Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1997 :: October ::
Re: Rowse; 1000 Acres; Macbeth
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1026.  Friday, 10 October 1997.

[1]     From:   James Marino <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 09 Oct 1997 13:37:32 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1018  Re: A. L. Rowse

[2]     From:   Ron Dwelle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 09 Oct 1997 13:42:58 -0400
        Subj:   1000-acres

[3]     From:   Annalisa Castaldo <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 11:41:30 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1019 Re: Macbeth


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           James Marino <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 09 Oct 1997 13:37:32 -0600
Subject: 8.1018  Re: A. L. Rowse
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1018  Re: A. L. Rowse

>It is said that opinion is 'divided' on the value of A. L. Rowse's work.
>But is there really anyone who takes this guy seriously?

I treasure one line from Samuel Schoenbaum's *Shakespeare's Lives*
concerning Rowse, who blustered into a  polite controversy between
Barbara Everatt and Donald Foster about the identity of W.H. crying "'Is
there no end to human foolery?'". Schoenbaum comments dryly that Rowse,
himself had "not been behindhand in contributing to the gaiety of
nations with his own speculations."

Regards,
James

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ron Dwelle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 09 Oct 1997 13:42:58 -0400
Subject:        1000-acres

I continue to be surprised at the connection between 1000-Acres and
Lear. It was 3 or 4 years ago that I eagerly picked up Jane Smiley's
novel, having heard it was a Lear takeoff. Now, there's nothing wrong
with the novel (well, it is as disgusting as the author probably
intended it to be), but I still can't fathom the connection with Lear
that so many see. Shouldn't the old patriarch be somewhat like King Lear
and the daughters be somewhat like Lear's three-some and the action be
somewhat analogous? Or is including an "old patriarch" and "three
daughters" enough to make it a knock-off?

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Annalisa Castaldo <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 11:41:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 8.1019 Re: Macbeth
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1019 Re: Macbeth

Polanski seems to draw more "triple goddess" aspect of
maiden-mother-crone than on the Greek fates. He has the witches clearly
of different ages, with one young woman (who is mute; her lines are
reassigned) who is blond and fairly pretty, and in an off the shoulder
dress (she also flashes Macbeth) one middle aged, plump woman wearing an
apron and a kerchief and one very old woman, apparently blind and
arthritic, dressed entirely in black. The women don't spin or carry
other representations of the Greek fates, and their supernatural powers
have been stripped from them (they vanish not into the air, but into an
underground dwelling and Macbeth is given a drink which causes the
visions).

Annalisa Castaldo
Temple University
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.