Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: May ::
Re: Tragic Hero
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1091  Thursday, 10 May 2001

[1]     From:   Stephanie Hughes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 9 May 2001 10:11:34 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1070 Re: Tragic Hero

[2]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 09 May 2001 16:35:13 -0700
        Subj:   SHK 12.1070 Re: Tragic Hero


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephanie Hughes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 9 May 2001 10:11:34 -0700
Subject: 12.1070 Re: Tragic Hero
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1070 Re: Tragic Hero

I generally don't respond to the kind of badgering that Mike Jensen goes
in for, but I feel at this point I should defend myself.

I said:

>>>some of my points seem so self-evident that
>>>"proving" them is like proving that grass is green,
>>>including the idea that Shakespeare wrote MOV
>>>out of a particular set of circumstances that
>>>were known to his audience,

I am truly perplexed as to why the idea that Shakespeare based MOV in
part (note: IN PART) on a current situation should be so "offensively
taken" or why it should be necessary to haul out citations to prove it.
I never sought to prove it, only to suggest that such a thing was
likely. Are we to restrict ourselves on this list to discussing only
that which has been "proven" to the rest of us? How dull that would be.

As I hope I have shown in a number of discussions on this list, I am
more than willing to dig out citations to back up anything I say when
asked by someone who shows either a genuine interest in the idea or at
least a modicum of courtesy.  When, after two posts from Gamble it
became evident that the intent was not to discuss my suggestion (again,
that MOV had its basis IN PART from current problems with London
moneylenders) rather to make me look like an ignorant fool (while at the
same time publishing a dissertation on usury through the ages, of which
the relevance to my post was questionable), I did as I usually do in
such cases, ignored them, a tactic I suggest to others who are afraid to
post for fear of being trashed in this way.

I know from going through this kind of thing before and from watching
these same tactics used on others, that nothing that I offer in the way
of evidence will be sufficient and so to dig it out will be a waste of
time.  I don't post for Jensen, who has shown his animosity towards my
ideas frequently over the years, or for Gamble, but for those who may be
interested in a different take on the plays. (I too get supportive posts
off list from others, believe it or not.)

Why can't Jensen and Gamble do as I do to them or to anyone whose posts
don't interest me or with which I don't agree, simply ignore me? Why try
to beat me, or anyone else, to death with words? Is this your idea of
scholarship?

>>She has previously claimed that things are self-evident, which aren't.

Who is so hubristic as to conceive that what is not evident to them is
evident to no one else?

>>We don't take her any more seriously than she takes the principles of
>>sound scholarship.

Who is this "we"?

Mike Jensen seems to have a great ambition to be class monitor. Until
such time as this is made official, I will continue to ignore his
fulminations.

>>You have done all that is reasonable by giving her
>>the opportunity to demonstrate that she has a reason for her claims.
>>She has failed to take advantage of this opportunity.  The claim that it
>>is self-evident is, transparently, an attempt to wiggle out of this and
>>still be able to claim that she is right.  Believe me, many people on
>>the list understand this.

Are we to have a vote on whether or not Stephanie Hughes is a fool and
should be peppered to death with paper bullets or shall we proceed with
courteous discourse,state our own views  (when we have them and when
they are relevant) and politely refrain from pointless diatribes once it
becomes clear that the argument can go no further?

>>>It is good to challenge her, and you did it very well.
>>
>>Shaking my head in dismay,
>>Mike Jensen

I worry about Mike Jensen. He gets so worked up over infractions of the
rules, rules that as far as I can see are purely of his own making. God
forbid that he should shake his head clean off one of these days.

Gamble now reenters the fray:

>Thank you. I am grateful for your courtesy, and that of a number of
>people who have responded on and off the list.

How nice it would be if Jensen's courtesy extended to those who don't
share his views.

>But perhaps we should not be too dismayed by Stephanie Hughes' latest
>missive; it has focused my attention on another claim in a very
>different play in the canon.  There seems to be a striking similarity to
>Glendower's boast:

Ah, the rumble of kettledrums announces a final thrust! (This is the
last act, isn't it?)

>'I can call spirits from the vasty deep'.
>And like Hotspur, I reply:
>'Why, so can I, or so can any man;
>But will they come when you do call for them?'
>
>In Stephanie Hughes' case the answer would appear to be No.

Ah, the villain is done for, fatally stabbed by a riposte.  Unless, of
course, she is back on board tomorrow for the next performance of "Wrong
vs. Right."

If you want citations, Stevie, from me or anyone who posts on this list
or any other, I suggest you ask politely without assuming that what you
know is more important than what the other fellow knows. On the other
hand, if you simply want to hurt somebody, go kick a tree.

This kind of stuff is fun, but it is an awful waste of time. Please be
notified, that if treated so miserably in the future I will respond by
quoting Squirrel Nutkin or some other authority on harassment.

Stephanie Hughes

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 09 May 2001 16:35:13 -0700
Subject: Re: Tragic Hero
Comment:        SHK 12.1070 Re: Tragic Hero

Florence Amit's comments and quotations were very interesting, but it
seems to me a superior context for understanding what happens in *MOV*
is to view it in light of Shakespeare's sources.  After all, we can
demonstrate Shakespeare had those texts in mind when he wrote.  The rest
is surmise.  How do these comments and quotations fit in with the
sources?

Mike Jensen

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.