1994

Re: British Weather

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0565.  Thursday, 23 June 1994.
 
(1)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994 20:55:25 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0560  Re: British Weather
 
(2)     From:   Avraham Oz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 23 Jun 1994 08:00:44 +0300 (IDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0560 Re: British Weather
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994 20:55:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0560  Re: British Weather
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0560  Re: British Weather
 
Topic:  The Famous Echo in the Round Reading Room
 
Yes, you should use my name because if you use "Hawkes" everyone covers his
head with his or her newspaper.
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk
 
P.S. Remember the famous expletive in PACO'S STORY.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Avraham Oz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 23 Jun 1994 08:00:44 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: 5.0560 Re: British Weather
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0560 Re: British Weather
 
Dear Terry Hawkes,
 
At the risk of being dubbed an absolute knave let me specify (as a veteran
Round Reading Room echomonger) that the 'Godshalk' echo effect is effective but
north-north-west.At any other corner of that cornerless room one should mutter
'Lenin', to hear the echo coming from seat S16, which is the traditional hoax
(as in Terence F) played upon innocent tourists by local guides as having been
the regular seat of reader Ulyanov (a record of his order slips is available
from centre desk).
 
To Dan Colvin:
 
Please ignore T. Hawkes's weather tips; the guy is known to have insisted on
taking his umbrella to an open air restaurant in the Middle East in the middle
of August. Take your umbrellas, however. Rain in Britain is not a matter of
weather but ideology.
 
A. Oz
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: Soliloquy; Devils; *Tmp.*; Suicides; Hal

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0564.  Thursday, 23 June 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Mary Jane Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 Jun 94 14:00:51 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0550  Re: Hamlet's First Soliloquy
 
(2)     From:   William Proctor Williams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 Jun 94 16:48 CDT
        Subj:   Devils
 
(3)     From:   Phyllis Rackin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994 18:32:41 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0551  Re: *Tmp.*
 
(4)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994 20:47:35 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0556  Re: Suicides
 
(5)     From:   Patricia Gallagher <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994 20:13:06 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   Hal and his companions
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mary Jane Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Jun 94 14:00:51 -0400
Subject: 5.0550  Re: Hamlet's First Soliloquy
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0550  Re: Hamlet's First Soliloquy
 
RE HAMLET'S  " break my heart" . How about...
 
a) the court of Claudius is a dangerous place to express doubts about an
'o'er hasty marriage', even for the heir apparent all ungartered later on.
b) he can't prove a thing about his surmise [ which is ?]- and hasn't
talked to the ghost yet
c) as Prince Hamlet anything he says has political ramifications - and a
trusted friend, Horatio hasn't arrived either - though pat he comes to
break off the soliloquy
d) his Mother has been 'Niobe all tears' so he can't find it in himself to
express his grief or fears publically for fear it may also seem
hypocritical or overdone.
e) Despite the fact that its Claudius who later says'His father lost, lost
his...passing through nature to eternity' that is also the truth of the
matter - and Hamlet recognises that he should be trying to achieve some
equilibrium, however tenuous, as time goes on.
 
and so on . As ever, Hamlet keeps his own counsel when questioned - Mary
Jane Miller
 
P.S. Thanks to all for so many  thought provoking ideas and some bouts of
delighted laughter this past academic year. I'm away for a while but I look
forward to catching up when I return
 
Mary Jane Miller
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Proctor Williams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Jun 94 16:48 CDT
Subject:        Devils
 
This should, I suppose, be sent only to John Cox, but the Devils question seems
to have gotten the list's attention. I have another Devil.  It is in a set of
plays (6) I am editing which were written by Cosmo Manuche (sorry about the
name, but he was English--Merchant Taylors' School and officer in the Royalist
army) three of which were published in 1652 and three of which exist only in
manuscipt.  In any case, in +The Banished Shepherdess+ written in very early
1660 there is a stage devil who not only causes great difficulties for the
other characters but who is also a textual crux.  If anyone, most certainly
including John Cox, wants more information would they please send me a message
off the list.  Send it to the BITNET address not the INTERNET address as I
currently have to pay for the latter out of my own pocket.  Northern Illinois
University is currently the disused off-ramp on the Information Superhighway.
 
