2002

Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1938  Friday, 20 September 2002

[1]     From:   R. Schmeeckle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 08:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1901 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

[2]     From:   R. Schmeeckle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 09:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   The Supernatural and Modernity

[3]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 12:55:00 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1924 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R. Schmeeckle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 08:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 13.1901 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1901 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

>From:           John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
>Date:           Friday, 13 Sep 2002 15:27:28 +0100

>I had no idea that you were being ironical! For once we are in agreement
>on the fact that there are no universals. BUT that does not necessarily
>mean that everything is relative.
>
>Have I opened up another can of worms here?

Yes.  There are no universals leads to a contradiction, since it is in
the form of a universal.

One can try to get out of the can (of worms) by claiming that the law of
contradiction is not universal, another universal.

Roger Schmeeckle

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R. Schmeeckle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 09:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:        The Supernatural and Modernity

>From:           M. Yawney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
>Date:           Wednesday, 18 Sep 2002 16:07:31 -0700 (PDT)

>The Catholic church at least teaches that if one does not confess to
>civil authorities and accept secular consequences and (even more
>importantly) if one continues to enjoy the positive results of one's
>crime, these are indications that one's repentance are not
>sincere--which means you can confess to a priest until you are blue in
>the face, but the forgiveness gives will not apply since it is accepted
>in bad faith.

This point, made on a different thread, explains why Claudius cannot
sincerely pray.  He is enjoying the fruits of his sinful murder by his
liason with the widowed queen, and, to be forgiven, he would have to
give her up.  Knowing that, he realizes his prayer is futile.  But
Hamlet does not know that; on the assumption that Claudius is sincerely
repenting, Hamlet does not kill him, lest he be saved in his state of
repentance.  In wishing Claudius to go to hell, Hamlet commits the most
serious sin against charity, regardless of Claudius' guilt and Hamlet's
concern to avenge it.  At this point in the play, Hamlet is, indeed, a
noble mind o'erthrown.  But the play is not over.

Roger Schmeeckle

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 12:55:00 -0400
Subject: 13.1924 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1924 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

>>The odd thing about the Theory of Special Relativity is that the one
>>thing in the cosmos that is not relative to anything is the speed of
>>light

I now see the light, but I did say "thing" in the cosmos.  See Mordehai
Milgrom's essay on "dark matter" in Scientific American (August 2002).
Is it possible that the universe is only 5 percent complete?

Yours,
Bill Godshalk

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Re: Bushmen Don't Understand Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1937  Friday, 20 September 2002

From:           Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 07:50:45 -0700
Subject: 13.1926 Re: Bushmen Don't Understand Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1926 Re: Bushmen Don't Understand Hamlet

Is this a terrific list or what?  From my innocent posting of an item
from another list came "Nod Moolb's wonderful satire and now the
thorough note about the origins of the entire
Bushmen-not-understanding-Hamlet story. Thanks for the amusement and the
enlightenment.

Al Magary

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Re: Comedy of Errors

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1935  Friday, 20 September 2002

[1]     From:   R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 09:28:29 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1928 Comedy of Errors

[2]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 14:18:38 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1928 Comedy of Errors

[3]     From:   Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 16:04:31 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1928 Comedy of Errors


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 09:28:29 -0500
Subject: 13.1928 Comedy of Errors
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1928 Comedy of Errors

>Does
>anyone know much about these "genius" spirits he's speaking of?  Is
>Shakespeare trying to set up a dichotomy between the Antipholi, one
>being worldly and the other spiritual? Or is it just supposed to be a
>scary comment on identity, that only one Antipholus is real and the
>other completely hollow.

See djinn. No dichotomy, no scary, no real v. completely hollow. Cute
word, probably freshly heard in another public venue. Comedy is a
stageplay, not an essay. New Criticism is hard to escape, but you must
run away, run away.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 14:18:38 -0400
Subject: 13.1928 Comedy of Errors
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1928 Comedy of Errors

Matt Cheung  asks:  "Or is it {the Duke's question} just supposed to be
a scary comment on identity, that only one Antipholus is real and the
other completely hollow?


Re: Isabella and the Quality of Debate

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1936  Friday, 20 September 2002

From:           R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 09:35:36 -0500
Subject: 13.1929 Isabella and the Quality of Debate
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1929 Isabella and the Quality of Debate

>as I thought it was pretty much accepted
>these days that authorial intentions are unreclaimable,

Repeat this mantra 1000 times. It will still be just another irrelevant
deployment of the relativist trope. Hang up M. d'Blankpage.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Re: Passion in Pieces

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1934  Friday, 20 September 2002

[1]     From:   John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 15:23:16 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1927 Re: Passion in Pieces

[2]     From:   Peter Groves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 14:45:59 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1927 Re: Passion in Pieces

[3]     From:   William Sutton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 11:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1927 Re: Passion in Pieces


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 15:23:16 +0100
Subject: 13.1927 Re: Passion in Pieces
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1927 Re: Passion in Pieces

Peter Groves wrote,

>(the 1609 edition
>was pirated, and all subsequent editions have been edited).

