Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0349 Tuesday, 25 April 2006
From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Subject: Characters, Motivations, Themes, and ULTIMATE Meanings
Dear SHAKSPEReans:
Many, many issues surrounding my working environment/employment are
coming to a head this week, and subsequently my thoughts are principally
engaged with these matters. However, several "Editor's Notes" that I
have offered in the past few days regard concerns that I find quite
interesting and important as I continue to re-vision "SHAKSPER 2006"
(The title here is being employed in the same spirit as, for example,
"Windows '95" or "Office 2003"). I will give these some slight attention
now with the promise that I will bring them back up as my other concerns
dissipate.
This past Friday, I tried to distribute a post from Bill Lloyd with an
"Editor's Note"; for some reason that post was not delivered, so I sent
it out again yesterday:
[Editor's Note: As editor of SHAKSPER, I entreat, and beseech, and
adjure, and implore members NOT to send in posts on Hamlet that simply
restate interpretations and theories that have previously been vetted
here. Instead, I am thinking about instituting "The SHAKSPER
Hermeneutics Competition." I have yet to work out all of the details;
but as I imagine it, any member (I am still debating with myself if
those who identify themselves as scholars or academics can participate.)
who wishes to compete will submit his or her explication of the play or
poem under consideration (We will, of course, begin with HAMLET). These
interpretations will not be subject to comment by other members but will
stand as the submitter's expression of the ultimate truth about the
meaning of the play or poem under consideration. After the closing date,
SHAKSPER members will vote on which interpretation is the WINNER. From
that point forward, no further discussion of the meaning of that play or
poem will be permitted on SHAKSPER. Anyone submitting a post about that
play or poem will receive a form letter notifying the submitter that the
matter of the meaning of that work has been determined and the answer of
its true meaning can be found in such and such a post in the archives or
in a special section of the web site (like a FAQ). Another alternative
would be to set aside space on the SHAKSPER website for a bulletin board
dedicated to that play or poem; the winner of the competition will
moderate and any others who desire can argue amongst themselves to their
heart's content, protected from the cynicism of those so-called scholars
or academics who are fed up with listening to or participating in
discussions of characters, motivations, themes, or the meanings of
particular plays or poems.]
Also, yesterday in response to Jeffrey Jordan's inquiry [I know this
thread began on the general subject of dumb shows, so before talking any
more Hamlet I have to ask our editor, Mr. Cook, whether that's permitted
on this thread. I'm aware of the desire to keep threads on topic, and I
know I'm already an offender.], I wrote:
[Editor's Note: That threads evolve, moving from one area of
concentration to another, is not one of my concerns; however, when I
announced in February <http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2006/0000.html>
that to regain the academic focus of the early days of the SHAKSPER I
intended to post only messages that I believe were of interest to the
academic community, I was implicitly restricting posts that treated
fictional characters as if they were REAL (Hamlet's reading knowledge of
Italian, for example). My point is that for the most part discussions of
characters and of their motivations, of themes or of the ULTIMATE
meanings of particular plays or poems are not generally relevant to
current academic interests in Shakespeare studies and are thus areas of
discussion that I would like to avoid here.]
My Note about "The SHAKSPER Hermeneutics Competition" was intended as a
joke: I'm REALLY not interested in establishing a contest or an
"Ultimate Meaning FAQ" or a series of SHAKSPER message boards.
However, because I keep getting e-mails and snide remarks in messages
asking what I mean by "of interest to the academic community," a
statement that presents no hidden agenda or mysterious meaning to me
because I consider that I am a member of the Shakespearean academic
community and through my reading of books and essays, attending and
presenting at academic conferences and the like I am conversant with the
current state of the field, I feel, nevertheless, compelled to explain
myself. Let me start with comments I have just received.
Of my first Note, Michael Luskin replied: "Very nice tongue in cheek. I
would like to suggest that you instead post to the list the techniques
of searching the archive. I think they are on the web site, but a
restatement here would help a lot of people who don't know how to find
the meaning of life in the archives. Not fully kidding."
