1997

Q: Shakespeare Notes

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0630.  Monday, 3 June 1997.

From:           John V Robinson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 2 Jun 1997 16:02:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Re: Shakespeare Notes

About a year ago or so I saw in PMLA the notice that a new journal
called Shakespeare Notes was inviting short scholarly articles etc.
Does anyone know anything about this journal? is it up and running?

Re: Cassettes; More Bad Writing; Neutral Sh; King Lear

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0629.  Monday, 3 June 1997.

[1]     From:   Stuart Manger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 2 Jun 1997 20:15:45 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0622  Q: Cassettes and CDs of Shakespeare as
Assignments

[2]     From:   Patrick Gillespie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 2 Jun 1997 15:24:55 -0400
        Subj:   More Bad Writing

[3]     From:   John McWilliams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 11:46:31  +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0614  Re: Neutral Sh

[4]     From:   Chris Clark <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 2 Jun 1997 20:21:14 GMT
        Subj:   Cordelia and the fool


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stuart Manger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 2 Jun 1997 20:15:45 +0100
Subject: 8.0622  Q: Cassettes and CDs of Shakespeare as
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0622  Q: Cassettes and CDs of Shakespeare as
Assignments

I do so agree with Ed. I frequently urge my students to listen to plays
/ lectures by eminent teachers. I had not thought of making my own
cassettes, but that's a very good idea indeed. Modern stereo tapes /
CD's actually make pretty mind-expanding listening, certainly the BBC
Radio 3 productions do, digital / stereo / radiophonic workshop effects
and all. FAR better than TV. Radio has far better pictures!!

Stuart Manger

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Patrick Gillespie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 2 Jun 1997 15:24:55 -0400
Subject:        More Bad Writing

There's a book I always carry round with me, Ted Hughes' "A Choice of
Shakespeare's Verse". I bought it while in Germany just so I could have
a little Shakespeare to carry around in my backpack. Hughes provides an
otherwise fascinating essay at the back of the book which glances on,
among other things, Bruno, Dee, hermetics and Shakespeare's use of a
kind of verbal Hendiadys. If there is a name for this rhetorical figure
(I would like to know it), Hughes does not himself know one, but calls
it "lance-like", providing a typically Hughsean comparison saying:
"[Shakespeare] seems to have modeled it almost on the pattern of a coat
of arms: two families of meaning, two ancient etymological lineages each
condensed to a rich sign or crest of sigil, impaled on a heraldic
escutcheon."

At which point (to indulge in this Hughesianess) I might compare it to
the herbal Hendiadys of a good cook who mixes two families of herbage,
perhaps two ancient phylalogically distinct lineages condensed into a
rich sauce or basting seal, impaled on a Baltic crustacean.

Anyway, Mr. Hughes goes on in this vane until, like a ticking time-bomb
of metaphor, he explodes with the following paragraph:

...One is aware of it as a signaling and hinting of verbal heads and
tails both above and below precision, and by this weirdly expressive
underswell of a musical near gibberish, like a jostling of spirits, a
bustling pressure of shapes inside every syllable. Shakespeare holds it
all in dodgy focus by the audial compass course that his aerobatic
syntax plots through it. When Joyce takes this sonar amplification of
the word's pun possibilities to the limit in Finnigans Wake, the blazing
crackle of radio interference and writhing wave-bands, somewhat smothers
the instrument panel, for the reader and co-pilot, in a sort of white
out...

Patrick

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John McWilliams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 11:46:31  +0000
Subject: 8.0614  Re: Neutral Sh
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0614  Re: Neutral Sh

Dear Ben Schneider,

Thank you for your very interesting (and patient) reply to my
confused/perplexed message... I think you make some important
distinctions (especially re: reasons for the Shakespeare myth) which I
was overlooking.  I am delighted (but embarrassed) to learn that you
were around in the 50s and 60s: as you may have guessed I was not, and
am a muddle headed young fellow using the 50s and 60s as a kind of point
against which to define aspects of modern/postmodern criticism - a
dubious (yet perhaps fairly common) practice...

