Geoff asks: > Cheerskep: Are you lamenting the absymal blinkering involved in the use of > defence mechanisms or denying that the author has taken a clear-sighted view > of human functioning or that that interpretation of "the meaning" of Hamlet > is "blinkered"? > Geoff C > Hell, no, I'm not denying the commonplace observation that people frequently work hard to avoid facing a truth about themselves.
I'm saying Chan is himself blinkered -- both in believing there is a "THE meaning of" HAMLET, and in adopting a tunnelized vision in his argument that every single detail in the play is there to support his interpretation of what he calls Shakespeare's "message": we pursue trivialities to keep ourselves from looking at "profundities" -- especially that ultimate "profundity": "We're all going to die." Chan is an academic (in literature, not philosophy), and he introduces his book with the same self-celebrating line of many profs in English: He has come up with a hitherto unnoticed and unappreciated "explanation" of XXX -- in Chan's case of that most-written about play of all time, HAMLET. What Chan's imagination can't accommodate in his message about Shakespeare's message, he ignores. Otherwise, because metaphors are not disprovable, they simply require a nimbleness of mind to depict one character and event after another as "fitting" a thesis. Chan allows his enthusiasm to move him to say not only that all the details fit hs thesis, but that W.S. consciously and deliberately chose each of them for that purpose. ************** Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics b check it out! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir= http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
