1994

Re: New Shakespearean Knowledge

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0400.  Friday, 6 May 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Kimberly Nolan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 05 May 1994 11:16:09 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Teaching & New Knowledge
 
(2)     From:   Michael Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 5 May 1994 08:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0397 Re: New Shakespearean Knowledge
 
(3)     From:   Gloria Wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 5 May 1994 12:04:58 CST6
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0397  Re: New Shakespearean Knowledge
 
(4)     From:   Joseph Lawrence Lyle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 5 May 1994 13:24:58 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0397  Re: New Shakespearean Knowledge
 
(5)     From:   William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
        Date:   Thursday, 05 May 1994 13:50:43 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Laughter
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kimberly Nolan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 05 May 1994 11:16:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Teaching & New Knowledge
 
While I too am uncomfortable making fun of student's work, I am equally
uncomfortable with placing the blame for for poor exam performance entirely
on an instructor's over burdened shoulders.  One can't properly teach
students who don't come to class, don't read the material, or sleep through
class because they were out all night at a frat party.  Things aren't
quite as formulaic as Bruce Avery makes them out to be.  I wish they were;
we'd all get to read better exams and give fewer Ds and Es.
 
Kimberly Nolan
U of Miami
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 5 May 1994 08:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 5.0397 Re: New Shakespearean Knowledge
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0397 Re: New Shakespearean Knowledge
 
I already responded to the author who proposed that publishing student bloopers
was unfair and unprofessional, and I thought to let it lie, but with the sudden
rush (okay--two messages) agreeing with this view, I thought I would share my
counter argument.
 
First, it is not clear to me that anonymous reports of student blunders hold
ANYONE up to ridicule. I think we are being more than over-sensitive here.
 
Second, we don't share all student blunders; we share the FUNNY ones. Why?
Because WE enjoyed them; they lightened our day (after a grueling time reading
essay after essay, all on the same topic). Funny bloopers have, in fact, become
a commercial genre, with TV specials devoted to them, books, columns in
magazines. I don't want to be ridiculed by name because I made a typo, but if I
make a howlingly funny blunder in my e-mail, and it gets passed on (without
personal attribution, of course),I would probably feel both embarassed AND
honored. And, after the initial sting, only honored.
 
Third, the mistakes that our students make can be VERY instructive; they show
us when and in what way our teaching has gone awry. As such, these compilations
are a charming way for us to learn what works in the classroom and what
doesn't.
 
I would suggest that those who feel we have violated our poor students by
sharing their miscues to relax a little. No one has been harmed, many have been
amused, and some of us have learned something. I am much more concerned about
teachers who can't find any joy in teaching at all.
 
End of flame...
 
Michael E. Cohen
a.k.a. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gloria Wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 5 May 1994 12:04:58 CST6
Subject: 5.0397  Re: New Shakespearean Knowledge
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0397  Re: New Shakespearean Knowledge
 
I have thoroughly enjoyed the student bloopers. I have taught in both high
school and college settings for a number of years and I have the greatest
respect for both the novice writer/reader and the teacher.  It takes somewhat
of a scholar to appreciate the humor in such bloopers, and it is more of an
intellectual chuckle between oneself and other professionals who appreciate the
subject matter than a reproach to the student.  I remember such instances of my
own students' writing with fondness for both the occasion and the student.
 
GLORIA R. WILSON
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.         This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joseph Lawrence Lyle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 5 May 1994 13:24:58 -0400
Subject: 5.0397  Re: New Shakespearean Knowledge
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0397  Re: New Shakespearean Knowledge
 
We all know people who recount their students' failures with a bit too much
glee:  whether they do so because they enjoy feeling superior or because they
need to mask insecurity resulting from failure to teach as well as they like,
it's disturbing.  The several people who point this out are quite right to do
so.
 
But let's not get carried away.  If a student spells "throne" "thrown," it's
amusing.  It's sad, of course, and we should all work as hard as we possibly
can to correct this sort of thing, and we should all remember that someone
somewhere along the line has done the student a very grave disservice.  While
we cannot forget our responsibility, nor can we make ourselves eternal martyrs.
 "In this scene, Hal reveals his manhood to Falstaff." Ha!
 
Jay Lyle
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
Date:           Thursday, 05 May 1994 13:50:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Laughter
 
Laughter at willful ignorance is not inappropriate. Most of us are talking
about university or college students, students who have the ability to read, to
study, to remember. As a teacher, I do my best to encourage my students to do
all three. I give them study guides. I give them quizzes that lead to revelant
class discussions. I have them write short papers every other week, and so on.
If my students refuse to read carefully and study the material, it is not my
fault. Students must ultimately be responsible for their own education. But we
teachers invest a lot of our energy, time -- you name it -- in the process,
and, when our students don't do the work, don't learn the material, we are
hurt. We are hurt because our students are negligent. And so some of us turn to
satire. I assume that we do not personally satirize our students. There is
nothing wrong in the general satire of willful ignorance.
 
