Shakespeare

[Foolmewunz]

If a real ghost wanted revenge why not visit his most trusted/capable body guards who would move faster and use a less convoluted plan than his son could come up with?

Uh, because then you'd have a one scene play.

Act I, Scene I

(curtain rises to pre-dawn mist on the castle ramparts a spectral figure approaches the four armed guards)

Ghost: Loyal guards and minions, I need you to kill this guy.
LG&M: Okay!
(all four guards exit, much hubub and a mournful shriek from offstage)
Ghost: Well, that's that. Thanks for coming. I'm here all week. And don't forget to tip your server, okay?
<<< Fin >>>

 

[Rosencrantz]

Does the ghost give any information to Hamlet that Hamlet has not been already considering?

Yes, in fact this is the whole point of the play-within-a-play. Hamlet makes a change to the players' show, based on the knowledge he has obtained from The Ghost about the murder-- that it was poison placed in the king's ear-- and makes sure Horatio is there to see the results. Because of this otherworldly knowledge, Claudius is startled by the depiction of the murder, not outraged but frightened, and for Hamlet and Horatio this is a convincing confession of his guilt. Hamlet can now in good conscience execute the traitor and take his rightful place as king. And this event is not just confirmation that Claudius killed his father, but that The Ghost is his father, not some demonic spirit or a false vision. It proves The Ghost is real!

 

[Rosencrantz]

You dig up Shakespeare and ask him if Hamlet believed in Ghosts and he says go ask Bacon.

Bacon and Hamlet? That sounds like a bunch of Bolognius.

 

[Fellow Traveler]

I could but I didn't

I've watched Taxi Driver a number of times and that interpretation is bulloney.


Did they make their predictions plain? Why not? Because they couldn't say you will be King/Thane next December 2nd. The witches were throwing the woo. They weren't certain.

Shakespeare and I are tight.

I ask about all supernatural beings, what is their motivation to monkey around with human concerns and thereby change the natural flow of events? Do they not have any purpose in any sphere other than to complicate life and the flow of history. The same can be asked about Aliens and what is their real life reasons for intervening in the development of mankind? I can see why dogs assist man: they get some nice meat out of it.

 

[Senex]

Uh, because then you'd have a one scene play.

Act I, Scene I

(curtain rises to pre-dawn mist on the castle ramparts a spectral figure approaches the four armed guards)

Ghost: Loyal guards and minions, I need you to kill this guy.
LG&M: Okay!
(all four guards exit, much hubub and a mournful shriek from offstage)
Ghost: Well, that's that. Thanks for coming. I'm here all week. And don't forget to tip your server, okay?
<<< Fin >>>

Well done except you didn't fit in an Ophelia nude scene.

This is my point Shakespeare dodged these ghost issues by having the option the ghost is all in the mind. Oh, and that option works best when fully enjoying the play.

Yes, in fact this is the whole point of the play-within-a-play. Hamlet makes a change to the players' show, based on the knowledge he has obtained from The Ghost about the murder-- that it was poison placed in the king's ear-- and makes sure Horatio is there to see the results. Because of this otherworldly knowledge, Claudius is startled by the depiction of the murder, not outraged but frightened, and for Hamlet and Horatio this is a convincing confession of his guilt. Hamlet can now in good conscience execute the traitor and take his rightful place as king. And this event is not just confirmation that Claudius killed his father, but that The Ghost is his father, not some demonic spirit or a false vision. It proves The Ghost is real!

I can read what you wrote and come to the opposite conclusion. Hamlet was suspicious before speaking with the ghost. He didn't need the ghost to make him suspicious of his uncle. The play within the play shows the poison was given through the ear. Who poisons someone in the ear? At the end of the play you see the tried and proven old fashioned poisoning someone's beverage at play. The poison in the ear is clearly some sort of metaphor Hamlet is working through about listening to gossip perhaps. The ghost got this wrong. That's because the "ghost" has no more sophistication about poison than Hamlet. His dad was most likely poisoned in a goblet. Just the performance of a poisoning was enough to send Claudius in a panic if you were wondering. This fits my version perfectly.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Uh, because then you'd have a one scene play.

Act I, Scene I

(curtain rises to pre-dawn mist on the castle ramparts a spectral figure approaches the four armed guards)

Ghost: Loyal guards and minions, I need you to kill this guy.
LG&M: Okay!
(all four guards exit, much hubub and a mournful shriek from offstage)
Ghost: Well, that's that. Thanks for coming. I'm here all week. And don't forget to tip your server, okay?
<<< Fin >>>

Late to the party, but I HAD to nominate this...

 

[NotJesus]

I can read what you wrote and come to the opposite conclusion. Hamlet was suspicious before speaking with the ghost. He didn't need the ghost to make him suspicious of his uncle. The play within the play shows the poison was given through the ear. Who poisons someone in the ear? At the end of the play you see the tried and proven old fashioned poisoning someone's beverage at play. The poison in the ear is clearly some sort of metaphor Hamlet is working through about listening to gossip perhaps. The ghost got this wrong. That's because the "ghost" has no more sophistication about poison than Hamlet. His dad was most likely poisoned in a goblet. Just the performance of a poisoning was enough to send Claudius in a panic if you were wondering. This fits my version perfectly.

At this point I'm really not sure if you're trolling or if you just think that the stuff you get out of your own head carries equal weight as what's in the text, but further discussion seems fruitless.

 

[Senex]

At this point I'm really not sure if you're trolling or if you just think that the stuff you get out of your own head carries equal weight as what's in the text, but further discussion seems fruitless.

