SHAKSPER 2005: Gertrude-Ophelia

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@shaksper.net)
Date: 12/06/05 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.2012  Tuesday, 6 December 2005

[1] 	From: 	Annalisa Castaldo <acastaldo@mail.widener.edu>
	Date: 	Monday, 5 Dec 2005 12:39:03 -0500 (EST)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.2001 Gertrude-Ophelia

[2] 	From: 	Larry Weiss <larry@lweiss.net>
	Date: 	Monday, 05 Dec 2005 15:36:20 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.2001 Gertrude-Ophelia

[3] 	From: 	Bill Arnold <barnold_pb@yahoo.com>
	Date: 	Monday, 5 Dec 2005 13:51:06 -0800 (PST)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.2001 Gertrude-Ophelia

[4] 	From: 	Donald Bloom <dbloom@asms.net>
	Date: 	Monday, 5 Dec 2005 16:13:58 -0600
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 16.2001 Gertrude-Ophelia

[5] 	From: 	Sara Trevisan <trevisan.sara@libero.it>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 6 Dec 2005 00:46:15 +0100
	Subj: 	Re:SHK 16.2001 Gertrude-Ophelia

[6] 	From: 	M Yawney <whereismikeyfl@yahoo.com>
	Date: 	Monday, 5 Dec 2005 18:38:59 -0800 (PST)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.2001 Gertrude-Ophelia

[7] 	From: 	John Reed <finarphin@comcast.net>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 06 Dec 2005 07:29:17 +0000
	Subj: 	Re: Gertrude-Ophelia

[8] 	From: 	Martin Steward <martinsteward@ntlworld.com>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 6 Dec 2005 09:47:18 -0000
	Subj: 	SHK 16.2001 Gertrude-Ophelia


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Annalisa Castaldo <acastaldo@mail.widener.edu>
Date: 		Monday, 5 Dec 2005 12:39:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 16.2001 Gertrude-Ophelia
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.2001 Gertrude-Ophelia

I'd like to thank John Reed for clarifying why he considers this issue, 
which seems to me and many others rather pointless, worth considering. I 
do understand that actor and directors build huge backstories for their 
characters/plays to provide rich and diverse motivations. However, I 
remain puzzled by two things in Mr. Reed's points.

First, unless I am reading him wrong (and if I am, I apologize), he is 
interested in what might have been part of the original performance. "We 
might not know all the ideas being communicated to the original 
audience, since some of them could be coming from the action alone, or 
could be coming from the interaction between the action and the 
dialogue.  And some of those might even be important ideas."

I'm not disputing this point so much as wondering why we should care. If 
we suddenly found a long lost theater-goer's journal recording his 
amazement that Gertrude had obviously killed Ophelia, it would not 
change my view that the play is better off without that notion. Dover 
Wilson postulated a "lost stage direction" to explain why Hamlet is so 
abusive to Ophelia in the nunnery scene. I find both of these 
explanations problematic for the same reason: they assume that there is 
a single correct version of the play and we should all be aware of it.

My second problem is simply why? Why would Gertrude murder Ophelia? Why 
would Shakespeare concoct this elaborately shielded way of telling us? 
Why would he throw in an extra murder by the person who has recently 
sworn to keep Hamlet's secret and be on his side? Why would he do this, 
and then never bring it up again? I just don't see why anyone--director, 
actor, scholar, reader--would find this idea added to the understanding 
of the characters or the play.

Now if Claudius had had the speech...that would open up some interesting 
possibilities!

Annalisa Castaldo

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Larry Weiss <larry@lweiss.net>
Date: 		Monday, 05 Dec 2005 15:36:20 -0500
Subject: 16.2001 Gertrude-Ophelia
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.2001 Gertrude-Ophelia

John Reed explains the absence of any textual support for his theory by 
saying it was probably there once but somehow got lost.  What a 
wonderfully simple and unanswerable methodology!  All cockeyed notions 
are legitimatized if we just say "the text is missing."  Shylock 
probably had numerous asides and soliloquies in which he laid out how he 
was cleverly scheming for Jessica to inherit his wealth.  Angelo was 
costumed as a somewhat bedraggled gold coin.  'Tis pity we don't have 
those prompt books!

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bill Arnold <barnold_pb@yahoo.com>
Date: 		Monday, 5 Dec 2005 13:51:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 16.2001 Gertrude-Ophelia
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.2001 Gertrude-Ophelia

John Reed quotes me, "The answer is, to scholars, a *huge* difference: 
textual!    The text of the play *Macbeth* supports the conclusion 
whereas the  play *Hamlet* does not.  Therefore, it is *absurd* to draw 
the  conclusion.  That is, unless you can *prove* the conclusion, 
textually."

