Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1993 :: October ::
Re: "Versions" of *Coriolanus*
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 689.  Saturday, 30 October 1993.
 
(1)     From:   Ed Pechter <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 29 Oct 1993 09:45:39 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0681  Re: "Versions" of *Coriolanus*
 
(2)     From:   Ed Pechter <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 29 Oct 1993 10:04:51 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0681  Re: "Versions" of *Coriolanus*
 
(3)     From:   David Richman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 29 Oct 1993 11:40:54 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   RE: SHK 4.0681  Re: "Versions" of *Coriolanus*
 
(4)     From:   William Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 29 Oct 1993 23:05:53 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0681  Re: "Versions" of *Coriolanus*
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Pechter <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 29 Oct 1993 09:45:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 4.0681  Re: "Versions" of *Coriolanus*
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0681  Re: "Versions" of *Coriolanus*
 
Terence Hawkes is in denial.  "Not guilty"?  Who is he kidding?  Would
William Godshalk have written on September 22 if Hawkes had not earlier
written *Meaning by Shakespeare*?  Though Hawkes shouldn't have to
shoulder the whole blame.  It goes back to Shakespeare.  Or Plutarch.
Or . . .
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Pechter <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 29 Oct 1993 10:04:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 4.0681  Re: "Versions" of *Coriolanus*
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0681  Re: "Versions" of *Coriolanus*
 
Jason Hoblit says he's not trying to deny the usefulness of the concept
of the author, but it seems to me that's exactly what he's trying to
do later on when he talks about the problems of interpretation
generated on the values of authentic originals.  When Foucault talked
about "the author function," he was trying to describe the way the
idea of the author served to regulate interpretation.  Foucault
thought there were more interesting and useful ways of regulating
interpretation.  I think that's right.
 
A case in point:  Now that a consensus is emerging that Middleton
wrote *The Revenger's Tragedy*, interpretation of the play has tended
to domesticate it to a normalizing concept of the coherence and stability
of the Middletonian canon.  Too bad.  I'm convinced Middleton wrote
the play, but given the interpretive consequences of a criticism still
basically centered in the idea of coherent authorship, it might have
been better off left to Tourneur who, since so little is known about
him, approximates authorlessness or anonymity.
 
I go back to grading now (this should explain my longwindedness today,
even if it doesn't justify it).
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Richman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 29 Oct 1993 11:40:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 4.0681  Re: "Versions" of *Coriolanus*
Comment:        RE: SHK 4.0681  Re: "Versions" of *Coriolanus*
 
At this point in the discourse, I feel the need for a little leavening levity.
Charles Ludlum has one of the characters in (*Stage Blood* state:
"The plays of Shakespeare were not written by Shakespeare, but by another
playwright of the same name."
 
"How now, interjections?  Why, then, some be of laughing, as, ah, ha, he!"
 
Cheers,
David Richman
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 29 Oct 1993 23:05:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 4.0681  Re: "Versions" of *Coriolanus*
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0681  Re: "Versions" of *Coriolanus*
 
To Terence Hawkes: mea culpa.
 
To Dennis Kennedy: credos are religious - and aesthetic. Forget ideology - and
put color in your life.
 
To Jason Hoblitt: we have a lot to talk about, and probably very little
disagreement.
 
But it's late, and it's Friday, and I'm going to read some Marcus Didius
Falco and drink some wine.
 
Goodnight, Bill Godshalk
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.