However, I still may be confused. You say New Critics were claiming
neutrality for themselves rather than for their favourite writers. I'm
sure that's true and one would contrast this to modern political critics
who approach a text ostensibly admitting their own prejudices and
critical predispositions. So a feminist critic (of one particular sort
anyway) would talk about the ways in which women are portrayed or
omitted in works of literature and criticise the male created and
dominated canon and so on.

So to summarise my bastardised literary critical history, New Critic
types claim neutrality, whilst modern political critics claim that
neutrality is an impossibility (in fact, they go on to attempt to show
just what ideological baggage supposedly neutral ctitics are carrying,
but that's another story...). But these ways of doing things do surely
map on to the writers we read, and I'm not sure that they do in the way
you suggest.  Critics claiming neutrality did seem to produce writers
who were 'neutral'.  For example, new critical readings of Marvell's
Horatian Ode produced an exquisitely poised, apolitical poet who juggles
radically opposing political views with breathtaking skill. On the other
hand, Greenblatt (in an extremely irritating footnote somewhere) claims
that the poem is simply a pro Cromwell panegyric.

[In the middle of this message, I read your second message, so I'll
change track a little...]

Your objection to Bradshaw is a strong one: aren't we just mapping our
own ambivalence onto Shakespeare in the same way that, say, Olivier's
film mapped celebration of English aggression onto Henry V? I'm not sure
how to answer you directly on this one - we may have reached an impasse
- but I instinctively feel the mapping of stoicism would be wrong. One
thought I have is that to distance Shakespeare from ourselves in the way
that you do (we don't do stoicism, so we don't understand Shakespeare)
is excessive.  Shakespeare, as many have argued, was perhaps the most
extensively influential writer in the language and we can see his
influence everywhere - from the language we speak to the plots we read
and watch and the way we narrate our own lives even to ourselves. To
push this further, probably too far in a Bloomian kind of way,
Shakespeare makes us what we are. So to suggest that he is distant and
in fact playing on a whole different playing filed called stoicism,
seems dubious...

But I am prepared to be persuaded... Thanks Ben for the thought
provoking-ness of your messages, and I'll look up your chapter
references now!

John McWilliams

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris Clark <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 2 Jun 1997 20:21:14 GMT
Subject:        Cordelia and the fool

> Did you hear the rumor that the same actor that played Cordelia for was
> also played the fool thus the tie and the reason they are never onstage
> together?

As far as Cordelia and the fool are concerned, they clearly serve the
purpose (as was commented to me earlier) of showing Lear the truth. The
inner doubts within Lear's head need to be expressed even when he is
externally denying them, and the opportunity for a soliloquy is not
open, because we are dealing with his subconsciously niggling doubts.
Once Lear is mad (but, ironically, seeing the situation with sane
judgement), there is no need for the fool... and notice how Cordelia
comes in soon after, to facilitate the tragic end. This allows for her
deification, and yet still allows the final ambiguity of 'My poor fool
is hanged,' which would certainly make sense if it was the same actor.

Cheers

Re: New Globe Theatre II

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0627.  Monday, 3 June 1997.

[1]     From:   Scott Crozier <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 08:48:05 +1100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0625  New Globe Theatre

[2]     From:   John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 00:32:36 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre

[3]     From:   Patrick Gillespie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 2 Jun 1997 19:45:36 -0400
        Subj:   New Globe Theatre & a Commoner's Response

[4]     From:   Ron Ward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 14:03:46 +1200 (NZST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0625  New Globe Theatre

[5]     From:   Jonathan Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 09:42:57 +0000 (GMT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0625  New Globe Theatre

[6]     From:   John McWilliams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 12:33:08  +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0625  New Globe Theatre


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Scott Crozier <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 08:48:05 +1100
Subject: 8.0625  New Globe Theatre
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0625  New Globe Theatre

Bob Stubbs asks what is the point of trying to replicate Elizabethan
acting conditions in the New Globe.  I, for one, have to agree with him
and I am sure we will now enter a period of debate which will mirror the
protracted debate about whether or not we should try to stop the Sphinx
eroding into the sands of the dessert.

The idea of erecting the "New" Globe is laudable, as is the concept of
producing plays on the stage in daylight.  But as for trying to
replicate the full theatre context of the original productions; surely
this is indulgence.  As Bob Stubbs suggests, surely we should be using
the theatre to help us unpack the language in its  original context.
This may help us in appropriating the plays for further "subsequent
performances".  Leave the Elizabethan costumes and the social accuracy
in the museum where is rightly belongs.

