1

Class 12: Theater

2

John Dilworth: “The Fictionality of Plays”Thesis:

A performance or copy of a play does not constitute the fictional world; rather, it represents the fictional world.

Class 12: Theater

3

Class 12: Theater

• What is the relationship between characters and events and the play, Hamlet, itself?

Central Question

Hamlet, Hamlet, and “Hamlet”

4

Class 12: Theater

Hamlet, Hamlet, and “Hamlet” (cont’d)Traditional View

• The characters and the events of the play make up a fictional world, including all the contents associated with the play.

• The world, itself is also fictional, because it is entirely made up of those fictional contents.

• We should identify the play Hamlet with the “Hamlet” fictional world, and thus regard the play Hamlet and the fictional world “Hamlet” as being indistinguishable.

• As such, the play, since it is a fictional world, is made up of those characters and events – so the play is fictional, as are its constituents.

5

Class 12: Theater

Hamlet, Hamlet, and “Hamlet” (cont’d)Problem

• The Traditional View is oversimplified: A fictional world is not an actual or real world, for which it could actually be true that it is made up of things like people and events.

• “[W]e also want to say that the “Hamlet” world, as identified with the play Hamlet, is about its events and characters, so that such a fictional world can also be described as having a certain dramatic structure involving characters and events in complex ways.” (263)

6

Class 12: Theater

Plays and RepresentationsOpposing Intuition

• Some real person (probably William Shakespeare) did actually write the play Hamlet.- So the status of the play Hamlet as a real, existing

cultural entity seems secure.• The undeniable fictionality of the characters and events

portrayed in Hamlet and the undeniable reality of the play seem to provide conclusive grounds for denying that the play could be identified with its corresponding fictional world.

7

Class 12: Theater

Plays and RepresentationsThesis

• Copies and performances of Hamlet are actually representations of the play, rather than themselves being the play, or being tokens or instances of it.- “[T]he printed copy is not the play Hamlet, nor a token or

instance of it, but instead it functions as a textual representation of the play. And similarly, on my view, any performance of “Hamlet” also represents the play, but in a different representational mode, appropriate to its status as a performance rather than as a printed copy of the play.” (264)

8

Class 12: Theater

Walton’s Make-Believe View• Walton argues that works of art are props in games of

make-believe, and a prop is a representation that generates various propositions, which together constitute a fictional world associated with the prop.

• Contra-Walton, a fictional world is made up of the characters and events described in a representation of it (including printed copies and performances), rather than being a set of fictional propositions.- A set of propositions describes the fictional world; it

doesn’t constitute it.

9

Class 12: Theater

Walton’s Make-Believe View (cont’d)• This view does not require any more ontological

commitment than does Walton’s: the fictional world of “Hamlet” is not real, and does not actually exist.

Walton: “What the reader or spectator is to imagine depends on the nature of the work itself, the novel or play; copies or performances serve to indicate what its nature is. So the work is a prop. In the case of Macbeth peculiarities of a particular performance—costumes, gestures, inflections—enjoin imaginings in addition to those prescribed by the work, so the performance is a prop also.” (265)

10

Class 12: Theater

Walton’s Make-Believe View (cont’d)• Walton is partly right: Copies or performances do indicate

(or represent) the fictional world that constitutes the nature of the artwork.

• However, works are not props or representations, but instead they are represented by the concrete copies or performances.

Prescriptivity• Copies and performances of Hamlet are actually

representations of the play, rather than themselves being the play, or being tokens or instances of it.

11

Class 12: Theater

Walton’s Make-Believe View (cont’d)Prescriptivity & Authoritativeness

• As with Walton’s view, the work itself has prescriptive force, but this prescriptive force prescribes not imaginings, but which statements should be taken as being accurate descriptions of the work.

• What qualifies as an authoritative source of information about the work, however, can only be adequately accounted for by invoking facts about certain representations of a work.

• The only authoritative information we have about what constitutes a play such as Hamlet comes from the copies and performances that represent the work.

