Hamlet is Hamlet; the play is the character as well as the thing in itself; title characters carry more than what they say inside them. Tom Jones is Tom Jones; does it then mean that Tom Jones is Tom Jones? Not necessarily. It is different for Ishmael and Ahab; Moby Dick is Moby Dick; the looming oversoul of the novel. The play subsumes the character and thus for a time, the character is a metonym for the play in its entirety? But Hamlet is Hamlet, just as Othello is Othello, and becomes important to note when the character does not have most of the lines as does Hamlet in Hamlet. You will have to look for how and where this continues; it will not herein now. This functions in the way we say a person is all of the actors in his dream, if you will.
What Has Been Written
Precedes the Essence of Writing
Do we here at The Review intend to examine our social interactions and interogate those who mange their forums? Do we intend to provide commentary and critique of our values, mores, ethos? Yes, we surely do. How could it be otherwise? Isn’t it a compelling logic carried to its conclusion by the premise: ours is a Literary Review? Could I extend any of these questions and answers beyond the limits of this essay? Yes, I could, but I will not, except to say the subjects of our essays range from language and linguistics, to epistemology and ethics, to history and law, to historiography and reading and writing, to painting, sculpture, theater, blogging, the media, et cetera, et cetera. How much more could be said is indeterminable. What is determinable is what gets written when it does get written; the facts around the writing and as a result of having written are the only determinable things about the writing herein. There is no essential writing before the existence of what has been written, what is the writing is only in the writing.
[. . .]
This text has been edited and abridged.