Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1994 :: November ::
Re: Studies of Renaissance Drama
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 946. Wednesday, 23 November 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Jan C. Stirm <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 22 Nov 94 10:25 PST
        Subj:   Ren. Drama reading...
 
(2)     From:   David Levine <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 22 Nov 1994 18:36:03 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0938 Re: Studies of...
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jan C. Stirm <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 22 Nov 94 10:25 PST
Subject:        Ren. Drama reading...
 
Hi all,
 
I've been finding the recent posts about readings for early modern drama really
interesting, and perhaps a little surprising.  Three relatively recent books
I've enjoyed are Kail Kern Paster's *The Body Embarrassed: Drama and the
Disciplines of Shame in Early Modern England* and Richard Halpern's *The
Poetics of Primitive Accumulation*.  (I'm cheating a bit on the latter: it'd
interested in other than dramatic lit. also.) Also Ania Loomba's book on Race
and Gender (the title escapes me for the moment, but a glance at Books in Print
will be enough for anyone interested.)
 
I was told (not so very long ago) to keep an eye on the SEL drama-crit review
every year, and find that it gives me a basic idea of what's out there, and
more specifically, what I might want to focus on.
 
It would be fascinating to hear, as people submit their suggestions, what they
find attractive about the books their suggesting--and I hope those who suggest
more canonical criticism will also help out here.
 
Peace, Jan Stirm (
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 )
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Levine <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 22 Nov 1994 18:36:03 -0500
Subject: 5.0938 Re: Studies of...
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0938 Re: Studies of...
 
I like this thread!  How about Dessen's Elizabethan Stage Conventions and
Modern Interpreters?  Wilbur Sanders's The Dramatist and the Received Idea
(older, that one).  Of course, the Bevington book is fine, but I thought we
were leaving out the dedicated Shakespeare stuff.  I like Peter Levi's
Shakespeare bio, though it caught some flack when it came out, but I'm
prejudiced because he's a friend.  I still recommend it to friends teaching
first Shakespeare courses because his critical perveptions are shrewd, and his
style is delightfully idiosyncratis and he did his homeowrk even if he's not a
professional renaissance scholar.  I like Hawkes's earlier book, but not the
more recent.  I dislike that whole Dollimore, Evans, Holderness, Sinfield crew
(though Sinfield's book on postwar English culture is a good book).  I don't
much see how you can like and take seriously the Vickers book (which is superb)
and continue to take those clowns seriously.  I am an abrasive fellow, but, as
I said, I'm not a professional academic anymore and can say anything I like.
 
The classics of course, remain classics.  There is a reason they are classics.
Even the most wrong-headed Wilson Knight essay might just be worth reading for
the heuristically useful disagreement it engenders.  And we can mock Bradley's
approach all we like, but isn't the book still in print?
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.