The Ghost

[Virgil]

... 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.

Actually here is the more definitive statement you made on this:

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.

No where here is it implied or suggested that Hamlet has doubts still after the Polonious murder. "Fully commtted" as you say is just the opposite of having doubts. It strikes me as outside human nature to be fully committed and still have doubts.

[QUOTE=Regit;275691Apologise? 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.[/QUOTE]

As to this more important matter, I went through the thread and found this:

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."

You are correct. You did apologize and I must have missed it. I hereby humbly apologize for yesterday's comment.

And also as I went through the thread, I noticed how many times I complimented you, both before and after I got ticked off. I meant my compiments.

As to whether the use of Hamlet's ghost is flawed, forget it. We disagree and we made our points.

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.

What I'm trying to say Kilt, is that in this soliloquy, Shakespeare has Hamlet say in essence that no one comes back from the dead. But that's not true. Hamlet's father as ghost has come back from the dead. My point is, and I'm not the only person that's brought this point up, Shakespeare in writing this forgot about the ghost.

[kilted exile]

What I'm trying to say Kilt, is that in this soliloquy, Shakespeare has Hamlet say in essence that no one comes back from the dead. But that's not true. Hamlet's father as ghost has come back from the dead. My point is, and I'm not the only person that's brought this point up, Shakespeare in writing this forgot about the ghost.

Ok, then this is where the difference is: I do not see that soliloquy as rules created by Shakespeare. I see it only as the confused ravings of Hamlet. Yes Hamlet says in essence that nothing comes back from the dead, but it is more as a question he is asking himself as to how if that is true (like he was always taught) his father could be there now.

I am probably not making myself very clear.

[Virgil]

Ok, then this is where the difference is: I do not see that soliloquy as rules created by Shakespeare. I see it only as the confused ravings of Hamlet. Yes Hamlet says in essence that nothing comes back from the dead, but it is more as a question he is asking himself as to how if that is true (like he was always taught) his father could be there now.

I am probably not making myself very clear.

No you are. I think you're saying that Hamlet is just spouting off and not thinking about the ghost. Normal people would say what Hamlet says since no one has seen a ghost in reality. However, if Shakespeare were conscious of it, I don't think he would have had Hamlet say that. It's pretty hard to believe that Hamlet would have forgoten the ghost of his father. I just think that Shakespeare forgot his rules. He was human you know. He did have plays with flaws.

[msdirector]

What I'm trying to say Kilt, is that in this soliloquy, Shakespeare has Hamlet say in essence that no one comes back from the dead. But that's not true. Hamlet's father as ghost has come back from the dead. My point is, and I'm not the only person that's brought this point up, Shakespeare in writing this forgot about the ghost.

Hi Virgil...

I understand what you are saying here, and I know others agree with you, but I look at it differently. I believe Shakespeare knew exactly what he was saying and so did Hamlet.

Hamlet says that death is "The undiscovered country, from whose bourn / No traveller returns". His complaint is that there is no one to tell us what is on the other side of death, and that fear of the unknown is what keeps us from actively pursuing that relief from this world's cares and troubles.

Hamlet (and Shakespeare) is right. No one dies and then returns to life. The ghostly apparition he has seen is not his father returned from the grave. The Ghost isn't his father brought to life again, nor is he resurrected. The Ghost himself says:

"I am thy father's spirit,
Doomed 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."

In other words, he is in Purgatory. It is only his spirit that Hamlet sees, and while the Ghost hints at what that may be like and what Hamlet's reaction to such revelations might be, he specifically says, "I am forbidden / To tell the secrets of my prison-house". And even if he could tell, he could only speak of what it is like in Purgatory, not what it like in Heaven or Hell when his time in Purgatory is over.

The ghostly apparition that Hamlet sees is not his father, but rather only a spirit and speaks specifically only of things that happened in this world, not the next. Additionally, Hamlet is still, at this point, unsure whether the ghost is, indeed, the spirit of his father! He says just moments before that:

"The spirit that I have seen
May be the devil, and the devil hat power
T'assume a pleasing shape; yea, and perhaps
Out of my weakness and my melancholy
As he is very potent with such spirits,
Abuses me to damn me."

This spirit he has seen may not be his father after all, but a devil come to trick him into a damning action of his own - the hatred and killing of his uncle, now the king, Claudius.

