Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1995 :: May ::
Re: Aumerle; Kiddieology; PC; *Oth.* Verse
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0381.  Friday, 12 May 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Jon Enriquez <ENRIQUEZJ@GUVAX.BITNET>
        Date:   Thursday, 11 May 1995 09:41:11 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0373  Re: Aumerle
 
(2)     From:   Don Foster <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 11 May 1995 10:05:50 +0100
        Subj:   Re: Kiddieology
 
(3)     From:   Ian Doescher <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 11 May 1995 09:14:28 -0700
        Subj:   PC and Productions
 
(4)     From:   Jesus Cora <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 11 May 1995 19:34:42 UTC+0200
        Subj:   SHK 6.0370  Qs: *Oth.* Verse
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jon Enriquez <ENRIQUEZJ@GUVAX.BITNET>
Date:           Thursday, 11 May 1995 09:41:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 6.0373  Re: Aumerle
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0373  Re: Aumerle
 
Thanks to Helen Vella Bonavita for her kind words about York.  I agree with
her, and I used similar logic when I played York a few years ago in a
production directed by fellow SHAKSPERean Cary Mazer. My take was that York is
trying to be loyal to the Crown, whoever happens to wear it.  Remember that
York was the sixth of Edward III's sons, and probably had no idea that he would
get within two or three heads of the Crown.  After Gaunt dies, he is the last
surviving member of the Black Prince's generation, and therefore assumes a
certain responsibility for the stewardship of the Crown. He kneels before
Richard when the two meet at Barclay Castle, and Richard has to drag him to his
feet and tell him in no uncertain terms that he is abdicating in favor of
Henry, for the good of the realm.  Therefore, when York learns of Aumerle's
treachery, he is quick to bring the traitor before the King for just
punishment.
 
But there is certainly an element of comic relief.  Remember that when York is
describing the procession to the Duchess, and he explains the difference
between public response to Henry and to Richard, he says:
 
     As in a theater, the eyes of men,
     After a well-graced actor leaves the stage,
     Are but idly bent on him who enters next,
     Thinking his prattle to be tedious;
     So too it was with Richard.
 
(Or words to that effect; this is from my memory.)  Cary pointed out that this
is Shakespeare pulling a joke on the actor who played York, who is in this
scene placed in exactly that predicament.  Surely Shakespeare was aware of the
need for a break, but used the break to further the depiction of Henry.
 
Jon Enriquez
Georgetown University

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Don Foster <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 11 May 1995 10:05:50 +0100
Subject:        Re: Kiddieology
 
To Dan Colvin: I don't bemoan the *existence* of "kiddie-lit popularizations of
Shakespeare." (Indeed, the more the merrier: if there's nothing for the tykes
to consume on television, let them eat cake.) I merely lamented the
indoctrination of juvenile Shakespeareans with kiddie-litter, as in Leon
Garfield's endorsement of the "Roman" view in his retelling of ANT: Listen up,
kids: Octavius is a real man, one to be emulated by good little boys; Antony a
fellow who ought to be ashamed of himself; and Cleopatra is a lousy whore.
Maxine Kumin's view that such a doctrinal position is "refreshing" is good for
a moan or two, don't you think?
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ian Doescher <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 11 May 1995 09:14:28 -0700
Subject:        PC and Productions
 
To all engaging in the discussion about "Merchant" and "Shrew," thank you for
your thoughts.  Although it was not my intention to inspire a discussion of
political correctness, I do appreciate the responses.  In response to John
Owen's list of possible solutions to the sexism in "Shrew:" "Ignore it...change
Katherine...change Petruchio" I thought it might be interesting to mention a
production of "Shrew" I saw here in Portland.  All of the characters were
played by women, and the production was set in the 1940's (i.e. Rosie the
Riveter, etc.).  This approach seemed to deal well with the sexism of the play
because an all female cast was able to convey an attitude that women are as
strong (and, sometimes as weak) as men.  Also, the relationship between
Petruchio and Kate was more like two people playing a joke on others rather
than a man taming a woman.  It worked.
 
Any other thoughts out there?  The discussion turned to political correctness
and got off of whether or not it is a director's responsibility to be sensitive
to a modern audience.  Sorry about the confusion.
 
Ian Doescher
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jesus Cora <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 11 May 1995 19:34:42 UTC+0200
Subject: Qs: *Oth.* Verse
Comment:        SHK 6.0370  Qs: *Oth.* Verse
 
Dear Emmanuel Kowalski,
 
In my humble opinion, what Shakespeare did in that verse from Othello was to
join two adjectives that, at the time, were thought to be a "paradigm in
Turkishness", so to speak. The verse indicates that all Turks are malignant and
turbaned, or at least, that a Turk being malignant is as natural and typical as
being 'turban'd'. Quite rhetorical, indeed, just as zeugmas or conceits.
 
What do other SHAKSPEReans think? Do ye perchance agree with me?
 
Jesus Cora
Dpto. de Filologia Moderna
Universidad de Alcala de Henares

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.