Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: March ::
Re: Freudian Slip
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0576  Tuesday, 30 March 1999.

[1]     From:   Carol Barton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 29 Mar 1999 11:41:04 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0570 Freudian Slip

[2]     From:   Andy White <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 29 Mar 1999 13:01:45 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0570 Freudian Slip


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carol Barton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 29 Mar 1999 11:41:04 EST
Subject: 10.0570 Freudian Slip
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0570 Freudian Slip

Which just goes to prove that even psychoanalysts can be NUTS!!!

With something between a grin and a grimace,
Carol Barton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Andy White <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 29 Mar 1999 13:01:45 -0500
Subject: 10.0570 Freudian Slip
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0570 Freudian Slip

Am I the only person who finds such speculation hard to take?  Dr.
Ernest Jones was bad enough, but really-to take 'but two months dead'
and offer that kind of take on it strains credulity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the convention on the Elizabethan
and Jacobean stage to reveal character flaws, not conceal them?  Hamlet
doesn't hesitate to talk about his own weaknesses, and is no slacker on
the subject of incest between his mother and his uncle.  Richard III and
Iago don't hesitate to discuss their personal depravities, with pride.
If there were Oedipal issues in Hamlet, Shakespeare would have made sure
to put them in.  Since he didn't, I believe he left out the Oedipal
stuff for the simple reason that it is completely irrelevant, and from
the purpose of the play.

I shudder to think what lies in store for Hamlet in the next century if
this kind of stuff persists ...

Andy White
Arlington, VA
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.