So Hamlet's speculations on life, death, suicide, action and inaction are completely valid. While he has seen what appears to be the ghost of his father, he is tormented by the thought that it might not have been, and that even if it was, the Ghost is neither his father alive and returned from the grave nor has it told him anything about the world to come. His philosophical dilemma, that fear of the unknown "puzzles the will, / And make us ratehr bear those ills we have / Than fly to others that we know not of", remains a valid question.

[Virgil]

So Hamlet's speculations on life, death, suicide, action and inaction are completely valid. While he has seen what appears to be the ghost of his father, he is tormented by the thought that it might not have been, and that even if it was, the Ghost is neither his father alive and returned from the grave nor has it told him anything about the world to come. His philosophical dilemma, that fear of the unknown "puzzles the will, / And make us ratehr bear those ills we have / Than fly to others that we know not of", remains a valid question.

Oh I never said his speculations were invalid. I'm just saying it's a slip on Shakepeare's part that a traveler to the unknown has come back. As to whether the ghost is someone other than his father, we the audience know that it is. We have to assume that. That would be a cheap trick if it weren't. If you say that Hamlet is unsure, well unsure works both ways. He's got to be at least open to the possibility that it is; so then Hamlet would not make that statement if he were conscious of the ghost.

What do you think about the argument we have been having as to Shakespeare's use of the ghost? I'm not sure anyone else is agreeing with me. Based on your statement above, you probably disagree with me too.

[ShoutGrace]

Could he had forgotten his own father's ghost? No Shakespeare has forgotten, because the ghost is a convenience. Shakespeare himself has forgotten it.

Okay, first off I want to have a few things clarified. If Shakespeare did in fact forget the Ghost's existence and his relevance in the play (something which I dispute and will discuss later if neccessary), are you using the situation as evidence that Shakespeare created the Ghost merely for dramatic purposes? It seems that is what you are saying, but clarity is important here.

I'm just saying it's a slip on Shakepeare's part that a traveler to the unknown has come back.

How do you define “coming back?”

As to whether the ghost is someone other than his father, we the audience know that it is. We have to assume that.

We don't know and we cannot assume. That is part of what keeps the audience integrated in the play. Hamlet cannot be sure that the Ghost is his father (as he reiterates) and neither can we.

He's got to be at least open to the possibility that it is; so then Hamlet would not make that statement if he were conscious of the ghost.

That seems valid to me, at present, which is why the interpretation of the phraseology of death as a bourne “from which no traveller returns” is important.

This is something that msdirector is hitting on with the following:

Hamlet says that death is "The undiscovered country, from whose bourn / No traveller returns". His complaint is that there is no one to tell us what is on the other side of death, and that fear of the unknown is what keeps us from actively pursuing that relief from this world's cares and troubles.

Hamlet (and Shakespeare) is right. No one dies and then returns to life. The ghostly apparition he has seen is not his father returned from the grave. The Ghost isn't his father brought to life again, nor is he resurrected. The Ghost himself says:

"I am thy father's spirit,
Doomed 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."

In other words, he is in Purgatory. It is only his spirit that Hamlet sees, and while the Ghost hints at what that may be like and what Hamlet's reaction to such revelations might be, he specifically says, "I am forbidden / To tell the secrets of my prison-house". And even if he could tell, he could only speak of what it is like in Purgatory, not what it like in Heaven or Hell when his time in Purgatory is over.

I wasn't going to argue it quite like that but I'm happy with using this explanation as is for the moment. I'm glad you took the time to contribute, msdirector. Hope you stick around the forums.


Regit, I've finished my final midterm and have one more paper to write (a baby, 5 pages) by Monday so next week I'll try to formulate some halfway decent responses to yours.

[Virgil]

Okay, first off I want to have a few things clarified. If Shakespeare did in fact forget the Ghost's existence and his relevance in the play (something which I dispute and will discuss later if neccessary), are you using the situation as evidence that Shakespeare created the Ghost merely for dramatic purposes? It seems that is what you are saying, but clarity is important here.

Yes, yes, yes!

How do you define “coming back?”

Once you have died, you are now in a different world, something that none of us, if it exists, have any knowledge of. Hamlt's father has entered that world, and now is back to the human world.

We don't know and we cannot assume. That is part of what keeps the audience integrated in the play. Hamlet cannot be sure that the Ghost is his father (as he reiterates) and neither can we.

And if this is a central motif of the play, where is it ever resolved? Like I've said a million times the ghost is dropped mid way and never picked up. You can't just leave this hanging.

