1993

Re: Shakespeare and Educational Establishments

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 696.  Sunday, 31 October 1993.
 
From:           William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 30 Oct 1993 22:59:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 4.0691  Re: Shakespeare and Educational Establishments
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0691  Re: Shakespeare and Educational Establishments
 
One of my students, Melina Daly, from Argentina was educated in the afternoons
(she says) at an English school. Each year they studied one or two Shakespeare
plays in depth. She claims that Shakespeare was central to her study of
English. Anecdotal, yeah, but maybe suggestive?
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk

Authorative Texts

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 695.  Sunday, 31 October 1993.
 
From:           William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 30 Oct 1993 22:49:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Authorative Texts
 
Jason Hoblit has, I think, misunderstood my point about texts. I don't think I
used the words "standard" or "authorative." Nor was I arguing that directors
should not cut scripts, or that innovative customing and staging are anathema.
No, I was merely pointing out that an adaptation like Dryden's ALL FOR LOVE
should not be considered Shakespeare's ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA. I take it that
Cary Mazer would not agree. Apparently Kemble and Olivier should be seen in
historical context, and Shakespeare should not.
 
I'm certainly not agruing that Shakespeare can't be appropriated. Terence
Hawkes proves that he (or at least his plays) can. Certain people consciously
appropriate Shakespeare for various reasons. Hawkes and Vickers among others
are very interested in the processes of appropriation.
 
In "The Materiality of the Shakespearean Text," Margreta de Grazia and Peter
Stallybras (SQ 44 - current issue) exaggerate the problems of recovering
historical texts. They set up an ideal of recoverability (if I may use that
word), and prove that that ideal can not be obtained. Of course we can't
recover the past and live in it. That's why we write history, and argue about
what it must have been like in an early modern printing house.
 
And as Grace Ioppolo, REVISING SHAKESPEARE, has emphasized along with Steve
Urkowitz and others, Shakespeare was a reviser. Fifty years ago, teachers of
English told their students that Shakespeare never blotted a line, never
revised. Now some scholars claim that we have three distinct texts of HAMLET.
Which one may be called standard or authoritative? Q1 is still hotly contested,
but Q2 and Folio are not.
 
But weren't Shakespeare's texts copied, and edited, and revised, etc.? Well,
aren't contemporary texts also subject to editing, to readers who demand
changes, to printers who make errors that are not caught? When we read Rick
Powers' latest novel, do we say, "This really isn't his work. It's been edited,
and I'll bet some of his friends read the book in manuscript and suggested
changes, etc."? I don't because I expect editing and revision and a certain
number of proofing errors.
 
In working with Shakespeare's texts, we do the best we can. Standards change,
and so do editing procedures. Nevertheless, Tom Stoppard is not Will
Shakespeare, but then neither was the 17th Earl of Oxford.
 
Yours in flux, Bill Godshalk

Re: SHAKSPER FAQ

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 693.  Sunday, 31 October 1993.
 
(1)     From:   Nancy W Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 30 Oct 93 8:50:10 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0692  Q: A SHAKSPER FAQ
 
(2)     From:   Vint Cerf <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 30 Oct 93 13:16 GMT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0692  Q: A SHAKSPER FAQ
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Nancy W Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 30 Oct 93 8:50:10 EDT
Subject: 4.0692  Q: A SHAKSPER FAQ
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0692  Q: A SHAKSPER FAQ
 
I second Michael Sharpston's motion to start up an FAQ.  As a new Shakesperean,
I (for one) would find such an endeavor very useful.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Vint Cerf <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 30 Oct 93 13:16 GMT
Subject: 4.0692  Q: A SHAKSPER FAQ
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0692  Q: A SHAKSPER FAQ
 
Michael, et al,
 
I think a SHAKSPER FAQ might be quite helpful - I imagine, however, that if it
is not indexed by WAIS or organized by gopher, it may be a rather tedious
document to peruse. Have you given some thought to how the potentially large
quantity of information contained in such an FAQ might be organized?
 
Vint Cerf
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: *Hamlet* on CBC

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 694.  Sunday, 31 October 1993.
 
From:           Joan Hartwig <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 30 Oct 93 10:54:03 EDT
Subject: 4.0690  Re: *Hamlet* on CBC Radio
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0690  Re: *Hamlet* on CBC Radio
 
Kenneth Branagh's audio *Hamlet* was on sale for 15 pounds at the Barbican when
I was in London last January.  It is on four audio cassettes and the package
says to write to Random Century Audiobooks, 20 Vauxhall Bridge Road, London
SW1V 2SA for information on titles.  This must be the same production that
the CBC is broadcasting=original radio recording BBC 1992.  Playing time approx
3 1/2 hours.

Q: A SHAKSPER FAQ

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 692.  Saturday, 30 October 1993.
 
From:           Michael Sharpston <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 30 Oct 1993 12:16:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        How About a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)?
 
It has been on my mind for some time to ask my electronic colleagues whether or
not it would be appropriate to have a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) for
SHAKSPER.  This would be very much in the Internet tradition, and could be most
helpful, particularly but not exclusively for new SHAKSPERians.
 
I do realize that there are libraries full of books about Shakespeare and that
the selection process for a FAQ would be a great challenge.  But it could be
rewarding.  For example, I suspect I missed some of the texture of the
Shakespeare and Politics debate by being so politically uncorrect that certain
references passed me by.  (At the same time, whoever might do an FAQ, PLEASE be
dispassionate not partisan about the controversies you mention!).
 
My belief this could be worthwhile was great enhanced by reading Bill Loos
(Harvard) and his FAQ for the Tolkien group on LISTSERV @JHUVM.HCF.JHU.EDU --
this is of course a more august, academically serious forum, but perhaps the
idea is still worth consideration.  Even a well-considered rejection could, in
the process, shed interesting light on how the traditions of Shakespearian
scholarship and of Internet should intermingle.
 
Michael Sharpston
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.