SHAKSPER 2001: Re: Authorial Intention

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 03/20/01 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0653  Tuesday, 20 March 2001

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Mar 2001 08:53:55 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0643 Re: Authorial Intention

[2]     From:   R. A. Cantrell <racan@flash.net>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Mar 2001 13:23:53 -0600
        Subj:   SHK 12.0643 Re: Authorial Intention

[3]     From:   John Robinson <Ucbubba@aol.com>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Mar 2001 22:51:23 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0643 Re: Authorial Intention


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date:           Friday, 16 Mar 2001 08:53:55 -0800
Subject: 12.0643 Re: Authorial Intention
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0643 Re: Authorial Intention

Clifford Stetner writes that

>I hardly need to point out the paradox that the assertion that time
>spent in theory is not well spent is itself theory.

This paradox depends on conflating two notions of theory.  One meaning
of theory is the obvious one, to which Clifford alludes earlier in his
post, as involving the study of all great thinkers, and of any sort of
thought of sufficient complexity and abstraction.  It can also, however,
indicate a set of more or less mutually supporting ideas, nicely
described in a recent number of the University of Toronto Quarterly by
Graham Good, a professor here at UBC.

Conflating the two (rather different) meanings under the single term
seems to provide 'theory' with most of its rhetorical power, implying
that disagreement with the dogmas of the contemporary academy is
tantamount to not thinking at all.

Cheers,
Seán.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R. A. Cantrell <racan@flash.net>
Date:           Friday, 16 Mar 2001 13:23:53 -0600
Subject: Re: Authorial Intention
Comment:        SHK 12.0643 Re: Authorial Intention

>I certainly think so.

I don't 1,1

>"Theory" today is the heir apparent to western
>metaphysics

Which theory authorizes this assertion?

 >and, in addition to the authorities you cite, involves the
>study of all the great thinkers from Nietzsche

I considering Mr. Nietzsche it would be weel to remeber that God is not
nearly so dead as he.

>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.

You are quite correct Sir, and left my own devices I will not ...

>While students of
>Shakespeare are free to ignore this paradox, "Shakespeare scholars,"
>those of us pursuing doctorate degrees are not.

Yes you are.

>We are obliged

By whom: why?

 >to place
>our dissertations into the context of Shakespeare studies past and
>present, and this makes the "fall into theory" inescapable.

No it is not.

>My unfound assertions are as valid as yours.

More seriously, the last "ism" we have in discreet view is formalism,
which was heavily invested in the willful adoption of ignorance.  If you
can take time away from productive work on your dissertation, please
invest some of it in Sokal's FASHIONABLE NONSENSE.  Having been engaged
in the love of sophy, perhaps you are already adequately armed against
those who would confound and confuse where they may not confute, but if
you are not, take steps.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Robinson <Ucbubba@aol.com>
Date:           Friday, 16 Mar 2001 22:51:23 EST
Subject: 12.0643 Re: Authorial Intention
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0643 Re: Authorial Intention

>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.

I guess all this depends on what you think English departments are
supposed to do. I have a simple litmus test for "theory" oriented papers
about Shakespeare, or any work of Lit. Namely, after reading the paper I
ask myself "Do I understand or appreciate something about this work that
I didn't understand or appreciate before?" Sadly the answer is usually
"no."  This is why nowadays, for me at least, reading PMLA is of no
value.

Regards,
John Robinson


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