The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0411 Tuesday, 28 July 2009
From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Subject: Ramblings on the Instability of Meaning and on the Nature of
Thought
Dear SHAKSPEReans,
I was in a enormous hurry when I originally composed this message. Since
I want to express myself as clearly and precisely as I can about these
issues, issues that in and of themselves border on the ineffable, I am
taking the time and Editor's privilege to revise what I previously had
written, providing now a corrected and more polished version, a version
that revisits Amnon Zakov as well as Marx, the Tao, and The Dhammapada.
>At least Amnon knows his theory about _Hamlet_ is undoubtedly only
>*a theory* and one that is way out there, but possibly _interesting_
>in terms of staging, or if people are willing to consider *a purely
>imaginative "theory" that makes NO claim to finality or
>truth.* [Hardy M. Cook EMPHASIS]
Phyllis Gorfain's remarks in her post that accompanies mine and in
particular her comments about her friend Amnon Zakov's paper, "Death
Becomes _Hamlet_: Elsinore as a Black Hole," and his interpretative
play, "Death Becomes Hamlet or Is That The Question?, A Tragic Comedy in
Two Acts,"
<http://www.shaksper.net/review-papers/index.html>, that I quote above
capture many of my own attitudes toward some of the _Hamlet_ postings
that have appeared on SHAKSPER recently (see especially my comments in
the FLAWS thread at <http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2009/0396.html>).
After these many years of association with SHAKSPER, I have found that
many, many people are fascinated with _Hamlet_ (some seemingly more
attracted to _Hamlet_ than to any other of Shakespeare's plays what so
ever). Further, it appears to me that many of them believe that they
have a better understanding of the meaning of the play than anyone else
does. The problem is that not only are they convinced they understand
the play better than anyone else but also that they simply cannot be
persuaded by any means or evidence, either textual or historical or
otherwise, that they are not ABSOLUTELY correct in their assumptions.
Occasionally, these "pet" theories are religiously based (i.e., _Hamlet_
represents spiritual struggle between X and Y), often connected to a
larger theoretical framework (i.e., not only is _Hamlet_ about the
retelling of such and such but that the reason is that Shakespeare was
representing Christian beliefs about Z, or Jewish beliefs about U, or
that Shakespeare was Christ or that he is a member of the list from
Louisiana (or was that Texas), and so on and so on).
And then there is the matter of those posts that treat the character of
Hamlet as a "real" person not a as character in a fictional construction
that is enacted by actors (who may or may not want to imagine a "back
story" to help them enact their character for the stage).
However, what I believe that bothers me the most about all these posts
to which I refer, those posts that appear at the drop of any proverbial
HAT with Hamlet's name on the inside label or across the outside of that
HAT, is the poster's seeming conviction of that poster's own rightness,
own correctness, own surety, that there is only ONE correct
interpretation of the play and that the information in his or her
particular post is the expression of that correct interpretation.
One recent _Hamlet_ thread began with a question -- What is Hamlet's flaw?
Now, either* I have finally grown up, or* have so bought into
post-modernist assumptions, or* have so accepted beliefs in the
instability of meaning that I am no longer, if I ever was to begin with,
capable of feeling assured that my assumptions are stable enough to hold
up to scrutiny -- that my thoughts are even worthy enough to utter ("I
know that I know not"). I am not sure if I have just come to accept that
whatever I have to say runs the risk of being expressed in such unstable
terms that I am virtually incapable of making a critical observation
about Shakespeare or* is it just a critical statement about _Hamlet_ or*
is the entire point of _Hamlet_ that _Hamlet_ is perhaps the foremost
expression in western literature of the instability of meaning, of the
inability to find fixity in language or thought. That _Hamlet_ is ALL
about "the interrogative mode," as Maynard Mack said of _Hamlet_ -- To
be or not to be -- THAT IS THE QUESTION!* Or is it that I have become so
imbued with AN Asian perspective that nothing means, it just is.*
***NOTES***
*THIS SYMBOL = * = a NOTE = an aphorism OR a collection of aphorisms to
which this symbol refers.
(1)
"To judge therefore of Shakespeare by Aristotle's rules, is like trying
a man by the Laws of one Country, who acted under those of another."
Alexander Pope. From "Excellencies and Defects of Shakespeare"
(2)
"The past if a foreign country; they do things differently there."
L. P. Hartley _The Go-Between_
(3)
a purely imaginative "theory" that makes no claim to finality or truth.*
Amnon Zakov. "Death Becomes _Hamlet_: Elsinore as a Black Hole"
(4)
"The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human
thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man
must prove the truth -- i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness
of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality
of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely _scholastic_
question."
