• Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Living Characters"
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my..."
• Next in thread: Hardy M. Cook: "Gertrude-Ophelia"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1965  Tuesday, 29 November 2005

[1] 	From: 	Ben Alexander <ba@namc.co.uk>
	Date: 	Sunday, 27 Nov 2005 19:09:43 -0000
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1956 Gertrude-Ophelia

[2] 	From: 	David Evett <d.evett@csuohio.edu>
	Date: 	Friday, 25 Nov 2005 16:04:29 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1947 Gertrude-Ophelia

[3] 	From: 	John Reed <finarphin@comcast.net>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 06:30:14 +0000
	Subj: 	Re: Gertrude-Ophelia


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Ben Alexander <ba@namc.co.uk>
Date: 		Sunday, 27 Nov 2005 19:09:43 -0000
Subject: 16.1956 Gertrude-Ophelia
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1956 Gertrude-Ophelia

In Q1 Ofelia fell out of a willow tree into the water; nobody seems to 
have jumped in to save her!

Regards,
Ben Alexander

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		David Evett <d.evett@csuohio.edu>
Date: 		Friday, 25 Nov 2005 16:04:29 -0500
Subject: 16.1947 Gertrude-Ophelia
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1947 Gertrude-Ophelia

<< 2.  What's the difference between Gertrude killing Ophelia, and Macbeth
killing Banquo?>>

To John Reed's question I would answer, this difference, at least, that 
the text of the play makes Macbeth's instigator's part in the murder of 
Banquo explicit and unequivocal-not the product of a set of inferences, 
from apparently innocent speeches, so strained that only a tiny handful 
of the play's millions of readers and spectators have seen fit to make them.

Unequivocally,
David Evett

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John Reed <finarphin@comcast.net>
Date: 		Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 06:30:14 +0000
Subject: 	Re: Gertrude-Ophelia

All right, now we're getting somewhere.  Thank you all who responded; I 
appreciate your taking this seriously and not consigning it to the 
dustbin of absurdity.

The objections to the idea seem to be clustering around two points: 1) 
no evidence, or not enough evidence, and (much more interesting) 2) 
method of interpretation improper.

I'm wondering if anybody else wants to add something, or make a 
clarification on the method of interpretation?  It's all right, I won't 
do anything, except disagree and be absurd.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, editor@shaksper.net
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.

• Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Living Characters"
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my..."
• Next in thread: Hardy M. Cook: "Gertrude-Ophelia"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]