The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0533 Thursday, 16 August 2007
[1] From: Ros King <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 15 Aug 2007 14:39:15 +0100
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0528 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare
[2] From: TJ Sellari <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2007 21:06:57 +0800
Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Roundtable (following from SHK 18.0517 WashPost:
Ourselves in Shakespeare)
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ros King <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 15 Aug 2007 14:39:15 +0100
Subject: 18.0528 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0528 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare
>Hawkes' claim - and it's one that disciples of the independent authority
>of the 'text' need to ponder very carefully, and in the full knowledge
>of the empirical evidence that the texts as we have them furnish for us
>- is that the act of 'making sense' is something that we perform as
>readers and spectators.
That's all very true. But equally important is that, as professional
readers, we have a duty to identify and point out how one text (or one
version of a text that exists in multiple versions) enables certain
readings and disallows other readings, which are not enabled or
disallowed by other texts (or other versions of a text that exists in
multiple versions).
In other words, sure, we as readers create meanings, but so,
potentially, do texts. You can demonstrate this when you examine the
structures of texts that exist in multiple versions, because in those
cases there are points of contact and of difference where meaningful,
valid comparison can be made about what each encourages you or enables
you to think.
Readers who cherrypick what they want to comment on in a text in order
to fit an agenda are in effect creating a private working version of
that text. It's a serious problem that goes beyond Shakespeare studies
since it is what underpins religious 'fundamentalism'- so-called.
We tend no longer to teach close reading, which means that students
can't do it, which in turn makes them prey to those who want to tell
them what to think. This is not, I think, what Terrence Hawkes or John
Drakakis ever intended, if I may be so bold as to ascribe intention and
meaning either to them or to their written work.
Best wishes,
Ros
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: TJ Sellari <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2007 21:06:57 +0800
Subject: 18.0527 SHAKSPER Roundtable (following from SHK 18.0517
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0527 SHAKSPER Roundtable (following from SHK 18.0517
WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare)
Will Sharpe writes:
>The man's got a point, and more than that, he's published extensively
>on it. If we really do have anything worthwhile to say, let's get the
>Roundtable going again, and respond to Hawkes's books (and the books
>of others), and not his emails
I will be quite happy to join in the chorus of deserved praise for Prof.
Hawkes's books, especially _Meaning by Shakespeare_ and _That
Shakespeherian Rag_. However, it seems to me an odd piece of reasoning
to use the quality of Prof. Hawkes's books as an argument for _not_
responding to his messages to Shaksper. In any case, neither one of
these fine books answers the question I put to the list:
How do we decide to whom to deny the possibility of meaning something,
and to whom to grant it?
That is, what warrant have we to claim that we can mean something, but
Shakespeare can't? It seems to me that to say that we can mean by
Shakespeare presupposes the possibility of an author meaning something;
why couldn't Shakespeare, then, mean by Holinshed or Plautus?
The idea that we can mean by Shakespeare neither entails nor requires
the contention that Shakespeare doesn't mean anything--in fact, it seems
to imply quite the opposite.
My question is intended not solely
>to knock Terence Hawkes down from what most people
>wrongly believe to be his high horse
but to elicit a clarification. If anyone can offer an answer, or cite a
source that does, I would be genuinely grateful.
As for the possibility that it was my last message that is described as
being
>expressed in the form of abstract,
>half-digested philosophical questions,
I can't be sure whose digestion has yet to be completed here, but my
questions were, I think, no more abstract than the statements by Prof.
Hawkes that preceded them.
Gratefully,
Tom Sellari
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
