mrs swanson
The Ghost's parting line to Hamlet is , "Remember me." Then might be a good title.
NO! you don't have to wear a HAMLET !! but it would be a good idea to wear a HELMET
Public policy, the good of the state, since Hamlet is the heir apparent to the throne.
The way that you look at the ghost can be derived by the way he is portrayed by actor and show concept. If he comes across as the evil father coming back for no more than revenge then you could sa he is evil. But if he is taken in stead as a caring and or weak man who has come back to warn his son then he is good. It all depends on the outlook of the audience member really. Kind of like the witches in Macbeth he sets the play in motion, but is it for his own benefit or the benefit of Hamlet?
I think Claudius was a bad character because he killed King Hamlet, Prince Hamlet's father.
mrs swanson
The line "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" is spoken by Hamlet in William Shakespeare's play "Hamlet." It is part of a soliloquy in which Hamlet reflects on how one's perspective and perception shape their reality.
The Ghost's parting line to Hamlet is , "Remember me." Then might be a good title.
Hamlet?
NO! you don't have to wear a HAMLET !! but it would be a good idea to wear a HELMET
What Hamlet means (he is talking to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern when he says this) is that moral judgments are relative. If you think something is good, it is. If you think it is bad, it is. He has just finished saying that "Denmark's a prison.", and Rosencrantz says "We think not so, my lord." Hamlet does not want to engage in a stupid argument about it, so he says "There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison." In other words, "That's what I think, and I don't want to argue about it." Of course Shakespeare has him express this much more elegantly.
Hamlet's old school chums Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
He calls Rosencrantz and Guildenstern ( his good friends) to spy on Hamlet
Bugger all. Shakespeare was writing plays, not sermons. His purpose was to entertain, not to instruct. People who try to get lessons out of the plays usually end up with something inane or contradictory or both. They say that we learn from Romeo and Othello that impulsiveness is bad but from Hamlet we learn it is good. Or alternatively from Hamlet we learn that cautiousness is bad but from Romeo and Othello we learn that it is good. From Macbeth we learn that wanting to be king is bad, but from Lear and Hamlet we learn that it is good. Macbeth, Hamlet and Richard III (plays with similar plots) all tell us that killing a king is a bad thing sometimes and a good thing sometimes, and Richard II tells us that killing a king can be a bad thing and a good thing at the same time. Hamlet says revenge is good, but Titus Andronicus says it is bad. The Taming of the Shrew says men should be in charge but The Merry Wives of Windsor says that women should be. From Hotspur in Henry IV we learn that knightliness is bad; from Henry in Henry V we learn it is good. Romeo and Juliet and A Midsummer Night's Dream say that forced marriages are bad, but All's Well that Ends Well says they are good. Othello, Postumus and Claudio teach us to doubt any evidence of one's wife's infidelity; Albany in King Lear teaches us to believe it. Every play follows its own logic to its own end. The characters gain our sympathy, our respect, our pity. We recognize in them the reality of the diversity of human nature and circumstance. But they do not lecture us on morals or anything else.
Public policy, the good of the state, since Hamlet is the heir apparent to the throne.
Nice old story