Jenny Kaye wrote
Ellynne G.wrote
- The exact same story really can vary in meaning to different
people.
Yes Dr Havant.
I've had to believe this ever since someone trying to prove this told
a
rather long joke. At the end, everyone laughed. When asked why they laughed, the men said it was because it was the milkman. The women
said,
"Because he's dead!"
Perhaps s/he didn't get the joke and was just laughing because everyone
else
was, and then when pressed had to come up with something. Unless you
the joke that story is pretty useless.
My apologies. I've somehow felt the punchline summarized it so well. And, since I've given it away, I don't know that telling it will help, but here goes -
A woman goes into labor and her husband takes her to the hospital. The doctors hand him this little dial with settings from one to one hundred. It's the latest in pregnancy pain relief technology that allows the father to share some of the pain. Setting 1 is 1%, etc, on up to 100%.
The guy, scared to death what will happen, sets it to 1.
Well, that's not to bad, so he sets it to 2.
Still Ok, so he sets it a little higher.
Before long, he has it up to 100, still feeling perfectly fine.
When he and his wife come home, the milkman is dead on the floor.
There were about 20 people present when the joke was tole and, when polled, we gave the reasons stated.
But why stop there? This is a common element of folklore - the same story means different things to different people. It _has_ to. It's how cultures survive. The stories that help teach alter with what needs to be taught. Or apply it to your personal experience. Aren't there events in your life that you think of with different meanings according to circumstance? The first meeting with a boyfriend may mean one thing when you like him, a different thing when you break up, and something else entirely when you look back on it forty years down the road. Or ever read A Light in the Forest? Two Indians traveling through a colonial village and trying to be friendly tell a joke where the punchline is about a settler being outsmarted by an Indian. The meaning to them is humor and friendly overture, if a bit insensitive. The meaning to the villagers is potential threat and suspicion (it leads to one of the Indians being suspected of a crime and being killed). To a white friend of theirs, it's a red flare that trouble is on the way.
- If you really do believe there can only ever be one right
interpretation, I can help. It's mine. There, doesn't that make life easier for you?
Yes it does for me because I know you're wrong.
Ah, knowledge. An interesting concept. Is this like the conundrum that starts all Martians are liars? Or the one where A is 'B is true' and B is 'A is false'? If I know I am right and you know I am wrong then the average velocity of a swallow is . . . .
- In keeping with the above, I'm sure we all agree the version of
Hamlet
with zombies was definitive, right?
In your head it probably is.
For those who haven't heard me belabor this one before, there's a great essay called (I think) Shakespeare in the Bush, written by an anthropologist working in Africa. Before one trip out to live with a particular tribe, she got into a rather similar argument with another anthropologist about Hamlet. She was of the opinion that there can only be _one_ right interpretation of Hamlet. The friend told her to take a copy along and study it, assuring her time with this tribe would change her mind.
Without belaboring the cultural side effects of the rainy season, she had a lot of time to read Hamlet and was more and more convinced there could be only one right reading - until the day she was asked to share the story with the villagers.
Now, the important point is there was never any argument about _what_ happened. The difference of opinion was over _meaning_.
In their culture, the brother became the new chief before the son. It was also the brother's duty to marry the brother's widow and support her. So much for motivation.
Then came the 'ghost' scene - only their culture didn't have ghosts. For Hamlet to see someone he couldn't touch had only one meaning - a witch was creating an illusion (since Horatio had already had been identified as 'a man who knew things' [a term for a scholar but also for a witch], there was no doubt who was behind it]). Of course, there could be only one logical reason. Horatio knew Hamlet's dad had been murdered but lacked the necessary resources to take on the chief directly, so he picked this indirect means of telling Hamlet (and standing around offering opinions in case Hamlet was a little slow on interpretation).
But, after this, Hamlet goes insane. Now, there were only two things that these people considered causes for insanity one was 'seeing the dark things in the forest' (the anthropologist said this was something Hamlet definitly didn't do) and being under a curse by a witch, obviously Hamlet's uncle who did this to keep him from taking his revenge.
Polonius was, from start to finish, a real idiot in their eyes. For one thing, outsiders had little status in their culture and the family would only profit from Ophelia's association with Hamlet. For another, he had this bizarre urge to test the obvious like whether Hamlet was really insane.
As for Polonius' death, this was a hunting culture. If you heard something in the bush, you cried out 'game' or whatever specific animal you thought it was. If it was George, it was his responsibility to yell out and tell you you were about to kill a human. So, Hamlet behaved perfectly reasonably when he cried out "A rat!" before striking.
Of course, Polonius _did_ cry out, but Hamlet was insane from the king's spell and not responsible when it didn't register.
So, Hamlet's sent away and then _Ophelia goes insane_! Who would put a spell on her? Why?
Well, Laertes. Duh.
With his dad dead, Laertes (who was warned to cut back on the wild living) needs money, fast. He can't do the normal thing in their culture, get Ophelia married and collect a hefty bride price, because everyone knows Hamlet, the future chief, is interested in her. His best option is to kill her and sell her body to the witches. This conclusion was clearly born out by later events. First, Ophelia drowns - and you could _only_ drown if there was a spell on you (people pour water down their throats all the time with no harm. If it kills you, that's proof of supernatural interference). Second, there's the whole funeral scene. Laertes, sick puppy that he is, _jumps into his sister's grave_ and then _tries to grab her body_. Need I say he is obviously up to no good? Luckily, Hamlet stops him (which is why Laertes wanted to kill Hamlet. Thanks to him, he killed his sister for _nothing_).
The king arranges a fight between them, meaning to poison whoever wins (since a witch who can kill his own sister is a serious rival).
And, in case anyone has any doubts, let me point out that Rosencrantz
and
Guildenstern _are_ dead.
Not at the beginning of the play.
Well, that part was facetious.
Although, did anyone actually take their pulse anywhere in the play . . . ?
I have no idea what this all means in terms of B7 except that there may be a culture out there that saw everything Avon and Blake did as totally reasonable and even warm and fuzzy.
Also, I'm getting more and more sympathy for Vila and his failed attempts to defuse conflict with humor.
Ellynne ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
-
Ellynne G.