The Ghost

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I have Branagh performing Richard III on CD's. If interested I can burn some for you. They are great to listen to on headphones. You feel like you are onstage with the actors.

---

I actually have a bunch of CD's of Shakespeare plays and I also love listening to them. In a way, for me as a director, they are more fun than watching a performance (except for Derek Jacobi) because I can visualize my own staging while I listen. Let me know which ones you have and I'll check my own and, if I can figure out how to burn CD's of the ones I have maybe we can exchange some that we don't have.

Quote:

---

I would love to see Shakespeare's preceeding play, "Richard II", with Jacobi. His "Tempest" and his "MacBeth" look terrific, too. Gee, how have I missed out on all of this fine viewing? Are they available here in the US or on Amazon?

---

Actually, the BBC Richard II is available on DVD, as are all the BBC plays. Amazon has it in the BBC Shakespeare's Histories Giftbox (5 histories for $130). But you can get the individual DVD's online at http://www.documentary-video.com/dis...em.cfm?vid=812 for $35 each if you don't want all five.

Unfortunately, his Macbeth and Tempest were only done on stage and, as far as I know, at the moment have not been filmed.

Quote:

---

I also heard him narrating "Nijinski" which is his reading of N's diary. It is so touching the way he reads it, fabulous delivery and voice....smooth as silk. Unfortunately, I have not seen "I Claudius", but I really want to now. I have heard it is great from friends of mine.

---

I have Nijinski also. And I highly recommend I, Claudius. The way his characer changes throughout the series and the way he deals with the physical challenges of the role - the stutter and the limp and the general body language - is an outstanding demonstration of excellence in physical acting skills, to add to his voice and his exceptional characterization skills. It's interesting though, that you actually see very little of Jacobi through the first, I think, 2 episodes of the series. His character narrates and then gradually becomes more and more the focus as this story of the early Roman Emperors procedes. It's a lovely piece of work - and the show is filled with a huge number of big name and big talent actors, so the whole lives up to the strength of its star.

Arlene, then you would recommend Richard II? I will look into it. I can't afford much now with Christmas coming, but may buy one BBC production at least. I have quite a few productions of audio CD sets, Shakespeare. I like the idea of exchanging. That would double both our collections. I will send you a list in the personal email. I just wrote to you, to answer yours. I have to acquire a copy of "I Claudius" - it is on my "must see" list. Interesting what you said about him being absent from the first parts. Maybe my library can locate it for me - it is free to take out, but you can have it only 2 days.

I too, love to listen to the audio CD's. My imagination fills in the rest and I can set it in any type setting to suit me. I am an artist, so I am quite imaginative. I usually listen to them before I drift off to sleep. Sometimes they lull me to sleep. They seem so personal - the voices and the intonations in them. Shakespeare's poetry takes on a purity when no other distractions are present.

I also collect film scores. I have almost all of Branagh's Shakespeare films by Patrick Doyle. They are so great and reminiscent of the films. I will post more later perhaps. I am going out now. Janine

Wow, this topic has certainly generated a lot of discussion. Forgive me if I repeat anything that's already been covered in my comments. I tried to read over most of the posts but I may have missed something.

Quote:

---

I've never met a college professor who really understood the art of writing

---

Of course, given my chosen profession, I'm afraid none of my comments may be deemed acceptable. :rolleyes: :lol:


I just thought I'd add a little note on Shakespeare's sources and the context for the ghost figure in Elizabethan drama. As far as ghosts are concerned, the Belleforest version of the story (a French translation through which Elizabethans would have encountered the original Saxo Grammaticus version of the story) contains two references to the "shade" (ombre) of Hamlet's father. One of these allusions to the shade of the father occurs in the scene between the Hamlet character and his mother, which may explain why the ghost resurfaces at that point in Shakespeare's play. If I remember right, though, this reference to a "shade" is somewhat ambiguous in that the shade isn't necessarily present in the scene (i.e. a real ghost walking about), but may be merely alluded to.

The predominant influence on the ghost in Shakespeare's Hamlet is undoubtably the Senecan tradition of bloodthirsty ghosts who rise up and cry for revenge. Imitations of the Senecan ghost crowded the Elizabethan stage. It was pretty popular to start off a play with a vengeful ghost in this period. Thomas Kyd's Spanish Tragedy provides a famous and convenient example. It starts in a prologue with the ghost of the murdered Andrea in conversation with the allegorical figure of Revenge. These two figures reappear periodically throughout the course of the play to comment on the progress of the revenge, and they sum everything up at the end in a nice tidy (though incredibly bloody) conclusion. The text of the so-called Ur-Hamlet (the play which preceeded and likely inspired Shakespeare's) no longer exists, so we can only guess at what exactly it contained. It is generally believed to have been penned by Kyd as well, and accounts of people at the time remark on the memorable character of the ghost who cried repeatedly for revenge for bloody murder, so it seems likely that it followed a similar pattern to The Spanish Tragedy and other plays in which the ghost provides a framing structure in which the revenge plot unfolds.

Given the context of these plays, which would follow a logical pattern (ghost introduces his grievance in prologue-things happen-ghost comments-revenge is acheived-ghost sums up and goes off satisfied) it seems likely that Shakespeare may have been consciously trying to vary convention. Instead of having the ghost air his grievances to the audience in a prologue, Shakespeare introduces the spirit as he would appear naturally (or rather supernaturally) in the real world. Rather than allowing the ghost to act as the predictable guide through the process of revenge in the play, he has the ghost deliver his message and then vanish with no further guidance (though a few other enigmatic appearances), leaving the audience as perplexed and mystified as the characters onstage, and as mystified as one imagines they might be encountering a ghost in their own lives. Thus, in comparison to other plays of the time, it would seem that Shakespeare is rejecting a more convenient ghostly type which other writers successfully employed to propell their dramas in favor of a more ambiguous and perplexing spirit. This, of course, ties in with the conclusion that everyone's come to regarding the aesthetic choice in favor of a "mysterious and unfathomable" nature for the ghost.

