The textual integrity of Hamlet (1 Viewer)

[Rage01]

Hey everyone,

I'd just like to ask anyone here if they could give me some handy pointers, links or personal opinions as to the textual integrity of Hamlet.
I'm having a really difficult time understanding just what it is as every site seems to have different and/or contradicting definitions.

If anyone wants to know, I am looking at this soliloquy (Act 2 Scene 2 - Hecuba....) in particular and how this soliloquy contributes to the textual integrity of the play as a whole.

Thanks

 

[Nicola1616]

My own view is that 'textual integrity' is jargon for 'proove you know the whole play'. I have found many definitions too but have never seen it used really meaningfully. But it is an important part of the module so you have to find a way to wield it. Because you are studying a performance piece you should think about how it contributes to the dramatice action. Does it give the audience the chance to compare Hamlet's real anguish with the demonstration just given by the player? Do it give credence to the device of the play within the play which is to come and creates tension and anticipation? Afterall a play about a hero who can't act could be pretty flat so this introduces some new scheme of Hamlet's which is a counterpoint to the scheming about him. It also give us a glimpse of his despair so we know it still rages within him - just some thoughts
good luck

 

[Rage01]

Thanks for the reply.
The things you said are in line with the way i interpreted textual integrity so thanks.

I just wanted to ask your advice on one more thing.
If i was to write an essay on this play/soliloquy in terms of characterisation, thematic concerns, e.t.c. Would you link the aforementioned things to textual integrity throughout or would you have a separate paragraph just dedicated to textual integrity?

Thanks

 

[Nicola1616]

I think it would be easier to mention the contribution the soliloquy makes to textual integrity as you go so you can say how the themes of the play are heightened, illuminated in the context of the whole and similarly with character - how it drives his character further in terms of his destiny in the plot, thereby contributing to the integrity of whole.
might just make more sense to use it in that way
have fun

 

[fantasy27]

Isn't textual integrity how a play is able to maintain appeal to audiences over a variety of contexts?

 

[Nicola1616]

textual integrity in most deifinitons I've read - on BOS too - equates to something like "how the bits contribute to the whole". The crappiest books I've ever read have bits that contribute to a whole so I think it's just jargon and besides it seems to cause great confusion. I think it would just be to find a term that has some assuption of qualtiy built in or just go back to asking simpler questions like 'how does the composer sustain and build the character of Hamlet throughout the text?' or something.
As to whether it means it's ability to be received in a variety of contexts - if you can say it's great because it's a 'whole thing' that would work but it seems pretty vacuous. I think you can look at how another reading of Hamlet fails to maintain the textual integrity of the original - ie if a feminist reading transforms it into something quite different say - but otherwise I don't think its that helpful as a concept.

 

[Nicola1616]

A definition - "the syllabus defines textual integrity as: The unity of a text; its coherent use of form and language to produce and integrated whole in terms of meaning and value"

So it is an understanig of how the 'bits' contribute to the whole but also fantasy27 is right cause the last word suggets that through the study of textual integrity you come to see the 'greatness' (unity and coherence) of the work and therefore understand how it can transcend time and context.
Here's a conclusion from an exemplar exam response

Student: "Therefore, Quick’s characterisation is resonant and powerful for the insight it gives into Winton’s key concerns. Yet this is so mainly because of the unity with which these concerns, the language and other characters are integrated to convey Winton’s ultimate purpose for the novel. "

And the examiners response: "A sustained, perceptive evaluation is evident through the strong personal thesis that Winton’s characterisation of Quick has enduring power mainly because it maintains integrity with his key concerns."

 

[Nicola1616]

I know I'm replying to myself!!!! But I ran out of room. I just wanted to say that I still think that it is incomprehensible jargon - most students strggle with not some much what it means but how to use it. You can see from the exemplar response I posted that it doesn't take much to use it at all! In fact just say it!

I defy anyone to say how Hamlet's sudden change of character towards Ophelia ruptures the textual integrity of the whole or that the fact that it is so long as to be almost unactable in its current form too, means that Shakespeare failed to maintain textual integrity!

It seems to me that by 'textual integrity' read 'great' and just say that everything you write about contributes to it. As I said a vacuous concept in its application!
phew.

 

[sunsettah]

Hey everyone,

I'd just like to ask anyone here if they could give me some handy pointers, links or personal opinions as to the textual integrity of Hamlet.
I'm having a really difficult time understanding just what it is as every site seems to have different and/or contradicting definitions.

If anyone wants to know, I am looking at this soliloquy (Act 2 Scene 2 - Hecuba....) in particular and how this soliloquy contributes to the textual integrity of the play as a whole.

Thanks

I've got a great handout here I'll just type some stuff from it, it's great.

"There is no such thing as literature, or even 'Shakespeare.' All these hacve bneen constructed by particular groups at particular times to serve particular interests.
There is no such thing as a straightforward, objective or disinterested reading.
Shakespeare is NOT timeless. Shakespeare does not transcend time, or place, or human understanding. He is to be understood in the context of the social, political and idealogical and material practices and social relationships of the ideoligical production, and the reception of his work..
For most of the new perspectives, therefore, the study of Shakespeare is a political enterprise."

It was stressed by my teacher that when Shakespeare was studied, say in 1895, the assumption of traditional studies could be summarised in a short list - and it was done the same by everyone. (Not allowing for different perspectives or interpretations. Eg, a feminist viewpoint, a Marxian viewpoint... a Freudian psychoanalytical reading etc.)

A text is not produced by an author, but by readers, who themselves are 'produced' by social and political forces.
New perspectives frequently attempt to establish their authority by specialised vocabularly (remember this term!) and extensive appeal to theory.

I know it doesn't exactly answer your question, but yeah I was just on here looking for some inspiration for my own essay response to a question I've got at the moment and thought I'd just give a little of what I've got incase I just might be able to help someone else ina similar situation =]

Hope I helped a bit!

 

[Nicola1616]

Hey that stuff looks really interesting!!! Any chance I could read more of it? I don't want you to have to type it all but could you scan it and email it or something - I'd be sooo grateful.
jstanghe@bigpond.net.au
thank you so much

 

[sunsettah]

Hey that stuff looks really interesting!!! Any chance I could read more of it? I don't want you to have to type it all but could you scan it and email it or something - I'd be sooo grateful.
jstanghe@bigpond.net.au
thank you so much

I have only got it in raw copies and i don't have a scanner at home sorry =(

If it helps... It's from a book called 'Teaching Shakespeare" by Rex Gibson...

I have pages 26 to 44.

It's a chapter called "Perspectives" talking about different ways to read Shakespeare, eg. Marxian, Feminist, Psychoanalytical etc =]

 

[Nicola1616]

fantastic thank you!!!!!

 

[llewyn]

fantastic thank you!!!!!

did you happen to find that book?
If so do you have it in an image you could send me
llewyn@hotmail.com
I would really appreciate it if you could

 

[Tastegud]

A definition - "the syllabus defines textual integrity as: The unity of a text; its coherent use of form and language to produce and integrated whole in terms of meaning and value"

Worst. definition. ever.

But it makes sense.

 

[dturner]

Textual integrity is the notion that the text can stand alone as a piece of work, regardless of the texts paradigms, it's social and theoretical practise and it's ability to be understood without reference.

It exists and is understood and although other texts may add meaning to it, they themselves do not make the text.

Thanks everyone, mainly EbonyTW for the definitions of textual integrity. i myself think its a ridiculous term but am glad i have a better understanding of it now

good luck for hsc

 

[I_heart_blue]

i've been told that textual integrity basically means what makes a text great, like its construction and techniques, and what makes it stand throughout time and above criticism