Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: January ::
Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0036  Saturday, 8 January 2000.

[1]     From:   Todd M Lidh <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 06 Jan 2000 11:22:51 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0030 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbe

[2]     From:   Judith Matthews Craig <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 6 Jan 2000 16:20:09 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0021 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth

[3]     From:   Tom Sellari <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 7 Jan 2000 13:59:29 +0800 (CST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0030 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth

[4]     From:   Karen Peterson-Kranz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:33:50 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0030 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth

[5]     From:   C. David Frankel <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 7 Jan 2000 19:53:42 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 11.0030 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Todd M Lidh <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 06 Jan 2000 11:22:51 -0500
Subject: 11.0030 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0030 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth

On Wednesday, 05 Jan 2000 Sean Lawrence wrote:

> Don't be so sure.  I mean, don't we come expecting to see a play?  And
> would there be a play without Duncan's murder?

I've been reading this thread with no small amount of amusement; coming
from an acting background and considering myself a fairly solid
performance critic who emphasizes audience and anticipation (from both
playwright and audience), I have enjoyed the clever arguments made on
both sides.

However, when I read the above, I couldn't help but stop chuckling. It
seems to go beyond the stroke of reason to assign culpability, however
indirect, to an audience in this manner. Simplified out of this equation
are producer choice, director choice, theatre owner choice and other
variables.

Moreover, it skews the logical: are readers of history books culpable
for the Holocaust because they decided to read the book knowing it was
about World War II? are writers of those same books culpable for knowing
that there would be an audience wanting to read about World War II?

The comparison here is justified. It may be clever to put the audience
in the role of accomplice (unwitting or, as implied above, witting), but
it doesn't stand up to reason.

Oh, and to follow the line above: yes, there would be a play without
Duncan's murder. It just wouldn't be the same play.

Todd M Lidh
UNC-Chapel Hill

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judith Matthews Craig <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 6 Jan 2000 16:20:09 -0600
Subject: 11.0021 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0021 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth

Sean Lawrence writes:

<None of this is to say that I have a clear sense of what <sort of
action
<would count as ethical vis-

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.