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 00:32:36 +0100
Subject: 8.0625 New Globe Theatre
Comment:        RE: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre

I agree with Bob Stubbs.

The point is that The New Globe isn't an "exact replica".  Shakespeare's
theatre didn't have fire exits, for one thing.  Also the site is not
that of the original Globe.

Is it anything other than a piece of nostalgia?

Cheers,
John Drakakis

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Patrick Gillespie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 2 Jun 1997 19:45:36 -0400
Subject:        New Globe Theatre & a Commoner's Response

Bob Stubbs asked:

Am I alone in wondering what exactly is the point in this seemingly
endless quest for replication and quasi authenticity?  The theatre of
Shakespeare's day cannot be reproduced.

You ask this with a chip on your shoulder? What exactly are you
criticizing as the "seemingly endless quest"? It seems you're attacking
a school of thought rather than any performance at the new globe. If a
new globe is going to be built where the old one was, then why not build
a replica? And if one's going to build a replica, then why not try to
replicate costume and speech? Isn't the point to give the *average*
person a glimpse of what it *might* have been like - perhaps the closest
any performance can hope for? It goes without saying that the theater of
Shakespeare's day can't be reproduced. They know it. You know it. I know
it.  So, (and not antagonistically) I wonder... what are you *really*
objecting to?

Is it not more important to unpack and understand the many layers of
meaning in Shakespeare's works than to produce what may be seen as a
Disneyesque Theme Park type event?

Again, your question (heavily loaded) phrases its own answer. Who would
want a "Disneyesque Theme Park type event" over the obviously nobler
attempt at understanding the "many layers" (except Disney)? It's clear
you think the New Globe is a "Disneyesque Theme Park type event". Why?
Have you seen the production or is your criticism of the performance
more platonic - hypothetical? Is it really Disneyesque? Are you implying
that any "reproduction" can't, by its very nature, attempt an
understanding of the "many layers"? Do you think this is unavoidable
when one engages in the "seemingly endless quest for replication and
quasi authenticity"? Why? Are you proposing that the New Globe's
approach might not offer its own insights?

I wonder what you think of the original instrument movement in music? Do
you think it's a bad thing or do you think it's different from what the
New Globe is attempting? Might this not represent the same "endless
quest for quasi authenticity"?

Your thoughts?
Patrick Gillespie

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ron Ward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 14:03:46 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: 8.0625  New Globe Theatre
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0625  New Globe Theatre

Bob Stubbs query on authenticity (re the Globe) is one which has split
the Music world for many years. My answer as to what the point is of
historically informed performance is this:

The issue is not what the individual prefers, nor what works best in a
modern age. Both those arguments are subjective anyway. The value in
performing plays as close as possible to the Authors intention, is that
another range of interpretations is produced. For example, the use of
modern singing and dancing in S productions may work well, but We can
not judge S's genius by what other people do to his plays. We restore
old buildings with some taste if we follow the original architectural
concept. How can we judge the success of changes to the original staging
if we never see a reasonable facsimile of the original presented. We are
just judging one adaptation with another.

Of course we can not achieve an exact reconstruction, but that does not
mean we learn nothing by going as far as we can. The play does not just
reside in the language, so separately analysing its parts has to be
matched against an holistic approach, as this may well reveal something
that analysis will not.  Hope this helps.

Ron Ward

[5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jonathan Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 09:42:57 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: 8.0625  New Globe Theatre
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0625  New Globe Theatre

Although I share Bob Stubbs' concerns about 'authenticity' at the Globe,
I think they deserve some time to make some mistakes.  I saw last year's
prologue production of Two Gentlemen (modern dress), and was at the
first preview night of Henry V ('authentic Elizabethan'), and there's no
doubt in my mind which was the more interesting and successful
production - Two Gentlemen.

It's unfair to say too much about a production that's still in preview,
but it seemed clear to me that the Henry V cast were fairly
uncomfortable in their costumes (authentic Elizabethan underwear - no
Calvin Kleins, as the programme boasted), particularly Mark Rylance in
what looked a precarious, oversize helmet.  Winter's Tale, which I
haven't seen yet, is in modern dress.  With any luck they'll learn that
'authentic' costumes just don't work very well, and give them up.