That seems valid to me, at present, which is why the interpretation of the phraseology of death as a bourne “from which no traveller returns” is important.

Thank you. Somebody agrees with something I've said.

Are you trying to find significance in the elocution "I am thy father's spirit" versus a catagorical statement such as "I am your father"? and then

In other words, he is in Purgatory. It is only his spirit that Hamlet sees

I know of no religious doctrine that would make this disctintion. I can't imagine Shakespeare inventing his own religious principles in this play, especially since it never gets fleshed out as an idea.

[ShoutGrace]

Yes, yes, yes!

Just making sure.

[Virgil]

Just making sure.

By the way, I forgot to respond to this:

are you using the situation as evidence that Shakespeare created the Ghost merely for dramatic purposes?

I want to make clear that Shakespeare did not think up the Hamlet story; he inhereted it and so the ghost. I'm not sure he really cared about the ghost (for all the reasons I've already mentioned). The slip ups seem to justify this speculation.

[ShoutGrace]

By the way, I forgot to respond to this:

I want to make clear that Shakespeare did not think up the Hamlet story; he inhereted it and so the ghost.

Oh, yes, very much so. "Created" is the wrong word, I suppose. "Used?" "Maintained?"

[Janine]

Wow, not sure I can effectively jump in here at this late point. I just read every post (5 pages) and my head is spinning. First off - why are you guys fighting over the whole deal of the ghost? Hey, maybe it is time to give up the ghost! I really wonder if the confusion was not something that Shakepeare actually intended. I think he might have wanted us to question throughout the play the validity of the ghost. Was the ghost real, was the ghost good or was the ghost evil? I thought I might hit on something intelligent, but this is just a stab in the dark, do bear with me on this idea. First I want to say I can see all points and all sides and theories in this long and heated discussion. I can't see where anyone is really wrong. I think the mystery of the ghost is actually brilliant. Are not all ghosts mysterious? Hey, I am thinking this up as I go along. I do have to agree on some of the points that MsDirector brought up. I was thinking on these very lines when I found her posting. She put forth her ideas well and documented them clearly. They made much sense. I personally think the ghost is spiritual and not something we can easily set into the physical realm or even comprehend. First off, Shakepeare had to show the ghost as a real person on stage, but Shakepeare often uses his narrator or chorus to appeal to the audience to use one's imagination in such matters. We physically see the ghost one way, but perhaps the ghost is something entirely different. Maybe the ghost is different to each person who experiences him or it or whatever. The mystery of the ghost leads us to question all of the play and all of the motives. This is the brilliant aspect of "Hamlet". I personally believe Shakespeare, who was a man (capable of flaws), but also a genius, knew exactly what he was doing throughout all of Hamlet. In many ways the play is a progression. Hamlet changes and progresses as the play proceeds and progresses as well. There are many stages of this change. Some have been mentioned in earlier posts. The fact that Gertrude does not see the ghost does not really bother me at all. I was thinking of the possibilty that if one had guilt, one could not view the ghost. The perception might not be there. Also maybe those that would be open to believing in the ghost would be the only ones able to see it. Real ghost hunters will tell you this today and they ardently do believe in spirits or ghosts. Not all can see them or orbs which they claim are spirits. I recently attended a local meeting of one of the groups who claim they have documented these sightings. They claim some people are sensitive or have highly developed senses to perceive the ghost. Since Hamlet is very sensitive (even overly so) and he does entertain the belief that there could exist a ghost, this could explain why he sees it, when others cannot. Also, perhaps the guilty can not perceive the image of the ghost. I also agree with the idea that the ghost could be evil. I believe this, because the ultimate result for the entire kingdom is tragic. "Hamlet" ends on the note of complete tragedy, with all of the royalty dead, and the kingdom passing on to Fortinbras, who has ultimately invaded and overthrown it. Could this not be the true motive of the ghost if he was evil? Until the end and this dire conclusion all of the subjects and characters attention has been greatly diverted to Hamlet's madness, and not to fortifying the palace and protecting the kingdom. Lets say that Gertrude had seen the ghost, then the kingdom might have been kept protected, since Claudius would have been revealed as his father's murderer and received his due punishment. Then Hamlet would have taken over the throne and run the kingdom much more effectively. In this case the end result may not have been the ultimate overthrow of the realm. Has anyone else thought about the importance of the ending with Fortinbras invading and taking back his kingdom? To further support this point the ghost no longer appears after Fortinbras assumes power. If he were an evil device he would no longer be needed. Also, throughout the play he is no longer needed to advance the action after Polonius is killed. After that it sets things rolling towards the tragic conclusion. Hope this makes sense to someone out there, but I admit that this last part might be off the mark somewhat. Still something to think about....a "what if".

