Shakespeare

[Foolmewunz]

I provide a thoughtful skeptical interpretation of Hamlet and these straw stories are my replies. It's OK to say, "some good points there," "you really have a point."

I know you're playing DA and getting your yuks. But there may be impressionable types reading and I'd hate to have them leave this thread thinking that the adjectives "thoughtful skeptical" have the meanings you wish to impart to them. You consider yourself a skeptic, and you gave it some thought. But you've ignored all the evidence people have presented, insisting that your interpretation's just as good as any old "scholar-type fella". It isn't. Your speculation is barely bordering on interesting. It is easily disproved by the text and an understanding of the times.

You have a much more interesting case with Banquo's Ghost. That's one that really does only appear to the title character, Macbeth. But the ghost in Hamlet? No. For all intents and purposes the audience is given an actual ghost as a character in a story. There's nothing to indicate that Shakespeare was winking at the superstitions of the hoi polloi and passing a fist-bump down through the ages to Senex.

I'll say "good points, there" when you make some.

Next up: "Moby Dick: Melville was educated and knew an incredible amount about whaling. He knows there's no such thing as an albino whale this side of the beluga and therefore the white whale is actually an imaginary creature and everything that happens in the story is in the imagination of Ahab, as told by his analyst, a Dr. Ishmael of Walpole, Mass. Prove me wrong."

 

[Senex]

I know you're playing DA and getting your yuks. But there may be impressionable types reading and I'd hate to have them leave this thread thinking that the adjectives "thoughtful skeptical" have the meanings you wish to impart to them.

Thoughtful impressionable skeptic types are best left in my hands (certainly not that Lucian character who approves of Rasencrantz's woo) than some of the alternative theorests that have been recently bandied about.

You consider yourself a skeptic, and you gave it some thought. But you've ignored all the evidence people have presented, insisting that your interpretation's just as good as any old "scholar-type fella". It isn't. Your speculation is barely bordering on interesting. It is easily disproved by the text and an understanding of the times.

Now I understand why you have issues with my opinions. You consider yourself a scholar or at least one who can appreciate scholars and you believe I insist that I'm as good as any old "scholar-type fella" and I am not. Plus, I'm boring, and easily disproved.

Harsh, if it was true.

You have a much more interesting case with Banquo's Ghost. That's one that really does only appear to the title character, Macbeth. But the ghost in Hamlet? No. For all intents and purposes the audience is given an actual ghost as a character in a story. There's nothing to indicate that Shakespeare was winking at the superstitions of the hoi polloi and passing a fist-bump down through the ages to Senex.

I'll say "good points, there" when you make some.

Others think like me. Evidently, thoughtful audience members like myself are scared of being shouted down.

Next up: "Moby Dick: Melville was educated and knew an incredible amount about whaling. He knows there's no such thing as an albino whale this side of the beluga and therefore the white whale is actually an imaginary creature and everything that happens in the story is in the imagination of Ahab, as told by his analyst, a Dr. Ishmael of Walpole, Mass. Prove me wrong."

Whale hunters did what they were paid to do. Ghost hunters do nothing. Ahab needed a shrink as much as Hamlet. Both stories end with carnage. The ghost of Hamlet killed 0 through physical means and the white whale killed dozens. Two different stories.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Next up: "Moby Dick: Melville was educated and knew an incredible amount about whaling. He knows there's no such thing as an albino whale this side of the beluga and therefore the white whale is actually an imaginary creature and everything that happens in the story is in the imagination of Ahab, as told by his analyst, a Dr. Ishmael of Walpole, Mass. Prove me wrong."

Starbuck represents Ahab's superego objecting to his selfish monomania, Queequeg is a projection of his desire for a simpler life with fewer rules and distractions, and the "missing leg" is actually Ahab's inability to... wow, this is really easy!

 

[ddt]

I was unaware of this incident but this incident required 20th century poison (not available to Hamlet) and the guy lived in the end.

I have no idea about the nature of the poison. But he lived in the end because there was also an antidote, and King Hussein arm-twisted Israel into delivering it.

I believe this was the first and last time they went for the ear.

As FMW already said, Pliny mentions the poisonous plant henbane, which makes one insane if applied to the ear. Apparently, someone had tried it out. It's one of the theories what Shakespeare's "hebenon" in Hamlet is.

You can swim under water without water going down your throat. I know this through experience.

So what? It connects the middle ear with the throat.

You must be a deep sleeper if you don't believe you would wake up if someone was putting liquid in your ear.

Set up an experiment with a number of sleepers, I'd say. Use ear drops, or if you want to go cheap, vineger (acetic acid is the main ingredient in ear drops).

Curare comes from South America and was unavailable to Hamlet. Poisonous shirts would take a long time to work and poison combs are silly.

Poisoned arrows where also know in Greek mythology, e.g., Philoctetes, and were also actually used in ancient Europe, so the fact that curare was not known is not important. The point of mentioning these is that other ways of administering poison were known or believed - whether truly believed or only trough suspension of disbelief is utterly unimportant. If people believed in the story of Snow White that she could be poisoned with a comb, then they would also believe in the play Hamlet that Hamlet Sr. could be poisoned through his ear.

Why all the push back that Hamlet's dad was really poisoned through his wine or food like everyone else usually was at the time?

Why your denial in the Bard's creativity of thinking of an unusual way of administering poison?