As for the more recent discussion that's started up on Hamlet versions, I'm also a fan of the the Jakobi, though I haven't seen it in a long time, and I agree with MsDirector in that I wasn't a fan of the last scene in Branagh's Hamlet. I had somehow missed or forgotten the statue/ghost connection too. Thanks for bringing that up Jenine.

Quote:

---

I have this strange fantasy to be able to see Hamlet with Jacobi playing both parts - as a young man as Hamlet and in his older incarnation as Claudius, playing against each other. Wouldn't that just be something!

---

What a great idea. I think we should start going on the cgi effects pronto. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

... the original Saxo Grammaticus version of the story) contains two references to the "shade" (ombre) of Hamlet's father. One of these allusions to the shade of the father occurs in the scene between the Hamlet character and his mother, which may explain why the ghost resurfaces at that point in Shakespeare's play. If I remember right, though, this reference to a "shade" is somewhat ambiguous in that the shade isn't necessarily present in the scene (i.e. a real ghost walking about), but may be merely alluded to.

---

Hi Petrarch! Welcome to the fray.

Thanks for that note on the Saxo Grammaticus version of the story. Of course that story contains a great deal that isn't in Shakespeare's version. I particularly enjoyed that, as in Shakespeare's Hamlet, "Amleth" kills the "Polonius" character (the King's trusted councillor) hiding in his mother's room. He then drags him out and "cutting his body into morsels, he seethed it in boiling water, and flung it through the mouth of an open sewer for the swine to eat, bestrewing the stinking mire with his hapless limbs." Only then does he return to his mother and berate her over her relationship with the his father's brother, comparing her to "the mares [who] couple with the vanquishers of their mates; for brute beasts are naturally incited to pair indiscriminately; and it would seem that thou, like them, hast clean forgot thy first husband." Lovely and quite brutal.

However, nowhere in that particular scene could I find any reference to a "shade" either in the description or in Amleth's words. It might be a trick of the translation - the one I'm looking at is online at http://omacl.org/DanishHistory/book3.html
The version there doesn't indicate if it is translated from Belleforest's version, but I would assume so. The only reference to anything resembling it seems more like it refers to the Claudius character (Feng) than to the Ghost. Amleth, in berating his mother he says, refering to his pretence of madness:
"As for me, not idly do I wear the mask of folly; for I doubt not that he who destroyed his brother will riot as ruthlessly in the blood of his kindred. Therefore it is better to choose the garb of dulness than that of sense, and to borrow some protection from a show of utter frenzy. Yet the passion to avenge my father still burns in my heart; but I am watching the chances, I await the fitting hour. There is a place for all things; against so merciless and dark spirit must be used the deeper devices of the mind."

Quote:

---

The text of the so-called Ur-Hamlet (the play which preceeded and likely inspired Shakespeare's) no longer exists, so we can only guess at what exactly it contained. It is generally believed to have been penned by Kyd as well, and accounts of people at the time remark on the memorable character of the ghost who cried repeatedly for revenge for bloody murder, so it seems likely that it followed a similar pattern to The Spanish Tragedy and other plays in which the ghost provides a framing structure in which the revenge plot unfolds.

---

I agree that the tradition of the use of ghosts stems from Seneca and Elizabethan tragedy was full of them. And, as you say, there was, essentially, a "formula" for their use.

Quote:

---

Thus, in comparison to other plays of the time, it would seem that Shakespeare is rejecting a more convenient ghostly type which other writers successfully employed to propell their dramas in favor of a more ambiguous and perplexing spirit. This, of course, ties in with the conclusion that everyone's come to regarding the aesthetic choice in favor of a "mysterious and unfathomable" nature for the ghost.

---

This makes alot of sense to me. Shakespeare seemed to go out of his way to break tradition in many ways. His tragedies did not follow Aristotle's unities or other formalities of classical tragedy. He took the basics in many of his plays, but changed them, rearranged them, created dramatic structure that was revolutionary in some ways. It seems likely that he took the basic "ghost" that his audiences were familiar with, and then "tweaked" it, made it "real" and therefore more mysterious, more unfathomable, and, in its own way, more fearsome than any of those over-the-top ghosts preceding him simply because it WAS so real.

I still feel like he might have had it appear at the end of the play - it seems right and fitting that it would - but without the dialogue that would include it in the stage directions and that would convert it back to the traditional summing up (much like some of the epilogues in his earlier plays). But, of course, we will never know.

As for "young" Jacobi playing Hamlet opposite is "older-ego" Claudius:

Quote:

---

What a great idea. I think we should start going on the cgi effects pronto. :D

---

I'll have to check with my film-editing/program designer son to see if he could actually do anything like that. What a fun project that would be for someone! But which version of the rest of the play do we use?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

Of course, given my chosen profession, I'm afraid none of my comments may be deemed acceptable. :rolleyes: :lol:

---

:blush: :lol: :lol: Perhaps a bit over the top. But you also didn't include the full sentence. Here's what I completely wrote:

Quote:

---

Hahaha, LOL. You just put the kiss of death to him. That probably means he's definitely wrong. I've never met a college professor who really understood the art of writing, unless those few who were writers themselves.

