Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1997 :: January ::
The Annual Meta-Discussion
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0018.  Monday, 6 January 1997.

(1)     From:   Pat Dunlay <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 04 Jan 1997 10:13:59 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0008  The Annual Meta-Discussion

(2)     From:   Porter Jamison <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 4 Jan 1997 09:07:34 -0800
        Subj:   Re: The Annual Meta-Discussion


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Pat Dunlay <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 04 Jan 1997 10:13:59 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 8.0008  The Annual Meta-Discussion
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0008  The Annual Meta-Discussion

At great risk of being lumped with the non-elite referred to in Mr. Egan's
post. I take the plunge anyway.  Actually, I read only the replies to Mr. Egan
and deduced the original.  I'd like to enter a query to anyone who has seen the
production of Antony and Cleopatra at The Shakespeare Theatre in Washington. I
was not happy with the portrayal of Antony as a near crazed paranoid, though
the text can support such an interpretation - Enobarbus' description of "a
diminution in our captain's brain," and " an old one [lion] dying.  To empha-
size that interpretation of Antony's end minimized the power of his love for
Cleopatra to me. (Yes, I'm an aging Romantic!) It does support my theory that
Cleopatra is really the hero of the play, but semms to assign that role by
default.  I think Shakespeare meant to do so more definitively. Cleopatra was
also played with an emphasis on her fickle, almost silly in this production,
nature. Helen Carey managed at the end to portray the power and elegance of her
death, but rather than a growth in character, it seemed too abrupt. Any other
opinions about this out there.  My thanks to Hardy Cook for his hard work on
this list.  Happy New Year!

Pat Dunlay

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Porter Jamison <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 4 Jan 1997 09:07:34 -0800
Subject:        Re: The Annual Meta-Discussion

While my comparatively inane question started Meta-Discussion '97, I'd like to
state that it wouldn't've bothered me if my post had been rejected based on the
academic level the discussion had achieved at the time of my submission.  If I
had replied immediately to the initial question ("Is this a mistake or a
variant?"), my generalist reply would've likely gone unremarked.

One of the great joys of SHAKSPER is its variety of levels and viewpoints, with
threads about textual variants coexisting with those about acting philosophy
(subtext) and others cataloguing students' reactions to ROMEO+JULIET.  I would
hate to see any of it go.

I urge Mr. Egan to continue with SHAKSPER.  In his desire to make the list
stronger and more useful, he has my respect (if not my vote).

Regards,
P. Jamison
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.