The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1096.  Thursday, 30 October 1997.

[1]     From:   Bruce Golden <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 10:31:45 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1093  Macbeth and Children

[2]     From:   William P Williams <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 13:27:26 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1089 Re: Macbeth Whodunit?

[3]     From:   Barrett Fisher <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 15:26:36 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Macbeth Whodunit?

[4]     From:   Joseph Tate <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 20:58:13 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Macbeth, 4.1


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bruce Golden <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 10:31:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 8.1093  Macbeth and Children
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1093  Macbeth and Children

I don't recall any post mentioning Bennet Simon, _Tragic Drama and the
Family_, (Yale UP, 1988). Chapter 5 has an interesting take on the
subject.

-Bruce Golden

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William P Williams <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 13:27:26 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 8.1089 Re: Macbeth Whodunit?
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1089 Re: Macbeth Whodunit?

Are Michael Mullin and Bill Godshalk perhaps related?  Do they look
alike? I think we should be told.

W. P. Williams

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Barrett Fisher <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 15:26:36 -0600 (CST)
Subject:        Macbeth Whodunit?

I like to use the Thurber piece in the context of literary theory; it
nicely illustrates both the power of genre (to adopt Adena Rosmarin's
phrase) and the ability of the reader to construct a text.  If one
thought it worth the time, one could also ask students to discuss ways
in which the reading is "valid" according to standard criteria (e.g., is
it coherent?  inclusive of a range of textual date? is it plausible? is
it well-supported?, etc.).  Of course, one should also not take it too
seriously, or one could become the very reader Thurber is satirizing!  I
sometimes use it as a companion piece to Laura Bohannan's "Shakespeare
in the Bush" (re: a West African reading of "Hamlet"), which is an
instructive exercise in the constitutive force of cultural
presuppositions.

Barrett Fisher
Bethel College (MN)

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joseph Tate <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 20:58:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject:        Macbeth, 4.1

Dear SHAKSPEReans,

As a favor to a colleague, I've been asked to post a question to the
list.

Are these lines a summary of *Macbeth*?

        Double, double, toil and trouble;
        Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

Let it be known that this was a question asked by a notoriously
difficult high school teacher and I'm far from sure how I would answer
the question myself!

Many thanks,

Joseph Tate
Graduate Student
Department of English
University of Washington, Seattle