---

And you definitely qualify as someone who writes too. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msdirector

Thanks for that note on the Saxo Grammaticus version of the story. Of course that story contains a great deal that isn't in Shakespeare's version. I particularly enjoyed that, as in Shakespeare's Hamlet, "Amleth" kills the "Polonius" character (the King's trusted councillor) hiding in his mother's room. He then drags him out and "cutting his body into morsels, he seethed it in boiling water, and flung it through the mouth of an open sewer for the swine to eat, bestrewing the stinking mire with his hapless limbs." Only then does he return to his mother and berate her over her relationship with the his father's brother, comparing her to "the mares [who] couple with the vanquishers of their mates; for brute beasts are naturally incited to pair indiscriminately; and it would seem that thou, like them, hast clean forgot thy first husband." Lovely and quite brutal.

---

I know, it's great stuff. I wouldn't want to meet a medieval Dane in a dark alley. :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msdirector

However, nowhere in that particular scene could I find any reference to a "shade" either in the description or in Amleth's words. It might be a trick of the translation - the one I'm looking at is online at http://omacl.org/DanishHistory/book3.html
The version there doesn't indicate if it is translated from Belleforest's version, but I would assume so. The only reference to anything resembling it seems more like it refers to the Claudius character (Feng) than to the Ghost. Amleth, in berating his mother he says, refering to his pretence of madness:
"As for me, not idly do I wear the mask of folly; for I doubt not that he who destroyed his brother will riot as ruthlessly in the blood of his kindred. Therefore it is better to choose the garb of dulness than that of sense, and to borrow some protection from a show of utter frenzy. Yet the passion to avenge my father still burns in my heart; but I am watching the chances, I await the fitting hour. There is a place for all things; against so merciless and dark spirit must be used the deeper devices of the mind."

---

I was working from memory when I posted last night so I looked up the pertinent excerpt from the Belleforest this morning. I didn't get the chance to read it through entirely but the version of the Saxo story you posted the link to seems to be a translation of the original latin rather than a translation of Belleforest's translation. That said, I found that the reference to shades in Belleforest was even more ambiguous than I had remembered. The pertinent line is as follows:

"c'est un desir effrene qui a conduit la fille de Rorique a embrasser le tyran Fengon sans respespecter les ombres de Horvvendille indigne de si estrange traictement, et que son frere l'occist traitreusement, et que sa femme la trahist laschement laquelle il a tant bien traitee."

My (humble) translation of the above:

It is an unbridled desire which leads the daughter of Roric to embrace the tyrant Fengon [Claudius] without respect for the shade of Horwendille [Hamlet's father], indignant at his unnatural treatment, both that his brother killed him traiterously, and that his wife meanly betrayed him when he had treated her so well.

So in the scene between Amleth [Hamlet] and his mother in the Belleforest version there is mention of the spirit of Amleth's father and of what that spirit is probably feeling in that scene, but he is not meant to be present as a real ghost. Since the ghost was already "haunting" the lines of the Belleforest, it's possible this mention of the shade made Shakespeare think, "hey that's a great scene to have the ghost come in," but the I think the influence is probably debatable (come to think on it everything about Hamlet seemst to be debateable :lol: ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msdirector

I'll have to check with my film-editing/program designer son to see if he could actually do anything like that. What a fun project that would be for someone! But which version of the rest of the play do we use?

---

Oooh, it could turn into something like fantasy baseball for Shakespeareans. :D Quick everyone, who do we edit in for Ophelia? Polonius?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Perhaps a bit over the top. But you also didn't include the full sentence. Here's what I completely wrote:
Quote:
Hahaha, LOL. You just put the kiss of death to him. That probably means he's definitely wrong. I've never met a college professor who really understood the art of writing, unless those few who were writers themselves.
And you definitely qualify as someone who writes too.

---

Ha! A loophole, a palpable loophole. :D I'd better warn my colleagues to start dabbling in poetry quick, since if they don't write they evidently have no chance of winning the respect of their students. :p

I am back and listening. I read all the new posts....some great stuff here. Glad the long "ghost discussion" has not faded away. I have learned much here that I did not know before; it is interesting reading actual script that the play "Hamlet" was based on. Some real bloody stuff here. Wow, I agree - would not want to meet a medieval Dane in a dark alley!
Good job everyone....thanks! :thumbs_up from me, too!

Sorry it was Msdirector that said "welcome to the fray". My mistake:blush:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

Ha! A loophole, a palpable loophole. :D I'd better warn my colleagues to start dabbling in poetry quick, since if they don't write they evidently have no chance of winning the respect of their students. :p

---

Well, it's all these teachers who are into deconstruction or New Historicism or whatever is the latest fad within your teaching circles. You know I feel how useless that is.

I am not in the know. What is "deconstruction or New Historicism"?

Janine, they are recent cirtical approaches to literature or as some call it literary theory. Here's a quick reference to literary theory, written I might add by people who have never created literature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_theory. You can click the various links to the each school of theory for more info on each. If you have any questions on any you can ask me, and I will try to explain. But for the most part, I am definitely biased.

Read a little of the site last night but will read more and put my own two cents into the pot in another post. Thanks for the link....very helpful.

I don't really want to get into a debate right now about the merits and demerits of literary theory, but since Janine asked about it, I thought I'd point out that literary theory is just that, theories (one might also say philosophies) about how to understand, approach, and sometimes even how to define literature. At their best these theoretical ideas function to stimulate new ways of thinking for either scholars in the field or people who have similarly made an in depth study of literature and want to test and challenge their thinking against some interesting ideas. At its worst theory can become a lot of meaningless jargon that intellectuals think makes them sound smarter than everyone else and/or scholars can get so entranced by the theoretical concepts that they allow the theory to overshadow the literary text itself when they teach. This can sometimes get to the point where "Theory" is used as an excuse to introduce political bias into the classroom (which I believe is part of Virg.'s objections here). You'll also run into professors who get so deeply into their pet theory (often the popular one at the time) that they use it as the be all and end all of every interpretation they offer, which is not my personal stlye at all. When I do use theory I'm selecting among a range of ideas to find the one that seems to productively agree or disagree with my initial reading of the text, not trying to fit my reading of the text into the box of a theory I've already decided must be right.