 

[Belgian thought]

In rereading the text, I have come to the conclusion that Horatio doesn't exist! He and The Ghost and the guards and the players and even Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are all figments of Hamlet's deranged imagination. It is obvious once you realize this. Furthermore, Claudius is actually innocent, wrongfully accused by his mad nephew. I mean it's absurd, if he had killed his brother, why would Gertrude have married him? Why would the Danish lords let him be king? Who poisons someone in their ear? (Ideas of him being perforated in that ear making it a cunning undetectable delivery method notwithstanding.) And as for why Hamlet isn't king, Hamlet hasn't come back from university, he was at a mental hospital, temporarily released to grieve his father's death. He goes back when he imagines he is exiled to England, dreaming up letters from Horatio, until he is released again for Ophelia's funeral. But he is violent and dangerous, and challenges Laertes, and they decide they have to put him down for his own safety and the safety of the realm, but in such a way so as not to hurt his poor mother. This plan backfires, and the resulting sight is dismal, the final moments of Hamlet's fevered visions before his imaginary friend wishes him to finally rest.

So an Oedipus complex theme still runs through this interpretation (an interpretation, however it was meant, I like).

 

[Senex]

Set up an experiment with a number of sleepers, I'd say. Use ear drops, or if you want to go cheap, vineger (acetic acid is the main ingredient in ear drops).

Unlike Claudius, evidently, I would be concerned with explaining myself standing over someone after just waking them up putting a liquid substance in their ear. It certainly would be easier and safer to put a few drops of vinegar in their coffee or wine when they weren't looking than invade a bed chamber with ear drops while someone is sleeping (you hope).

Poisoned arrows where also know in Greek mythology, e.g., Philoctetes, and were also actually used in ancient Europe, so the fact that curare was not known is not important. The point of mentioning these is that other ways of administering poison were known or believed - whether truly believed or only trough suspension of disbelief is utterly unimportant. If people believed in the story of Snow White that she could be poisoned with a comb, then they would also believe in the play Hamlet that Hamlet Sr. could be poisoned through his ear.

Perhaps Shakespeare invested heavily in the ear plug business before the first performance. I guess we will never know for certain.

Why your denial in the Bard's creativity of thinking of an unusual way of administering poison?

I just think it was a creative way to keep up the ambiguity of the ghost being real or just in Hamlet's mind.

 

[commandlinegamer]

We're still making drama today*, which is full of inaccuracies, despite the knowledge we have. Why should Shakespeare be any different?

* - Apropos poison, take the Bond movie Skyfall: cyanide which when it fails to kill the bad guy, just rots his mouth, possibly because the writer doesn't understand the differing properties of acids.

Or, look at the number of SF movies/TV programmes where sound travels in space. In westerns, the ever-present ricochet noise when there's nothing for bullets to bounce off of.

 

[ddt]

Unlike Claudius, evidently, I would be concerned with explaining myself standing over someone after just waking them up putting a liquid substance in their ear. It certainly would be easier and safer to put a few drops of vinegar in their coffee or wine when they weren't looking than invade a bed chamber with ear drops while someone is sleeping (you hope).

I only mentioned vinegar as it's harmless to the ear. But Hamlet Sr. was not poisoned in his bedroom. He was taking us usual afternoon nap in the orchard. And the poison acted so fast, that there was not even time to have a priest perform the sacraments. So those considerations are all moot.

I just think it was a creative way to keep up the ambiguity of the ghost being real or just in Hamlet's mind.

Why don't you write your own play where that ambiguity is obvious, instead of torturing an interpretation on Shakespeare's Hamlet?

 

[hgc]

Or, look at the number of SF movies/TV programmes where sound travels in space. In westerns, the ever-present ricochet noise when there's nothing for bullets to bounce off of.

Or when there's a metal-on-metal scraping noise always associated with a blade, even when the blade isn't touching anything metal (e.g., stabbing soft flesh).

 

[Senex]

I only mentioned vinegar as it's harmless to the ear. But Hamlet Sr. was not poisoned in his bedroom. He was taking us usual afternoon nap in the orchard. And the poison acted so fast, that there was not even time to have a priest perform the sacraments. So those considerations are all moot.

If only it were possible to moot my considerations so easily. It's always awkward to get caught standing over a sleeping King with an ear-dropper of poison - even in the orchard.

Why don't you write your own play where that ambiguity is obvious, instead of torturing an interpretation on Shakespeare's Hamlet?

I honestly see the part of the ghost as written to be ambiguous. I believe Claudius would prefer to poison King Hamlet's wine or food (and we know he knows how to poison wine) than the risky ear gambit.

 

[angrysoba]

Senex, I am looking forward to your book, Things They Don't Tell You About Hamlet in English Literature Class.

Just in the interests of completion, was Hamlet left-handed or right-handed?

 

[Senex]

Also, the spirits in The Tempest and A Midsummer Night's Dream (Ariel, Puck) are clearly real in the context of the story. Ariel tells Prospero most of the things that happen offstage in the play. Is Prospero a charlatan?

Senex, I am looking forward to your book, Things They Don't Tell You About Hamlet in English Literature Class.

Yes, that would be a fine read. The alternate title would be A Skeptic's Guide to Shakespeare. My avatar could appear on the side of the page like in the "for Dummies" series. The bubble over my head would say such things as "Don't forget Prospero's magic is just an analogy for the cathartic power of theater."