Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1994 :: May ::
Re: Morality; Knowledge; Polonius; Character; Anne;
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0419.  Tuesday, 10 May 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Barbara Simerka <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 09 May 1994 13:37:24 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: Morality/ Reviewing
 
(2)     From:   Jennifer Saine <SAINE@HWS.BITNET>
        Date:   Monday, 09 May 1994 18:51:31 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0400  Re: New Shakespearean Knowledge
 
(3)     From:   Shawn Smith <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 9 May 1994 19:15:48 -0400 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: Polonius/Corambis
 
(4)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
        Date:   Monday, 09 May 1994 21:29:02 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0414  Re: Character, Doubling, and Acting
 
(5)     From:   Adrian Kiernander <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 May 1994 13:29:14 +1000 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: Lady Anne (and partner)
 
(6)     From:   Nicholas Ranson <R1NR@AKRONVM>
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 May 94 05:46:58 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0393  Re: Lights
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Barbara Simerka <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 09 May 1994 13:37:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Re: Morality/ Reviewing
 
I do not know any of the particulars concerning Alan Sinfield's review.
However, in this or other similiar cases, a recent experience I had might be
enlightening: when asked to review a book by a colleague that I also consider a
friend, I alerted the book review editor concerning our "relationship," and was
informed that in this era of theoretical specialization, it's nearly inevitable
that people who work on the same areas will form friendships, and that to
eliminate those friends would likely require the elimination of most readers
who are familiar enough with the specific field to offer a knowledgeable
reading.
 
Barbara Simerka
Davidson College
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jennifer Saine <SAINE@HWS.BITNET>
Date:           Monday, 09 May 1994 18:51:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0400  Re: New Shakespearean Knowledge
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0400  Re: New Shakespearean Knowledge
 
As an undergraduate student of Shakespeare and a student tutor to adult
learners striving for their GED, I applaud Bill Godshalk.  Yes, we college
students are educated (for the most part) and most of the bloopers might be
perhaps sad, but might be at least our own faults (for not showing up to class,
etc.)  I can and do laugh at my colleagues and my own mistakes--and the
laughter helps prevent future embarrasment, I hope!  I would not, however,
laugh at my adult learners' mistakes for the same, and inverse, reason.  Yes, I
think we students are strong enough to take the stuff of our mentors!
 
Jennifer Saine
William Smith College
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Shawn Smith <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 9 May 1994 19:15:48 -0400 (EST)
Subject:        Re: Polonius/Corambis
 
I'm baffled as to why everyone is so baffled by this. Why would Polonius be "a
name to be avoided when performing the play at Oxford" if it were NOT
satirizing Pullen?  Polonius is a parody of human faults such as hypocrisy,
dishonesty, and verbosity, whether Reynaldo/Rainoldes is hanging about or not,
and regardless of whether Polonius is Pullen, Polus, or H. Ross Perot.
 
I also don't understand the difficulty in associating Corambis with Burghley.
It's much easier for me to see Corambis as a play on "cor unum, via una," than
as an allusion to the proverb that is usually trotted out:  "crambe bis posita
mors est" (though that's not to say it might not be rattling about in there
somewhere).  Wouldn't that make it "Crambis"?
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
Date:           Monday, 09 May 1994 21:29:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0414  Re: Character, Doubling, and Acting
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0414  Re: Character, Doubling, and Acting
 
Although E. L. Epstein names no names, I assume that the question about
"character" is aimed at Terence Hawkes and me, and our desultory quarrel about
"character" in drama. I was using "character" to mean "the presence of
creatures in art that seem to be human beings of one sort or another" (Holman
nad Harmon, s.v. "character"). When I shift the word to human beings, I am on
more nebulous ground.
 
By "character," I meant generally what Norman Holland defines in THE I (Yale,
1985) as "identity" or Lichtenstein as "primary identity" -- "a style of being
which is a structure IN the person" (Holland, 36). And, yes, ever since I read
Plato (many years ago), I have believed in this basic identity. Without this
basic internal structure, learning would be impossible, Holland discusses this
problem in terms of feedback and feedback loops.
 
By "character" I did NOT mean some kind of "moral constitution of the human
personality (Aristotle's sense of ETHOS)," according to Holman and Harmon.
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Adrian Kiernander <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 10 May 1994 13:29:14 +1000 (EST)
Subject:        Re: Lady Anne (and partner)
 
The idea of Lady Anne grieving over her husband's body is not necessarily an
error at all. The Olivier film version of the play cuts and rearranges the text
so that, if I remember correctly, this is precisely what's going on, and I have
a vague recollection that the Colley Cibber version, which was standard up
until the late C19, does the same thing, so there's a substantial performance
tradition behind the practice. The Olivier film also cuts the scene in two so
that the successful part of the wooing is performed somewhat later in time than
the funeral procession.
 
Adrian Kiernander
 
(6)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Nicholas Ranson <R1NR@AKRONVM>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 May 94 05:46:58 EDT
Subject: 5.0393  Re: Lights
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0393  Re: Lights
 
Regarding Ken meaney's interpretation of the candles: I once saw Leavis
"perform" the passage this way in front of 200 undergraduates, using the thumb
and forefinger to mime the snuffing of the wick. Isn't this also the "standard'
reading?
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.