Now, what about our own bloopers? Bernice warns us to humility. (I remember
with blushes when I forgot that Aragon is in Spain!) Of course, our pride is
not above satire, is it? How many satires of academic life are available in the
local library? I won't venture to guess.
 
Reverence is not my bag.
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk

Re: Polonius; Orsino; Lights; Teaching

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0399.  Thursday, 5  May 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Stephen Orgel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 4 May 1994 14:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0394  Qs: Polonius's Name
 
(2)     From:   William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
        Date:   Wednesday, 04 May 1994 17:35:45 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: Orsino as Character
 
(3)     From:   William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
        Date:   Wednesday, 04 May 1994 17:32:13 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: Lights on Stage
 
(4)     From:   Constance Relihan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 5 May 1994 06:45 CST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0393  Re: Teaching
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephen Orgel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 4 May 1994 14:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 5.0394  Qs: Polonius's Name
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0394  Qs: Polonius's Name
 
Re Polonius: he is not Corambis in the source, whatever that may be, but in Q1,
where Reynaldo is also Montano. The most plausible explanation is given by
Hibbard in the Oxford Shakespeare introduction, p. 74-- that Q1 derives from a
performing version for Oxford: Polonius would be the Latin version of Pullen,
founder of the university, and Reynaldo that of John Rainoldes, head of Corpus
Christi, the notorious anti-theatrical pamphleteer. These would therefore be
names to be avoided.
 
S. Orgel
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
Date:           Wednesday, 04 May 1994 17:35:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Re: Orsino as Character
 
Terence Hawkes tells us that Orsino does not exist and has no character. I say
that Orsino IS a character, and he exists every time TN is performed. I know.
I've seen him with my own eyes, and heard him too.
 
Yours, naively, Bill Godshalk
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
Date:           Wednesday, 04 May 1994 17:32:13 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Re: Lights on Stage
 
My friend Keith Brown has an interesting essay on lighting, "More light, more
light," ESSAYS IN CRITICISM, 34 (1984), 1-13, where he notes, "even before
October was over the autumn sun would actually have been below the horizon
before the end of many afternoon playhouse performances" (2). And so, when
OTHELLO was performed at the Globe (and I assume that it was), the last act
would have been done in comparative darkness. When Othello blows out the
candle, the audience may hear more than it sees. Keith meditates on these
possibilities -- as darkness falls in the playhouse.
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Constance Relihan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 5 May 1994 06:45 CST
Subject: 5.0393  Re: Teaching
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0393  Re: Teaching
 
Re: Peter Novak's remarks about an ASL videotaped version of _Tempest_ 1.2.
 
Is the tape widely available? Can you provide the list with information on
obtaining it? My advanced Shakespeare class will be discussing _Tempest_
in three weeks (while all you folks who are not on the quarter system are
already basking on the beach), and I think they'd find it fascinating.
 
--Constance C. Relihan
Auburn University

Re: New Shakespearean Knowledge

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0397.  Thursday, 5  May 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Bernice W. Kliman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 4 May 1994 11:30 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0384  Re: New Shakespearean Knowledge
 
(2)     From:   Bruce Avery <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 4 May 1994 13:01:06 -0800
        Subj:   Re- New Shakespeare
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bernice W. Kliman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 4 May 1994 11:30 EDT
Subject: 5.0384  Re: New Shakespearean Knowledge
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0384  Re: New Shakespearean Knowledge
 
I think that all we have to do is look back at some of the wonderful bloopers
in our own e-mail transmissions and we might be a little less willing to laugh
at our students. I *did* laugh, but it's not a laugh I enjoyed.  Sorry to be
a spoil sport.
Bernice W. Kliman
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bruce Avery <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 4 May 1994 13:01:06 -0800
Subject:        Re- New Shakespeare
 
To John Boni:
I agree with your caveat about making fun of students.  I've always felt that
if my students don't know something I tried to teach them, the fault is mine,
not theirs.   Ridicule slung at them is only a way of laying the blame for
one's own failures someplace else, as if we were villains on necessity; fools
by heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and treachers, by spherical
predominance, and failed teachers because of MTV.  And yes, I'm more than happy
to be a wet blanket, if it means smothering flames like these.  If students
don't know anything, it's because they haven't been taught.  We're teachers.
Causality pretty clear in this case, no?
 
