Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2009 :: August ::
What is Hamlet's flaw?
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0443  Monday, 10 August 2009

[1] From:   Sally Drumm <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
     Date:   Thursday, 06 Aug 2009 20:52:43 -0400
     Subj:   Re: SHK 20.0439 What is Hamlet's flaw?

[2] From:   John Drakakis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
     Date:   Friday, 7 Aug 2009 15:29:16 +0100
     Subj:   RE: SHK 20.0439 What is Hamlet's flaw?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Sally Drumm <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:       Thursday, 06 Aug 2009 20:52:43 -0400
Subject: 20.0439 What is Hamlet's flaw?
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0439 What is Hamlet's flaw?

 >almost no one -- outside the church of Deconstruction/constructivism/PoMo
 >generally -- thinks these arguments are "current analytic discourses;"

How, then, are "current analytic discourses categorized?" And as such, 
aren't these categories just new names for the same principles? What is 
current and how long does it stay that way? Who makes the rules? 
Writers? Readers? Scholars? Concerns that purchase intellectual 
property? Ah! Lyotard's The Post Modern Condition comes to mind as 
prescient of this thread! Genius! Also, while Derrida's linguistic 
theories might have been challenged, so were those of space forwarded by 
Einstein. And even Stephen Hawking admits to a propensity for changing 
his mind. As Saussure wrote, "Language never errs, it just takes a 
different viewpoint (Course in General Linguistics, 5).

While Derrida's theories may not be relevant to scholars, in literature 
his work began a trend among authors that continues in popularity with 
undergraduates who read, as reckoned by what drama club members were 
reading during recent rehearsals.

Sincerely,
Sally Drumm

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       John Drakakis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:       Friday, 7 Aug 2009 15:29:16 +0100
Subject: 20.0439 What is Hamlet's flaw?
Comment:    RE: SHK 20.0439 What is Hamlet's flaw?

Thanks to John Knapp. I was simply offering examples of things that I 
expect professionals working in the field to know about. I expect them 
to know a lot more too.

As for David Bishop I think we shall just have to agree to disagree. I'm 
afraid that I don't use literary texts as opportunities to launch off 
into my own speculations . . . at least, not the kinds of speculations 
that I would be willing to discuss in a professional arena such as this 
one. Scepticism is important in 'Hamlet', granted, but David Bishop want 
to have the monopoly of meanings and then to claim that anything that 
doesn't fall within the parameters that he marks out is 'abstract'. Let 
me try again (ever the optimist!) When I talk about the difference 
between 'words' 'thoughts' and 'actions' I am not making a general point 
about 'language', I am discussing a particular Shakespearean text, and 
trying to account for the ways in which it might represent these issues. 
I am also declaring the co-ordinates of my own critical discourse, that 
might emphasise certain things differently from, say John Knapp. What I 
am NOT doing is using the text as launch pad for some kind of reverie 
about whatever 'I' happen to be interested in. So when I make the point 
about Old Hamlet's authorising of meanings, I base that speculation (and 
it is a speculation) upon various con-texts (the term was launched by 
Peter Hulme and the late Francis Barker) that might allow me, within 
reason, to speculate. Of course, David Bishop might like to tell me that 
'he' authorises his own meanings. If he does, and the evidence of his 
own 'reasoning' suggests that he does, then my response is perfunctory: 
I couldn't care less about how 'he' authorises meanings in isolation 
from the text we are discussing. It will tell me a lot about his 
politics (which on the evidence so far are very different from mine). My 
concern is to try, and in full consciousness of what I'm doing, to raise 
a question that this particular text 'Hamlet' raises itself and in its 
own way. My job is to unravel my perceptions from anything that I might 
want to carelessly label 'historical' (a process that the uneducable Joe 
Egert seems not to have grasped as witness his recent response to 
Terence Hawkes), and then to construct a set of plausible arguments that 
we might discuss. I assume that others do the same, although I am 
becoming sceptical of that as this strand continues.

Cheers,
John Drakakis

_______________________________________________________________
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.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.