Who in history has ever been poisoned through the ear? The ear way doesn't connect to the throat and even if you had a ruptured ear drum you would wake up darn quick if someone is pouring crap in your ear. There were no nerve agents in Hamlet's day. It's clear Hamlet doesn't know about poisoning and he created the ear poisoning scenario because of inexperience.

It's all in the text.

 

[hgc]

At this point I'm really not sure if you're trolling or if you just think that the stuff you get out of your own head carries equal weight as what's in the text, but further discussion seems fruitless.

Yes, definitely trolling.

 

[Rosencrantz]

At this point I'm really not sure if you're trolling or if you just think that the stuff you get out of your own head carries equal weight as what's in the text, but further discussion seems fruitless.

I concur. :/

 

[Senex]

It seems easier to call people names than come up with one other famous person (or not famous) who was poisoned through the ear.

It is pretty clear to me the ear poisoning was a metaphor Hamlet's mind came up with but was not the real method used to kill his dad.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It seems easier to call people names than come up with one other famous person (or not famous) who was poisoned through the ear.

It is pretty clear to me the ear poisoning was a metaphor Hamlet's mind came up with but was not the real method used to kill his dad.

Well, we're here to help, Senex.

Just like the ghost, what you surmise doesn't matter. What matters to the actual story of how the drama was written is that the people of the time believed that this was possible. There are a few (scant, but they're out there) references in histories of the time to the death of Francis II of France, purportedly killed by his own doctor who gave him an infection during an examination. Pliny made reference to making someone crazy by slipping a dose of something or the other into their ear. But those are accounts for the lettered. Who knows what beliefs Aegon the Fishmonger had? We're talking Elizabethan England.... quite some time ago.

 

[Senex]

Well, we're here to help, Senex.

Just like the ghost, what you surmise doesn't matter. What matters to the actual story of how the drama was written is that the people of the time believed that this was possible. There are a few (scant, but they're out there) references in histories of the time to the death of Francis II of France, purportedly killed by his own doctor who gave him an infection during an examination. Pliny made reference to making someone crazy by slipping a dose of something or the other into their ear. But those are accounts for the lettered. Who knows what beliefs Aegon the Fishmonger had? We're talking Elizabethan England.... quite some time ago.

OK, you hang your belief on these best stories google or any search engine can come up with regarding ear poisoning and I'll hang my belief on that the Danish King was really poisoned through his wine.

 

[Foolmewunz]

OK, you hang your belief on these best stories google or any search engine can come up with regarding ear poisoning and I'll hang my belief on that the Danish King was really poisoned through his wine.

Or you could go by the history. He was actually stabbed.

 

[Rosencrantz]

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.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

I thought Hamlet senior was thrown off a cliff and trampled by a herd of wildebeest?

 

[Lucian]

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.

Finally, a sensible interpretation.

 

[Foolmewunz]

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.

And I believe they'll find the missing pages from Quarto 1, and we'll see that the actual ending was the first use of the ever-popular third grade creative writing essay technique.... Shakespeare has Hamlet get up off the floor and say, "And then I woke up". (This, of course, was later popularized in Dallas and countless bad horror movies. But it was actually The Bard (or Bacon... or Marlowe) who originated it, in Hamlet.)

Oh, and have you ever noticed that you never see pictures of Shakespeare and Aesychlus together? Just sayin'.....

 

[ddt]

Who in history has ever been poisoned through the ear?

Khaled Mashal:

Two Mossad agents carrying fake Canadian passports entered Jordan, where Mashal was living. The Mossad agents waited at the entrance of the Hamas offices in Amman, and as Mashal walked into his office, one of the agents came up from behind and held a device to Mashal's left ear that transmitted a fast-acting poison.

The ear way doesn't connect to the throat

You haven't heard of the Eustachian tube? There's a reason why ENT is one specialism, you know.

and even if you had a ruptured ear drum you would wake up darn quick if someone is pouring crap in your ear.

Evidence?

There were no nerve agents in Hamlet's day. It's clear Hamlet doesn't know about poisoning and he created the ear poisoning scenario because of inexperience.

You seem fixated on the idea that poison should enter the body through the gastrointestinal tract. It could as well enter the body through the skin. How do you think curare is commonly applied? In Greek mythology, Heracles was killed by wearing a poisonous shirt. In the fairy tale of Snow White, her stepmother first attempts to kill her with a poisonous comb. So why not the ear?

 

[Senex]

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.

Unlike my thoughtful interpretation this one is silly. Only a character named "The ghost" is imaginary in my interpretation. However I also have a theory about the fate of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern I'll share. I believe the story Hamlet tells of the benevolent pirates who, after hearing his story, kindly put him ashore so he could return home, is a lie. That's not how the pirate business model works. I believe Hamlet was a step ahead of Claudius and had his own people on that ship who who may have dispatched the school chums to their fate before they even left the harbor.

And I believe they'll find the missing pages from Quarto 1, and we'll see that the actual ending was the first use of the ever-popular third grade creative writing essay technique.... Shakespeare has Hamlet get up off the floor and say, "And then I woke up". (This, of course, was later popularized in Dallas and countless bad horror movies. But it was actually The Bard (or Bacon... or Marlowe) who originated it, in Hamlet.)

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."

Khaled Mashal:

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

You haven't heard of the Eustachian tube? There's a reason why ENT is one specialism, you know.

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

Evidence?

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

You seem fixated on the idea that poison should enter the body through the gastrointestinal tract. It could as well enter the body through the skin. How do you think curare is commonly applied? In Greek mythology, Heracles was killed by wearing a poisonous shirt. In the fairy tale of Snow White, her stepmother first attempts to kill her with a poisonous comb. So why not the ear?

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

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?