making up my mind. I don't know whether to make further responses to your posts in this discussion. If you are so sure that I can't convince you Virgil, why are you still asking questions? Is your aim, then, to ridicule having no interest in the content of my answer? If you ask questions (and, in effect, demand explanations) and at the same time announce that you can never be convinced, then surely one of those purposes is not genuine. So again, with all due respect, please let your next argument move beyond introduction.

And let me clarify that I have the most humbling respect for literature professors (as to all professors) and for the education of literature. They can be utterly useful for those who respect them and have access to them. Which is why, in my diminutive usefulness, I deny toni's kind compliments, and not for the reasons you suggested.

[Virgil]

After the killing of Polonius and only a moment, though of great consequences, of rash behaviour, Hamlet regains his reasons. But it is changed: "I must be cruel, only to be kind".

That is what you said, and that is quite clearly saying that Hamlet has crossed a threshold. And the quote you highlight out of Hamlet's mouth along with it (and you say from Hamlet's rational mind, not rash) is of someone who has quite clearly made up his mind.

I don't know whether to make further responses to your posts in this discussion. If you are so sure that I can't convince you Virgil, why are you still asking questions?

Yeah, perhaps it's best we both ignore each other. Before this thread I happened to like you. But your snobbish and frankly disrespectful post you made up above that I pointed out, and after I went half way with an apology and even offered you my hand to shake, and you didn't come back half way with an apology on your side, I don't have any fond feelings toward you.

[kilted exile]

Notice these lines: "But that the dread of something after death,/The undiscover'd country from whose bourn/No traveller returns" The place where no traveler returns? Well the ghost has returned. Shakespeare has forgot his own the rules of the Hamlet world he has created. The ghost has returned to the human world and Hamlet has very much seen it. Could he had forgotten his own father's ghost? No Shakespeare has forgotten, because the ghost is a convenience. Shakespeare himself has forgotten it.

Ok, I am probably not understanding something (which is quite often the case ), but I do not see these comments as a rule created by Shakespeare, they are the thoughts racing through someones head after he sees a ghost. He is questioning how it is possible for a dead man to walk when everything he knows and has ever been told about the world says it should not happen.

[Regit]

That is what you said, and that is quite clearly saying that Hamlet has crossed a threshold. And the quote you highlight out of Hamlet's mouth along with it (and you say from Hamlet's rational mind, not rash) is of someone who has quite clearly made up his mind.

... Yes, he has made up his mind to act on his revenge,which doesn't stop him from having doubts about it - an argument that you have not touched: "He regains reason", means that he is no longer rash but is thinking and contemplating like before, which increases the possibility of doubt. A rational mind is rational because it has the ability to rationalise possibilities. It is during his rash action that he does not have doubts, which is why he curses his difference to Hercules.

Apologise? Did I not say "I did not mean to offend your person" a more than once? Then, what do I have to apologise for, trying to discuss literature?

And why is this crooked diplomacy always the focus of your response? Can't you focus on giving your argument a body first? You can convince me yet, since I am open to genuine thoughts; but you have not once tried to. I think that the discussion of Literature is the best diplomacy here, not handshakes or fond feelings. And that, I have offered you plenty. And that, you have not come close to halfway.

[Janine]

I wonder if Gertrude cannot see the ghost since she is not open mentally to the experience, such as the way people claim today some can see spirits and some cannot. Maybe Gertrude's guilt at marrying with the uncle is preventing it or maybe the ghost himself is not sanctioning it - He commands Hamlet to do the mother no harm. He loved the mother in life, was not hostile towards her, after death. Only Hamlet harbors the intense anger in the bedroom scene, where he bitterly shows her the two portraits - his uncle and his father - and compares how one is evil and one virtuous. To Jamesian I reply: Horatio was often addressed by other characters, see the grave scene when he is asked to attend to Hamlet by Claudius, also when he received a note from Hamlet a guard brings it to him, and many, many times, throughout the play, he has interaction with various characters. In the opening scene all three actors you mention, have interaction and verbal exchange with each other. It is only on the viewing of the ghost the second time that Hamlet is present, along with the three. How then could they be a figment of Hamlet's imagination?