I have to say that I've got a lot that I both agree and disagree with regarding both Deconstruction (which is a movement associated with the philosopher Jaques Derrida, who said he didn't understand it himself if that gives you any idea :lol: ), and New Historicism (which I have seen modelled with great intelligence and common sense as a way of thinking by someone who was a wonderful mentor and teacher to me in my early career, but have also seen go far awry in other hands). New Historicism (which I know the most about) has been beneficial to scholars in that it returned the field of literary studies to an interest in historical research after historical context had been out of style for awhile (in this sense, it's something of a return to the Historicist movement in literary study around the turn of the century--these things tend to go in cycles--though New Historicists disagree with many attitudes of "old" historicists). New Historicism also encouraged increased archival research as a method as well as encouraging scholars to examine a wide range of previously marginal or ignored texts, both of which have led to some interesting discoveries/contributions to the study of literature, and it made scholars re-examine some of the attitudes they took for granted about both history itself and canonical literary texts (ans examining and re-examining, even if you end up deciding what you thought in the first place was right after all, is crucial to keeping that all-important open mind that makes for a successful teacher and scholar). Probably the biggest problem with the New Historicism has been that the interest in more marginal texts associated with this theory has led to an inordinate amount of teaching and scholarship being drawn toward what many (including me) would term non-literary texts and away from what you might call the "Great Books." Certain aspects of the theory might also be accused of opening up the possibilities of professors introducing their own liberal political agendas into the classroom, though I would say other theoretical movements have contributed more to this (marxist and feminist theory being a couple of obvious ones).

It's really hard to sum up either of these theories in a brief post, it's something that would be better gradually introduced in the form of some pertinent theoretical essays, or introduced at length in a course on the subject. Virg.'s Wiki article looks pretty good. I thought the definitions in this glossary seemed fairly decent too (though I just glanced at the New Historicist one and it's pretty brief): http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/...aderindex.html
Of course, theory isn't at all necessary to have a good understanding of literature (contrary to what some pretentious types may have you believe), and I probably wouldn't teach Theory to most undergrads or to a group who hadn't already done a lot of reading in literature (not because Theory is a "higher" skill, but because it can only be of much use or interest if you've already got a pretty strong idea about your own reactions to a work). There now, I seem to have talked your ear off. It must be obvious that I'm an academic, given how long I seem to have gone on about this subject. Remember Virg., I write, so I'm probably not all bad, even if I have rubbed elbows with deconstructionists on occasion. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

There now, I seem to have talked your ear off. It must be obvious that I'm an academic, given how long I seem to have gone on about this subject. Remember Virg., I write, so I'm probably not all bad, even if I have rubbed elbows with deconstructionists on occasion. :D

---

Glad you said that, Petrarch's Love, I usually can't stop writing and my posts get really long, ah.... to my dismay. The information and explanation you have given me really cleared things up. I had looked at the Wikepedia entry, but had not read it completely. You made it so much clearer. I was going to ask Virgil, if in essense, the whole theory thing was a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. You were honest and showed both sides. I do think there are people who speak in this jargon just to be above everyone else and untouchable in a way...to appear superior or something. A true scholar is humble and admits there is much he does not know. At any rate I commend you on a good description of both words. This helped me very much. You are very knowlegable. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

IThis can sometimes get to the point where "Theory" is used as an excuse to introduce political bias into the classroom (which I believe is part of Virg.'s objections here).

---

That is only one of my objections. But that is true. Why are all these theories left wing?

But my main disgust is that they diminish the work as art. They reduce the work as a social phenomena. Even your use of the term "text" reduces the art to anthropological shard or a remnant. Instead of using our understanding of the social circumstances to understand the work of art, we use the "text" to understand the society in which it was written. In New Historicism any text is equally important, so that the telephone book is equal to Shakespeare's works.

And why is this mostly in literature? Do art historians discuss deconstructon? Or music historians discuss music in terms New Historicism?

Janine, it's mumbo-jumbo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

The information and explanation you have given me really cleared things up. I had looked at the Wikepedia entry, but had not read it completely. You made it so much clearer. I was going to ask Virgil, if in essense, the whole theory thing was a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. You were honest and showed both sides. I do think there are people who speak in this jargon just to be above everyone else and untouchable in a way...to appear superior or something. A true scholar is humble and admits there is much he does not know. At any rate I commend you on a good description of both words. This helped me very much. You are very knowlegable. Thanks!

---

I'm glad my input could be helpful. I'm actually quite wary of theory myself, but I see that it has some uses (especially to someone in the profession) if approached properly. You're certainly right about the untouchable jargon speakers. When I first came to graduate school it sometimes felt like I was trying to learn a foreign language just to hold a conversation with certain scholars who shall remain unnamed. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

But my main disgust is that they diminish the work as art. They reduce the work as a social phenomena. Even your use of the term "text" reduces the art to anthropological shard or a remnant. Instead of using our understanding of the social circumstances to understand the work of art, we use the "text" to understand the society in which it was written. In New Historicism any text is equally important, so that the telephone book is equal to Shakespeare's works.