I keep hearing rumours about 'authentic' accents, so perhaps they are
true, but nothing was in evidence at Henry V.  I don't think it will
happen - even if we could decide what an 'authentic' Elizabethan London
accent was like (and which register of which class accent are we going
to use?), and train actors to use it, the end result would be laughable.

The main thing about the Globe is that it's a great place to see plays.
It's fascinating to see actors trying to cope with the space, and to
hear what happens to the language.  There is a deal of pretentious
luvvie waffle coming out of the place (see Mark Rylance's comments in
the H5 programme), but both productions so far have made me think.

Jonathan Hope
Middlesex University

[6]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John McWilliams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 12:33:08  +0000
Subject: 8.0625  New Globe Theatre
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0625  New Globe Theatre

Dear Bob Stubbs,

Yes, I think you're right, the idea of exact authenticity does seem a
little pointless. But we've got to do something to keep the American
tourists spending their money. And most expensive editions of
Shakespeare's plays do have extensive discussions of how Shakespeare's
company would have performed the play. Is The New Globe just an
extension of this important area of scholarship or is the meticulous
scholarly study of such things just another part of the very slick
packaging of Shakespeare that is essential to the Shakespeare industry?

John McWilliams

Re: Plagiarism

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0628.  Monday, 3 June 1997.

[1]     From:   Libby Bradford <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 2 Jun 1997 12:42:57 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:

[2]     From:   Ed Pixley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 02 Jun 1997 15:01:16 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0616  Re: Plagiarism

[3]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 2 Jun 1997 09:54:05 -0700
        Subj:   RE: SHK 8.0616  Re: Plagiarism

[4]     From:   Bob Dennis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 02 Jun 97 15:32:19 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0616  Re: Plagiarism

[5]     From:   Gabriel Wasserman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 02 Jun 1997 17:43:26 -0400
        Subj:   Re: Plagiarism

[6]     From:   Stephen Windle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 2 Jun 1997 18:00:30 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0616 Re: Plagiarism


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Libby Bradford <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 2 Jun 1997 12:42:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Re: Plagiarism

>I was in a grad. Shakespeare seminar and I heard through those wonderful
>departmental grapevines that my professor was convinced that a fellow
>student had plagiarized an ENTIRE paper on "Romeo and Juliet," but that
>he was getting too old to go chasing down sources. He questioned her,
>she denied it, and he let it go, but spent the rest of the semester in
>(visible) disgust. The student in question eventually dropped out of the
>program entirely and moved to another state... claiming all the way, of
>course, that the professor who "drove her away" was completely
>insane....
>
>I know this is a serious subject, but I can't help but laugh when I
>think of this story. The student was a certified twinkie, a mental
>lightweight, and the professor was, by all accounts except hers, a
>brilliant teacher.  (I wouldn't dare plagiarize own my name within ten
>feet of this guy...)

I have been trying to hold my tongue on this matter, but after reading
more responses I feel I cannot.  I have a similar story, but this one
involved me.  About this time last year, I had a roommate move in to
share my apartment.  Well, she decided to share more than that.  She
helped herself to one of my papers (while I was at work) and proceeded
to use as much as she could in a paper for the same professor.   The
reason I know?  She asked to proofread it.  I couldn't believe what I
was reading and thought "I'm making something out of nothing, because
how could someone cheat like this and *then* ask me to proofread it?"
She went ahead and turned it in and I went home and checked my paper
against a copy of hers and sure enough...it was just as I had thought.

A very long story...made brief.... she was given a slap on the wrist and
allowed to finish school.

I have very strong feelings on this matter, considering I was told that
*I* could have been dismissed from school for something someone else
did.  I do not support cheating in any form.  I am also leery of saying
students plagiarize because they don't know any better.  I know that's
possible, but I wouldn't say that that is the reason in the majority of
cases.

After knowing this particular person and asking around, I found this was
not her first attempt at some form of plagiarism.  However, the other
student who knew more would not step forward for fear of being dismissed
from school.

