The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0385 Wednesday, 3 May 2006
[1] From: Jennifer Drouin <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 2 May 2006 09:29:07 -0400
Subj: RE: SHK 17.0368 Characters, Motivations, Themes, and
ULTIMATE Meanings
[2] From: R. A. Cantrell <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 02 May 2006 09:06:58 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0377 Characters
[3] From: Edmund Taft <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 02 May 2006 10:34:21 -0400
Subj: Characters
[4] From: John Ramsay <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 2 May 2006 11:34:59 +0100
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0373 Characters
[5] From: Will Sharpe <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 02 May 2006 16:26:12 +0100
Subj: RE: SHK 17.0377 Characters
[6] From: Bill Arnold <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 2 May 2006 08:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0377 Characters
[7] From: Bruce Young <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 2 May 2006 11:32:37 -0600
Subj: RE: SHK 17.0377 Characters
[8] From: Martin Steward <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 2 May 2006 19:23:31 +0100
Subj: SHK 17.0377 Characters
[9] From: Peter Goldman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 02 May 2006 12:31:08 -0600
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0377 Characters
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jennifer Drouin <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 2 May 2006 09:29:07 -0400
Subject: 17.0368 Characters, Motivations, Themes, and
Comment: RE: SHK 17.0368 Characters, Motivations, Themes, and
ULTIMATE Meanings
Bruce Young writes:
>"Characters (in any of several possible
>understandings of that word) are still a legitimate subject of academic
>discussion. In fact, a resurgence of interest in characters seems to be
>taking place. Michael Bristol gave an address on "the discovery of
>character" at the Shakespeare Association meetings in Bermuda last year,
>persuasively (for me at least) showing the relevance of the topic, and
>there is a seminar on "Shakespeare and Character" at the World
>Shakespeare Congress in Brisbane this summer."
Indeed, character still is a legitimate subject of academic discussion.
Both Michael Bristol's SAA paper in Bermuda and Paul Yachnin's ISA seminar
in Brisbane on character emerge, by the way, from the McGill Shakespeare
and Performance Research Team's (SPRiTE) three year project on
"Performances of Character: Shakespeare, Theatre, and Critical Practice".
Interested members of SHAKSPER may read the project description (based on
the grant proposal; it has continued to evolve since then) on the SPRiTE
website at: http://www.shakespeare.mcgill.ca/
Bristol's earlier work on characters, or "fictional agents" as he calls
them, is also highly relevant to this listserv's discussion. See, for
instance, "How many children did she have?" in *Philosophical
Shakespeares*. Ed. John J. Joughin. London: Routledge, 2000. 18-33. and
"Vernacular Criticism and the Scenes Shakespeare Never Wrote."
*Shakespeare Survey* 53 (2000): 89-102.
Jennifer Drouin
McGill University
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: R. A. Cantrell <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 02 May 2006 09:06:58 -0500
Subject: 17.0377 Characters
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0377 Characters
How many children hath Lady Macbeth?
All the Best,
R.A. Cantrell
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Edmund Taft <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 02 May 2006 10:34:21 -0400
Subject: Characters
Bill Godshalk's recent essay on this subject, "Shakespeare and the Problem
of Literary Characters," www.ufl.edu/ipsa/journal/2005, is a sophisticated
analysis of a vexing question. Bill suggests that we really play a kind of
game whenever we think or write about literary characters, pretending that
they are what, in a literal sense, they are not - human beings.
I find it hard to disagree with Bill, especially since Renaissance theory
- holding the mirror up to nature - supplies the "rules" of the game: to
whit, pretend that the characters on the stage or page are people! I want
to add, however, that if literary analysis of "characters" is a game,
perhaps we should give the word _game_ a medieval definition. Chaucer
teaches us that games can be serious. For example, courtly love is a game,
but a serious one, as poor Troilus finds out by the end of Chaucer's great
love poem. Business is a game, but a deadly serious one, and so is
interpretation. That's because interpretations of plays (Shakespeare,
above all) have cultural consequences by shaping people's views of proper
"values," views, and actions. In short, Shakespeare has become a kind of
secular Bible for many these days - and critics are the high priests who
"interpret" what Shakespeare "means."
I'd suggest that it would be fruitful for the members of this list to
occasionally point to an essay of their own for us to read and comment on
- on this list. Maybe that would focus discussions in a way that is more
to Hardy's liking.