---

Yes, I often similarly resent the de-emphasis of the importance of art in the study of literature. I have seen excellent scholars who are able to engage in theoretical debates without losing sight of the poem, play, essay, meditation, novel etc. as artwork but, given the majority of scholarly writing, this is apparently harder than it looks. :p There's no reason why New Historicism need exclude considering literature as a work of art, or that exclusion need be seen as the basic project of the theory. In fact I was recently reading an interview with Stephen Greenblat (the scholar who coined the term New Historicism) in which he spoke frequently of his love of great literary texts as works of art and of our desire to connect with and understand what that art is giving us.
I think we've been around this problem with the term "text" before, which I personally don't in any way mean to connote an "anthropological shard or remnant" (though I understand where this objection is coming from, and have even made it myself in some circumstances). I'm using the word "text" in something of the same way that musicians might refer to "scores" or artists might refer to "works." How would you, for example, conveniently refer to the "poem, play, sermon, novel etc" that I referred to earlier without using this list over and over again (this gets pretty tiresome) and without using the word "text?" I'm not being sarcastic; I would genuinely love a synonym I could use for this word if you have one to suggest.
The extreme version of New Historicism would be that the telephone book is equal to Shakespeare, but it is certainly possible to extract useful ideas from the theory without carrying them so far. I think the main problem with theory is that scholars tend to irresponsibly (and ironically) treat it almost as fact, and so rather than using the theory to enhance their core understanding and/or reason for the study of poems, plays, novels etc. as art, they instead turn the theory itself into the thing that primarily guides them and end up carrying the theory to its extremes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

And why is this mostly in literature? Do art historians discuss deconstructon? Or music historians discuss music in terms New Historicism?

---

Yes, I've been in Art History classes in which both Deconstruction and New Historicism were topics of discussion. I'm not as personally familiar with the musical world but I gather they do have their own brand of "mumbo jumbo." I'll agree that theory is particularly insiduous in English departments, and I wish there was far, far less of it, but I do understand the basic reasoning as to how these theories should function ideally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Janine, it's mumbo-jumbo.

---

A fair amount of it is, so I agree with you there more than you may realize. :nod:

A number of good points are brought up here by both Petrarch and Virgil. I sometimes think that texts and novels can be over-theorized. If only we could talk to the dead author and ask his opinion on his work or if we could ask, better yet, what he meant or what his exact intentions were. Sometimes one needs to see that the interpretation is individual, such as the quote "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I am not sure if I am making sense (it is late), but I can't help but consider that over analysising works of art, poetry, literature and music can sometimes spoil the inner deeply felt experience.
I am currently studying D.H. Lawrence and I am caught up in what one could probably term "New Historicism", considering the surfacing of many new letters and documents. It is a study of Lawrence's history and how it impacted his work. Is that the essense of Historicism? In my reading I am trying to absorb all of his life and its periods, and all of his motivations in his works and his theories/philosophies, which actually go through many stages and tranformations, as you probably know. It highly interests me, but one has to read it as theory and understand that is all it is, as Petrarch, I believe, is saying. Don't let the analysis be the most important thing in the end. P - is that what you meant? I am so caught up in the research lately, that I have to stop myself periodically and say - what did this author/man feel, and what do I feel when I read his work? Isn't that the important thing? The deep experience seems to me the vital core of the reading of any great work of literature, or viewing any great work of art. Relying heavily on scholarly terms and dissections, I often wonder if the whole story or whole picture is somehow lost in the course of tearing it appart. Perhaps that is when it all becomes a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and departs from the real experience that one first felt when reading the novel or experiencing the art. Maybe Lawrence would call it head verses heart verses "blood", as he liked to term it. I hope this makes sense since I am far from being a scholar and I humbly beseech you instead, to see me as an sensitive artist. Artists "feel" the text or the painting, interpretaton comes second.
There is a beautiful dialect poem, entitled "Violets" that Lawrence recited for Frieda and Professor Weekly (he was a "word" scholar) the first time Lawrence met them. Professor Weekly asks Lawrence the meaning of some of the words. Lawrence politely defines them. Lawrence asks Freida if she understood the words and she simply replies to him, "No, I did not understand any of the words, but I did understand the whole poem." Later she tells him she likes the poem very much and asks him "Is your poem not about the smell of violets, and the smell of death?" To me this example sums up what I have been trying to say. Yes, L's work is full of rich symbolism, but so much of his work intuitively flowed from the very core of his being. He wrote rapidly and the words poured out of him instinctively. He did not analysis as he went along. He wrote as he was compelled to write from "a deep well within", as many authors do. Artists do a similar thing when the flow is right and the subconsious takes over and one loses oneself in the work. The magic comes from within, and an artist can not even begin to explain how it occurs. It just does; I know this from experience. When the work is flowing the work is felt or is coming from that same "deep well" (subconsious or emotions or undefinable).

Thank you for a lovely post, Janine. I agree that the greatest part of interacting with literature is the feeling of it.

Quote:

---

I am currently studying D.H. Lawrence and I am caught up in what one could probably term "New Historicism", considering the surfacing of many new letters and documents. It is a study of Lawrence's history and how it impacted his work. Is that the essense of Historicism? In my reading I am trying to absorb all of his life and its periods, and all of his motivations in his works and his theories/philosophies, which actually go through many stages and tranformations, as you probably know.

---

All of this would be considered historical background and biographical material, which is of course secondary to the original text (in this case the original text beeing Lawrence's novels and poems). Any work that deals with this type of historical background can be termed "historicist" and the this type of inquiry can also to some extent be considered "New Historicist," so yes that's broadly what we're talking about. There are some distinctions, however, between the way Historicists and New Historicists approach and view history. New Historicism is interested in how literary works relate to and are reflected in other, often non-literary works of the same time period--and often less well known or seemingly insignificant works--whereas old Historicists tend to solely focus on major literary texts and their relation to the more famous and prominent philosophies, events, etc. of the time period. New Historicists are interested in how our position as present day readers shapes our understanding of and judgement of literary and historical texts we read, whereas older Historicism tends to discourage making value judgments about the past. New Historicist theory tries to complicate and question the way we think about history and the place of different literary texts within history as well as the relation of literary texts to other parts of the culture of the time. So the point is that what these theories are offering are, first of all the suggestion that doing the sort of archival research you're doing (looking into letters and documents of the time) is something worth doing, and second of all, a few different ways to think about approaching and trying to understand a past time period, and what that time period has to do with those wonderful books you've been reading and enjoying. :)

Quote:

---

Don't let the analysis be the most important thing in the end. P - is that what you meant?