[Virgil]

[QUOTE=Janine;277007]

Wow, not sure I can effectively jump in here at this late point. I just read every post (5 pages) and my head is spinning. First off - why are you guys fighting over the whole deal of the ghost? Hey, maybe it is time to give up the ghost!

I have tried a few times and have been pulled back.

I really wonder if the confusion was not something that Shakepeare actually intended. I think he might have wanted us to question throughout the play the validity of the ghost. Was the ghost real, was the ghost good or was the ghost evil? I thought I might hit on something intelligent, but this is just a stab in the dark, do bear with me on this idea. First I want to say I can see all points and all sides and theories in this long and heated discussion. I can't see where anyone is really wrong. I think the mystery of the ghost is actually brilliant. Are not all ghosts mysterious?

You know, I think you may have hit on something here. Not so much the good and evil part, Regit (or perhaps it someone else) has discussed the uncertainty of the ghost's motives. But the sense that the ghost is unfathomable parallels Hamlet's search for understanding in the world. And so Shakeapeare purposfully created this flaw (that the ghost just drops from the play mid way and it's motif is never resolved) as an aesthetic construct to mirror the central theme. Quite possible, and perhaps likely!! After all, Shakespeare does not do it with the witches in MacBeth. Very good Janine. You may have solved it. But one caveat. I'll say it again, Shakespeare inherented the story and from what I remember it was a popular story many times dramatised in Shakespeare day. The play was strongly associated with a ghost, and Shakespeare would have been compelled to include it. I have never read the pre-Shakespeare versions of this play or story. It would make an interesting comparison, perhaps the basis of a term paper or thesis.

But I like your theory very much. From now on this will be my understanding of Shakespeare's use of the ghost.

PS, so who says I'm stubborn and don't change my mind?

[Janine]

Virgil, Well, I thank you for appreciating my attempt at explaining what I think is the case with the ghost. You know, we live in the "logical" world and the ghost does not. So we, living in the logical world, would probably expect logic from the ghost. However, ghosts do not appear always on cue, nor when summoned....they are not a logical phenomenon....at least not here in the material world or plane. Oh yeah, I know all about ghosts! Right - Ha! Ha!
Anyway, if Shakespeare, and I don't doubt it, took the original idea from other sources, he still would not have to be hemmed in to the exact story. He merely used the raw resources and made his own play with some of those elements or ideas. He shaped them to his own ends. Now if you examine the lines that address the time in which Hamlet sees the ghost and Gertrude does not, in the bedroom scene, it is interesting to note just how many lines Shakepeare devoted to this discrepancy. If, in fact Shakespeare was creating a mistake, or flaw, in the play, why then did he spend such a considerable part of the text pointing out that Gertrude could not see the "pale" (Hamlet's exact words) vison or ghost, as Hamlet could?
Queen:Whereon do you look?
Hamlet: On him, on him, Look you, how pale he glares! His form and cause conjoin’d, preaching to stones,
Would make them capable.
–Do not look upon me;
Lest with this piteous action you convert
My stern effects: then what I have to do
Will want true colour:tears perchance for blood.
Queen. To whom do you speak this?
Hamlet: Do you see nothing there?
Queen: Nothing at all; yet all that is I see.
Hamlet: Nor did you nothing hear?
Queen: No nothing but ourselves.
Hamlet: Why look you there! look how it steals away!
My father in his habit as he liv’d!
Look, where he goes, even now, out at the portal!
I believe that Shakespeare, intentionally, did not have Gertrude capable or "open" to the experience of seeing the ghost. Gertrude had guilt and she would have fought, mentally and emotionally, seeing the dead King's image. She would not welcome seeing her former husband's visage, knowing she had so quickly married with his brother. After Hamlet's long thrashing of her emotions and comparing the two men, prior to the ghost's, appearance this would put her definitely into a "guilty" state of mind. Hamlet's love and devotion to his father makes him open to seeing him....even now a pale image of him. When Hamlet first viewed the ghost, outside the castle walls, he was ready emotionally to behold him. He was dwelling on his image from the beginning scene, in the great hall, until he did view him. He was definitely open to his ghostly visitation. If you noticed, in the bedroom scene, the ghost has changed somewhat in the text in description from the first viewing in the grounds of the castle. At first he seems more solid and forboding and strong: he is a loud pressense, and now he seems quieter and to be fading away. Perhaps Shakespeare wrote it this way intentionally, so that the ghost undergoes a sort of "transformation" that parallels that of Hamlet and he begins to fade from the play entirely at this point - the ghost, not Hamlet. To advance the play, the ghost image was no longer needed. His voice would only be repetition any point after the bedroom scene.

