Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: November ::
Re: Fops
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2085  Tuesday, 14 November 2000.

[1]     From:   Stephanie Hughes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 13 Nov 2000 08:01:16 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.2074 Re: Fops

[2]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 13 Nov 2000 13:49:20 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.2074 Re: Fops


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephanie Hughes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 13 Nov 2000 08:01:16 +0000
Subject: 11.2074 Re: Fops
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2074 Re: Fops

Don't we keep all accounts of people we don't know personally, whether
real or fictional, people that we know only by reading about them, in
the same place in our memory banks?  We may tag them mentally as
fictional vs. real, but in effect they are both simply mental constructs
provided by reading.  And in practice, whose influence lasts longer or
has the greater effect, Hamlet or, say, Crown Prince Rudolf? It must be
for this reason that people from all over the world write letters to
"Juliet Capulet" in Verona asking for help with their love matters,
letters that are faithfully answered by a Catholic priest.

Apologies if this comment is off-topic.

Stephanie Hughes

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 13 Nov 2000 13:49:20 -0500
Subject: 11.2074 Re: Fops
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2074 Re: Fops

Sean Lawrence writes:

>Looking at the problem in this way, how we approach other people (or
>allow them to approach us--we aren't the only agents) is rather similar
>to how we approach literary characters (who can also make claims upon
>us).  An insistence on the distinction between 'real' and 'fictive'
>threatens to erase this similarity, even to embargo most of how we do,
>in fact, usually respond to fictive characters.

And this is precisely where we part company.  Fictive characters have no
agency.  Hamlet, for example, cannot decide to do anything.  He cannot
make a claim upon me, although I can decide to read the play in which he
is a character.

Yours, Bill Godshalk
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.