---

In a nutshell. :)

Quote:

---

I am so caught up in the research lately, that I have to stop myself periodically and say - what did this author/man feel, and what do I feel when I read his work? Isn't that the important thing? The deep experience seems to me the vital core of the reading of any great work of literature, or viewing any great work of art. Relying heavily on scholarly terms and dissections, I often wonder if the whole story or whole picture is somehow lost in the course of tearing it appart. Perhaps that is when it all becomes a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and departs from the real experience that one first felt when reading the novel or experiencing the art. Maybe Lawrence would call it head verses heart verses "blood", as he liked to term it. I hope this makes sense since I am far from being a scholar and I humbly beseech you instead, to see me as an sensitive artist. Artists "feel" the text or the painting, interpretaton comes second.

---

Scholars (good ones anyway) also feel the text first and last. If you can't feel a text I don't know how or why you should study it. And don't ever be humble about being a sensitive artist. If you have been moved deeply by a novel or a poem then you've got the point. More research might make your understanding and appreciation for the text greater but really the rest, as they say, is gravy. ;)

Thanks for the story about Lawrence. Say, if you guys don't already have a chat going I don't know about, you and Virg. should start up a thread, since he's our resident Lawrence expert.

I think the quote I need to end this response (and possibly this unseemly detour from the proper ghostly subject of this thread?) is this one, which perhaps we can all agree on:

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty, --that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

The irony is that D.H. Lawrence would have absolutely HATED this critical theory. "The novel is the book of life," D.H. Lawrence from "On Why The Novel Matters."

Synonym for "text"? I use "work" or I'll be specific and say novel, poem, story, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch

Yes, I've been in Art History classes in which both Deconstruction and New Historicism were topics of discussion. I'm not as personally familiar with the musical world but I gather they do have their own brand of "mumbo jumbo." I'll agree that theory is particularly insiduous in English departments, and I wish there was far, far less of it, but I do understand the basic reasoning as to how these theories should function ideally.

---

You're right, I've seen it, and you're right English departments are the most fanatical on this. Why do you think?

Quote:

---

The irony is that D.H. Lawrence would have absolutely HATED this critical theory. "The novel is the book of life," D.H. Lawrence from "On Why The Novel Matters."

---

Yeah, I was posting late last night in the middle of writing something else, so I didn't mention it, but it did occur to me that I don't usually think of Lawrence as a great candidate for New Historicist reading. Obviously Janine's approach of looking into letters and background is pretty straightforward and interesting, but trying to stick too New Historicist a slant on that in relation to Lawrence does seem strained. I think the New Historicsim is probably of most use (if it's any at all ;)) in a period like mine in the Renaissance where we're so far removed from the historical period that study of the historical context of a work is almost necessary to understanding a lot about it. At that point debates over how to approach the historical context of literary texts suddenly become interesting (well, to some geeky few at least :D ).

Quote:

---

Synonym for "text"? I use "work" or I'll be specific and say novel, poem, story, etc.

---

Yes, I realized after I posted that "work" is also possible and I do use it. I think the reason I tend to use "work" less is that it can be more generally interpreted to mean different works of art (paintings, music, etc.). I do a lot of research involving the comparison of the visual and verbal arts, and using the word "text" can sometimes make it clear when I'm referring to works in the written tradition rather than works in the visual tradition. It's a more specific term than "work." Obviously referring to a play as a play is great, but I'm talking about instances when I'm referring generally to a potentially wide range of literary forms. It's also just shop talk. Editors refer to the "text" and people literally since the middle ages have used the word "text" to refer to the original written work as opposed to secondary material (I recall Wycliff, for example, referring to the reading of the "text" of his translation of the psalms as opposed to the glosses), so this is hardly a word or a usage that's been introduced with the New Historicists (though they do have their own special brand of "text"). I guess it's just the word scholars who study the written art tend to use the most. The jargonny word that you should really be objecting to (and that I refuse to use) is "cultural object." Try having a discussion with someone who describes Hamlet as a "cultural object!" Mumbo Jumbo indeed!

Quote:

---

You're right, I've seen it, and you're right English departments are the most fanatical on this. Why do you think?

---

I don't know. My theory is that people who go into English are usually obsessed with words so they like playing with them and making them up, which leads to increased jargon production. Alas, if we were only less fanatical about theory. I may have taken devil's advocate here, but in relation to my fellow academics I'm probably considered the anti-theorist. :p

I enjoyed and took much from both of your posts. Thanks! Petrarch's comments are quite extensive, which is after my own heart, and I like your view of things. Your definitions are good and helpful for that reason. You see the theorising for what it is and know it is not the main thing, which is the works, be it novel, art, etc. You are able to see through the hierachy and to the core of the issues.
Glad you liked the little story about the poem, "Violets". I actually saw that scene acted out in a short film, but I read it that it did take place.

As you said in your last post to Virgil.

"My theory is that people who go into English are usually obsessed with 'words' so they like playing with them and making them up, which leads to increased jargon production".
That, of course, was the point of how Frieda perceived the poem so much differently from her academic husband. She felt the poem, he saw it as a dissection.

As to Virgils comment"

"The irony is that D.H. Lawrence would have absolutely HATED this critical theory."

