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 10.0589  Wednesday, 31 March 1999.

[1]     From:   Eric W Beato <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Mar 1999 09:45:48 -0500
        Subj:   SHK 10.0576 Re: Freudian Slip

[2]     From:   David Maier <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Mar 1999 11:02:11 -0800
        Subj:   RE: SHK 10.0576 Re: Freudian Slip

[3]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Mar 1999 17:25:24 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0576 Re: Freudian Slip


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Eric W Beato <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Mar 1999 09:45:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Freudian Slip
Comment:        SHK 10.0576 Re: Freudian Slip

Today's respondees on the 'Freudian Slip' post seemed to take the psych
portion at face value, which caused them to reject the concept.  I did
not read the psychoanalysis as the major point that mattered to me.
What I saw in the article was further commentary on the subtle
complexity of Shakespearean character.  After all, he predated Freud by
three centuries.  Macbeth's doctor suggests in Act V that Lady Macbeth
might need modern therapy, does he not?  And this is all accomplished in
the context of characters who demand our attention and love.

I did not care for the specific interpretations offered in the pot, but
I liked it because of its careful look at well-drawn characters.  Weak
writers cannot put slips of the tongue-Freudian or otherwise-into the
mouths of realistic characters.  Shakespeare's characters live always.

Rick Beato
Lisle Senior High School, Illinois

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Maier <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Mar 1999 11:02:11 -0800
Subject: 10.0576 Re: Freudian Slip
Comment:        RE: SHK 10.0576 Re: Freudian Slip

We are not alone in our anguish over the analyst.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Mar 1999 17:25:24 -0800
Subject: 10.0576 Re: Freudian Slip
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0576 Re: Freudian Slip

Andy White conjectures that,

>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.

But what if Shakespeare were repressing his own Oedipal desires, which
made their way unconsciously into his work?  The neat thing (and also
the appalling thing) about any psychoanalytic reading is that it's
completely un-disprovable on its own terms.  Like any other totalizing
theory.

Seriously, I'm actually a little encouraged to see a real psychologist
take on these issues, rather than leaving them (as usual) to second-rate
literary critics, with a dilettantish interest in psycho-analysis.

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.