Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1997 :: November ::
Re: Love; Mercutio; Accents
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1135.  Tuesday, 11 November 1997.

[1]     From:   A. G. BENNETT" <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 10 Nov 1997 11:39:21 +0000 (HELP)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1124 Q: "Love" in A&C

[2]     From:   David P. McKay <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 10 Nov 1997 12:13:04 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Mercutio: Gay, etc.

[3]     From:   John Velz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 10 Nov 1997 12:01:05 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Eliz. accents


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           A. G. BENNETT" <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 10 Nov 1997 11:39:21 +0000 (HELP)
Subject: 8.1124 Q: "Love" in A&C
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1124 Q: "Love" in A&C

I'm far from convinced that Shakespeare's men are portrayed as loving
far more deeply, lastingly, etc. than his women-what about the male
characters in _Love's Labours Lost_, for instance, who swear extravagant
oaths (either of scholarship, or of love) one moment, then break them
the next? Seems to me that in that play, Shakespeare deliberately leaves
all the usual comic knots untied deliberately-we have no guarantee that
the men will in fact last their respective year's penance away from
their beloveds. Similarly, Claudio's devotion to Hero in _Much Ado_ is
questionable at best: one wonders just what kind of marriage theirs will
be.

Cheers,
Alexandra Bennett

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

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David P. McKay <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 10 Nov 1997 12:13:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Mercutio: Gay, etc.

I feel I must offer Christine Gilmore an apology; apparently, I misread
the last point made in her original posting as a statement and not a
question.  Also, I feel that I must clarify what I meant in responding.

Gilmore asks whether Liz Dietz's "definition and use of the expression,
'to queer,' is useful and valid."  In my re-reading of Dietz's original
comments, I believe that it is.  However, I do not believe that Dietz
was suggesting that the queering in Luhrmann's film was a result of
"ignoring sexual preference" and creating a "non-display."  I must let
Liz Dietz speak for herself, but I read her comments as suggesting a
representation of the clash in the construction and presentation of
gender/sexuality roles, not as an erasure of the them.  If this IS what
she is suggesting, then I would contend that this is an inappropriate
use of the term "to queer," and a move that many queer theorists have
feared for a long time.  In other words, at least as I understand it,
queering seeks to expose the contradictions under the constructions and
formations of gender/sexuality roles.  A move in the opposite direction
seems only to land us back where we started from; i.e., the assumption
that there really is no difference, or the inability to recognize the
constructedness of these categories.

I hope these comments help to clarify my original point.

To Tim Richards:

Your comments regarding clich

 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.