A discussion of how members SEARCH the SHAKSPER archives is an
appropriate one. I would suggest that members begin with familiarizing
themselves with these sections: Current Postings, Browse SHAKSPER, and
Search SHAKSPER. Members can find the daily digests in Current Postings
should for any reason they cannot get to their e-mail and would like to
read the digests on the web. Browse SHAKSPER is organized by year and
volume (Volume 1: 1990 to Volume 17: 2007) with entries capable of being
organized by date, thread, and subject. Search using the Web Site engine
can be "restricted by" volume/year and what is searched for can be by
"all words," "any words," or "boolean" operators (AND, OR, NOT). I
welcome others to suggest alternatives and refinements.
Also, regarding the first Note, Larry Weiss observed the following: "The
fault, dear Hardy, lies not in the enthusiasts but in the academics that
you are so exasperated. If the so-called scholars would give up their
memberships in the A.C. Bradley Society and stop teaching 'characters,
motivations, themes, or the meanings of particular plays or poems' the
rest of us wouldn't think of discussing those subjects. SHAKSPER could
then happily confine itself to such things as how many children
Compositor B had."
Privately, I responded to Larry: "This is not what or how I teach. I am
not interested in teaching the ultimate meaning of a play or poem.
Instead, I try to empower my students with the skills to READ
plays/poems from acknowledged perspectives and in the process I explore
how these texts enable a variety of readings that can be and are
realized in PERFORMANCE. Thus, there is not Hamlet; instead there are
Hamlets." I welcome discussion of how other members approach the
teaching of Shakespeare.
By the way, to demonstrate that I too can make universalizing and
totalizing claims, the answer to "how many children Compositor B had" is
42.
Privately I responded to this inquiry by Donald Bloom:
>Hardy writes:
>
>"Another alternative would be to set aside space on the SHAKSPER website
>for a bulletin board dedicated to that play or poem; the winner of the
>competition will moderate and any others who desire can argue amongst
>themselves to their heart's content, protected from the cynicism of
>those so-called scholars or academics who are fed up with listening to
>or participating in discussions of characters, motivations, themes, or
>the meanings of particular plays or poems."
>
>While I applaud his efforts keep order on the list, this part of the
>post leaves me puzzled (especially "the cynicism of those so-called
>scholars or academics who are fed up with listening to or participating
>in discussions of characters . . ."). There seems to be more irony here
>than I can readily keep track of.
My response prompted Don to write
>Hardy :
>
>You say, "My point is that for the most part discussions of characters,
>motivations, themes, or the meanings of particular plays or poems are
>not generally relevant to current academic interests in Shakespeare
>studies."
>
>I was afraid that was what you meant.
>
>Could you clarify for me what are the "current academic interests"?
Don and others this is what I am trying to do here and will continue as
I am able.
David Bishop asks, "The idea that no criticism of Hamlet can at this
late date be interesting is an uninteresting idea about Hamlet. A great
deal has been written about the play, and also a great many love songs
have been written, most of them not very good. Should we therefore stop?"
And continues, "Though I sympathize with part of Hardy's motivation,
when a professor of Shakespeare can write of being "fed up with
listening to or participating in discussions of characters, motivations,
themes, or the meanings of particular plays or poems" I hear the dying
gasps of a sterile and bankrupt theory. I wonder if Hardy made clear at
the SAA that he wanted a Shakespeare discussion group that avoided these
topics. Can this be how Shakespeare is now being taught? On another
thread we hear of Shakespeare being eased out of the curriculum. I would
suggest that these developments are related."
Now, this is a subject that deserves more attention than I can give it
now. But what I had in mind was expressed in my second Note quoted in
full above with special emphasis on the following: "I was implicitly
restricting posts that treated fictional characters as if they were REAL
(Hamlet's reading knowledge of Italian, for example). My point is that
for the most part discussions of characters and of their motivations, of
themes or of the ULTIMATE meanings of particular plays or poems are not
generally relevant to current academic interests in Shakespeare studies
and are thus areas of discussion that I would like to avoid here."
So long for now and thanks for all the fish,
Hardy