I won't play Ghost to your Hamlet!

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:10 am

I heard this said in a documentary about the 1950s. I can't figure it out. The Ghost is an important character because he sets the whole play in motion, pretty much. Hamlet's the star, sure, but there are many more characters that are more minimal. Other sayings I just made up that don't really make sense: "I won't play Rosencrantz to your Guildenstern!" "I won't play Ophelia to your Polonius!"

WHAT'S THE DEAL 1950s?

Also: they showed a women's magazine from the time, and it had a page with a woman that said something akin to "A kiss on her cheek and a diamond on her finger convinced her that / Brains Are For The Birds"

It was pretty crazy!

Are women's magazines today so perscriptive? I don't, um, I don't really read them. (Except for the trauma-rama parts in which readers send in stories where people pass gass in front of their crush cutie and end up having to pee in a bucket at their friend's house.)

Out-Talled Joined: 11 Nov 2004 Posts: 4580

I'm sure the 1950s are looking at us and going "WHAT'S THE DEAL, 21ST CENTURY?"

You have some catching up to do!

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:53 am

That picture is sorely lacking in blimps.

Blimps are the wave of the future!

Guest

That picture is also clearly from ca. 1890-1910. And except for the ridiculous elevated roadways, I think we can pretty much say, "Mission: accomplished."

Also, what was the context of the Hamlet/ghost quote? Were they perhaps referring to the specific relationship between the two characters?

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:47 am

No, the guy was just pissed that he was playing "second fiddle", as it were.

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:01 am

And if you play defender I can be your hyperspace

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:06 am

Ryan wrote:

No, the guy was just pissed that he was playing "second fiddle", as it were.

Shouldn't they have said something like "The Ophilia to your Hamlet"? Cause I mean Hamlet treated her like shit, which might happen with second fiddle.

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:21 am

The documentary raised more questions than it answered!

Also, I thought it was "can BEAT your hyperspace", which made no sense, so I am glad to know that I was wrong here.

Christmas came early Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Posts: 9225

Derigibles are the wave of the future! Buy shares in derigibles now, before you're stuck playing Horatio to the future's Fortenbras! Airships and Zepplins are for the birds!

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:50 am

Randy Johnson wrote:

And if you play defender I can be your hyperspace

:golf clap for Beasties reference:

Better Phrases:

"I won't play Mercutio to your Romeo!"
"I won't play Antonio to your Bassanio!"
"I won't play Falstaff to your [Misc.]!"

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:52 am

Fortenbras was sooo coool! I used to picture him as a Necromancer with a skull mask and a zombie army. I also pictured Rosencranz and Guildernstern as siamese twins. But anyhoooooooow...

Yeah, the people in the past expected for the 2000's much more than we have given. People are always like "HAY DUDE, WE OUGHT TO MAKE A FLYING CAR!!!" "DON'T WORRY, DUDE, WE'LL MAKE IT IN THE 3000'S!!!!!"

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:58 am

Ryan wrote:

The documentary raised more questions than it answered!

Also, I thought it was "can BEAT your hyperspace", which made no sense, so I am glad to know that I was wrong here.

It sorta seems like it should be "beat", because it fits the previous stanzas where Mike was bragging about his abilities, while BE your Hyperspace would make him a good team player?

Note: It IS "be", but I'm just sayin'.

Joined: 10 Jan 2005 Posts: 85 Location: Ypsilanti, MI

The ghost not only is second fiddle to Hamlet, but he also enables all of Hamlet's first fiddling. So maybe it's like saying, "I won't be the little supernatural voice in your head that enables your murderous oedipal intentions towards your stepfather," except it's a lot more succinct.

We needed a more succinct way of saying that, too, since it's a fairly common topic of conversation.

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:01 pm

Nowadays we just give people pills, I guess.

Guest

The ghost clearly did not do nearly enough enabling, else we would have been spared Acts I - IV.

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:23 pm

justinpie wrote:

Nowadays we just give people pills, I guess.

I was reading about how in the past, stories of supernatural events are pretty common, and seemed like everyday occurances. Think of the Trojan war, which while a real war, is full of mythological events. Who was it who was saying that people in the past had a better connection to these sorts of things? That for them it was common, but for us, not so much? Some famous guy. I think he liked to say his brain was closer to that of olden people, so he could see ghosts or something.

Anyways, it's much easier (and probably accurate) to say that since things are old, the stories just became more magnificent as time wore on, but it's an interesting theory.

Joined: 11 Nov 2004 Posts: 1442

BizRodian wrote:

justinpie wrote:

Nowadays we just give people pills, I guess.

