Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: December ::
Re: Shakespeare's Characters and Publications
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2251  Thursday, 7 December 2000

[1]     From:   William Proctor Williams <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 05 Dec 2000 11:26:17 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.2239 Re: Shakespeare's Characters and Publications

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 05 Dec 2000 09:13:45 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.2239 Re: Shakespeare's Characters and Publications

[3]     From:   Brian Vickers <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 06 Dec 2000 11:00:52 +0100
        Subj:   Shakespeare's Characters

[4]     From:   John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 6 Dec 2000 10:02:21 -0000
        Subj:   RE: SHK 11.2239 Re: Shakespeare's Characters and Publications


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Proctor Williams <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 05 Dec 2000 11:26:17 -0500
Subject: 11.2239 Re: Shakespeare's Characters and Publications
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2239 Re: Shakespeare's Characters and Publications


Larry Weiss says,

"Contemporary US copyright law recognizes that the "authorship" for
copyright purposes of "works made for hire" is in the person who employs
or commissions the person who creates the work, not in the person who
creates it.  The requirements are strict -- the work must be created
within the scope of employment of the creator or (with respect to
certain types of works) pursuant to a written agreement that explicitly
provides it is a "work made for hire" (17 USC sec 101) -- but if the
conditions are met, the employer or principal of the creator is the
"author" for copyright purposes (id. sec. 201(b)).

Of course, it is also possible for the copyright owner to assign all
rights in the copyright to someone else, who, although not the "author,"
becomes the copyright owner."

Could I just point out again that what modern copyright law says hardly
applies to Shakespeare and the 16th and 17th centuries.  Since my
remarks may have been responsible for this little ripple in the vast
ocean of this subject, let me just say that I questioned the use of the
word author only because I am not sure that we really know how to apply
it to surviving dramatic texts of WS, or that we should stop applying it
in anything like the modern sense.

William Proctor Williams

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 05 Dec 2000 09:13:45 -0800
Subject: 11.2239 Re: Shakespeare's Characters and Publications
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2239 Re: Shakespeare's Characters and Publications

Bill writes:

> As for surprise, I am not contending that we construct the EXTERNAL
> world, simply that we construct what we consciously perceive of the
> external world, for example, colors, which do not exist in the external
> world. The external world may very well surprise us.  Our brains may
> fail us, and we are not aware of the speeding car come at us.

Actually, this helps quite a bit.  Would the speeding car provide an
example, perhaps an analogy, for something that forces itself upon our
attention, if only at the moment of impact?

> >And by the way, I have never claimed that anyone has an unmediated
> >understanding of the text.  I'm slightly bewildered at how this view
> >keeps getting ascribed to me.
>
> This view is ascribed to you because it seems to be a corollary of your
> central position -- I believe. Can you explain how it could be
> otherwise?

My central position is that our acknowledgement of the Other is
qualitatively different from knowledge, in some sense even prior to
knowledge, and that attempts to approach it using the categories of
knowledge are fundamentally misguided.  Responding to the Other doesn't
require an 'unmediated understanding of the text'. What it requires is a
response to that which is older than textuality itself. Before a text is
a set of signifiers, it is an effort of someone to speak to me.  This
isn't to say that I understand the text's 'content' before reading it,
only that the gravity of saying isn't exhausted--or even meaningfully
approached--by expounding or paraphrasing the meaning of what is said.

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.