The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0027 Wednesday, 5 January 2000.
Date: Wednesday, 5 Jan 2000 13:08:41 +0800 (CST)
Subject: 11.0021 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth
Comment: Re: SHK 11.0021 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth
>Moreover, the fact that something is in
>a play isn't simply common sense. Some people, not to mention whole
>cultures, may have no concept of play-acting.
Out of curiosity, which whole cultures? In any case, do any members of
this list belong to such a culture? A relevant point, I think, if
culture has any relation to ethics.
>Everyone's seen a child
>at a movie who weeps unconsolably for the death of a fictional
Of course, some (Aristotle, for example) might find such weeping to be
the point of it all.
>Even if we were to grant the concept of play-acting, it's still not
>clear why that implies that we shouldn't intervene.
But the 'concept of play-acting' should make that clear, shouldn't it?
(Interactive drama aside.)
>We could always leave, but we don't...
>Without an audience, there is no play. And without a play, Macbeth has
>no fate. Of course, he would have no freedom either...
>None of this is to say that I have a clear sense of what sort of action
>would count as ethical vis-