In Who’s afraid of A. C. Bradley? Henry Oliver comes out in favor of “talk[ing] about Shakespeare’s characters as if they were people.” He asserts—rightly!— that if “character criticism” is abandoned, you’ll miss most of what is good and important in the plays.
interesting to think of Fan Fic as an attempt to fully render a favorite character, show them from more angles and answer all those Qs re "what they ate for dinner".
“ In 1966 A. J. A. Waldock (whom I generally admire) warned against “The Documentary Fallacy,” the mistake of thinking
that Hamlet [for example] is a document: that it is a literal transcript of fact: that it somehow records what, at that given time and place, an interlinked set of people said and did. [If this were right,] all the instruments of historical research, all the power of modern psychology, might justifiably be brought to bear ... on every issue raised by the play...A document, preserving by some miraculous means the record of what really took place, would open up endless possibilities of conjecture; not a trifle, not the obscurest detail, but might be the key to the ultimate truth.”
“the documentary fallacy” is perhaps nowhere in evidence and nowhere more pernicious than in Biblical hermeneutics and in our attempts to interpret Scripture, it is ironic that this is so, for perhaps Jesus’ most consistent point of criticism with his disciples and other contemporaries is their ham-fisted literal-mindedness:
cf. Matthew 16:5And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. 6Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. 8Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? 9Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 10Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 11How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
or
John 3:1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
The artist includes what he or she needs. Any perceived omission should be dealt with in this context. The question of Hamlet's legs is unimportant. Even comical, unless the critic finds the omission deliberate or revealing.
interesting to think of Fan Fic as an attempt to fully render a favorite character, show them from more angles and answer all those Qs re "what they ate for dinner".
“ In 1966 A. J. A. Waldock (whom I generally admire) warned against “The Documentary Fallacy,” the mistake of thinking
that Hamlet [for example] is a document: that it is a literal transcript of fact: that it somehow records what, at that given time and place, an interlinked set of people said and did. [If this were right,] all the instruments of historical research, all the power of modern psychology, might justifiably be brought to bear ... on every issue raised by the play...A document, preserving by some miraculous means the record of what really took place, would open up endless possibilities of conjecture; not a trifle, not the obscurest detail, but might be the key to the ultimate truth.”
“the documentary fallacy” is perhaps nowhere in evidence and nowhere more pernicious than in Biblical hermeneutics and in our attempts to interpret Scripture, it is ironic that this is so, for perhaps Jesus’ most consistent point of criticism with his disciples and other contemporaries is their ham-fisted literal-mindedness:
cf. Matthew 16:5And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. 6Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. 8Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? 9Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 10Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 11How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
or
John 3:1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
The artist includes what he or she needs. Any perceived omission should be dealt with in this context. The question of Hamlet's legs is unimportant. Even comical, unless the critic finds the omission deliberate or revealing.