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 11.1987  Tuesday, 31 October 2000.

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 28 Oct 2000 10:17:52 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1979 Re: Fops

[2]     From:   Harry Hill <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 28 Oct 2000 20:24:55 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1979 Re: Fops

[3]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 30 Oct 2000 10:39:52 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1979 Re: Fops

[4]     From:   Werner Broennimann <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:57:49 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1971 Re: Fops


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 28 Oct 2000 10:17:52 -0700
Subject: 11.1979 Re: Fops
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1979 Re: Fops

I just wanted to commend Clifford's excellent contribution to the thread
on the reality of artistic representation, especially the following:

> But, because Shakespeare has this act (implied at least by the
> sources, if not by Ophelia's ravings) occur in the extratextual bushes,
> out of our sight (as Iago's cuckolding), it may be another of many
> examples in this play of Shakespearean psychoanalysis, revealing his
> pre-Freudian understanding that conflicts in the realm of fantasy carry
> the force of actual deeds.  What better way to convey our inability to
> separate the guilt resulting from our impermissible fantasies from that
> resulting from our manifest actions than to leave the deed in the
> bushes?

This offers, I think, the possibility of finding, if not a middle
ground, at least a third alternative to naive credulity or naive
incredulity.  There are things we can know about the fictive world,
things we cannot know, and the interstices between the real and the
fictive, where (as Philip points out) we can partly know, as most of the
time in everyday life, is where things get really interesting.  Avoiding
this sort of vaguery--where the fictive seems to flicker into reality,
calling upon us in ways that are not foreclosed by 'ink on a page', nor,
of course, confusable with the person next to us in the theatre--seems
to be exactly what theories of complete indeterminacy or
characterological determinacy try to avoid.

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.