Ed Taft
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Ramsay <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 2 May 2006 11:34:59 +0100
Subject: 17.0373 Characters
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0373 Characters
For a poignant look at how unreal characters become more than real, review
ee cummings' sonnet on the Canterbury Tales: 'Honour, corruption,
villainy, holiness'.
Chaucer's fictional characters:
'come up from the never of when
come into the now of forever come riding alive'
While real people ....
John Ramsay
[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Will Sharpe <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 02 May 2006 16:26:12 +0100
Subject: 17.0377 Characters
Comment: RE: SHK 17.0377 Characters
OK, I wasn't expecting to solve all the world's problems with that last
mail, but there are a few things I still stand by. In answer to the
question how are we to identify what is baseless, I would say that the
main rule of thumb is Hardy. I've read many posts from him basically
asking people to stop replying to or starting up discussions about Hamlet,
but I suppose that extends to all plays when it comes to spontaneous
criticism, of the kind that basically sounds, however reasoned, like
shooting from the hip and often born (as far as I can tell) of a desire to
converse with others about Shakespeare on a daily basis. I've no idea
about the personal circumstances of most of the members of this list, but
I can only guess that in some cases these circumstances are prohibitive to
that desire, and, in the absence of the possibility of airing one's ideas
face-to-face, debating partners must be met online. Now, I'm in no
position to judge what is baseless (although in some cases it's easy to
tell), but I think the main issue at stake here is a matter of common
courtesy. Hardy, it seems to me, maintains this list out of a desire to
keep a global scholarly forum going, but he also does it out of the
goodness of his heart i.e. we don't all send him a subscription fee every
year for the privilege, so if he says please stop talking about so-and-so,
or count to ten before replying, what that means (I would say) is give me
a break. I appreciate Don Bloom's criticism of my last mail, and of course
there's no point in me trying to identify what constitutes baselessness,
as all that will happen is people will write in disagreeing with what I've
said. Nobody thinks their ideas are baseless or pointless, and what one
person considers baseless, another will be deeply inspired by, so that
kind of discussion would ultimately only be frustrating to all parties.
However, if Hardy says something is baseless, and should be kept to
oneself (or off-list), I'm stunned when people reply attacking him for
these statements. I can only imagine the sheer amount of time spent
editing this list every day, often in the face of physical ailments and
family obligations, which could be made so much easier by certain people
questioning their rates of contribution. SHAKSPER can be an incredible
resource (pace my bibliographical query relating to Cuthbert Burby which
was answered by Peter Blayney and David Kathman), but can also be a pain
in the backside, seeing the same names every day, basically conversing
with each other about topics that Hardy tries to suppress. If you have
strong ideas about certain plays, write an essay, get it published, then,
if people want to respond to it, they'll write an essays detailing its
shortcomings or successes. My comment about the Hamlet blog meant that
there are websites out there devoted to the kind of daily conversations
about plays (which don't have a careful editor as we do), and which are
the kind of service that is not what SHAKSPER is supposed to be. There are
lots of senior academics on this list, and I find it amazing that people
sometimes just write the first thing that comes into their heads, or talk
as if they were chatting in a pub (bar), knowing that their emails will be
received by senior members of the scholarly community as well as people
whose interests are more general. I accept that this sounds snobbish, and
I'm not a snobbish person at all, but I can see where Hardy is coming from
when he asks people to give it a rest, or avoid certain things. As for the
suggestion that I find textual scholarship more moving than the artworks
to which it is applied, that is a silly thing to say, but it is also not
the point. I deeply love, and am profoundly moved (emotionally and
intellectually) by the plays of Shakespeare, but I air this side of myself
in other ways, either when I am teaching my students, sitting in a
theatre, or talking to others about it. Now, I don't want to put words
into Hardy's mouth, and he may want to disagree with me, but I think that
what SHAKSPER is supposed to be is a useful forum for those either
actively engaged in research, or interested and knowledgeable enough about
cutting edge research (which doesn't, but just might, involve impassioned
discussions of the plays of Shakespeare), to swap ideas, suggestions, and
pieces of evidence. It is also a very useful way of advertising events and
publications. What this might mean in practical terms is that there may be
days on end where there are no messages, or one or two, but not the
constant flow of traffic which often seems - as I've said - like little
more than a desire to talk energetically about moving works of art.
Nothing wrong with that at all, but, I would argue, it probably for the
most part shouldn't be done on this particular list.