William Proctor Williams
Department of English
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL  60115
bitnet:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
internet:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Telephone:  (815) 758-4565
                or
            (815) 753-6608
Fax:  (815) 753-0606
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Phyllis Rackin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994 18:32:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 5.0551  Re: *Tmp.*
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0551  Re: *Tmp.*
 
I think it would be  useful to think about Caliban, not as an actual inhabitant
of a colonized place,  but as an early seventeenth-century representation of
such a person, produced in England for English consumption--i.e., for the
entertainment of compatriots of the people who were actually engaged in
colonizing (stealing land, enslaving its inhabitants, raping indigenous women,
etc.).
 
Native men had far fewer opportunities to rape European women than European
male colonizers had to rape native women.  Moreover, in at least one captivity
narrative written by an American female settler, she expresses her surprise
that her native captors did not attempt at any time to violate her.
Apparently, her experience with European culture had led her to believe that
this would happen, but it didn't.
 
The representation of Caliban as rapist helps to justify the colonial project.
In other words, I think we have to take at face value Miranda's and Prospero's
claims that Caliban tried to rape her.  That's written into the play to prove
that Caliban "deserves" to be enslaved.
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994 20:47:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0556  Re: Suicides
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0556  Re: Suicides
 
I am amused to read John Drakakis's rather romantic accounts of Othello's and
Cleopatra's suicides. But for Drakakis, these are not suicides; they are
murders. Othello kills, not himself, but some secondary identity imposed by
Venice. Drakakis's account of Cleopatra is more complicated, but again the
actor kills the "character." But which character? The Egyptain Cleopatra? No,
the Romanized Cleopatra (I guess).
 
Drakakis says that I believe what I see. But he should know that Americans
believe only one half of what they see, and nothing of what they hear.
 
Cleopatra, of course, is not the romanticized tragic female-character described
by Drakakis. Like Lear, she ends deceived. She is Caesar's dupe. As Cleopatra
deceives Antony by sending word of her suicide, Caesar deceives Cleopatra into
killing herself by sending word (through Dolabella) of her imminent departure
for Rome. With her death, Caesar wraps things up in Egypt, and the time of
universal peace is near. A cynical reading? You bet. But the Cultural
Materialists should love it. It's a story about POWER, not sentimentality.
 
Yours for golden days and purple nights,
Bill Godshalk
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Patricia Gallagher <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994 20:13:06 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:        Hal and his companions
 
In reference to Luc Borot's comments about Hal and his relationship to his
companions. I agree - evil is too strong a word, but I resist calling them
merely non-conformists. They are liars, thieves, and, if we follow Falstaff's
thread far enough ("fodder for cannons"), murderers.
 
Yes, Hal does "know [them] all", and as a result, rejects them and their
principles. And I doubt he sees Falstaff as a father figure. Hal HAS a father;
I think Falstaff shows him how NOT to be a father, and gives him another more
important lesson. By 2HIV, Hal has begun to realize that his father is not as
narrow-minded as he had always assumed.
 
That Hal will ultimately allow one of these "boon companions" to die by the
hangman's noose demonstrates how much regard he has for their system of values.

Re: Similarities

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0562.  Thursday, 23 June 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Mary Ellen Zurko <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Jun 94 08:40:30 EDT
        Subj:   Othello and spouse abuse
 
(2)     From:   Kimberly Nolan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994 16:50:30 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0557  Re: Similarities
 
(3)     From:   Robert George <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994 09:25:09 EST
        Subj:   Similarities
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mary Ellen Zurko <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Jun 94 08:40:30 EDT
Subject:        Othello and spouse abuse
 
Contrary to the recent "Similarities" discussion, the best performance of
Othello that clearly incoported spouse abuse that I have ever seen, cast Iago
as the abuser, and Emilia as the abused. It was a film, directed by Janet
Suzman, using a South African cast (other details escape me). Though I had some
problems in other areas of the performance, for the first time, I found the
character of Emilia to be interesting as a whole, in every scene. Her flashes
of bitterness and subservience finally fit, and she was able to create tension
between a strong, clear Emilia (who emerged in the final scene) and a battered,
confused Emilia.
 
