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 12.1169  Tuesday, 22 May 2001

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 18 May 2001 08:31:06 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero

[2]     From:   Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 18 May 2001 14:52:01 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero

[3]     From:   Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 18 May 2001 15:13:56 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero

[4]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 19 May 2001 08:25:12 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero

[5]     From:   Clifford Stetner <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 21 May 2001 01:32:27 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1132 Re: Tragic Hero


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 18 May 2001 08:31:06 -0700
Subject: 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero

In all Ms. Hughes (probably unintentional) smoke screens about right and
left brain thinking, "and and" thinking, and the rest, I was diverted
from the point:  a mistake is still a mistake, and lack of evidence is
still lack of evidence.  Smoke screens created by a naive understanding
of brain research may blind me for a day or two, but that doesn't change
the basic fact that a mistake is still a mistake and lack of evidence is
still a lack of evidence.

I and others will continue to read posts on this list hoping to be
exposed to great new ideas, or at least ideas new to us.  When we see a
mistake, or if an off the wall ascertain is made without evidence, we'll
continue to question that.  If Ms. Hughes does not like to be questioned
in this way, I'm sure she can figure a couple of ways to avoid it.

Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 18 May 2001 14:52:01 -0400
Subject: 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero

F. Amit refers to <<1.The articles and cash that Jessica will take with
her in her flight (with an expelled Marrano) from V>>

Sorry... Lorenzo is not an expelled Marrano. He is a member in good
standing of the Christian community.  I can find no textual evidence to
suggest otherwise.

While I know Amit is passionately committed to her interpretation of
MoV, I think we have had sufficient scholarship presented on this list
refuting her interpretation that perhaps it's time to stop having to see
it over and over?  PLEASE?????

Mari Bonomi

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 18 May 2001 15:13:56 -0400
Subject: 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero

S. Hughes continues not to "get" it:

She writes: <<I never said (or never intended to say) that holistic
thinking
should be substituted for
critical thinking, >>

However, holistic thinking is PART of critical thinking... it is she who
is doing either/or, not I.

She continues, <<. I don't thing that ideas based on incomplete
information can be considered valid. >>

In that case, nothing Hughes has said is valid, for she does not have
complete information.  In fact, nothing any of us says on SHAKSPER is
valid, for none of us-- not being a divinity-- has complete information.

What matters is the quality of "information" on which we base our
ideas...  and the range of information that we gather first.  Any time
we get a theory in our heads and refuse to admit to the testing lab any
information which does not seem already to support our theory, we are
ill-informed and our ideas are indeed not valid.  That kind of
incompleteness is created by blind adherence to one's personal  hobby
horses.

I'm open (as are most of our compatriots of SHAKSPER)  to a lot of
different kinds of information on Shakespeare's life, works, companions,
culture, etc.  I am *not* open to out-of-context, twisted and misused
"facts" clinging like barnacles (to keep to my metaphor) to a theory.

Were there cases in the law courts about usury, about young men cleaned
out by unscrupulous folk? I'm sure there were then; there are today;
there have been an  unending stream of such cases between these two
moments in time.  Have we had placed before us a SPECIFIC incident in
Shakespeare's times that immediately precedes and perhaps continues
during the time he seems to have written MoV? Not yet.  Have we been
given evidence that Shakepeare himself was connected with such a case?
Not yet.

I think the idea that MoV is a subversive condemnation of Puritan
hypocrisy to be an interesting one worth pursuing...  I do not think
Hughes has provided much light in that pursuit.

With one thing Hughes said I heartily concur: THANK YOU HARDY!!!!!

Mari Bonomi

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 19 May 2001 08:25:12 -0700
Subject: 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero

Stephanie Hughes writes:

>If we did not know that Arthur Miller wrote "The Crucible" during the
>period that Senator McCarthy was destroying the lives of writers, we
>would perhaps be content to draw the line at the obvious source in
>history, the witch trials of Salem. I would not be satisfied with that,
>and I'm not satisfied with the kind of continual questioning of the
>meaning of the caskets, whether Shakespeare was anti-Semitic, whether
>the play was based on the Lopez trial, etc., that go round and round and
>have done for centuries, not knowing for sure when the play was written
>or the background to its writing. "The Crucible" was written about the
>Salem witch trials of long ago AND about the treatment of the artistic
>community by the government at the time the play was written.

I don't think that anyone would disagree with this.  There's a world of
difference, however, between drawing the parallel in general terms and
trying to tie (say) John Proctor's concern with his name to Marilyn
Monroe's use of a Hollywood pseudonym, or to argue that the play was
actually ghosted by Lee Harvey Oswald.  The parallel is only
interesting, in fact, insofar as it suggests a return to broader issues.

If people are still watching the play in a hundred years (I think that
they will) it certainly won't be to find out what covert meanings could
only possibly be known to an audience from the 1960s.  Philosophy
generally trumps history, and it certainly trumps the sort of search for
happenstantial minutiae that you seem to want to indulge in.

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.