Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1993 :: November ::
Re: "Versions" of Shakespeare
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 733.  Monday, 8 November 1993.
 
(1)     From:   Rick Jones <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 07 Nov 93 15:55:17 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0724  Re: "Versions" of Shakespeare
 
(2)     From:   David Schalkwyk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 8 Nov 93 11:11:05 SAST-2
        Subj:   Versions of Shakespeare
 
(3)     From:   James Schaefer <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 07 Nov 1993 17:03:04 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0731  Re: "Versions" of Shakespeare
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Rick Jones <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 07 Nov 93 15:55:17 EST
Subject: 4.0724  Re: "Versions" of Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0724  Re: "Versions" of Shakespeare
 
Bill Godshalk asks:
 
"Just a question: does James Joyce's ULYSSES have a kind of exclussive validity
that Shakespeare's MACBETH lacks?"
 
The degree to which authorial intent ought to be of concern to critics is
subject to debate.  That plays are different from novels and poems is not.
But it seems to me that if we ascribe any value *at all* to authorial intent,
the least we can do is recognize that the author of _Macbeth_ intended his
work to be seen, whereas the author of _Ulysses_ intended his to be read.
This distinction seems at first glance hardly worth mentioning, but failure
to recognize it, especially in the case of Shakespeare, is responsible for
more damage in classrooms and in "learned" critical commentary than all the
misguided productions in the world could ever inflict.  Oh, and lest anyone
wonder: yes, I do believe that some interpretations are "better" than others;
I also believe that more than one interpretation can be "correct".
 
-- Rick Jones

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Schalkwyk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 8 Nov 93 11:11:05 SAST-2
Subject:        Versions of Shakespeare
 
About Cary Mazer's suggestions.
 
First. I did not doubt in my last post that we can make claims about
the radical difference of each instance of a "work of art" from
itself.  I suggested that we should at the same time explain why we
should want to do so.  What is at stake?
 
Second. When I said that the cards were stacked against difference by
virtue of our need to refer to a "work of art" across time I was
pointing out that to speak of _Macbeth_, even in *denying* that its
instances are the same text/play/work/experience is to reduce the
difference that Cary wishes to maintain.  So, another trick question:
How do we know when to go to what when we want to see a completely
new art work called ..... ?  Do we just go to *everything*?  And what
would *that* entail?
 
David
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           James Schaefer <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 07 Nov 1993 17:03:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 4.0731  Re: "Versions" of Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0731  Re: "Versions" of Shakespeare
 
In reply to Michael Sharpston:
 
I like the Virtual Reality image.  I used the *I Am A Camera* example
in my dissertation (more years ago that I care to admit), and had
planned to pull it all together in a "13th chapter" that added time to
a 3-axis analytical structure to create a George Gamow-like
"worldline" of a play in performance.  My adviser was a dear man, but
a "quadratic equation *Hamlet*" (as he called it) was more than he could take.
Maybe it would make more sense now.
 
Yrs off in the ether,
Jim Schaefer
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.