![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 2005: CLOSED: Living Characters
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@shaksper.net) Date: 12/09/05
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.2044 Friday, 9 December 2005 [1] From: Chris Whatmore <cwhatmore.tst@btinternet.com> Date: Thursday, 8 Dec 2005 19:30:09 +0000 Subj: RE: SHK 16.2013 Living Characters [2] From: Elliott Stone <elliott.stone@comcast.net> Date: Thursday, 8 Dec 2005 20:04:37 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 16.2030 Living Characters Penultimate [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Whatmore <cwhatmore.tst@btinternet.com> Date: Thursday, 8 Dec 2005 19:30:09 +0000 Subject: 16.2013 Living Characters Comment: RE: SHK 16.2013 Living Characters Returning (I think) to something like the original subject of this thread before the Friday deadline, there was an interesting passage in Harold Pinter's Nobel acceptance speech - which, unusually for him, included a number of personal observations on the creative process of play writing: "It's a strange moment, the moment of creating characters who up to that moment have had no existence. What follows is fitful, uncertain, even hallucinatory, although sometimes it can be an unstoppable avalanche. The author's position is an odd one. In a sense he is not welcomed by the characters. The characters resist him, they are not easy to live with, they are impossible to define. You certainly can't dictate to them. To a certain extent you play a never-ending game with them, cat and mouse, blind man's buff, hide and seek. But finally you find that you have people of flesh and blood on your hands, people with will and an individual sensibility of their own, made out of component parts you are unable to change, manipulate or distort. So language in art remains a highly ambiguous transaction, a quicksand, a trampoline, a frozen pool which might give way under you, the author, at any time." Surely it is this "ambiguous transaction" between "flesh and blood" and "language in art" that is the very engine of Pinter's, Shakespeare's or any dramatist's enterprise; to argue that one side of the transaction is more important or more 'real' than the other seems somehow to miss the point. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elliott Stone <elliott.stone@comcast.net> Date: Thursday, 8 Dec 2005 20:04:37 -0500 Subject: 16.2030 Living Characters Penultimate Comment: Re: SHK 16.2030 Living Characters Penultimate Joseph Egert might be on to something when he asks "Is the relationship between Norway and Claudius a little too cozy?". Is not this a theme in the Tempest? Best, Elliott H. Stone _______________________________________________________________ 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.
|
|
|||||