Respectfully,
Will Sharpe
[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Arnold <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 2 May 2006 08:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 17.0377 Characters
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0377 Characters
L. Swilley writes, "We must be as cautious in the addition of
psychological information about the character as we should be about the
addition of historical/biographical about him. And although the first has
some critical validity, for it arises from the action of the *character*,
the second has none because it infinitely alters the very vocabulary
describing that character, and ultimately makes understanding and
interpretation of the play impossible. We may gather the notes on the
*character* Julius Caesar and see the character's likeness to a
psychological type; we may NOT, until after the play as written is
understood, bring our knowledge of the historical person of Caesar to the
terms of the play. At the end of the play, we may say, "This is how
Shakespeare presented the historical Caesar"; we may NOT explain an event
in the play as it progresses by application to some biographical fact
about the real Caesar. To understand the *character* Julius Caesar in the
play, we would be wise to call the characters A and B, or Jimmie Joe and
Salley Fae, and avoid the temptation to bring in biographical
information."
This is a valid statement to me. To illuminate it: let me refer to the
debate ongoing in modern biography and one with which scholarship and
journalism has much concern. Everyone knows, or ought to, by now, that a
recent biography of President Reagan had a *character* in it who was not
real but fictional. And Truman Capote had made up or *fictionalized*
dialogue in his so-called nonfiction work: *In Cold Blood.* For myself: I
want *In Cold Blood* taken OFF the nonfiction list as it is fictional and
merely based on some factual events. Therefore, it is fiction. As for a
so-called biography which has an admittedly fraudulent *character* in it,
well, again: that work belongs on the fiction list as well. We are
talking bookselling lists, here.
Back to Shakespeare: obviously, some of his plays have historical
underpinnings but no one would suggest that Shakespeare's Caesar is other
than fiction and a *character.* And Shakespeare's characters are NOT
historical. Just as Baz Lurhman's and Franco Zefferelli's Romeo and
Juliet are NOT Shakespeare's play. They are movie versions of their
*interpretations* of the play. Even Shakespeare's so-called "histories"
should be called something else entirely. It is a misnomer!
For me: as I have noted elsewhere, Shakespeare's works, the sonnets and
the plays, are textual versions in books. I read modern versions of both:
sonnets and plays. I rarely go to plays staged, and have seen some movie
versions. I did enjoy both Zefferelli's and Lurhman's "takes" on
Shakespeare's modernised play. I do not kid myself into thinking that any
of us read Shakespeare in the original quartos and expect them to be
faithful to Q 1 or Q2 or whatever. Indeed, that is scholarly beyond
words. That ain't for me, nor even for most scholars. I am sure a *few*
Shakespeare scholars read them that way ALL the time. Right.
I allege that modern scholarship is in a cycle, just as all things go
though cycles. Call it a PC thing: this need to de-humanize the plays and
treat them as theatre and *theatre only.* What about the zillions of
readers, like me, who actually *READ* the texts?
Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm
[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce Young <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 2 May 2006 11:32:37 -0600
Subject: 17.0377 Characters
Comment: RE: SHK 17.0377 Characters
It appears characters still hold a good deal of interest for
Shakespeareans. I've found the recent posts on the subject stimulating,
including those I don't entirely agree with.
Here are a few more of my thoughts, largely in agreement with Peter
Goldman, who argues that "the only way one can make any coherent sense out
of a dramatic work is precisely on the presupposition (a 'willing
suspension of disbelief') that the fictional characters ARE persons (even
if not 'real' persons)":
A few days ago Hardy questioned the academic relevance of characters'
"back stories" but suggested that these are a legitimate subject of
discussion in the classroom or on the stage, where actors may need to
imagine possible lives for the characters they are trying to become.
Here, as I see it, is the problem. Because dramatic characters have no
existence outside their plays, they (presumably) have no history, except
for what is explicitly stated in the text. And even that is an imaginary
history. We might also argue that they have no motivations, no feelings,
no agency, no consciousness-that they do not in fact think, act, or even
speak: actors do that for them, or we imagine the characters doing it as
we read.
Yet characters, even most narrowly defined, resemble persons, and persons
have histories. (As L. Swilley notes, it's probably better not to call
them "persons"-"characters" or "personages" would be better. Still, these
imaginary entities resemble persons.) Consequently, back stories are
arguably relevant even in academic discussions, at least any academic
discussions that deal with characters.
The fact is that, whether we are performing a character, watching a
performance, reading a play, or even thinking about it, we imagine the
characters as having histories, motivations, thoughts, and feelings. (A
propos, another seminar at the World Shakespeare Congress in Brisbane is
titled "Emotion and Affect in Shakespeare.") The problem is that our
imaginings go in various directions and sometimes begin differing more and
more from anything that could be plausibly implied by the text.
