The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.2043 Friday, 9 December 2005
[1] From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 08 Dec 2005 13:59:33 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 16.2028 Gertrude-Ophelia Penultimate
[2] From: John Reed <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 09 Dec 2005 04:07:00 +0000
Subj: Re: Gertrude-Ophelia
[3] From: John Reed <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 09 Dec 2005 04:43:47 +0000
Subj: Re: Gertrude-Ophelia
[4] From: S. L Kasten <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 09 Dec 2005 17:04:41 +0200
Subj: Re: SHK 16.2028 Gertrude-Ophelia Penultimate
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 08 Dec 2005 13:59:33 -0500
Subject: 16.2028 Gertrude-Ophelia Penultimate
Comment: Re: SHK 16.2028 Gertrude-Ophelia Penultimate
>DW shows lost passages in the Q2, nowhere is there mention of the
>loss of an entire *scene*
I suspect that "lost passages" is intended to refer to Dover Wilson's
contention that Hamlet was present in II.ii and overheard Claudius and
Polonius plan to loose Ophelia upon him, even though the stage
directions show no hint of that, thus explaining Hamlet's treatment of
Ophelia in the Nunnery Scene. To my mind, this working backwards to
answer the question is nearly as great a sin as hypothesizing lost
passages to clarify Gertrude's murder of Ophelia. In fact, the text we
have shows how Hamlet came to understand that Ophelia was spying on him.
Dowden came closest to this "Ha ha!" moment, but no one else seems to
have noticed. But this is a subject for another thread.
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Reed <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 09 Dec 2005 04:07:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Gertrude-Ophelia
Philip Tomposki:
>The staging of the director and the performance of the actors
>ultimately determine the interpretation. But acknowledging that does
>mean that you have license to construe the play in a way not supported
>by the text.
Perhaps, but they (directors and actors) do that anyway, even more: they
offer up versions that do not represent the text in rather gross
fashion, by cutting out large chunks of it (that's *changing* the text,
not just not supporting it), especially in Hamlet, as Eleanor Prosser
has observed. I could go on and on about this, but I won't (whew).
To Todd Lidh, your observations are apt, but I was just kidding, silly.
No one on this thread has been rude, unless it was myself, certainly
not the divine Sara. I apologize for giving the wrong impression, and
for any other misconception in this area. The tone of the discussion
has been much less heated than I expected, and I want to thank Hardy,
everyone who responded (as well as those who lurked) for their
forbearance and patience with my heretical ideas. I'm also sorry I
couldn't respond to everyone on every point, due to lack of time and
skill on my part.
One other minor matter. It was reported that I wrote, "But to defile
someone with temptation, that's the funniest thing there is." I
actually wrote, "But to defile someone with temptation, that's the
funniest thing there is." They both work, almost like some of the Q/F
variants in Othello. But I meant funniest, meaning "most fun."
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Reed <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 09 Dec 2005 04:43:47 +0000
Subject: Re: Gertrude-Ophelia
Oh, wait; when I said I was only kidding I meant in relation to
identifying the forum as a den of vipers and Sara being rude. The rest
of it -- Gertrude killing Ophelia -- I meant that.
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: S. L Kasten <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 09 Dec 2005 17:04:41 +0200
Subject: 16.2028 Gertrude-Ophelia Penultimate
Comment: Re: SHK 16.2028 Gertrude-Ophelia Penultimate
It is clear that there is not enough here for an indictment, let alone
conviction.
But I still have a problem with "I will not speak with her": six
stressed monosyllables, the emphatic "will not". It could have been for
example a more lyric, iambic "I do not wish to speak with her."
I see here no psychotophobia as suggested by one correspondent. I see
here no "sweets to the sweet" or "I hop'd thou shouldst have been my
Hamlet's wife...". I see here no appropriate pity, as noted by the
Gentleman or whoever.
Had this line been in the performance on which Q1 was based it surely
would not have been forgotten by the anonymous stenographer. It is too
strong.
Is it bardolatry to suggest that Shakespeare chose and ordered his words
sparingly and meticulously.
What was S.'s intention if not to describe Gertrude's state of mind?
Please don't insult him by saying it was a chance throw-away line with
no purpose.
Best wishes,
Syd Kasten
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
