Skip to main content

Raymond McDaniel introduces Charles Adams Kelly

Raymond McDaniel introduced Charles Adams Kelly before Kelly's presentation of his book, Echoes and Shadows in the Text of Shakespeare's Hamlet at Shaman Drum Bookshop in Ann Arbor on October 25. I thought the introduction was so beautiful (and so evocative of the mystery of the received word) that I asked McDaniel if we could publish it here. He graciously gave his permission.

I hope his words will serve as a delicious incentive for you to attend Charles Adams Kelly's appearance at our Oberon meeting -- 7 p.m., January 17 at the Farmington Community Library.

In addition to hosting the reading series at Shaman Drum Bookshop, Raymond McDaniel writes for Fence magazine's The Constant Critic and teaches at the University of Michigan. He is the author of Murder (a violet). His second book of poetry, Saltwater Empire, is forthcoming from Minneapolis based Coffee House Press.

Here is what he said on October 25:

Good evening and welcome. Thank you for coming out tonight to greet Charles Adams Kelly, and congratulate him on the publication of Echoes and Shadows in the Texts of Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

When you are reading Hamlet, what are you reading? Words, as he himself might reply, words, sir. But to what degree does your knowledge of what you are reading depend on your prior convictions regarding what it must be? The multiplicity of Hamlet as a character is the source of ceaseless exegetical worry, but what if I were to tell you that the space in which the character is housed – literally, the text that allows him – is also not singular?

You need not riddle yourself over the hypothetical implications of this question; Charles has done the work for you, and with a greater degree of zeal and precision than the lay reader can easily recognize. For a bad quarto of Shakespeare offers not just a paleographer’s challenge, but rather challenges the limits of what we can know about the provenance of a text. In meeting this challenge, Charles has performed an astonishing act, one that expresses the rigors of historical, literary, archival, and – most tellingly – deductive scholarship.

Those whose devotion to English language is accidental at best, and whose suspicions of scholarship are devastating at the worst, often cite the storied and legendary difficulties of Shakespearean attribution as proof that all social aspects of literature are fraught, contingent, convenient, incomplete to such a case that any authoritative claim is, in its authority, proof of its own illegitimacy. And then there are those who err on the opposite extreme, and who treat one quarto, folio, performance or interpretation as if it came into being immaculate, singular and complete, unaltered and unalterable. Both of these are easy claims to make, just like it is easy to fight. What is difficult is to build a case from the widest array of facts, and to discern from those facts patterns of likelihood, and to establish thereby the most probable case.

In so doing with this both literary and social documentation, Charles has paid a set of tremendous compliments: to the Bard himself, of course, and also to those under-sung Elizabethan entrepreneurs and functionaries without whom we have so much less than we do, but also to you, the reader, for whom he has taken a potentially fatal uncertainty and made of it a sweet and wholly persuasive cure.

"What is difficult is to build a case from the widest array of facts, and to discern from those facts patterns of likelihood, and to establish thereby the most probable case." -- difficult indeed, but so rewarding!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Was King Richard III a Control Freak? Science News ... from universities, journals, and other research organizations   Mar. 4, 2013 — University of Leicester psychologists believe Richard III was not a psychopath -- but he may have had control freak tendencies. University of Leicester psychologists have made an analysis of Richard III's character -- aiming to get to the man behind the bones. Professor Mark Lansdale, Head of the University's School of Psychology, and forensic psychologist Dr Julian Boon have put together a psychological analysis of Richard III based on the consensus among historians relating to Richard's experiences and actions. They found that, while there was no evidence for Shakespeare's depiction of Richard III as a psychopath, he may have had "intolerance to uncertainty syndrome" -- which may have manifested in control freak tendencies. The academics presented their findings on Saturday, March 2 at the University

What's a popp'rin' pear?

James Wheaton reported yesterday in the Jackson Citizen Patriot that the Michigan Shakespeare Festival high school tour of Romeo and Juliet was criticized for inappropriate content -- " So me take issue with sexual innuendoes in Michigan Shakespeare Festival’s High School Tour performances of ‘Romeo & Juliet’" : Western [High School] parent Rosie Crowley said she was upset when she heard students laughing about sexual content in the play afterwards. Her son didn’t attend the performance Tuesday because of another commitment, she said.  “I think the theater company should have left out any references that were rated R,” Crowley said. “I would say that I’ve read Shakespeare, and what I was told from the students, I’ve never read anything that bad.”  She said she objected to scenes that involved pelvic thrusting and breast touching and to a line in which Mercutio makes suggestive comments to Romeo after looking up the skirt of a female. The problem with cutting out the naug

Winkler lights the match

by Linda Theil When asked by an interviewer why all the experts disagree with her on the legitimacy of the Shakespeare authorship question, journalist and author Elizabeth Winkler  calmly replied, "You've asked the wrong experts." * With that simple declaration Winkler exploded the topic of Shakespearean authorship forever. Anti-Stratfordians need no smoking gun, no convincing narrative, no reason who, how, when, or why because within the works lies the unassailable argument: Shakespeare's knowledge. Ask the lawyers. Ask the psychologists. Ask the librarians. Ask the historians. Ask the dramaturges. Ask the mathematicians. Ask the Greek scholars. Ask the physicists. Ask the astronomers. Ask the courtiers. Ask the bibliophiles. Ask the Italians. Ask the French. Ask the Russians. Ask the English. Ask everyone. Current academic agreement on a bevy of Shakespearean collaborators springs from an unspoken awareness of how much assistance the Stratfordian presumptive would h