Advertisement

Mindreading as Engagement: Active Spectators and “The Strangers’ Case”

  • Nicholas R. Helms
Chapter
Part of the Cognitive Studies in Literature and Performance book series (CSLP)

Abstract

Helms argues that mindreading is an engaged process for readers and spectators, for they risk becoming implicated in the creation of characters. While much mindreading can occur automatically and unconsciously, both inference and imagination draw upon the mindreader’s own knowledge and experiences to flesh out the target of mindreading. As such, all literary characters are constructed, in part, from a mindreader’s own mind. Helms illustrates this engagement through Shakespeare’s “The Strangers’ Case,” a monologue that Shakespeare added to Munday and Chettle’s Sir Thomas More. In the monologue, Thomas More uses inference and imagination to persuade a riotous, xenophobic crowd of Londoners to lay down their weapons and adopt the perspectives of the strangers in their city. Shakespeare depicts the power of mindreading to quell strife and to promote compassionate thought.

Bibliography

  1. Brecht, Bertolt. The Messingkauf Dialogues. London: Methuen and Co Ltd., 1965.Google Scholar
  2. Brook, Peter. The Empty Space. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. Cook, Amy. Shakespearean Neuroplay: Reinvigorating the Study of Dramatic Texts and Performance Through Cognitive Science. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.Google Scholar
  4. Dehaene, Stanislas. Reading in the Brain: The Science and Evolution of a Human Invention. New York: Penguin Group, 2009.Google Scholar
  5. Dillard, Annie. The Writing Life. New York: HarperCollins, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the Absurd. 3rd ed. New York: Vintage Books, 2004.Google Scholar
  7. Helms, N.R. “Why So Serious?” Vanishing Sights. Edited by Alaina Jobe Pangburn, September 2010.Google Scholar
  8. ———. “‘Upon Such Sacrifices’: An Ethic of Spectator Risk.” Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism 27, no. 1 (Fall 2012): 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hogan, Patrick Colm. Cognitive Science, Literature, and the Arts: A Guide for Humanism. New York: Routledge, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jowett, John, ed. Sir Thomas More. New York: Arden Shakespeare, 2011.Google Scholar
  11. Nussbaum, Martha. Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  12. Reddy, Michael J. “The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language About Language.” In Metaphor and Thought, edited by Andrew Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Edited by Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor. London: Arden Shakespeare, 2007.Google Scholar
  14. Spolsky, Ellen. Gaps in Nature: Literary Interpretation and the Modular Mind. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. Zamir, Tzachi. Double Vision: Moral Philosophy and Shakespearean Drama. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas R. Helms
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA

Personalised recommendations