The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1926  Tuesday, 22 November 2005

From: 		David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 21 Nov 2005 17:46:06 -0500
Subject: 	Living Characters

Several posts on the Dead Horses thread suggest one of the principal 
bones of contention. Holger Syme and others claim that professionals 
have now discovered that Shakespeare's characters are not living people, 
and cannot be spoken of as if they were. I think this is a confused, and 
confusing, position, though also a reaction (an overreaction) against 
egregious errors.

If we couldn't consider characters as if they were people how would we 
enter into the spirit of a play? What would it mean to suspend our 
disbelief, or get emotionally involved with a story? One way in which 
characters resemble people comes out in the criticism that a play became 
unrealistic, or that characters acted out of character.

When I speak of Hamlet's feelings, for example, or his unconscious, I am 
speaking of what I take to be Shakespeare's intention: of the character 
as Shakespeare intended to depict him. Since we can't ask Shakespeare, I 
have to make an argument, built on the evidence of the play-as best we 
can determine which text Shakespeare intended. It is also possible for a 
play to have unintended effects: see the above criticism of unrealism, 
for example.  But that's a different question.

Arguments about what Shakespeare intended can of course be mistaken. 
Sometimes they're so nutty as to suggest that the critic is driven 
mainly by narcissistic exhibitionism. Many theories, and not only those 
put forward by non-professors, are a waste of time. Theories that say, 
for example, that Lady Macbeth had five children, or that Edmund is 
Lear's son, or that Gertrude murdered Ophelia seem to me not only untrue 
but absurd.

To make a good argument, though, is not so easy. Which hints about 
characters are intended to be taken and which not? When does an argument 
that seems possible when you emphasize one particular detail become 
impossible when you consider the whole play? What counts as relevant 
evidence and what doesn't? When does an argument get so vague it amounts 
to a platitude, which says nothing of interest about a particular play? 
These are questions that have to be worked through again and again. 
There is no general, easy answer, like "don't treat characters as human 
beings." I don't see how even those who say such things can actually 
follow their own advice in practice-at that level of extremity.

There's also the question of purpose. An actor, for example, might 
develop a detailed back story of a character to help them get into the 
role. If it doesn't actually contradict anything in the play, where is 
the harm? Even if it does, would that significantly hurt the performance?

In criticism, you have to think and feel your way into a play, which 
sometimes involves seeing a meaningful pattern of implications. To do it 
well takes education, empathy and art. One difficulty is that there may 
be a thin line between originality and crankishness. It's sad but true 
that professors are renowned for failing to tell the difference, in 
their own time.

Best wishes,
David Bishop

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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.