Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1995 :: April ::
Re: Ideology and Subjectivity
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0316.  Wednesday, 19 April 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Terence Hawkes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 13:57:35 GMT
        Subj:   Early Modern
 
(2)     From:   Peter John Still <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 18 Apr 95 16:44:05 CST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0307  Re: Ideology and Subjectivity
 
(3)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 23:11:25 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0314  Re: Ideology and Subjectivity
 
(4)     From:   Bob Gingher <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 05:07:16 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0314 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity
 
(5)     From:   Bob Gingher <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 05:32:43 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0286 Re: Sh. & Co., etc.
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 13:57:35 GMT
Subject:        Early Modern
 
Gabriel Egan touches a sore point. Does anybody know the provenance of the
soul-gelding phrase 'early modern'?  Why are we all using it? It's almost as
bad as 'Renaissance'.
 
Terence Hawkes
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter John Still <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 18 Apr 95 16:44:05 CST
Subject: 6.0307  Re: Ideology and Subjectivity
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0307  Re: Ideology and Subjectivity
 
Just a note from a theatre practitioner: it was only - after 5 years in the
theatre - when I read Foucault's 'Les mots et les choses' that I finally lost
that niggling worry: what did Shakespeare *really* mean when he wrote all that
metaphor! - of course: he meant the metaphor.
 
Most actors that I know, still have that niggling worry, an indication, I
think, of some difference between their subjectivities, and whatever it was
Shakespeare was producing words for. When you reach back further, and try to
produce on stage a medieval play, at every sentence, you end up with the
question "well, why doesn't [my character] do [this, that is my impulse]?" At
every sentence. And when you explain a social reason, why that impulse simply
wasn't an option, the actor will still retain a niggling suspicion at the back
of their mind, that [their modern impulse] is what [their character] *really*
wants to do, but is not allowed to do. So there is a big, big difference here,
practically, and it seems to me that there has to be a big, big difference
philosophically, else our philosophy is inadequate. !
 
In the same vein, Gabriel,  what else *is* subjectivity, but 'that we
perceive'?
 
So this is where I admit that I missed much of this thread - so apologies for
any irrelevance/redundancy  - - comments??
 
--Peter
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 23:11:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 6.0314  Re: Ideology and Subjectivity
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0314  Re: Ideology and Subjectivity
 
Since no one jumped in to tell me what THE COMEDY OF ERRORS had to do with
"Subjectivity," I thought I'd suggest three possibilities:
 
        (1) THE COMEDY OF ERRORS has nothing to do with "subjectivity" which is
a 19th century concept initiated by Southey and Coleridge. To speak of
subjectivity in the late 16th century is historically incorrect.
 
        (2) To suggest that dramatic figures have subjectivity is to confused
dramatic figures with real people. Dramatic figures are merely the words in the
script or as spoken by actors.
 
        (3) We can make believe that dramatic figures have subjectivity and
from their words construct what we might call an "implied subjectivity." (cf.
Umberto Eco's making believe that a text has agency and intention.)
 
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Gingher <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 05:07:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 6.0314 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0314 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity
 
Re: Bill Godshalk's "We are all in this together." Exactly the point I was
trying, however clumsily, to make earlier re: value, source, commentary. Or, in
the words of Frank Zappa, "We're all bozos on the same bus."
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Gingher <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 05:32:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 6.0286 Re: Sh. & Co., etc.
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0286 Re: Sh. & Co., etc.
 
Thanks to Christine Mack Gordon for the lovely passage on Einstein's view of
our significance only insofar as we're related to all things, events, one
another. Coleridge's 14th chapter from *Biographia Literaria*, Conrad's views
on the task of the artist, Faulkner's Nobel Prize Acceptance Speecch, Robert
Coles's books on *The Call of Stories* and "The Call of Service* all come to
mind as variations on the same "theme."
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.