The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1110.  Monday, 3 November 1997.

[1]     From:   Gregory C. Koch <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 2 Nov 1997 09:46:05 -0500
        Subj:   Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings

[2]     From:   Norm Holland <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 02 Nov 97 12:44:26 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1103  Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings

[3]     From:   Louis C Swilley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 2 Nov 1997 16:53:07 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1103  Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gregory C. Koch <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 2 Nov 1997 09:46:05 -0500
Subject:        Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings

>Have others noticed how many times we are prepared to announce that a
>given play is "about" this or that? Is it because we are teachers of

Because your students are on to something?  I find it more enlightening
to deduce the reason Shakespeare wrote a play than to argue The Great
Pile of scholarship.

>Off-hand, it seems some people in this play have to be *provoked* into
>action, rather than *choosing* to act.

Unless you care to develop that, that sounds like...

>Sure -- it's a summary of life, the universe, and everything.

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Norm Holland <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 02 Nov 97 12:44:26 EST
Subject: 8.1103  Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1103  Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings

Re: Macbeth summarized.

The lines obviously cannot be a summary, but they can be used to aid in
the aesthetic perception of the play.  That is, part of our aesthetic
appreciation of a work is to sense how the parts relate to the whole and
vice versa-any work: play, painting, movie, whatever.  Here, one can
look at the key words and syntax as relating to various themes running
through the play as a whole: the twos and threes, the stimulus (fire) to
evil, toiling and troubling to gain a crown that should be given one,
the "primal scene" elements (says this psychoanalytic critic), and so
on.  Long ago, I used to challenge my Shakespeare students to give me
any line in the play, and I would show how it related to the whole and
vice versa.  And, in turn, I would ask them to do the same on the exam
with 5-10 line passages.  So, what else is new?  --Best, Norm Holland

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Louis C Swilley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 2 Nov 1997 16:53:07 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 8.1103  Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1103  Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings

Apropos of the current Macbeth/Thurber remarks, does anyone recall an
article, published years ago, by Lysander Kemp (of happiest critical
memory), in which he argued and "proved" something ridiculous about - I
think - Hamlet?  He was answered, attacked, inveighed against by several
indignant scholars who took his remarks seriously. And although he wrote
again and again telling everyone his article was written
tongue-in-cheek, the protests continued.