12

Class 12: Theater

Walton’s Make-Believe View (cont’d)• Certain representations have a privileged status as sources

of information for accurately assessing the content of a work:- Originative Representations: an item penned, typed, or

otherwise produced by the work’s author.• “[A]n originative representation typically provides the

ultimate degree of epistemic authority in assessing the content of a fictional world, whereas nonoriginative representations typically have only a derived authority, depending on their degree of fidelity in accurately copying an appropriate originative representation.” (266)

13

Class 12: Theater

Walton’s Make-Believe View (cont’d)• Walton’s account, in which performances operate as props

(including the costumes, gestures, etc. peculiar to a given performance) is suspect: “the peculiarities of a particular performance have no obvious authority to mandate anything, for they might just amount to ad hoc representations.” (266)

• The peculiarities of a given performance of a work count as contributing to an authoritative or legitimate performance of the work only insofar as they line up with the actual performance history of the play.

14

Class 12: Theater

Walton’s Make-Believe View (cont’d)• “For me it is artworks identified as fictional worlds that

have prescriptive force, whereas for Walton it is instead representations—which, on his view, are artworks—that have prescriptive force.” (266)

• In effect, Walton conflates the epistemic authority of some representations with the idea of prescriptivity of artworks (which hold not for representations, but for the artworks represented).

15

Class 12: Theater

Fictions• References – or apparent references – to fictional entities

are philosophically problematic.- These problems are tied up with the larger issues

concerning the relations between ontology and semantics when references, or apparent references, to nonexistent entities.• Santa Claus• The average American• The present King of France• My future child

16

Class 12: Theater

Fictions (cont’d)• Problems occur when fiction is approached with the same

general solution in mind to the larger problems. • The surface structure of fiction “should be respected an

investigated in its own right, prior to any attempts to explain it, or explain it away, on more generic philosophical grounds.” (267)

• Accounts of fiction are primarily about fictional characters and worlds – all of the other issues about fiction should be seen as ancillary issues.

17

Class 12: Theater

Fictions (cont’d)“Internal” and “External” Approaches

• Internal approaches to fictional characters deal with the fictional world and characters themselves.

• External approaches deal with the characters insofar as they are discussed, evaluated, or compared with other characters or worlds by critics.

- Recall Walton on how critics talk about characters, and how readers talk about characters.

• The majority of theorists presume that the “internal” character and the “external” character are distinct, but this violates the intuition that the same character Hamlet is being referred to in both instances.

18

Class 12: Theater

Fictions (cont’d)• “[T]he identity of the fictional Hamlet with the character

discussed by literary theorists is a central feature of the surface structure of fiction, which has to be respected by any theory of fiction as providing at least an initial or pretheoretical requirement of adequacy for such theories.” (267)

• Given this, there are two possible surface views of fiction:1) Any internal references to a fictional character are

explained by reference to external facts about the character.

2) External references are explained by reference to facts about an internal character: a “fictionalist” view.

19

Class 12: Theater

The Fictionalist View• There couldn’t be any external references to fictional

characters without there already being internal references.• So fictional characters considered internally have a basic

explanatory priority over external views of them.• Internal facts about fictions are what make true any

internal or external statements about them.- The statement that “Hamlet is one of Shakespeare’s most

ambiguous characters” is made true by internal facts about Hamlet and other Shakespearean characters (but statements about the internal facts are not made true by external statements about the play).

20

Class 12: Theater

The Fictionalist View (cont’d)- Factual Justification of Fictional Claims: “[I]f a literary

critic discusses the character Hamlet, the evidence or epistemic factual basis for any claims that she or he makes, whether of an external or internal kind must be provided by internal facts about Hamlet, such as facts about what he says or does in various fictional situations.” (268)

- Differing interpretations of an artwork either (i) involve postulation of different fictional worlds, or (ii) involve differing opinions about the contents of a single fictional world.

21

Class 12: Theater

The Fictionalist View (cont’d)

• There are three stages or levels of epistemic justification of a claim – whether external or internal – about a fiction:1) Lowest Level: A claim about fictional world X is

supported by appealing to relevant facts about X.2) Middle Level: A claim about fictional world X is

supported by appeal to the existence of an authoritative representation Y of X.

