Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: June ::
Re: Why Shakespeare
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1452  Monday, 11 June 2001

[1]     From:   Sam Small <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 10 Jun 2001 00:35:40 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1430 Re: Why Shakespeare

[2]     From:   Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 10 Jun 2001 07:41:20 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1430 Re: Why Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sam Small <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 10 Jun 2001 00:35:40 +0100
Subject: 12.1430 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1430 Re: Why Shakespeare

Gabriel Egan wrote:

Ivan, I assure you, is a fictional character (a soldier), and should not
be confused with Dostoyevsky (a writer). Is anybody else having trouble
with this simple distinction? No? Stay behind for extra tuition, Small.

As every writer knows there is no such thing as a fictional character.
All characters penned by such writers as Dostoyevsky and Shakespeare
were amalgums of people they had met.  Sometimes they were themselves.
Shakespeare was a more profound writer than Dostoyevsky because he saw
the universal human conflict that operates in all ages, creeds, races,
religions, classes and all manner of petty philosophies.  Dostoyevsky
set his store on the bright promise of Christianity while Shakespeare
looked on in horror at the slow moving chaos we call life and love.  I
assert once more that no proud holder of a fashionable philosophy writes
a book condemning that very school of thought.  This includes
Dostoyevsky.  But, Mr Egan, I seem to be asking the question a second
time; in what way does Dostoyevsky discredit Christianity?

SAM

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 10 Jun 2001 07:41:20 EDT
Subject: 12.1430 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1430 Re: Why Shakespeare

Gabriel's retraction:

<< Witch-hunting was the example I was most ready to concede. There is
 dishonourable tradition of likening witch persecution to the Holocaust
 and one doesn't want to give comfort to bad historicism. I'll happily
 retract that part. >>

reminds me of a book I just read in which 'the witch hunting tradition'
was (however un-historically) compared with the Reagan/Thatcherite
obsession with 'the war on drugs' in the 80's. It seems to me that all
this quibbling about aims material or defered misses the actual fact
that political aims have multiple origin and multiple effect. The
concern to find the centre of society's ills is one with which both
material and spiritual aims are naturally associated if not conflated.

Cheers,
Marcus.

_______________________________________________________________
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.