A textual scholar would suggest that this is a scribal or compositorial
misreading of "printed" (which makes better sense in context).  But
perhaps pirates do turn up in the most unlikely places.

John Briggs

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Groves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 14:45:59 +0000
Subject: 13.1927 Re: Passion in Pieces
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1927 Re: Passion in Pieces

Again, my post was mysteriously truncated.  I'm sending it again because
I think the importance of metre is too often underrated by modern
directors, actors, editors, critics ...

>>From:           Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
>
>>The soundtrack proved more problematical.  I had had several positive
>>ideas about how the reading should sound.  The image I had was of the
>>ghost of the Bard leaning in a dark corner of the room watching the same
>>relationship unfold before his eyes that he suffered all those years
>>ago.  I tried reading the thing myself with that in mind and people
>>seemed to like it. I kept my southern English vowel sounds but was very
>>particular about sounding every consonant.  I paid little heed to the
>>meter - but a lot to the punctuation.
>
>Your project sounds very interesting, but your approach to reading the
>Sonnets is the wrong way round: the metre (or rather his artful use of
>it from line to line) is Shakespeare's (it's his way of "pointing" a
>reading) but the punctuation isn't, or not necessarily (the 1609 edition
>was pirated, and all subsequent editions have been edited).

On the other hand, if you really think his metre requires "a slavish
adherence to five iambs per line" your best bet is probably to ignore
it.  I have a recording by a British actor (Jack something) that I can't
listen to, precisely because he shares your misunderstanding of metre.
If you want to hear an intelligent reading of the sonnets, listen to the
CD that came with Helen Vendler's recent book (<The Art of Shakespeare's
Sonnets>). And read a *decent* book on metre to find out what you're
missing -- Timothy Steels's <All the Fun's in How you Say a Thing>
(Athens: Ohio UP, 1999) is excellent, or if you want the theory
<shameless plug>try my <Strange Music: The Metre of the English Heroic
Line>, (Victoria, B.C.: University of Victoria, 1998) available from
Amazon for (I think) US$16 or free from your local university
library</shameless plug>.

Peter Groves

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Sutton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 11:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 13.1927 Re: Passion in Pieces
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1927 Re: Passion in Pieces

Dear All,

The sonnet punctuation of 1609 is then the closest we have to the
*original*. The metre is, as Peter Groves writes, the more important
factor in finding their idiosyncratic shapes.

However Sam's intuitive approach, stressing the consonants, plus
retaining his own vowels will bring him close to the metre regardless.
When each phoneme has its full (or muted, or elided) quality in the
sounding of a sonnet the metre falls into place.  Heightening will occur
surprisingly and naturally.

When I learn them I disregard meaning and allow the manner of
pronunciation to suggest the mood. Lots of sibilance can be said
confidentially sotto-voce, or dripping with venom. The point is, I trust
Shakespeare's thinking, and apply the rule that miscomprehension is my
deficiency. The understanding will come when it comes.

Thought and breath are the inspiration that created their contents first
hand; to whom-ever or why-ever they were written. Therefore the closer i
keep to the sounds of Shakespeare the closer I am to the *original*
voice.

Because there is no doubt in my mind he wrote them and spoke them. All
with the knowledge their existence was threatened by the very act of
writing them. His references to his writing and reproduction through
painting or mirror makes that abundantly clear. More strong in fact than
the story and the characters combined.

Shakespeare precedes literary criticism and worked within, and
deliberately without, his understanding of literary theory. We all can
study contemporary Elizabethan documents on orthography and punctuation
and metrics. There are many, which suggests a hot topic of discussion on
the points therein. After all nothing new has happened to the basics of
writing, except more theories.

Of course where does that leave translations or editor's suggestions or
interfering with punctuation?  I don't know why Shakespeare works so
well in other languages. Personally I love the fresh-minting of the
words and the opportunity to use contemporary slang and vituperatives.
The mind that writ them seems so close to the surface in these poems.
That's why I keep coming back and I suppose it's the same for Sam. And
all the other lunatics out there who've tackled these Sonnets and the
emotions they evoke: from the most subtle to the most blatant. Wanting
to know the man who did write them is a natural consequence of learning
them.  Thankfully he wrote plays as well.

Enough babble.

Yours,
William Sutton.


_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.