![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 2000: Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu) Date: 01/05/00
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0027 Wednesday, 5 January 2000. From: Tom J. Sellari <tom@drjohnson.personal.nccu.edu.tw> 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 >character. 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-à-vis the stage. But I would like to suggest >that it is an ethical problem, which an appeal to common sense merely >avoids. So, is leaving the play a means of facing the problem, a kind of protest? A boycott might be seen as an ethical response to a questionable staging of a play, but not as a determinant of Macbeth's fate. The idea of assigning to the audience the 'guilt' for the fate of a character is daft. Sure, if we've any standards of conduct, we're all guilty, but it's not of Duncan's murder. T.J. Sellari
|
|
|||||