It really is hard to tell whether Angela is being deliberately dishonest or is simply unable to keep track of a conversation.
Obviously she's missed yet another of my posts, headed "ATT: ANGELA." It's #159772 on the Web site. The one before that, the repost about her gross misreading-- headed "REPOST FOR ANGELA," is #159643. Since she now says she has Web access, she should have no trouble looking these up (but she most likely won't, because she "won't get" this one either). SAL--maybe you could help out by giving her these two numbers? She doesn't seem to have any problems getting your posts. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip> > Judy called Hamlet a family drama. That is not the same thing as > acknowledging that there might be difficulty in keeping the two > genres (drama and tragedy) apart since Hamlet is the member of a > family and also the Prince of Denmark. There's no need to "keep them apart," Angela. "Drama" is an umbrella term that includes tragedy. "Hamlet" is a tragic drama (about a family). > But even had that been her statement, it would still not be very > discriminating . There is a difference between the story of either > a Prince or a god and the story of an ordinary family, and it is > not difficult to keep them apart. Princes and gods may be the same > as ordinary slobs to you (and more's the pity) but they were not to > any Elizabethan, nor any educated reader today. Straw man. Nobody ever suggested it was the "story of an ordinary family." You made that up. > Hamlet becomes mere family drama Nothing "mere" about it. > when, on the one hand, you ignore the depth of the play and, > by her own admission, Judy did not see that depth, calling > my statement of it a "gross misreading") No, Angela, I called what you made of *one line* in the play a "gross misreading." Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said, or are you just having problems remembering it? > and when, on the other hand, you ignore the salient fact that > Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark, rightful heir to its throne > which has been usurped by his uncle through murder and an > illegal marriage. More straw men. Nobody's "ignoring" any of this. In fact, I already summarized it in an earlier post (yet another one you seem conveniently to have missed, or at least forgotten). > Hamlet was "born to set things right" and gave his life doing just > that. There are several ways to interpret that phrase, and we could discuss it if you could ever manage to hold onto the thread of the discussion. > That is about the divine right of kingship, not about family--in > fact, he has to transcend family to get the job done. Aside from the incredibly awkward phrasing of this assertion, by definition Hamlet wouldn't have had to "transcend family" if family weren't a major obstacle to getting the job done. <DUH> That's the sense, of course, in which it's a family drama: the play is about the conflicted, fraught, and perverse family relationships among the royal court of Denmark. If the family relationships had been smooth and simple, there'd have been no play to be written about them in the first place. <DOUBLE DUH>