I was reading about how in the past, stories of supernatural events are pretty common, and seemed like everyday occurances. Think of the Trojan war, which while a real war, is full of mythological events. Who was it who was saying that people in the past had a better connection to these sorts of things? That for them it was common, but for us, not so much? Some famous guy. I think he liked to say his brain was closer to that of olden people, so he could see ghosts or something.

Anyways, it's much easier (and probably accurate) to say that since things are old, the stories just became more magnificent as time wore on, but it's an interesting theory.

No, it was the water.

Christmas came early Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Posts: 9225

without regard, I think it is safe to say that the theorist Biz is remembering will be stuck playing Christopher Marlowe to common thought's Ben Jonson!

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:44 pm

BizRodian wrote:

Who was it who was saying that people in the past had a better connection to these sorts of things? That for them it was common, but for us, not so much? Some famous guy. I think he liked to say his brain was closer to that of olden people, so he could see ghosts or something.

...Um, Homer?

Think about this: When Cervantes wrote Don Quixote, he wanted to make an everyday satire, a parody on the popular belief and admiration of the people of his time in folk tales and legends.
He ended up creating a legend.

I was always amazed by this, for some reason.

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:55 pm

BizRodian wrote:

justinpie wrote:

Nowadays we just give people pills, I guess.

I was reading about how in the past, stories of supernatural events are pretty common, and seemed like everyday occurances. Think of the Trojan war, which while a real war, is full of mythological events. Who was it who was saying that people in the past had a better connection to these sorts of things? That for them it was common, but for us, not so much? Some famous guy. I think he liked to say his brain was closer to that of olden people, so he could see ghosts or something.

Anyways, it's much easier (and probably accurate) to say that since things are old, the stories just became more magnificent as time wore on, but it's an interesting theory.

From what I remember of this, the idea was that the two halves of the brain were less disconnected, and so subconscious ideas were easier to cross over and show up in the conscious mind. Therefore, it's easier to imagine dragons and stuff and see them!

He was on the CBC or something?

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:04 pm

Ryan wrote:

From what I remember of this, the idea was that the two halves of the brain were less disconnected, and so subconscious ideas were easier to cross over and show up in the conscious mind. Therefore, it's easier to imagine dragons and stuff and see them!

He was on the CBC or something?

This is actually a seperate theory that evolved from the one I was talking about. Like, where two hundred years ago a guy said what I said in my first post, and then more recently, a guy brought up the point that maybe it has to do with the two halfs of the brain. I think I might have mixed the two ideas together a bit.

I think I also read, about what you're talking about, is how one side of the brain does one thing, and the other side does another... so let's say, an olden day person was doing something really complex and so there were LOTS of connections and information running between the two halves of the brain... which could cause a lot of screw ups.

Of course, now-a-days, there are still people who see shit, believe in aliens, etc etc etc...

So who knows if anything is any different!

Anyways, I didn't see it on CBC...

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:54 pm

Ryan wrote:

From what I remember of this, the idea was that the two halves of the brain were less disconnected, and so subconscious ideas were easier to cross over and show up in the conscious mind. Therefore, it's easier to imagine dragons and stuff and see them!

So Religion is wrong?

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:57 pm

Not necessarily!

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:36 pm

I won't play Isaac to your Ishmael any longer!

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:38 pm

Ryan wrote:

Not necessarily!

But probably?

Actually, I believe I've read something about this theory, about the two hemispheres of the brain being disconnected at some point in time, but I think that point was supposed to be in prehistory (leading to the creation of Homo S. Sapiens), not in Ancient history. Although I think they had also related that to the Aborigines' Time Of Dreaming- I'm not sure.
Anyway, in my previous Don Quixote example I was trying to point out my agreement with something BizRodian mentioned; that it's not our anscestors works that were closer to the supernatural- it is us that rise them up to supernatural levels.

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:45 pm

BizRodian wrote:

So who knows if anything is any different!

Things are pretty much the same as they've always been, and pretty much the same as they always will be.

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:53 pm

Boorishly! Your avatar is missing!!

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:08 pm

I won't play Utahraptor to your T-Rex!

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:12 pm

justinpie wrote:

Ryan wrote:

The documentary raised more questions than it answered!

Also, I thought it was "can BEAT your hyperspace", which made no sense, so I am glad to know that I was wrong here.

It sorta seems like it should be "beat", because it fits the previous stanzas where Mike was bragging about his abilities, while BE your Hyperspace would make him a good team player?

Note: It IS "be", but I'm just sayin'.

It's about sex

if you play defender i can be your hyperspace <--> if you want to sex i can be your partner

get it

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:16 pm

My world is crashing down now.