SHAKSPER 2000: Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 01/12/00 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0062  Wednesday, 12 January 2000.

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <MJENSEN@mayfieldpub.com>
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Jan 2000 09:24:25 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 11.0056 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth

[2]     From:   Seán Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Jan 2000 09:41:23 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0056 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <MJENSEN@mayfieldpub.com>
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Jan 2000 09:24:25 -0800
Subject: Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth
Comment:        SHK 11.0056 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth

I am shocked by Judith Matthews Craig's characterization of Sean
Lawrence's very ethically sensitive comments as

>>> I can never understand modern views like Sean's that ethics are easily dismissed

I'll leave it to Sean to defend himself if he wishes, but his comments
were either absurdly misread, or considered through a very regid and
insinsitive world view.

I may not agree with everything Sean says, but his comments were
expressed with great sympathy and understanding.  His constant
references to ethics of the matter were admirable, and for me, thought
provoking in the best sense.  This silly characterization was not.

Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Seán Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Jan 2000 09:41:23 -0800
Subject: 11.0056 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0056 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth

Judy Craig writes:

>I can never understand modern views like Sean's that ethics are easily
>dismissed to that we can "rethink" them in new ways or attend to
>inferior TV shows seriously and somehow not feel too bad about wasting
>our time when living one's life ethically demands incredible energy and
>thought (in my experience anyway).

I'm not sure how 'modern' it is.  The very scholastics took time off
from charitable acts to work out schemes of ethics.  Any number of
people throughout history have confessed their manifold sins and
wickednesses without rushing out into charitable acts.  Not that they
shouldn't have done so, of course, but the fact that one can make a
confession without propitiation seems rather important to the idea of
drama as a sort of inactive catharsis.

Cheers,
Seán.

Terence writes:

> The Mousetrap doesn't seem to have quite the ethical focus that Hamlet
> (and Sean Lawrence) want. It's clear from the start that the Player King
> is seriously ill and unlikely to survive for much longer. The projected
> poisoning is thus virtually redundant. It's hardly a situation on which
> one can comfortably strop cosy feelings of guilt.

It hardly matters whether he'd die anyway-someone still sent him to his
death.  On another note, I'm not sure what "cosy feelings of guilt"
could mean.  Perhaps the cathartic sense of purging without any real
effort?  In any case, it wouldn't be the sort of feeling that Hamlet
would (presumably) be trying to inspire by the Mousetrap, as a call to
anxiety about the murder of another king, who was also old enough to
need to take naps in the afternoon.  But perhaps we should leave
questions of Hamlet's motivation to those who are interested.

Cheers,
Seán.


about SHAKSPER | current postings | submitted papers | browse SHAKSPER | search SHAKSPER
  
Copyright © 2002, Hardy M. Cook, design by Eric Luhrs. All rights reserved.