Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: February ::
Re: Lear's Estate Planning
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0461  Tuesday, 27 February 2001

[1]     From:   R. A. Cantrell <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 26 Feb 2001 11:30:22 -0600
        Subj:   SHK 12.0454 Re: Lear's Estate Planning

[2]     From:   Manuela Rossini <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 26 Feb 2001 19:12:22 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0454 Re: Lear's Estate Planning


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R. A. Cantrell <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 26 Feb 2001 11:30:22 -0600
Subject: Re: Lear's Estate Planning
Comment:        SHK 12.0454 Re: Lear's Estate Planning

>the taboo on reference to
>authorial intention has driven us?

This is at slants, but surely the "taboo" has by now been rendered
vestigial.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Manuela Rossini <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 26 Feb 2001 19:12:22 +0100
Subject: 12.0454 Re: Lear's Estate Planning
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0454 Re: Lear's Estate Planning

Clifford Stetner wonders/worries whether the phrase "sedimented in the
text of the play at its originary moment of production" is "the
euphemism to which the taboo on reference to authorial intention has
driven us?".

Well, first of all I have to admit that I plagiarised the formulation,
it's straight out of Louis Montrose's The Purpose of Playing (p.144). I
like the phrase and tend to use it without waving my hands in the air
and doing the quotes gesture.

Having said that, I also use it precisely in order to signal the death
of the author as the origin of meaning. But then, someone has to do the
"sedimenting", Stetner might ask, and with it we are back to the debate
between poststructuralists and their enemies, a debate which has become
quite tedious on this list.

However, lest I should be accused of chickening out, I only want to say
that when I argue that the theme of incest is a possible layer of King
Lear, I mean that the association of incest with the father-daughter
relationship might an element of the imaginary of the culture in which
the play was produced. As such, the author need not have implicitly and
consciously addressed incest. But a critic who reads symptomatically
would be interested in digging this "absent presence" out as the text's
problematic; that is, by making visible what is/has to stay invisible.

Driven by Althusser (et al.),
Manuela Rossini
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.