Soddenly yours, Bruce Avery

Re: Doubling

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0398.  Thursday, 5  May 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Nick Clary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 04 May 1994 14:46:32 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Doubling in HAMLET
 
(2)     From:   William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
        Date:   Wednesday, 04 May 1994 17:08:53 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Tripling a character
 
(3)     From:   J F Knight <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 5 May 1994 12:40:11 +1000 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0391 Re: Doubling
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Nick Clary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 04 May 1994 14:46:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Doubling in HAMLET
 
Now that HAMLET has been pulled into the doubling question, let me mention the
Kabuki version done by the Tokyo Globe Company in 1991.  In this production,
the same actor plays Hamlet, Ophelia, and Fortinbras; a second actor plays
both Claudius and the Ghost of Hamlet's father.  The cast included 15
performers and 12 musicians.  I might note that the repertoire included
versions of KING LEAR and FALSTAFF, for which there were no doublings at all.
As I noted in an earlier posting, Kabuki began in 1603, according to the
program, "when a foxy little nun by the name of Okuni left her life of nunnery
at Izumo Grand Shrine behind and went to the big city of Kyoto with a group of
like-minded fellow nuns to become stars of the riverbed....These ladies were
so far out that nobody could describe them with a proper word, so the slang
verb 'kabuku' came to be used in its noun form 'kabuki' to describe them.  The
word meant 'leaning far over to one's side' or, as we would say today,
'avant-garde.'"  HAMLET, of course, was not in the first kabuki repertoire.
 
Nick Clary
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
Date:           Wednesday, 04 May 1994 17:08:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Tripling a character
 
Some years ago, Word Baker (I think that is his name) directed a production of
Marlowe's EDWARD II at the University of Cincinnati. He had three different
actors playing Edward, and all three were on stage at the same time: a
hetersexual, a homosexual, a female -- the three aspects of Edward (said Mr.
Baker). Each actor had a section of the stage as his/hers, and Baker himself
"directed" who would speak the lines. It varied for each performance. The
homosexual aspect/actor was "killed" in the obscene parody of homosexual love
(to paraphrase Empson). Or so it was the night I saw it, and I assumed that
Baker always directed him to "die."  I could be wrong.
 
The audience was also on stage, and each auditor had to sit with someone he/she
didn't know. The auditors were also encouraged to become actors at certain
times during the play, esp. battle scenes.
 
This is a twenty year old memory, but I recall that I was not disturbed by the
character of Edward being "tripled." Needless to say, however, this was a
strange night at the theatre.
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           J F Knight <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 5 May 1994 12:40:11 +1000 (EST)
Subject: 5.0391 Re: Doubling
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0391 Re: Doubling
 
Best doubling I ever saw was Judy Davis as both Cordelia and the Fool
with John Bell (I think it was) as Lear.  Pomo or no, having his daughter
come back to tweak him with his humanity added an extraordinary
gender / patriarchy yarchy dimension to the interaction - and
then, of course, as Lear achieved wisdom, the Fool died.  Very nice.

Comment: SHK 5.038

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0396.  Thursday, 5  May 1994.
 
(1)     From:   David Evett <R0870%This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 04 May 1994 11:42 ET
        Subj:   Masks
 
(2)     From:   William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
        Date:   Wednesday, 04 May 1994 17:20:41 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0390  Re: Masks
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <R0870%This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 04 May 1994 11:42 ET
Subject:        Masks
 
No reason why masks should be regarded differently from any other physical
element of dramatic production--sets, costumes, lights, space.  It's always
going to depend on how good they are, how well they're used, how fully the
particular advantages and limitations they offer cooperate with all the other
theatrical decisions, about text choice, cuts, casting, pace. . . .For modern
audiences, it would seem to make best sense to use them in plays where
questions of identity and role are most urgent--I can imagine them working
wonderfully in <Richard II> or <Troilus and Cressida>.  But of course
questions of identity and role are pretty ubiquitous in this oeuvre.  Early
modern spectactors would have been familiar with masks at both ends of the
social spectrum--commedia and jig, in popular entertainment, the masque for
aristocrats; hence, I suppose, the readiness with which they are used in <LLL>
and <MND>.  As I write this I am suddenly wrestling (not, to be honest, all
that strenuously) with the semiotics of a masked production of one of those
plays in which the actors appear with naked faces in the masking scenes.  In
those scenes, of course, the masks serve to conceal the maskers from
themselves but not from the onlookers, a point which seems to me entirely
relevant to the question whether they can appropriately be used in
contemporary productions. So I say plunge in, have a splash, and report to us
on what happens.
 
                                                      David Evett
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
Date:           Wednesday, 04 May 1994 17:20:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0390  Re: Masks
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0390  Re: Masks
 
Skip Shand's question about masks interests me. I've noticed recently in
Victorian literature (or "texts" if you please) that the characters will now
and again appeared masked -- without any apparent incongruity. And I began
thinking about Renaissance masking. Of course, we know that ladies masked in
the sun to keep their complexions nice and white. (Did women who weren't
"ladies" mask in the sun? I don't know.) And we know about the tradition of
masking/masquing. How wide spread was the practice of masking? And what did it
"mean"?
 
I don't have any answers; I'm just curious.
 
Curious Bill Godshalk

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.