Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: October ::
Re: Fops
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1945  Tuesday, 17 October 2000.

[1]     From:   Scott Oldenburg <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 13 Oct 2000 07:33:37 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1939 Re: Fops

[2]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 13 Oct 2000 10:41:33 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1939 Re: Fops

[3]     From:   Jadwiga Krupski <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 13 Oct 2000 10:54:26 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1939 Re: Fops


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Scott Oldenburg <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 13 Oct 2000 07:33:37 -0700
Subject: 11.1939 Re: Fops
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1939 Re: Fops

"You can, of course, get so close to a painting that you see only the
daubs of paint (and it's quite interesting to do so), but it is evident
that the artist's intent was for you to see the dead duck not the daubs.

I know this because other people see the same dead duck or Madonna and
Child or vase of flowers that I do."

I'm not sure that we all see the same Madonna and Child.  Doesn't it
seem that an atheist might see a very different Madonna and Child than a
devout Catholic would?  A mother might see a different Madonna and Child
than her child might, and someone who has lost a child might see a still
a different Madonna and Child (not to mention what Madonna fans see)?
Don Bloom says that when he reads, he sees "people doing and saying
things."  What do these people look like?  Are they not based on your
personal experience?  How could I possibly see the same imaginary people
you see? . . "they [words on a page/texts] create images in our minds."
Do texts do that, or do readers do that with texts?  We share a common
language and culture, so our readings of texts are similar.  But there
is a great deal of language, culture, and personal experience that we do
not share, and so our readings of texts differ.

Well, this hasn't much to do with fops exactly, so I'll leave it at
that.

Best,
Scott Oldenburg

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 13 Oct 2000 10:41:33 -0400
Subject: 11.1939 Re: Fops
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1939 Re: Fops

Don Bloom is

>still baffled . Aside from the fact that I never said a still-life
>of dead duck IS a dead duck, I wonder what he thinks the words on paper
>(or spoken aloud) do. As I see it they create images in our minds, some
>of them more or less concrete, others more abstract or relational.

Well, actually, the words on the page DO nothing.  They certainly do NOT
create images in our minds.  We readers do the creating; words on a page
do not act.  If the images are "concrete" in our minds, then we readers
are responsible for making them concrete -- though how a mental image
can be said to be "concrete" taxes my mind.

Texts do not read themselves, and a literary character does not have an
inherent sexuality.  Readers PROJECT sexuality onto literary
characters.  For example, half of my graduate class believes that Iago
is a homosexual, while the other half believe that he's heterosexual.
Thus, fops are not inherently gay or straight.  We readers project
sexuality onto them.  That was my original point, I think.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jadwiga Krupski <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 13 Oct 2000 10:54:26 -0400
Subject: 11.1939 Re: Fops
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1939 Re: Fops

A big "Hear, Hear" to Don Bloom!
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.