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 11.1971  Wednesday, 25 October 2000.

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 24 Oct 2000 11:20:17 -0700
        Subj:   SHK 11.1961 Re: Fops

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 25 Oct 2000 01:02:22 -0400
        Subj:   Re: Fops


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 24 Oct 2000 11:20:17 -0700
Subject: Re: Fops
Comment:        SHK 11.1961 Re: Fops

OK, so now I'm speaking to the other side.  Bill Godshalk wrote:

> My point is that ink stains do not direct to a "certain perception."  It
> is very uncertain what a reader will come up with.  For example, Iago
> says that he fears that Othello has been sleeping with his wife, Emilia.
> Is he telling the truth or is he lying? Is he motivated by jealousy or
> not?  I assume that different readers come up with difference answers.

Yes, yes, yes - but...

Brian Vickers, in his book Appropriating Shakespeare pointed out,
brilliantly I think, that we can tell when Iago is lying, which is a
different example than Bill's.  And we can tell.  Not, Terry, that Iago
is real.  He is ink on a page.  Still, we can tell when the character is
lying, and I find that significant.  If we can tell when Iago is lying,
then our hermeneutics seems to be in sync with what the author wrote.  I
know authorial intent is unfashionable, but we just can crawl very far
away from it, can we?

All the best,
Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 25 Oct 2000 01:02:22 -0400
Subject:        Re: Fops

Hugh Grady comments that an observation of mine "has the depressing ring
of deja vu coming from the fact that [the] argument is now 25 years
old."

Geez, that old!  (Actually, I seldom make a point so youthful.)
Seriously, though, I've been told that some religious ideas and schools
of philosophy are even older.

Hugh also says:

"There was once a day when English studies was [sic?] felt by many to be
a club of like-minded gentlemen of literary bent from the right schools,
and such agreement was the 'natural' order of the day.  That day has
passed."

Perhaps the admission requirements have been relaxed, but I think
Terence is correct that most denizens of the slums of London,
Birmingham, and Cardiff (or New York, Chicago, etc), for whom
"Shakespeare" is fightin' words, would not care to join the widening
circle.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.