Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: September ::
Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1883  Thursday, 12 September 2002

[1]     From:   Debra Murphy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 11 Sep 2002 07:40:35 -0700
        Subj:   Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

[2]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 11 Sep 2002 14:00:24 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1878 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

[3]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 11 Sep 2002 14:47:22 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1878 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Debra Murphy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 11 Sep 2002 07:40:35 -0700
Subject:        Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

Steve Roth 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
  wrote:

>For those who take the "to be" speech at face value, thinking it reveals
>Hamlet's true beliefs and noblest inmost thoughts, please run, don't
>walk, to James Hirsh's "To Take Arms Against a Sea of Anomolies."
>
>http://www.brunel.ac.uk/faculty/arts/EnterText/hamlet/hirsh.pdf
>
>(the immediately accessible online presentation of his insights), and to
>the two earlier papers where he first presented those insights:
>
>"The 'To be, or not to be' Scene and the Conventions of Shakespearean
>Drama" (MLQ 42 1981 pp. 115-36)
>
>"Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies" (MLQ 58 1997 pp. 1-26)
>
>Hirsh shows (quite conclusively in my opinion) that this 800-pound
>gorilla of all soliloquies is in fact a "utterly impersonal," feigned
>set-speech, put on for the benefit of Claudius and Polonius lurking
>behind the arras. (Just one piece of evidence among many: there's not
>one first-person singular pronoun in this soliloquy; all the others are
>riddled with them, generally from the very first line.)
>
>It's fruitless to consider that soliloquy without considering that
>dramatic and conventional "framing."

Fascinating notion and on the face of it, persuasive.  Have you (or
anyone else on list) ever seen the scene played this way, and if so, how
do you think it worked?  I've been racking my memory, but can't remember
ever seeing it staged this way, from the get-go, although I have seen
several in which Hamlet clearly knew Ophelia was nearby, though it
didn't seem to affect the reading of the soliloquy.  And of course most
productions include some little bit of stage business "behind an arras"
that clues Hamlet in, during the following "nunnery" exchange with
Ophelia, that Polonius & Claudius are eavesdropping.  Usually right
before Hamlet's testy "Where's your father?"

Fine article, I'd like to see someone do it this way, and perhaps
underline it by having Hamlet go a bit over-the-top suicidal in his
performance of it, since the idea is that he's trying to persuade C & P
that he is truly mad.  And directors/actors are always desperate to
infuse some new energy into this too familiar scene!

Debra Murphy

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
http://www.bardolatry.com
http://www.debramurphy.com

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 11 Sep 2002 14:00:24 -0400
Subject: 13.1878 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1878 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

John Drakakis writes:

>Or are you saying that in the US they still behave in the ways that they
>did in Elizabethan England. I must look out for a hanging, drawing, and
>quartering when I cross the pond next!
>
>And is it in Cincinnati that they still whip prostitutes?

John, I really do not understand your response to my brief posting, and
I refuse to be drawn.  I was merely agreeing with you that nothing
appears to be universal -- including Cultural Materialism.

However, if you mean HUMAN universals, you may wish to read Donald E.
Brown's book on the subject. I generally agree with his point of view.

With regard to culture, I recommend that you read Raymond Tallis's
review of Roger Sandall's The Culture Cult in TLS 8/16/02, p. 6.  Tallis
points out the downside of cultural relativity.

With regard to biology, I recommend that you study Stephen Jay Gould's
last scientific book, The Structure of Evolutionary Biology.

Yours,
Bill Godshalk

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 11 Sep 2002 14:47:22 -0700
Subject: 13.1878 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1878 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

My awe and respect to John Cox and Dave Evett for so valiantly blowing
against the wind.  A pity that that nobody marks you.

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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.