My suggestion is that we discuss characters (and their possible
motivations and histories) with care, intelligence, and textual
support-and also with an awareness of current critical attitudes. Even
with these cautions, though, I realize that the possibilities of
interpretation are so various that discussion is bound to be endless and
inconclusive. Is there some way to keep discussion of character focused
and fruitful without banning it altogether?
On another matter, namely what constitutes "current academic interests":
Academic fashions change. They change partly because some people are
willing to challenge them, or stretch them. Of course, to be successful,
those doing the challenging need to be persuasive. And sometime they just
have to have a good sense of timing.
Bruce Young
[8]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Steward <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 2 May 2006 19:23:31 +0100
Subject: Characters
Comment: SHK 17.0377 Characters
"If we cry on hearing of Ophelia's death, we cry not because of the
literal words-on-the-page but because Shakespeare has created a real
person in our minds, a person we have come to care about, take pity on and
feel sad when she is no longer among those who live in our mind's eye,"
writes Marvin Krimms.
But this in itself begs a lot of questions regarding the textuality of our
emotional responses to stimuli, as well as the textuality of those stimuli
themselves.
Character, persona, life - all of these are texts, or textual constructs,
which we read; even the characters, personae and lives of "really real"
people.
Surely the reason those who argue against reading literary characters as
"real people" do so is not that to read them in this way is foolish or
childish per se (it isn't), but that reading them in this way fatally
undermines our ability to understand the characters, personae and lives of
ourselves and those around us as themselves textual - and thus radically
contingent...?
m
[9]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Goldman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 02 May 2006 12:31:08 -0600
Subject: 17.0377 Characters
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0377 Characters
At a Shakespeare festival a few years back, the actor playing Angelo in
MEASURE FOR MEASURE gave a presentation in which he explained how he
approached his character. He was having a hard time finding an adequate
motivation, so he invented a personal history for the character that would
help with his motivation. I saw his performance, and it was quite good, so
I can't criticize his methods.
But from what we know about Elizabethan stage practices, this is exactly
*not* how an Elizabethan actor would approach his part. For one thing, the
short rehearsal times would make such an approach impracticable. But more
importantly, the English Renaissance conceived of character primarily in
dramatic terms, and only secondarily in psychologically realistic terms.
They had a stock set of gestures to portray emotion, and they had a
typology of characters that informed both the writing and performance of
plays: the tyrant, the vice figure, the disguised Duke, the malcontent,
the cuckold husband, the prodigal son, and so on. Of course, the
fascinating thing about Shakespeare's great characters is that they exceed
the generic conventions. Hamlet is not simply a stock "malcontent," nor
does Falstaff collapse into the medieval vice figure, and even R3 exceeds
the stock tyrant, especially in his wonderful monologue upon waking up
from his nightmare in the 5th act. But the point is that his characters
rely on the type for background; they are in dialogue with the theatrical
stock character.
While Shakespeare's drama represents a quantum leap forward in dramatic
realism, it is still far from the drama of Ibsen, not to mention the
conventions of late 19th*early 20th century novelistic realism. I've seen
far too many discussions of Shakespeare that apply the conventions of
novelistic realism to a Jacobean comedy, and not just on listservs. The
endless criticism on Duke Vincentio in MEASURE FOR MEASURE is a good
example. The Duke is a functional character, "utterly unmimetic of
anything in the real world," to quote Victoria Haynes' excellent essay on
the play.
In regard to the claim that we must assume that *Shakespeare would not
deliberately plant an inconsistency in his plays*: this is extremely
problematic. Any artist will tell you that the process of creation is
extremely messy, full of false starts, abrupt changes in conception, and
felicitous missteps. The kernel for ULYSSES was a short story about
Leopold Bloom for DUBLINERS. Anyone who's plowed their way through all the
plays can testify that Shakespeare is capable of sloppy and incomplete
work. In addition, the process of transmission often introduces
inconsistencies. So we can't begin with the assumption that there are no
inconsistencies in Shakespeare's plays. Eliot and others have argued
plausibly that Shakespeare was not fully in control of his material when
writing HAMLET; and that this lack of control is one source of the play's
continued fascination, just like Mona Lisa's enigmatic smile.
In fact, one could argue that an artist is never fully in control of his
material. I do think that language is intentional; I'm not a radical
structuralist, but I agree with Bakhtin that language comes to us as the
word of the other, which we must struggle with to make our own*a messy and
incomplete process.
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