To me the tempo of the play itself, slows down, after Hamlet returns from the boat aborted journey. It quiets, somewhat, in the second part of the play, advancing more slowly toward the climax of the final confrontation and the sword fight. Hamlet, himself, condemplates in quieter and sometimes calmer fashion throughout this period, the fate of a man and mortality - such as the cemetary scene, prior to the entrance of the burial procession - which shows a flairup of Hamlets wrought emotions, but the flair is brief and then Hamelt runs off with Horatio at his heels. In the second half of the play, or third act, Hamlet is more resigned, than in the first half of the play, thus like the ghost, he has undergone a definitive transformation. This is why it is vitally important to read all of the text of the play, or to view the play in it's entirety. There are many nuances of meaning in all of the text and characters.

Ofcourse, there is another side (always another side) to this argument or theory and that entails the theory that the ghost is not a respectable ghost, but rather an "evil spirit", intending to rack havoc on the Kingdom. In that case, the ghost may be able to choose who does and who does not see him. If he was actually the real visage of his father, he might be close to the end of his time in Pergatory and heading to wherever he is destined to spend eternity. He could be fading entirely from this earthly realm. He might not have any control over where he ends up....maybe not a nice place at all

[Virgil]

Virgil, Well, I thank you for appreciating my attempt at explaining what I think is the case with the ghost. You know, we live in the "logical" world and the ghost does not. So we, living in the logical world, would probably expect logic from the ghost. However, ghosts do not appear always on cue, nor when summoned....they are not a logical phenomenon....at least not here in the material world or plane. Oh yeah, I know all about ghosts! Right - Ha! Ha!

I'm not saying the ghost is logical or not. I'm saying that the existence of the ghost is an unfathomable mystery, which parallels the unfathomable mysteries (life, death, insanity, justice) that Hamlet is trying to unlock. The ghost is a symbol for those mysteries, and Hsakespeare makes him as unfathomable as possible by varying who can see him and who can't and by inspiring the revenge but then fading away and not guiding or helping Hamlet. Wow, I've don a 180 here and am actually supporting Regit. Do you hear that Regit?

Anyway, if Shakespeare, and I don't doubt it, took the original idea from other sources, he still would not have to be hemmed in to the exact story. He merely used the raw resources and made his own play with some of those elements or ideas. He shaped them to his own ends.

This is true, but I believe I have seen that the Hamlet play was completely associated with the ghost for the general Elizabethan audience. I don't know how Shakespeare varied the story.

Now if you examine the lines that address the time in which Hamlet sees the ghost and Gertrude does not, in the bedroom scene, it is interesting to note just how many lines Shakepeare devoted to this discrepancy. If, in fact Shakespeare was creating a mistake, or flaw, in the play, why then did he spend such a considerable part of the text pointing out that Gertrude could not see the "pale" (Hamlet's exact words) vison or ghost, as Hamlet could?

I can't answer that. What I do see is that Shakespeare drops the ghost after that scene? Why? Either a lapse, a disinterest, or as I now believe an aesthetic representation of the mystery theme in the play.

I believe that Shakespeare, intentionally, did not have Gertrude capable or "open" to the experience of seeing the ghost. Gertrude had guilt and she would have fought, mentally and emotionally, seeing the dead King's image. She would not welcome seeing her former husband's visage, knowing she had so quickly married with his brother.

But why have the scene at all? I'm not sure what that scene adds to the central plot.

After Hamlet's long thrashing of her emotions and comparing the two men, prior to the ghost's, appearance this would put her definitely into a "guilty" state of mind. Hamlet's love and devotion to his father makes him open to seeing him....even now a pale image of him. When Hamlet first viewed the ghost, outside the castle walls, he was ready emotionally to behold him. He was dwelling on his image from the beginning scene, in the great hall, until he did view him. He was definitely open to his ghostly visitation.

