Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: December ::
Re: Subtext
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2851  Monday, 17 December 2001

[1]     From:   Don Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 14 Dec 2001 11:38:10 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2847 Re: Subtext

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 15 Dec 2001 11:06:34 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2847 Re: Subtext


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Don Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 14 Dec 2001 11:38:10 -0600
Subject: 12.2847 Re: Subtext
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2847 Re: Subtext

Bill Godshalk writes,

> P.S. My spell-check suggests "sceptic ally."

And deserves a sharp rap on the knuckles for doing so.

-- unless of course, it really meant Sceptic Alley, a place in the Harry
Potter books where a number of half-muggle professors hang out.

Cheers,
don

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 15 Dec 2001 11:06:34 -0800
Subject: 12.2847 Re: Subtext
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2847 Re: Subtext

Bill Godshalk writes,

>Martin Steward wants to know if Sean Lawrence and I have an intimate
>relationship. No, we don't.  But Sean used the word "Other" without
>definition, and I misinterpreted deliberately his use of "Other" to mean
>"Rebecca," with whom I am intimate.

Actually, it doesn't really matter.  Even if we were intimate, which we
aren't, we wouldn't actually fuse.  Love takes place across a distance
which is at once very short and existentially great.

As for misinterpretations relying on interstices, it strikes me that you
can't even _wilfully_ misinterpret a text unless it's first open to
interpretation.  A text that has no gaps in meaning would leave no doubt
at all.  None of this is to undermine our responsibility in interpreting
texts, but it is to suggest that the gaps are as important as the words.

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.