I know that my situation was different than the one first mentioned, in
that the situation occurred in graduate school.  But, I also feel that
this form of cheating should not go unpunished on whatever level it
occurs.

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Pixley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 02 Jun 1997 15:01:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 8.0616  Re: Plagiarism
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0616  Re: Plagiarism

Sorry to beat this plagiarism post again, but at least one area has not
yet been dealt with. Do the students understand the value (not just the
morality) of citing sources?  As Aristotle pointed out, among the three
types of artistic proof is ethical proof.  Writers and speakers need to
establish their authority if they expect to have their ideas taken
seriously. How can undergraduates expect to have their ideas taken
seriously if they don't first persuade us that they have taken the
trouble to acquire that authority, that they have done their homework,
become familiar with the field?  And what better way to establish their
authority than by citing sources, demonstrating their understanding of
those already established authorities who have, by their scholarship,
laid the ground for further research and raised those questions
perceived as important by professionals in the field?  This does not
mean that students should only be repeating and reporting on what has
already been established.  But if they are breaking new ground, as an
undergraduate was recently cited on this list as doing on _Lear_, their
new ideas are much more likely to be taken seriously when they
demonstrate a knowledge of what has gone before.  Whenever I introduce
research to my students, I try to make them understand that careful
citation and selective quotation are not punishments by dull pedants
like myself but valuable tools of persuasion in the presentation of
their ideas.

Rhetorically,
Ed Pixley
SUNY-Oneonta

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 2 Jun 1997 09:54:05 -0700
Subject: 8.0616  Re: Plagiarism
Comment:        RE: SHK 8.0616  Re: Plagiarism

Hi, guys.

I've been enjoying the plagiarism discussion for the last little while,
but I think the central carrot vs. stick debate seems to be missing the
point.  There isn't that much of a contradiction between mutually
self-reinforcing methods like this, after all.  Knowing and having
declared to your students that you'll fail anyone who plagiarizes not
only provides you with a duty to explain what it means, but also
motivates students to ask.  Similarly, having explained correct methods
of citation one has a duty, both to oneself and to the students who were
paying attention, to at least mark down anyone who doesn't deploy them.

I usually read my students the riot act in the first class, citing
examples of senior professors fired by boards of governors meeting on a
Sunday or persons who had their degrees recalled years later, for
instance.  The purpose of this isn't merely to instill fear, but to show
that there's a system of professional ethics and disciplinary honour
into which they are entering by taking the class.  In other words, it's
not a matter of me (the all-powerful teacher) imposing rules on them
(the powerless, oppressed students), but my giving them the respect due
to full members of our profession, and accordingly expecting them to
maintain the code of honour and integrity implicit in that status.

Cheers,
Sean

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Dennis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 02 Jun 97 15:32:19 -0500
Subject: 8.0616  Re: Plagiarism
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0616  Re: Plagiarism

Dear SHAKSPERians,

I have a slightly different take on the aspects of plagiarism.  When I
was an undergraduate, I served on the student Honor Court.  There were
two cases presented to the court in different years.  The first was a
young woman who "plagiarized" two or three sentences from something like
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences: she placed them in her paper
without footnoting them.  This was a first offense, committed by a
freshman.  The professor involved was livid and unforgiving.  Although
the student Honor Court recommended a short suspension, this girl was
summarily removed from school by a faculty  committee without any
possibility of re-admission.

The second case was a young woman who copied extensively from two
particular sources for a paper on William Faulkner.  This was a third
offense, committed by a senior student.  The court recommended dismissal
as appropriate due to the extensiveness of the copying (more than 80% of
the paper was copied verbatim) and the offense being a repeated
offense.  The Dean of Faculty called me (as Chief Justice) into his
office and "explained" to me that some people "simply did not know right
from wrong" and that they were going to let this woman graduate,
regardless of the plagiarized material.  I vividly recall his telling me
that "just because this girl doesn't know right from wrong is no reason
that she should not have a degree like other people."  The court was
instructed to forget about the case.

