2001

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0725  Friday, 30 March 2001

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 24 Mar 2001 11:37:00 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention

[2]     From:   Manuela Rossini <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 24 Mar 2001 22:45:50 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention

[3]     From:   Edward Pixley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 26 Mar 2001 09:56:46 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention

[4]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 26 Mar 2001 09:05:03 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention

[5]     From:   Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 26 Mar 2001 19:18:45 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 24 Mar 2001 11:37:00 -0800
Subject: 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention

Terence asks,  "Is there any Shakespearean critic whose writings are
theory-free?"

Again, this depends on how we define "theory".  If it's a school of
thought, then of course it's possible to be 'theory-free', in the same
way that one doesn't have to be Hegelian or Buddhist.  On the other
hand, if it's just to think at some level of abstraction, the way out
would be simple naivety.  I'm sure that there are examples of both.

More importantly, the strength of 'theory' as the current fashion of the
western academy derives from identifying itself with thought as such.
If everything prior to the 1970s was 'theory' anyway, why would the
materialists have to come along and rescue Shakespeare studies from its
naivety?  Unless, of course, only some theories count as 'theory'.

Cheers,
Se 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.