3) Highest Level: An authoritative representation Y is supported by reference to the appropriate causal, historical, and intentional connections that qualify Y as authoritative.

Three Levels of Epistemic Justification

22

Class 12: Theater

The Fictionalist View (cont’d)

• It is not anything fictional, but instead either the text, tokens of which are provided by copies of the work, or performances of a work that provide the factual basis for a fictional work.

Objection

• One must distinguish epistemic authority of a text or performance and the prescriptive or factual basis of a play. A text succeeds or fails to be authoritative as a source of information about its fictional characters.

Defense

23

Class 12: Theater

Fictions and the Real World• A fictional world is something genuinely related to the real

world, in that it is typically created by an actual person at a particular time, though the world is, itself, fictional or imaginary.

• Fictional characters have both internal properties (as ascribed or implied in a story) and external properties that they have independently of their internal ones (such as having been created by a particular author at a particular time).

- A claim “Hamlet could have been the second son of the king of Denmark” can be explained as an external statement about Shakespeare ascribing different properties to the character.

24

Class 12: Theater

Fictions and the Real World (cont’d)• Walton’s View: One pretends or make-believes that one

refers to fictional characters: “It is fictional that Hamlet is the prince of Denmark.”

• Contra-Walton: On a surface level, it is possible to refer to Hamlet, but when one character refers to another in the same story, no actual reference occurs.

- The characters aren’t real, so they can’t very well refer to each other.

• “Fictional entities have some different properties and relations from those of real entities, such as being a fictional character or of being incomplete in various characteristic ways.” (270)

25

Class 12: Theater

An Apparent Counterexample• What are we to make of the statement, “Hamlet is a very

popular play”?- Fictionalist View: On a straightforward interpretation,

this statement is equivalent to “The fictional world of Hamlet is a very popular play.”

- However, since evidence for the popularity of the play refers to abundance of performances and ticket sales, this seems to be a statement not about the fictional world, but about the play as a social institution.

- So such statements seem to violate the fictionality of plays thesis.

26

Class 12: Theater

An Apparent Counterexample (cont’d)• Two kind of replies:

1) Strictly speaking, one is talking about representations of the play, rather than the play, itself.

2) The evidence may well support an inference to the popularity of the fictional world that constitutes the play (which is represented by copies and performances).

27

Class 12: Theater

Spatio-Temporal Location and Existence• Amie Thomasson’s View: Fictional characters are existent

but abstract entities, which are abstract primarily because they lack a spatio-temporal location.

- Internally-speaking, Hamlet does have a spatio-temporal location in Hamlet. (Though a fictional character may not be assigned such a thing in a story.)

- Since both internal and external references to Hamlet are references to the same internal fictional character, Hamlet does have a spatio-temporal character.

28

Class 12: Theater

Spatio-Temporal Location and Existence (cont’d)• Amie Thomasson’s View: Characters come into existence on

being created by an author, and go out of existence when no copies or memories of them remain.

- Play and characters do not ever exist.- Artistic creation makes a play or character become

available as an object of reference via its representation by an originative representation.

- “Hamlet does not have the same existential status as other inhabitants of the real world. […] Hamlet can both exist, relative to the fictional world, and not exist, relative to the real world, with similar points applying to the corresponding fictional world.” (271)

29

Questions & Problems(1) Dilworth seems to completely ignore the interpretive

act of the director and actors, which would seem to indicate a more complex relationship between a work and performances of that work.

(2) Could Hamlet (the work) have been represented in different ways (say, in French) and still have been Hamlet? Would French-Hamlet still represent Hamlet?

(3) How can the character Hamlet (and the fictional world in which he lives) both exist and not exist?

(4) How can there be facts about fictional things (which Dilworth argues don’t exist)?

Class 12: Theater

30

James R. Hamilton: “Theatrical Performance and Interpretation”

Thesis:An adequate account of a theatrical performance should not be based on a theory of performance-as-interpretation, for this approach ignores the elements that are of primary importance in evaluating performance.