Then John Reed writes, "I see this kind of reasoning trotted out all 
over the place, and I'm  baffled by it... But suppose you're not a 
scholar, but, for instance, an actor or an audience member...I 
appreciate nobody pointing out as a difference that Macbeth merely 
ordered Banquo's death and Gertrude, if she killed Ophelia, did it with 
her own hands."

Apparently, it escapes you: nothing solves the idle speculation in your 
rambling answer, most of which I left out.  I am sure Hardy is pleased, 
at that.  But the key points are quoted.  And you err in your final 
summation point with a conditional *If* thought which the *text* does 
not support.  So, it is irrelevant and immaterial whether one is a 
scholar, student, actor or audience member.  We note: Shakespearean 
scholars have found *NO* evidence textually that Gertrude killed Ophelia 
but have found *CONSIDERABLE* evidence textually that Macbeth did kill 
Banquo!  Perhaps, you, John Reed, are referring to a play called 
*Hamlet* which you wrote and none of us have read?  Certainly, your 
answer suggests that.  But you should understand, plays and poems are 
*NOT* Rorschach Inkblot Tests?  You are not lying on a couch with 
shrinks, here, at SHAKSPER.  This is a discussion forum about 
Shakespeare and *his* plays and not a discussion forum about *your* plays.

Thus, offer your *evidence* that Gertrude killed Ophelia.  We are all 
waiting.  Idle speculation is not enough.  And when you offer 
speculation, you ought to offer up the evidence which suggests it.  Do 
not be baffled that others do not find evidence to support your 
speculation.  If it is not in the text, then your speculation is going 
nowhere fast.  So, offer up the evidence.

Bill Arnold

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Donald Bloom <dbloom@asms.net>
Date: 		Monday, 5 Dec 2005 16:13:58 -0600
Subject: 16.2001 Gertrude-Ophelia
Comment: 	RE: SHK 16.2001 Gertrude-Ophelia

I can see at least one good reason why the queen describes the death of 
Ophelia the way she does: she is being poetical, which is an appropriate 
way in Shakespeare's world to make such a description.

Cheers,
don

p.s. Are we sure that this Killer Gertrude isn't all an elaborate 
leg-pull? Haven't heard much from Hawkes in while.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Sara Trevisan <trevisan.sara@libero.it>
Date: 		Tuesday, 6 Dec 2005 00:46:15 +0100
Subject: Gertrude-Ophelia
Comment: 	Re:SHK 16.2001 Gertrude-Ophelia

John Reed wrote,

 >So we might not know all the ideas being communicated to
 >the original audience, since some of them could be coming from the
 >action alone, or could be coming from the interaction between the action
 >and the dialogue. And some of those might even be important ideas.

This is my first post on the list.

It sounds as if we were dealing with a text which has come to us in tiny 
bits and needs to be totally reconstructed...

I have followed this discussion with much interest, since I am a 
graduate student and have that somewhat (I admit it) "presumptuous" 
drive which is typical of university young blood to subvert the pillars 
of criticism.

Yet, I have read no evidence at all in the posts supporting your 
opinion--you give no instances from the text. The problem is--that is 
what we have.

Like history, I guess, literary criticism cannot be based on 'ifs'. It 
may be right, it may be wrong. But it's the basic rule of the game. 
Otherwise anyone could say anything about any text, prescinding from any 
textual, philological, cultural references whatsoever.

If you think that no references in the text are no proof of the 
contrary, literary criticism as such cannot accept such explanation. 
It's like Popper's scientific rules--you cannot make such a generalized 
sweeping statement as 'all the swans are white', if you haven't seen all 
the swans everywhere, at every moment in history. Indeed, that statement 
cannot be falsified, which is against the principles of science, 
research and literary criticism.

You keep arguing that your idea is correct, because, having no actual 
evidence, you can correct other listers' opinions by using a statement 
that cannot be falsified because it's based on 'ifs', that is, on 
evidence that we don't have (how the Elizabethan audience understood the 
play, the original text, the original staging and performance, etc).

No rudeness intended in this post--this is just my humble opinion.

Kindest regards,
Sara Trevisan

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		M Yawney <whereismikeyfl@yahoo.com>
Date: 		Monday, 5 Dec 2005 18:38:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 16.2001 Gertrude-Ophelia
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.2001 Gertrude-Ophelia

John Reed would be more convincing in refuting my assertion that 
Shakespeare does not conceal major plot points if he could find a few 
examples of hidden plot points. Instead he just claims that I am being 
restrictive. But if this was part of Shakespeare's practice in Hamlet, 
why would he not do the same thing in other plays? I am only asking for 
logical support of an unusual reading.

