![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 2001: Re: Authorial Intention
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu) Date: 03/16/01
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0643 Friday, 16 March 2001 From: Clifford Stetner <cstetner@worldnet.att.net> Date: Friday, 16 Mar 2001 00:15:37 -0500 Subject: 12.0546 Re: Authorial Intention Comment: Re: SHK 12.0546 Re: Authorial Intention R. A. Cantrell asks: >Is the time spent discussing theory well spent? I certainly think so. "Theory" today is the heir apparent to western metaphysics and, in addition to the authorities you cite, involves the study of all the great thinkers from Nietzsche and Hegel back. As I (like Chris Stroffolino) came to the study of Shakespeare and literature through a back door, namely philosophy, the acknowledgement that the study of literature inevitably leads to the study of meaning and language and ultimately to metaphysics lets me have my cake and eat it too. I hardly need to point out the paradox that the assertion that time spent in theory is not well spent is itself theory. While students of Shakespeare are free to ignore this paradox, "Shakespeare scholars," those of us pursuing doctorate degrees are not. We are obliged to place our dissertations into the context of Shakespeare studies past and present, and this makes the "fall into theory" inescapable. Clifford Stetner CUNY http://phoenix.liu.edu/~cstetner/cds.html
|
|
|||||