Class 12: Theater

31

Class 12: Theater

Theatrical Performance and InterpretationCentral Questions1) When is it appropriate to consider a theatrical production or

performance an “interpretation” of a play?2) What is required to consider a production or a performance

an interpretation?3) What advantages, and what kinds of advantages, are there to

considering productions and performances interpretations of the texts in the appropriate circumstances?

4) What drawbacks are there to regarding theatrical productions and performances as interpretations of plays in even the most appropriate circumstances?

32

Class 12: Theater

Theatrical Performance and Interpretation (cont’d)Carroll’s View

• All theatrical performances are, or always should be, construed as interpretations of plays.- The ontology of theater admits of four kinds of objects:

plays, copies of plays, interpretations of plays, and performances.

- Plays and interpretations of plays are type objects, with interpretations and performances as their tokens.

- Interpretations function as both tokens and types (tokens with regard to plays, types with regard to performances).

- Play-types may also be entokened in copies of plays (scripts).

33

Class 12: Theater

Theatrical Performance and Interpretation (cont’d)

34

Class 12: Theater

Theatrical Performance and Interpretation (cont’d)• Some facts are presented in Carroll’s account:

- We do, in fact, identify different scripts, productions, and performances of plays.• Shakespeare’s Hamlet• Olivier’s production of Hamlet• The performance of Olivier’s production of

Hamlet last weekend- We sometimes read plays and we sometimes attend

productions of them.- We sometimes evaluate plays differently when

considering them as texts versus considering them as scripts written for performance.

35

Class 12: Theater

Theatrical Performance and Interpretation (cont’d)• However, based on such facts, we should not presume

there is a set of necessary and sufficient conditions distinguishing theater from the other arts.

• These facts are typical of one tradition of theater, but not all.

36

Class 12: Theater

Ontology, Practices, and History• An ontology of theater generally rises from two views

about ontology:1) We determine the ontology of a theory by determining

the variables ranging over identity in the theory.2) Identity conditions for objects in certain kinds of

theories force a distinction between single-instance objects and multiple-instance objects (standardly, type-token distinction).

• An ontology usually arises where there is a relatively stable set of practices for referring to some thing.

37

Class 12: Theater

Ontology, Practices, and History (cont’d)• “Theater” does not seem to be a natural kind like:

- Chemical elements (gold, hydrogen, einsteinium)- Physical elements (quarks, atoms, electrons)

• Instead, it seems to be found in our referential scope.• Can we specify the difference between theater and other

art forms by distinguishing its necessary medium?- The performer?

• Not necessary: Some theatrical performances only involve movement of props, sets, puppets, and so on.

• Not sufficient: Dance has performers, too.

38

Class 12: Theater

Ontology, Practices, and History (cont’d)- The text?

• This would certainly distinguish theater from dance.• Not necessary: Mime, image theater

- Certain relationships?• “[A]t least typically and quite possibly necessarily, a

theatrical performance is a public event of some kind. At the very least, there seem to be no preexisting nonaudience theatrical performances.” (308)

• Perhaps, then, there are necessary and sufficient conditions for an event’s being a theatrical performance?

39

Class 12: Theater

Ontology, Practices, and History (cont’d)• Perhaps we should look for something less ambitious:

paradigmatic characteristics, rather than necessary and sufficient conditions?- Problem: there are too many sets of paradigms, given

that there are many diverse historical practices and traditions of theatrical performance.

- “Lacking any paradigmatic instance, we are forced back to the disappointing fact that the prospect there could be a single feature or set of features characteristic of (let alone essential to) this historical hodge-podge is pretty remote.” (309)

40

Class 12: Theater

Texts, Performances, and Intepretations• If theatrical performances are to count as interpretations

requires that there be something to interpret.- In the last hundred years or so, this has been a literary

text functioning as a script for a performance.• Rise of the director (auteur theory)

- Prior to this fairly recent period, however, people went to the theater to hear readings of a work.

- “When people commented at all on the performances they saw, those comments went to the skill and presence of the performer and sometimes to her or his ability to get the meaning right, but not to anything having to do with providing alternative meanings for the text.” (309)

41

Class 12: Theater

Texts, Performances, and Intepretations (cont’d)- Change in discourse: Later, it made sense to introduce

critical language to distinguish among text, production, and performance such that productions and performances could be regarded as interpretations.

