![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 2008: Solid Flesh Once More
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@SHAKSPER.NET) Date: 04/11/08
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0218 Friday, 11 April 2008 [1] From: David Bishop <dvbishop@mindspring.com> Date: Saturday, 5 Apr 2008 17:14:07 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 19.0208 Solid Flesh Once More [2] From: Steve Roth <steve@steve-roth.com> Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 2008 10:00:45 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 19.0208 Solid Flesh Once More [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Bishop <dvbishop@mindspring.com> Date: Saturday, 5 Apr 2008 17:14:07 -0400 Subject: 19.0208 Solid Flesh Once More Comment: Re: SHK 19.0208 Solid Flesh Once More Joe Egert asks if being off the mark about the play means misinterpreting Shakespeare's intent. I think that's generally the point, although things intended unconsciously by the author and also unintended may be happening too. In these and all matters of interpretation the absolute unknowability of intent (are our own intentions, even, absolutely knowable?) is unimportant. That we're only human is a platitude, though many find its endless repetition endlessly fascinating. What's important is to look as carefully as we can and say to the best of our ability what we see. Or to put it another way, to speak what we feel, not what we ought to say. Best wishes, David Bishop [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Roth <steve@steve-roth.com> Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 2008 10:00:45 -0700 Subject: 19.0208 Solid Flesh Once More Comment: Re: SHK 19.0208 Solid Flesh Once More It seems that my spam filter is a more severe (and close-minded) critic than I, as it saw fit to delete one of David Bishop's replies. I've pulled it from the archives. >I still >wonder, in the midst of this delightful gathering of meanings, what you >think is going on in the play, as opposed to, however enjoyably, and >innocently, in your own head. My point is that the play in fact only fully exists in my/your/our heads/minds. (And it keeps getting bigger!) >what I, or you, say is going on in the play could be significantly, >if not absolutely, off the mark. Oh, ain't it so. Some readings should burn far brighter in the mental constellation that is "Hamlet." Some should arguably wink out, or accept their role as merely faint and amusing (and arguably distracting) glimmers. But I would suggest that denying perfectly valid readings/meanings (i.e. "sallied") takes one farther off the mark. Too far westward of the pole. And yes, Joseph Egert, that mark could for me be somewhat usefully described as "Shakespeare's "intent"--in its full gross and scope. >For example, the idea that Hamlet is young does not seem to agree with >my own view, that the play is, in part, the story of Hamlet's coming of >age. He ages rapidly, in the short course of the play, but age he does. >At least as I see it. To deny that Hamlet is (among many other things) a coming-of-age play would be completely loony. But Holden Caufield doesn't age fifteen years in the course of his tale. Someday I'm sure to completely nail Hamlet's textual/revision history, and explain how those two obtrusive thirty-year references got into the graveyard scene--contrary to every other suggestion in the play. Absent that epiphany, I can only surmise that some exigency led S and/or some other(s) to introduce them in some versions, without the necessary revisions throughout to make them coherent. Steve _______________________________________________________________ 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.
|
|
|||||