The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0548 Thursday, 8 June 2006
[1] From: Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 7 Jun 2006 09:57:31 -0500
Subj: RE: SHK 17.0540 The Big Question
[2] From: Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 7 Jun 2006 17:17:40 +0100
Subj: The Big Question
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 7 Jun 2006 09:57:31 -0500
Subject: 17.0540 The Big Question
Comment: RE: SHK 17.0540 The Big Question
Tony Burton writes: "I'd like to propose that we make a distinction
between a writer whose work is deeply moral and one who is a moralist.
I find something inescapably didactic and shallow in the notion of a
Moralist."
I'm glad he's dragged this out into the light of day. If the term
"moralist" is used to mean a writer who is "inescapably didactic and
shallow," then we are not likely to want such a term applied to the IB.
If we use the term to mean a writer who writes within (and in reaction
to) some kind of moral context then he could hardly be anything else.
Even a psychopath exists in a moral context, though its contents may
mean nothing to him.
Accepting the latter idea (whether we apply the term "moralist" to it or
not) we can try to figure out just what the moral content or conflict is
in a given play. Here our knowledge of the author's whole body of work,
important critical commentaries, and the history of his time should
help. Also helpful would be some knowledge of our own moral precepts,
remembering that what we find in Shakespeare is largely what we are
looking for in him, that is, what we ourselves believe.
We have been through many of these before (as, for example, if A spits
on B and calls him nasty names, is B therefore justified in trying to
have A judicially murdered?). As long as we make clear to ourselves
individually and collectively what our moral context is, we can argue
about it quite happily. What screws it up is usually confusing a
conflict of moral contexts for a conflict of judgments within a given
context.
In the example cited, within my moral context, no amount of spitting and
name-calling justifies murder, but others have different contexts and
thus disagree.
Cheers,
don
P.S. "Didactic" is a troubling word as a pejorative. Why should it be
bad or inferior as a quality of writing? We clearly haven't gotten to
the bottom (shallow or otherwise) of what's wrong with "moralism."
PPS. I think the comparison of literature to music and the plastic arts
should be dropped. On the one hand, although the metaphor is appealing,
I believe it is literally impossible to react to a work of literature as
one reacts to the others. Moreover, even the others come out of a
cultural context that can generate a moral response in those of other
cultures -- such as fear, anger, hate, and a desire to lash out violently.
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 7 Jun 2006 17:17:40 +0100
Subject: The Big Question
'Shakespeare's art is that his stories don't deliver or require any poke
in the ribs, allowing what you "get" to be very different from what I
"get." What nonsense, Tony Burton. Suppose I claimed that 'Hamlet' was
about football?
T. Hawkes
PS As distinguished from 'King Lear', of course.
_______________________________________________________________
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.