- What were regarded as competing “illustrations” of a play became competing “interpretations” of a play.

- Problem: On what grounds do we say a performance is a different interpretation, rather than a wrong illustration?

42

Class 12: Theater

Texts, Performances, and Intepretations (cont’d)

- Add discussion of meaning to the changes in theatrical practice, and talk of interpretations seems inevitable.

- Hypothesis: While changes in theatrical practice were occurring, there was a parallel change in academia, where the notion of “literature” was developing:

• The overriding issue seems to concern the meaning of theatrical texts.

• “Along with these developments grew a way of looking at written texts that focused not on how they worked but what (or sometimes how) they meant.” (310)

• Problematically, this hypothesis is not itself rooted in any practices particular to the history of theater.

43

Class 12: Theater

Advantages of the Interpretation Model

- “Surely there are economies to be gained by the strategy or regarding productions and performances as interpretations.” (310)

• Economy of theory:

• If, like Carroll, we regard productions as interpretations, we can align a discussion of theater with one of film.

• Such a theory neatly connects descriptive and evaluative matters with regard to theater.

• If we regard a performance as an interpretation, we can explain why we regard different theatrical performances of the same play as artworks in their own right.

44

Class 12: Theater

Advantages of the Interpretation Model (cont’d)

- “What we would then need […] is a justification grounded in some further substantive facts about historical traditions of production in order to explain why productions, so understood, are or should be at least quasi-independently evaluated, at least in some traditions.” (310)

• Explanatory power: If we deny the interpretive model, why do we evaluate performances in their own right?

45

Class 12: Theater

Advantages of the Interpretation Model (cont’d)

- If you ask most audiences about a given theatrical performance, they will respond by telling you some story.

- What most audiences grasp in so summarizing a theatrical performance is a “structure of meanings”.

• Are there any reasons, particular to theater practice, for regarding productions and performances as interpretations?

• Where two audience members differ in their narrations, it would seem natural to say they differently interpreted what they saw.

• Insofar as their reactions were the same (differing only over different productions) we would say they saw different interpretations of the same play.

46

Class 12: Theater

Advantages of the Interpretation Model (cont’d)- “It seems to me, then, if there are practices of different

productions of play calling forth narrative reactions that differ over productions (holding the text steady), it is entirely appropriate to think of the productions as interpretations of the same play.” (311)

47

Class 12: Theater

Beyond Meaning

- These effects are generally non-cognitive (emotional) as well as physical in nature.

- However, an audiences sense of the power or intimacy of a performance will have little to do with the meaning of the text or even the meaning of the stage action (as specified in the text).

• The tendency is to be committed to a view of theatrical performance in which all or most of the interest is in the production of meanings.

• What is troubling about this tendency is that much of what happens in theatrical performances is explicated primarily in terms of “effects”.

48

Class 12: Theater

Beyond Meaning (cont’d)- “The same line said in the same way can be felt by an

audience in different ways, if it is delivered while the actor is walking toward the audience, across the stage in front of them, or while backing up or walking away from them.” (311)

- These are the sorts of differences that effect our responses to a particular production, and in turn effect our cognitive engagement with a given play.

49

Class 12: Theater

Beyond Meaning (cont’d)- As such, an account of theater concerned only with

meaning loses “the capacity to capture in our theories much of what is really interesting about the actual, important, and complex connections among text, production and performance.” (312)

- So, even when it is appropriate, and at one level completely innocuous philosophically, to regard a production or performance as an interpretation of a play text, we probably should not do so, at least if what we want is an adequate theoretical account of theatrical performance.” (312)

50

Questions & Problems(1) Is a “reading” of a play any less an interpretation than

a “performance” of a play?(2) Can we distinguish the meaning of a text from the

audience’s response to the meaning? Can an adequate account of theatrical performance account for both? Does it need to include both?

(3) Might we, with Barthes, consider the audience’s response an integral part of the work’s meaning?

Class 12: Theater

51

Class 12: Theater