Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1996 :: December ::
Re: Politics
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0927.  Tuesday, 10 December 1996.

(1)     From:   Bruce Coggin <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 9 Dec 1996 08:08:59 U
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0924  Re- Politics

(2)     From:   Miles Edward Taylor <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 9 Dec 1996 09:26:09 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0924 Re: Politics

(3)     From:   David Evett <R0870%
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 09 Dec 1996 16:10 ET
        Subj:   Correction


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bruce Coggin <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 9 Dec 1996 08:08:59 U
Subject: 7.0924  Re- Politics
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0924  Re- Politics

No, no, we wait with bated breath, as in abated.  Geez.

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Miles Edward Taylor <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 9 Dec 1996 09:26:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 7.0924 Re: Politics
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0924 Re: Politics

> Andy White writes
>
> GIE> However popular drama used to be, it can hardly be said to be popular
> GIE> now. Just on numbers and the self-identification of class by
> GIE> theatre-goers (predominantly, they say they are 'middle') it must
> GIE> be called an elitist entertainment whether or not you approve of it
> GIE> being so. I recall Terry Hawkes writing in the 1960s or 70s on exit
> GIE> polls at theatres in Stratford on Avon.

Allow me to be a little naive here, but this characterization raises two
questions.  Have "middle class" and "elitist" become synonymous?  Now that
would be interesting!  Or are you suggesting something more subtle than that?
Something like 80% of Americans consider themselves middle class, and that
would be an awfully big elite.  Maybe so big as to make the term "elite"
essentially meaningless.

Also, wouldn't an exit poll at Stratford be different than one at a community
theater production, or even at a more regional festival such as the Oregon
festival?  I suppose even pop tripe like Whitney Houston could be called
elitist if you look at the audience she played for when she went to Brunei and
took a cool million to play the sultan's private party.  It actually reminds me
of the difference of playing at the Globe versus going to perform at the palace
before the court.  If it's the same play, the same performance, and the same
actors, is the work of art elitist based wholly on its spectators?  I don't
claim to have the answers, but the answers your post implies seem
counter-intuitive.  Of course, education is almost always counter-intuitive.
I'd just like to hear more.

Thanks,
Miles Taylor

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <R0870%
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 09 Dec 1996 16:10 ET
Subject:        Correction

I see in today's posting that a slip of the keyboard led me to misidentify the
author of _The Poverty of Theory_ (recently reissued, by the way) as E. P.
Taylor (the water-theorist?) rather than E. P. Thompson.

In this line, that is, (apparent) flubs, what is John Drakakis' breath "baited
" _with_?

Correctively,
Dave Evett
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.