I'd be interesting in hearing what others thought about this and other aspects
of that film.
        Mez
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kimberly Nolan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994 16:50:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 5.0557  Re: Similarities
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0557  Re: Similarities
 
I don't wish to continue this thread of the discussion any longer except to say
that I've read and thought about Othello; I didn't see the connection Friday
night, and I don't see it now.  I was shocked at the initial postings on this
topic, and I'm glad Cary Mazer has the courage to speak up.
 
Kimberly Nolan
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robert George <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994 09:25:09 EST
Subject:        Similarities
 
[Editor's Note: Although I normally do NOT post submissions from people who
are not members of the conference, I found the following of sufficient interest
to send out to all.  --HMC]
 
I hope I am not committing any sort of faux pas, but I stumbled across your
bulletin board by accident (forgive me, I am quite the neophyte).  The comments
from Hamlet to Lady Macbeth to Prospero and the "Lion King" were all
fascinating.  But it is the Othello/O.J. Simpson paralell that made me feel the
urge to contribute.  First and foremost, I will say for the record that I am
what is currently referred to here in the U.S. as an African American.  I say
this only to underscore my following comments.  Mr. Mazer should not feel that
merely because people note the similarity between the two "Os" that it is
necessarily racist.  Barely two days after this sad drama had begun to play out
(before the freeway chase), "Othello" first came in to my mind. (O.J.'s actual
first name is "Orenthal," which is fairly close to his counterpart, if you
think about it.)  The comment to friends was, "Which pretentious reporter will
make the first Othello reference?"  The truth is, however, few journalists have
the intellectual depth to make that comparison (journalists reading this --
consider yourselves one of the few!).
 
The American edition of TIME called this saga "An American Tragedy."  One of
the few times, it seems to me, that the word ("tragedy") has been used
correctly.  The truth is, we rarely see true tragedy anymore.  The Bard's stage
where we were merely players has today become little more than extended soap
opera.  For a brief moment, this is true tragedy, with true human horror and
emotion playing itself out in the public sphere.  But, all too soon (in fact,
it has already begun), the classically tragic elements will be smothered in
late-20th Century psychobabble including: the racial angle, the battered spouse
angle, the pampered athlete angle, the offspring of a single parent angle, and
of course the various legal angles.  The O.J. Simpson story will go the way of
Menendez/Bobbitt/Buattafuoco and goodness knows how many other sorry American
melodramas.
 
Don't get me wrong, many of the social elements are important in today's world,
but it seems to me we've lost something in perpetually dissecting Man to
innumerable influences.  Othello is a tragic hero and remains fixed so in our
minds--flawed, of course, yet heroic nonetheless.
 
A 90s "celebrity" cannot even begin to equal a Shakespearean "hero." Sadly had
O.J. actually killed himself, he might almost have touched the Moor. Now, as he
lives (barring any miracle exoneration), his image wavers.  The difference
between this modern day celebrity and a Bard "hero" is that O.J. Simpson, at
one time, was a hero to many.  He is that no more.  He is now a "fixed" as a
"celebrity" -- famous, infamous, or otherwise. Which begs the question, are
there any heroes today?  Or are they all only mere "celebrities"?  A question
for another time (and probably another place).  I apologize for taking up this
space.  This forum is a good thing.  Never be afraid of saying what you believe
or feel; if it is an observation honestly met, we all learn from your gift.
 
Thank you for your time.
Robert George (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.).