I totally agree. I will look into the book you mention. From what I have read about the man, I absolutely feel this would be true.
Back to Petrarch's reference to older periods, such as Renaissance or interpetting the Psalms- I can better see the use of "New Historicists", after her explanation, than in studying Lawrence. It does take a time span to see that studying the world, it's social forms and it's political aspects and attitudes, add a different perspective, and are vastly important to understanding the text, such as studying Shakespeare.

I wrote this quickly since I have to go somewhere soon. Hope it is ok - sorry could not format....no time!

Wanted to further share this with you. Lawrence said this:

"Curse the blasted, jelly-boned swines, the slimy, the belly-wriggling invertebrates, the miserable sodding rutters, the flaming sods, the sniveling, dribbling, dithering, palsied, pulse-less lot that make up England today."

This was his remark after hearing what the critics said about "Sons and Lovers".

I think this is priceless!
There is a certain poetry to it, don't you think?

Sorry - we are a bit off the track. What became of the ghost? Will he ever reappear?

Hahahaha. I love it. Lawrence was great.


The think we've done the ghost to death.:D

Virgil, Glad you liked the quote - pretty original, don't you think? Did he make up some of those words? My friend from Japan sent it to me today, but the strange thing is that I read it a few days ago in L's biography. Well, they claim there is just "6 degrees of separation" between all people in the world.
I think you are right - either the ghost has been done to death, or it could just be somewhere snoozing.....:yawnb: We need to ask a new question (start a new thread) on "Hamlet" anyway....there must be zillions of things to debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D.H. Lawrence

"Curse the blasted, jelly-boned swines, the slimy, the belly-wriggling invertebrates, the miserable sodding rutters, the flaming sods, the sniveling, dribbling, dithering, palsied, pulse-less lot that make up England today."

---

That's a great quote Janine:lol: . Hey, if you're going to insult somebody you might as well follow the Cyrano rule and do it with some pinache! As far as I can tell none of the words are made up, which makes it even better.

Thanks, Petrarch, good remark. Glad you and Virgil read the quote and laughed :lol: .
Lawence must have been pretty combative....good for him!!!...He did not run from the critics. He persisted until he got his work published somewhere. If the "palsied, pulse-less (great alleration) lot that make up England" wouldn't do it, he got the job done in America. L even cursed his enemies with style!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Virgil, Glad you liked the quote - pretty original, don't you think? Did he make up some of those words?

---

The only word i don't recgnize is "rutters." What's that?

Quote:

---

I think you are right - either the ghost has been done to death, or it could just be somewhere snoozing.....:yawnb: We need to ask a new question (start a new thread) on "Hamlet" anyway....there must be zillions of things to debate

---

OK, I've always wondered about Horatio. Let me think of a question. Perhaps on the significance of his stoic philosophy.

I love the Horatio character. Great idea! He definitely foils the erractic behavior of Hamlet at times - the contrast is evident and had to be intentional on Shakespeare's part. I have thought of his role often. Will you start a whole new thread, Virgil?

You might be right. In my huge heavy dictionary, I can only find words like the root word "rutty" -ruttier, ruttiest, ruttish, ruttiness, ruttily
and under this root word "rut" - rutted, rutting.
Maybe L or the author of this book mispelled "ruttier" and spelled it "rutter" - that is the nearest to it. I will check the reference in my other book to see if that is the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

You might be right. In my huge heavy dictionary, I can only find words like the root word "rutty" -ruttier, ruttiest, ruttish, ruttiness, ruttily
and under this root word "rut" - rutted, rutting.
Maybe L or the author of this book mispelled "ruttier" and spelled it "rutter" - that is the nearest to it. I will check the reference in my other book to see if that is the case.

---

The second definition of "Rut" is periodic sexual excitement in certain animals. It is used colloquially to refer to rather brutish sexual relations and to those who enjoy them much like "f*ck" is used. A "rutter" is therefore, one who ruts, or who acts in a brutish or barbaric or unsophistocated or common way. It is not used in a positive way. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I love the Horatio character. Great idea! He definitely foils the erractic behavior of Hamlet at times - the contrast is evident and had to be intentional on Shakespeare's part. I have thought of his role often. Will you start a whole new thread, Virgil?

---

Oooh... I have some questions about Horatio too... I find him one of the most intriguing characters in Hamlet because we know so little specific about him. There are lots of implications, and a number of things that seem to be not true about him, but we are give very few actual facts of his life. I would love to know just WHO everyone think Horatio is - not his place in Hamlet's life or in the structure of the play, but who Horatio is as a person. Does that need a new thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamleto

Why couldn't Gertrude, the queen, see the ghost? The guards, Horatio and Hamlet saw it. This is puzzling me.

---

The Queen couldn't see the ghost because she was the only sane person there, Hamlet and the others were all mad.

I'm not sure what i'm doing on here. I am not a technical person, but can write. How do i do that on here? Well, i'll answer myself, i don't know.

How do i post anything on here? Please I NEED a reply. I feel very frustarted. I want to write, but can't write.
Help!! Please help!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magdalene

I'm not sure what i'm doing on here. I am not a technical person, but can write. How do i do that on here? Well, i'll answer myself, i don't know.

How do i post anything on here? Please I NEED a reply. I feel very frustarted. I want to write, but can't write.
Help!! Please help!!!

---

Hi Magdalene,

You did post, both this and your post about Gertrude and the Ghost. Just because no one answered you yet doesn't mean that you didn't post. People are busy and sometimes take a while to answer... please be patient. You can see your own posts on the thread that you posted to. Simply refresh your screen - it doesn't refresh itself each time someone posts. You have to keep checking it - or you can set your profile for the forum to send you an email every time someone posts to a thread you are watching.

I'm not sure what you mean by you want to "write". If you mean ask questions and discuss topics, you are as welcome as anyone else to post and join the discussions on this forum. If you mean you want to write your own stories, then I don't think that this is the place to do that.

