>The point would seem to be, not whether ghosts and witches existed, but
>whether (provisionally assuming their existence, i.e. the authenticity
>of "witchology," Shakespeare in his uses of witches and ghosts showed an
>understanding of that "ology." I would argue (a) that he did in fact
>show such a deep understanding, and (b) that had he not had such an
>understanding his use of witches and ghosts would have been a defect in
>his poetry. (In fact, what we seem to *mean* by Shakespeare is someone
>who by definition would not make such a mistake -- in context after
>context.)
>
>Two hundred years later Shelley (who did not believe in ghosts and did
>believe in chemistry) was equally careful to understand accurately both
>the principles of chemistry and the principles of the (dead) "science"
>of invoking spirits of the dead. Any inaccuracy in the latter would
>cripple *Ode to the West Wind*. And incidentally, the most famous
>factual error in the history of English literature, Keats's Cortez
>looking at the Pacific, was probably *not* an inaccuracy but a
>precision: the whole poem revolves around seeing, personally for the
>first time, something that *others* (e.g., Balboa, etc) had ALREADY
>seen. Critics always assume that proletarian poets (those who can take
>the dimunitives "Johnny" or "Bobby") are ignorant.
>
>In reference to poetry at least, I think Brad is correct and you are
>wrong.
Carrol, don't be so literal. The point is that the use of a metaphor which is scientifically invalid doesn't render the whole enterprise bankrupt. You can object to Althusser for many reasons, but that ain't one of them.
I'm not going to say anything about Althusser because I haven't read that much of him yet. He's on my list. Whatever you think of him, though, he's worth reading for his influence alone. I know one's reading time is limited, but it's sad when people look for excuses not to read a writer or a whole genre.
Doug