Re: Nudity

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0563.  Thursday, 23 June 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Mary Ellen Zurko <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Jun 94 12:42:03 EDT
        Subj:   Nudity
 
(2)     From:   Phyllis Rackin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994 18:09:56 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0559  Re: Nudity
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mary Ellen Zurko <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Jun 94 12:42:03 EDT
Subject:        Nudity
 
I think that Elise Earthman's posting points out that, in terms of performance
values, female nudity and male nudity may have different impacts. Different
audience members may empathize, and I believe our culture is far more accepting
of nudity in women than men (a while back, wasn't full frontal female nudity in
USA an R, while the same for men was an X? or still is?).
        Mez
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Phyllis Rackin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994 18:09:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 5.0559  Re: Nudity
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0559  Re: Nudity
 
I'd like to propose that we historicize the discussion of nudity/nakedness and
consider differences between the "meanings" (emotional as well as cognitive) an
unclothed body might have had in Shakespeare's time and those that it has for
us.

Re: Shakespeare and Disney

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0561.  Thursday, 23 June 1994.
 
(1)     From:   James P. Saeger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994 10:03:17 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: Shakespearean Disney
 
(2)     From:   Jon Enriquez <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994 09:53:56 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0548  Re: Shakespearean Disney
 
(3)     From:   Tad Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 23 Jun 1994 08:36:34 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0555  Re: Shakespearean Disney
 
(4)     From:   J F Knight <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 23 Jun 1994 23:26:28 +1000 (EST)
        Subj:   [Disney]
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           James P. Saeger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994 10:03:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Re: Shakespearean Disney
 
In reply to William Proctor Williams:
 
I was a bit confused by your suggestion that
 
        Disney is the total negation of what, I think, we are all
        about.  This is more than a joke; it shows, I fear, what the
        study and teaching of Shakespeare has sunk to.
 
Notwithstanding plot similarities that others have noticed, I see Disney (a big
player in the for-profit, mass-market, popular entertainment industry and one
that has produced pieces of enduring cultural interest) as extremely relevant
to Shakespeare.
 
As the members of the list well know, Shakespeare's position as shareholder in
the Chamberlain's/King's Servants made him, along with the company, a big
player in 16th- & 17th-century London's for-profit, mass-market, popular
entertainment industry.  And Chamberlain's/King's, like Disney, produced pieces
of enduring cultural interest.
 
 James P. Saeger
 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 English Dept, U of Pennsylvania
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jon Enriquez <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994 09:53:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 5.0548  Re: Shakespearean Disney
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0548  Re: Shakespearean Disney
 
And here I was thinking that *The Lion King* sounded a lot like *The Spanish
Tragedy*...
 
Jon Enriquez
Georgetown University
ENRIQUEZJ@guvax     (Bitnet)
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tad Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 23 Jun 1994 08:36:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 5.0555  Re: Shakespearean Disney
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0555  Re: Shakespearean Disney
 
Steven Marx and Rick Jones suggest that Disney is not necessarily the enemy. I
have to agree.
 
In my cubicle at work, I have three decorations. One is a poster of the young
Walt Disney standing in a doorway, with the shadow of Mickey Mouse greeting
him. Another is a trading card from Gladstone Publishing, showing a pacing,
ranting Uncle Scrooge (card #15 in the series of Carl Barks' Heroes and
Villains). A third is a poster reproducing the Folio portrait of Shakespeare,
advertising "Mr. William Shakespeares Documentary Life set forth by S.
Schoenbaum and Printed according to the True Originall Copies."
 
Why do I have these on my wall? Because Walt Disney, Carl Barks, William
Shakespeare, and Samuel Schoenbaum are my heroes. Why are they my heroes?
Because they are all MASTERS OF STORY. They can all, in their own way and in
their own chosen medium, produce a "ripping good yarn."
 
Masters of Story and ripping good yarns are hard to come by. Meet them early in
the form of cartoons by Disney and comics by Barks; learn to recognize and
appreciate the Real Thing; and you may go on later to recognize and appreciate
the Real Thing in more "adult" contexts.
 
     Tad Davis
     This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           J F Knight <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 23 Jun 1994 23:26:28 +1000 (EST)
Subject:        [Disney]
 
Am I the only member who is offended by the use of the names Shakespeare
and Disney in such close conjunction?

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.