Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1995 :: April ::
Re: Don John and Q; More on *Mac.*; *Titus*
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0335.  Monday, 24 April 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Shirley Kagan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 22 Apr 1995 15:29:02 -1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0321 Re: Don John.
 
(2)     From:   Scott Shepherd <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 22 Apr 1995 18:03:42 -0400
        Subj:   Still More *Mac*
 
(3)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 23 Apr 1995 14:52:42 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0332  Qs: *Titus*
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Shirley Kagan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 22 Apr 1995 15:29:02 -1000
Subject: 6.0321 Re: Don John.
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0321 Re: Don John.
 
A thanks and a request:
 
I would like to thank Mr. Gero for his insightful comments on Don John. From a
production point of view I think they make a lot of sense and would certainly
give an actor something to latch onto.  This is all preamble to my request: I
will be directing *Much Ado* as an outdoor, low budget production to be staged
in Honolulu this August.  I would love it if anyone would care to share
stories, ideas and anecdotes from productions they have participated in, seen
or heard about.  August seems a long way away and I would like to get the
creative juices flowing. Please respond either through the list or privately to
me:
 
Shirley Kagan 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
 
Thank you.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Scott Shepherd <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 22 Apr 1995 18:03:42 -0400
Subject:        Still More *Mac*
 
Let's at least agree on this:
 
--> Macbeth fought an army led by Norway.
 
No matter what you think about Bellona's bridegroom, we know "The Norweyan
lord...began a fresh assault" on Macbeth.
 
We also know that Norway was fighting in Fife.
 
So let's agree on this too:
 
--> Macbeth was fighting in Fife.
 
We know that the Norweyan attack came immediately after Macbeth "compell'd
these skipping kerns to trust their heels." So, like it or not,
 
--> Macdonwald was fighting in or around Fife.
 
With kerns and gallowglasses all the way from the western isles. Geography
obeys Shakesepeare's whim, here and elsewhere.
 
*****
> isn't it just possible that Bellona's bridegroom is not Macbeth?
 
Well yes Bill it's _possible_, the text doesn't rule it out completely. And
it's tempting to draw nifty new patterns in the old story we're used to.
But this _is_ a rewrite hypothesis. I'm still not sure you admit that.
 
Any first-time audience of the script-as-published will imagine Macbeth
throughout 1.2. They _can't_ imagine Macduff because they've never heard of
him. He doesn't speak or get mentioned for another half hour or so (2.3)!
No way are they going to connect him with Bellona's bridegroom after all
that time.
 
Now, if you cry "rewrite", which any preposterous conjecture can do, you
ought to have some real powerful evidence to back it up. So far only weak
cards have been played, like these alleged geography problems in 1.2 and
the supposedly late emergence of Macduff, both of which I've countered in
my last two posts.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 23 Apr 1995 14:52:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 6.0332  Qs: *Titus*
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0332  Qs: *Titus*
 
For Jimmy Jung:  Of course Titus Andronicus is not that bad, and my students
(and many others) love it. In recent years, the play has indeed become
almost "popular" -- among scholars, of course.
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.