What about the other characters that see him?

If you noticed, in the bedroom scene, the ghost has changed somewhat in the text in description from the first viewing in the grounds of the castle. At first he seems more solid and forboding and strong: he is a loud pressense, and now he seems quieter and to be fading away. Perhaps Shakespeare wrote it this way intentionally, so that the ghost undergoes a sort of "transformation" that parallels that of Hamlet and he begins to fade from the play entirely at this point - the ghost, not Hamlet. To advance the play, the ghost image was no longer needed. His voice would only be repetition any point after the bedroom scene.

I will have to see the play once more and look for this. I never thought about a change in the ghost before.

To me the tempo of the play itself, slows down, after Hamlet returns from the boat aborted journey. It quiets, somewhat, in the second part of the play, advancing more slowly toward the climax ...

Why do you think that is?

Ofcourse, there is another side (always another side) to this argument or theory and that entails the theory that the ghost is not a respectable ghost, but rather an "evil spirit", intending to rack havoc on the Kingdom. In that case, the ghost may be able to choose who does and who does not see him. If he was actually the real visage of his father, he might be close to the end of his time in Pergatory and heading to wherever he is destined to spend eternity. He could be fading entirely from this earthly realm. He might not have any control over where he ends up....maybe not a nice place at all

The ghost is mysterious and unfathomable.

[Janine]

I'm not saying the ghost is logical or not. I'm saying that the existence of the ghost is an unfathomable mystery, which parallels the unfathomable mysteries (life, death, insanity, justice) that Hamlet is trying to unlock. The ghost is a symbol for those mysteries, and Hsakespeare makes him as unfathomable as possible by varying who can see him and who can't and by inspiring the revenge but then fading away and not guiding or helping Hamlet. Wow, I've don a 180 here and am actually supporting Regit. Do you hear that Regit?

"unfathomable mystery, which parallels the unfathomable mysteries (life, death, insanity, justice) that Hamlet is trying to unlock". Wonderful...I really like the way you put that! Ghosts, by nature may not be at all logical and they certainly are mysterious. By including a ghost at all, Shakespeare was setting up a riddle and a mystery. He was also entertaining an audience and I am sure they loved the frightening aspect of the ghost. There was so much superstition in England at that time. The ghost had to be highly entertaining as well as an important element in the play. Let's face it - it grabs ones interest right from the beginning having the ghost appear. Then when Hamlet sees him one gets hooked from that point on. The ghost works to pull one into the play, so in that way it was a device, that I am sure Shakespeare knew would create that kind of effect. He really was a genius and very clever with plays and he knew his audience well. He always had something for everyone....humor, mystery, drama, tragedy. In the scene where Polonius rattles off what the players can do, he mimics this in naming many genres of performance. This is true also of all of Shakespeare's plays.

This is true, but I believe I have seen that the Hamlet play was completely associated with the ghost for the general Elizabethan audience. I don't know how Shakespeare varied the story.

Ok, I agree with that - I don't know anything much about the original story or the original myth of the ghost story.

I can't answer that. What I do see is that Shakespeare drops the ghost after that scene? Why? Either a lapse, a disinterest, or as I now believe an aesthetic representation of the mystery theme in the play.

I still think the ghost sort of fades. I too have to watch the film another time. That's ok, I watch it every couple months. I am Hamlet obsessed! It is like a riddle and I always want to figure out more things about it. I love that aspect of it and maybe Shakespeare knew he was doing that to his viewing public...setting up a riddle for them to solve. This made the play more interactive, like the way people get hooked on video games today.

But why have the scene at all? I'm not sure what that scene adds to the central plot.

I think the scene is important - especially confronting the mother. The entrance of the ghost breaks the fury of Hamlet's words and he is put into his place and slows his pace after that and becomes more thoughtful.

What about the other characters that see him?

All of those are the good guys or believe in the ghost?....what do you think?

I will have to see the play once more and look for this. I never thought about a change in the ghost before.

Yes, another viewing and looking at it from that aspect might help us both.

Why do you think that is?

The ghost is no longer needed, but it is still a mystery to me why he does not ever appear again, except to think he just fades away. Maybe he would have been too distracting to the rest of the plot.

The ghost is mysterious and unfathomable.

Absolutely!!!