I'll be happy to respond to your Hamlet post in a separate answer...

Hi Magdalene, Welcome to the forum! I was the same way about a week ago - frustrated. I was not sure how to format anything. I, too, found the forum by accident. If you ask Logos - that is a monitor - she can help you with anything. She steered me the right way. What seems to be your problem? You formatted fine. You write something and then you press the "Go Advanced" and you will see a tool bar and better options on posting your message, such as "Preview Post". After using this button you will see your post as it will appear. At that point you can edit if you want to.....this is very useful. Are you looking for a certain author? At the top of the page are menus and one is "Authors" I am not a tech person either. Maybe go to Main page first to find the authors option. Hope this helps you some. Don't be nervous - everyone on here is so nice and so helpful, too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magdalene

The Queen couldn't see the ghost because she was the only sane person there, Hamlet and the others were all mad.

---

Hi Magdalene,

I'm curious how you come to this conclusion. You seem to be implying that the Ghost is a figment of the imagination of all who saw him.

Since Hamlet is the only other person in the room when the Ghost appears to him in the closet scene, it is possible to assume that he is mad and that the Ghost's appearance in that scene is simply a product of his own mind.

While I don't believe that Hamlet was mad at all (he specifically states in the text that he will "put on an antic disposition" - that is, pretend to be mad so that he can learn the truth of the Ghost's allegations), it is certainly possible that he has gone over the edge by the time of his confrontation with Gertrude - many people do believe that he was, indeed, mad. If so, that is a possible interpretation.

However, you say "the others were all mad." That assumes that everyone who saw the Ghost was mad. I see no evidence in the text whatsoever to imply that either Horatio, Marcellus or Bernardo were in any way mad. Horatio is the very epitome of the educated, scientific, rational man - in fact, that is why he was asked to be a witness to the Ghost's presence, because he could be trusted to be rational. And Marcellus and Bernardo are a simple officer and soldier of the guard. There is no indication at all of any madness in them. And they all DID see the Ghost.

It seems in your statement that you are also implying that ALL the other characters in the play other than Gertrude are mad. Does this include Claudius, Polonius, Laertes, Ophelia, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and the other characters in the play as well? If so, do you have any evidence in the text to support this or is it simply a general concept that you have adopted. And if that is the way you see the play, then I'm curious how Gertrude escaped this general madness... :)

msdirector, hi, - you did your research - good. I was not sure how to answer this distress call. Maybe it was a navigational problem. I am still trying to figure it all out. Takes time. True, I am still waiting for people to answer some of my threads. That takes time, too.

Hi Janine - not sure what research you are refering to, but if you mean for Hamlet, I've been researching him for years! :D

If you mean as far as writing on the forum is concerned - I've been writing on forums for ages and I can navigate them pretty much without trouble. But I do know that it can be confusing and frustrating the first few times until you figure out since each forum seems to be a little different.

Arlene, Please forget I said anything. I should have kept out of it. Was just commenting on the posting questions, but it was too obscure.

Hope I gave your some bit of direction Magdaline. I still have trouble finding things on certain pages. It all takes time.

PS:Arlene, left you 2 PM's. Hope you found them. Imagine you have been so busy....understandable. J

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Arlene, Please forget I said anything. I should have kept out of it. Was just commenting on the posting questions, but it was too obscure.

PS:Arlene, left you 2 PM's. Hope you found them. Imagine you have been so busy....understandable. J

---

No problem, Janine. You had valid points as far as how Magdalene can approach the forum. I just wasn't sure which research you were refering to - forum, Hamlet or "rutter" - that's quite a variety and I've managed to comment on all of them :lol:

And yes, I did see your PM's. Sorry I haven't gotten back to you on them yet. I still haven't gotten a chance to look through my CD's to see what I have. You're right - it has been a really busy time for me... but I will get back to you shortly...

Arlene, don't rush. I am busy, too, but sure you must be busier with two concentrations right now. Hey, this forum is addictive, also! I do love it though! Have to go do things in the real world now. Will read your post on the Lawrence word first.

PS: no wonder Magdaline is confused - the post is Ghost and we hopped all around - now to Lawrence. Yes, M, this is still "Ghost in Hamlet" thread!

Now I see what's going on. Arlene, we must be posting the same time. I missed your other posts. Now I have read all of them - the word definition - great - thanks! .....
and the other post to M about the ghost. I have something to add to M. I agree with Arlene and wondered how you came up with the thought that the other people in the play were all mad? I don't think that Hamlet is mad at all, I never did. Distressed, maybe, but never mad.

I will start a thread on Horatio.


Go Here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...099#post282099

If anyone pops over from "Hamlet's Father" - the discussion can continue on the "Ghost". It sort of came to a standstill a week ago but there are some good points on this thread to read. We started a new thread - "Horatio", if anyone is interested in that. The debate there rages on!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamleto

Why couldn't Gertrude, the queen, see the ghost? The guards, Horatio and Hamlet saw it. This is puzzling me.

---

Is it love for King Hamlet that allows the guards, Horatio, and Hamlet to see the ghost?

This is an outdated topic, but I want to see if anyone agrees or has some insight. I'm not a literary folk by any means, and my feelings get hurt easily. Please use care when replying. ;)

My quandry is exactly as stated in the quote above...I'm trying to figure out why only the select characters were chosen to see the ghost of King Hamlet. I read A LOT of the other posts and they were deep!! So deep that my professor would look at me cross-ways and ask me, "Who are you and what did you do with my student?"

P.S. I realize that Hamlet is a revenge tragedy and that it's not about love, but I'm searching for meaning why Ghost is only shown to the select few.

This note is for Jamesian: Where is your Thoreau quote from? Your help would prevent me from much time devoted to its source. Thanks so much!!:)