Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0468.  Monday, 24 June 1996.

(1)     From:   Ed Pechter <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 21 Jun 1996 12:22:41 +0000 (HELP)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0464 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment

(2)     From:   Rinda Frye <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 23 Jun 96  17:27:11 EDT
        Subj:   SHK 7.0464  Re: Michael Kahn's Comment


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Pechter <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 21 Jun 1996 12:22:41 +0000 (HELP)
Subject: 7.0464 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0464 Re: Michael Kahn's Comment

Big up to S. Urkowitz for his comment about Michael Kahn's comment.  For one
thing, as I remember, we don't have Kahn's words so much as Milla's version.
But the more important point is the one Steve makes:  theater people talk
theater-talk.  They sometimes use the same words normal people (like us) use,
"Shakespeare," "character"--but differently.  U of Iowa P just published an
essay collection called Textual & Theatrical Shakespeare:  Questions of
Evidence whose contributors talk about this matter.  There's a brilliant essay
by W. B. Worthen at the end that's dead-on relevant, called "Reading Actors
Reading."  Every one on the list should buy two copies of this book, one for
themselves, one for a friend.  I happen to know the editor of the book, he's
buying a new house and is really hard up for money.

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Rinda Frye <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 23 Jun 96  17:27:11 EDT
Subject: Re: Michael Kahn's Comment
Comment:        SHK 7.0464  Re: Michael Kahn's Comment

If I may just add to the discussion about subtext in Shakespeare, often when
acting coaches or directors caution actors against "playing subtext" in
Shakespeare, they are trying to disuade them from the habit of thinking/feeling
a line first and then speaking the lines almost as an afterthought. This is a
common habit with American actors because it often gives the appearance of a
"natural" delivery, but with Shakespeare, as I'm sure you know, such an
approach is deadly.  Usually this caution against playing subtext is not
intended to keep the actor from making interpretive choices--that would be
silly at best.