I come to Shakespeare as a director rather than a scholar. In general I 
like more radical readings of Shakespeare and interpretations that run 
against the accepted and cliché. However the best way to do this is to 
use the text. The reading of Gertrude as killer is to assume that 
Shakespeare was using modern dramatic techniques centuries before they 
become current. This is a quicksand that many young theater artists fall 
into.

I would recommend the work of Alan Dessen to see how good scholarship 
can provide strikingly fresh interpretations of familiar texts by 
studying the practice and methods of the time. Dessen strives to find 
how the play created meaning for its original audience though study of 
the techniques of Shakespeare and his contemporaries-techniques which 
are often foreign to us today. This seems much more organic than 
imposing ideas on the scripts without any support other than its appeal 
to one's own imagination.

[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John Reed <finarphin@comcast.net>
Date: 		Tuesday, 06 Dec 2005 07:29:17 +0000
Subject: 	Re: Gertrude-Ophelia

Quite a few responses now, with all sorts of people going out on limb 
stating what they really think.

Tony Burton:
 >"There is very little beside shallow and misguided reading to support
 >the notion that Gertrude murdered Ophelia.  Not that others haven't
 >considered it. We need only to look at Marvin Rosenberg's great "The
 >Masks of Hamlet" for a reminder that the world at large (represented by
 >gravedigger and priest) think it's quite clear that Ophelia killed
 >herself, and that it was only royal command that won her corpse the
 >dignity of being buried in consecrated ground."

I'm glad you brought up The Masks of Hamlet, where author also states, 
on p. 81, that "Gertrude evidently wanted to continue as a queen; but 
perhaps even more, she was likely to want the love of her new husband, 
and of her son.  The road to the husband included what was at least a 
social offence, at worst a spiritual crime, one she seemed ultimately to 
recognize as unforgivable.  This is an awareness that must erode her." 
Whoa, what's all this talk about "spiritual crime?"  He might be on the 
right track there.  So she's eroding, is she?  Come on, what does that 
imply?  Did anyone else we know ever erode this way before (such as 
Michael Corleone)?  By the way, I also believe the Gravedigger is the 
Ghost (in disguise, of course).  Just remember, you saw it here first.

Marilyn Bonomi:
 >"Because Shakespeare did not write it into Hamlet?  Seems to me that's
 >the simplest, not unconscious, not hidden... Simply obvious answer."

This will pass for the majority opinion here, no doubt; so it would 
appear unlikely anyone is going to try too hard to dredge something up. 
  So let me assay.  One such hidden -- sort of -- idea might infect us 
from the world of drama; twentieth century drama.  In an interview, 
Michael Kahn (who is a director and now also an artistic director, I 
believe) revealed, "[B]oth actors and audiences have been trained to 
believe in a unified conception of characters, to look for that and when 
they don't see it to think something's wrong.  Audiences think 
something's wrong - either the actor is not acting well or the play is 
not well written if they cannot pinpoint the essence of a character 
through unified behaviour."  I agree with him, but I disagree this 
practice is a good one.  I call it epitomizing; a false, disloyal 
attitude for an actor to adopt.  If Gertrude at one time hoped Hamlet 
would marry Ophelia (well supported by the good old text) that would 
mean, by this principle, that her turning around later and killing 
Ophelia would be inconsistent characterization, yes?

David Basch:
 >"If I am correct and Hamlet is a parable illustrating the wisdom of
 >Ecclesiastes, another of the very many such illustrations in the play,
 >we would infer that Gertrude is not merely all sweets but is
 >manipulative in the extreme and had allowed herself to be an
 >irresistible temptation to Claudius."

Yay, go David!  I agree with you 100% -- about the main point, that 
Shakespeare illustrates the wisdom of Ecclesiastes.  The moral 
intelligence I find displayed all through the Tanakh, as well as in 
anything else that might pass for Bible, is identical to what I see in 
Shakespeare; especially in the tragedies.

This is so fun.

[8]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Martin Steward <martinsteward@ntlworld.com>
Date: 		Tuesday, 6 Dec 2005 09:47:18 -0000
Subject: Gertrude-Ophelia
Comment: 	SHK 16.2001 Gertrude-Ophelia

John Reed reminds us in his well-reasoned posts that the word "text" is 
no longer used as restrictively as Bill Arnold (among others) likes to 
use it, and has not been since at least the 1960s.

m

_______________________________________________________________
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.


about SHAKSPER | current postings | submitted papers | browse SHAKSPER | search SHAKSPER
  
Copyright © 2004, Hardy M. Cook, design by Eric Luhrs. All rights reserved.