Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1995 :: November ::
Re: Prince Charles and De-Canonization
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0881. Wednesday, 8 November 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Helen Ostovich <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 7 Nov 1995 12:32:04 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0872 Re: De-Canonization
 
(2)     From:   James Schaefer <SCHAEFEJ@GUVAX.BITNET>
        Date:   Monday, 06 Nov 1995 17:21:38 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Prince Chuck
 
(3)     From:   Tom Clayton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 06 Nov 1995 16:36:19 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0872  Re: De-Canonization
 
(4)     From:   Victor Gallerano <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 8 Nov 1995 06:16:14 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   de-canonization
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Helen Ostovich <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 7 Nov 1995 12:32:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 6.0872 Re: De-Canonization
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0872 Re: De-Canonization
 
Re Simon's comment on Prince Charles' desire to play opposite Robert Stephens'
Falstaff at the palace:  Yes, it really happened.  A friend reported to me that
she heard it over the radio last Thursday night, or at least heard them reading
the extemporary play scene, not the whole of _Henry IV, Part One_
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           James Schaefer <SCHAEFEJ@GUVAX.BITNET>
Date:           Monday, 06 Nov 1995 17:21:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Prince Chuck
 
Being the same age as the Prince of Wales, I've often wondered what he and his
siblings thought about being read fairy tales (assuming they WERE read fairy
tales) about kings and queens et al., stories that can be nothing but patent
fantasy to all but a handful of (mostly related) individuals in the world.  How
did this affect their developing psyches (per Bettleheim, etc)?  And now I'm
wondering how Charles et al. reacts to dramas about kings of England.
 
SO.... has anyone seen anything written about this, by a member of the royal
family or others?  Anything other than ER I getting upset and hanging earls for
the possibly subversive subtext of a play?
 
I don't supposed this is directly relevant to this list, but for the question
of the relationship between art and life....
 
Jim Schaefer
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Clayton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 06 Nov 1995 16:36:19 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: 6.0872  Re: De-Canonization
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0872  Re: De-Canonization
 
Hi, Glen, fire away!
 
Cheers, Tom
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Victor Gallerano <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 8 Nov 1995 06:16:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        de-canonization
 
Simon,
 
Two or three quick thoughts here during a week of interminable student
conferences ("You mean you really wanted us to write a first draft, Mr.
Gallerano?")  It seems to me that you rounded-up all the right suspects and
then convicted the prosecution.  (Is there a recent precedent for that?)
 
1st: Plato no more than Shakespeare ever gives a direct exposition of his
"understanding" of "human being."  What they both give is a cast of characters
all of which look and sound enough like the forked creature to remind us of the
real ones we see arou nd us.  The first ground for student resistance to these
"word-things" is the lack of exposure that 20th cent., Mall-Child culture gives
them to their own kind.
 
2nd: They (students) believe the orthodoxy that says they are wholey and merely
products of the late 20th century, or more precisely that, rather than being a
kind of being, they are a kind of "consciousness."  Among other things, this
makes their consid erations of anyone "other" than themselves an exercise in
channel-surfing. They've nothing at stake because they are convinced (and
smugly satisfied with the opinion) that they can't get beyond the cage of their
late 20th century-ness anyway.
 
3rd: Greenblatt isn't Tillyard, but historicism is historicism. Flannery
O'Connor might say, "Ain't a who'lotta duff'rence 'tween them kinds."  Whether
it derives from nostalgia or an institutional dis-ease, they depend upon the
same kinds of assumption about history and what can and can't be known.
 
4th: Historicism is orthodoxy despite all the reformation of late. Moreover,
the new generation of historisicts is chillin' at the mall right now.
 
Yours in recusant humanism,
       vic
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.