Marx. From _Theses On Feuerbach_
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm>
(5)
"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on
the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."
Marx. From "Preface" of _A Contribution to the Critique of
Political Economy_
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.pdf>
(6)
"Religion is from the outset _consciousness of the transcendental_
arising from actually existing forces.
Marx's Notes, 12. FORMS OF SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01c.htm>
(7)
When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.
Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other. . . .
Trans. Stephen Mitchell
Verse 2 _Tao te Ching_
(8)
Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil.
Therefore having and not having arise together.
Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short contrast each other;
High and low rest upon each other;
Voice and sound harmonize each other;
Front and back follow one another.
Trans. Jane English
Verse 2 _Tao te Ching_
(9)
Everyone recognizes beauty
only because of ugliness
Everyone recognizes virtue
only because of sin
Life and death are born together
Difficult and easy
Long and short
High and low-
all these exist together
Sound and silence blend as one
Before and after arrive as one
Trans. Jonathan Star
Verse 2 _Tao te Ching_
(10)
Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty,
only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil.
Being and nonbeing produce each other.
The difficult is born in the easy.
Long is defined by short, the high by the low.
Before and after go along with each other.
Trans. Wayne W. Dyer
Verse 2 _Tao te Ching_
(11)
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our
thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
From Verse One _The Dhammapada_
Translated by Thomas Byrom
<http://www.thebigview.com/download/dhammapada.pdf>
(12)
All that we are is the result of what we have thought.
From Verse One _The Dhammapada_
Translated by Eknath Easwaran
(13)
As I [Amnon Zakov] said above, this [The concept of *Hamlet as a
collapsed star*] is only *ONE* [Hardy M. Cook's EMPHASIS] of the
possible interpretations of _Hamlet_. Perhaps this [THESIS of Amnon
Zakov's paper, "Death Becomes _Hamlet_: Elsinore as a Black Hole": The
blindness of the rest of the figures facing the negative omens and the
abdication of responsibility by the open-eyed Hamlet will become the
core of the tragedy. The King's blindness to Hamlet, till the last
minute, is demonstrated by his plans to kill Hamlet in a duel: "He,
being remiss,/ Most generous, and free from all contriving" (IV.vii.
146-48). The once- proficient murderer does not realize that his victim
is very suspicious and harbors many plots. Yet even the open-eyed Hamlet
also wishes to close his eyes off in order to abdicate his
responsibility. In my opinion this is the real meaning of the famous
soliloquy: "to be or not to be.../ to die, -- to sleep, -- no more"
(III.i.66-71). Not only the clown and the insane are free from
responsibility, but also the *sleeping* and the *dead*.] is the most
horrible of them, but horror never eliminated the possibility of
existence of any world. We have only to ask: will Elsinore be buried,
like the cursed Chernobyl in the sarcophagi of the black hole? Will the
black hole, that once was Elsinore -- join the Fortinbras' galaxy, or
suck it in, contaminating it by its curse, so that not even a beam of
light will remain?
The director's decision will determine the color of the last scene
[Zakov's concept of *_Hamlet_ as a collapsed star*'s application for
design and lighting: "Gradually dimming bright halls can convey a world
that is closing, shrinking and darkening, in which the blinding lights
of sacrificial supernovas will accompany the murder of Polonius and the
death of Ophelia. But this is an irrational and deceptive light,
extinguished in its short-lived intensity. Gradually, the decorations
can transform into prison bars, and a strange "leprosy" can spread
through people, clothing, property and walls. This is a leprosy of
"people and homes", the inspiration for which the stage designer may
derive from the Biblical chapters, "Thou shall seed" and "leper," in
Leviticus."] and his choice of future ["The blindness of the rest of the
figures facing the negative omens and the abdication of responsibility
by the open-eyed Hamlet will become the core of the tragedy."]-- as the
curtain falls[: "Hamlet's escaping from death in England is not a case
of choosing life, but of choosing death within the collapsing star. He
is like Samson, who said: 'May I die with the Philistines.'"]
Amnon Zakov. "Death Becomes _Hamlet_: Elsinore as a Black Hole"
<http://www.shaksper.net/review-papers/ZakovDeathBecomesHamlet_Elsinore_Black_Hole_ZAKOV.pdf>
(14)
Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty,
only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil.
Trans. Wayne W. Dyer
Verse 2 _Tao te Ching_
All that we are is the result of what we have thought.
From Verse One _The Dhammapada_
Translated by Eknath Easwaran
_______________________________________________________________
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.