The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.02037 Thursday, 3 April 2008
[1] From: Gedaly Guberek <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 2008 00:44:51 -0700
Subj: Re: Solid Flesh Once More
[2] From: Terence Hawkes <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 2008 12:48:49 +0100
Subj: SHK 19.0192 Solid Flesh Once More
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gedaly Guberek <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 2008 00:44:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Solid Flesh Once More
I'm beginning to think that the "Solid Flesh" conversation will never
end. I might as well add my two cents. To the best of my knowledge the
issue of solid/sullied/sallied in performance, specifically, has not
come up. What works on the page only sometimes works on the stage. If I
direct a production of Hamlet, I will always have the actor say "O that
this too too solid flesh would melt . . ."
I'm not going to pick sides on which word I think Shakespeare wanted, or
which is more truthful to the character's age. But as a director I would
strive to make all the words easily accessible to the audience. The
average audience doesn't get a lot of the words anyway, you might say.
But why add to the words they don't get? Not many audience members would
immediately recognize 'sullied' or 'sallied'. But in that line at that
moment, in that important soliloquy, solid makes sense to the ears. So
on stage - for me - 'solid' wins.
May The Bard Be With You
Gedaly Guberek
http://www.BardBlog.com
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Terence Hawkes <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 2008 12:48:49 +0100
Subject: Solid Flesh Once More
Comment: SHK 19.0192 Solid Flesh Once More
David Bishop agrees that words can have multiple meanings, but would
'still like to know what multiple meanings a critic believes they might
have, in a particular case, and what that critic means by having a
meaning.'
William Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity draws attention to a very
complex aspect of the way words mean and he describes the effect as
producing 'a sort of taste in the head'. He's talking about what we
loosely decide is 'atmosphere' in verse. This is a major aspect of 'what
is implied by the meaning' of the work, and in many cases, he concludes,
the 'affective state' is conveyed apparently by 'devices of particular
irrelevance'. In fact, this irrelevance is a major weapon of meaning,
and one of the fundamental features of how language operates. The
instance he offers is from Macbeth (3, 2, 50-51). Here a crow is
irrelevantly sensed by Macbeth to seek its home forlornly in a 'rooky
wood'. The ambiguity here wonderfully informs our notion of the play's
tragedy and is a fine example of a 'taste in the head'. It excellently
exhibits the dramatist's art and here -no less- the critic's brilliance.
T. Hawkes
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