These two cases, with other subsequent observations, have influenced my
general thoughts on the subject many years later in my life:

1)  Plagiarism by undergraduate students is a small offense (usually)
when considered in the general run of life.  Such offenses are _usually_
by untrained or inexperienced students; can originate in students under
too much stress; can be unintentional when a student has taken copious
notes which include roughly verbatim passages in the notes.  They can,
of course be simple laziness, also, hardly a cause for maximum
punishment.  Cases for more senior students (especially graduate
students) or repeated offenses should be treated with more severity.

2) The rules in academia appear to be commonly applied unevenly, with
some students getting an easy ride and others being tossed about quite
viciously and/or quixotically.  In addition to the inequity of the cases
cited above, I know personally of a Ph.D. recipient who was given (by
his advisor) the questions AND ANSWERS to be asked at his orals two or
three days before his examination, with the instruction, "Know these
answers."  The student had failed his oral examinations twice before.  I
know of several additional strangely unfair happenings, all of which
lead me to conclude that we are foolish to apply any rule too strictly
in a particular case.  With respect to the case under discussion, I am
suggesting that the sensitivity to plagiarism in one student's paper may
not be the same sensitivity you bring to grading another student's
paper.  Thus, to go out of your way to track down sources of which you
are only suspicious and cannot securely identify yourself, might be
close to "picking on" a certain student.  Unless it is a repeated
pattern, wouldn't it be sager to let it ride, perhaps with the personal
talks and advice suggested by other LIST members?

3) It seems neither wise nor fair that the members of an Internet
discussion forum be asked to pin down sources for a professor who
"suspects" plagiarism.  If a professor sees plagiarism personally, i.e.,
can identify the specific copying himself or herself, then that
professor may decide how to proceed with the student. The professor may
even seek advice on how to proceed from the experiences of others on the
net.  But the group should not be used to help convict the purported
offender.  The practice of trial without representation is supposed to
be illegal in U.S.A.

Just three thoughts closely related to the recent general discussion of
plagiarism.

Respectfully,
Bob Dennis
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Wasserman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 02 Jun 1997 17:43:26 -0400
Subject:        Re: Plagiarism

Isn't there a web site called "schoolsucks" where people submit papers
for other students to cut and paste?

I heard once about a teacher who, to see if the students were really
being copying papers directly off the site or were just getting
information from it, anonymously submitted a paper entitled "Christopher
Shakespeare, William Marlowe, and the Epidermis of Sixteenth Cencherry
[sic] Drama".  Sure enough, one of his students submitted that very
essay, and pleaded innocence.  The teacher went into his file cabinet/
and took out a handwritten draft of the essay...!

[6]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephen Windle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 2 Jun 1997 18:00:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 8.0616 Re: Plagiarism
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0616 Re: Plagiarism

K.  Nolan is correct.  Really folks if someone documents references ( or
attempts to ) this means they're truly putting out an effort.  Step back
for a moment...  How do you write about Shakespear w/ out Plagiarism ?

Stephen

Re: New Globe Theatre I

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0626.  Monday, 3 June 1997.

[1]     From:   Billy Houck <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 2 Jun 1997 14:06:27 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre

[2]     From:   Jodi Clark 303971 <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 02 Jun 1997 14:17:08 +0200 (IST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre

[3]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 02 Jun 1997 21:18:34 +1300
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0625  New Globe Theatre

[4]     From:   Franklin J. Hildy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 02 Jun 1997 16:20:12 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0625  New Globe Theatre

[5]     From:   Laura Fargas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 2 Jun 1997 17:33:00 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0625  New Globe Theatre

[6]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 2 Jun 1997 12:29:42 -0700
        Subj:   RE: SHK 8.0625  New Globe Theatre

[7]     From:   Stuart Manger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 2 Jun 1997 20:24:05 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0625  New Globe Theatre


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Billy Houck <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 2 Jun 1997 14:06:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 8.0625 New Globe Theatre
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre

Granted, "reintroducing" heckling seems a bit over the top, but when I
toured the New Globe last summer and walked the width and breadth of the
stage, all those long speeches that seem so tedious on a proscenium
stage suddenly made sense.

Billy Houck

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jodi Clark 303971 <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 02 Jun 1997 14:17:08 +0200 (IST)
Subject: 8.0625 New Globe Theatre
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre

I wish to respond to the comment about the desire for authenticity in
Shakespeare.  My feeling is that in the reconstruction of the
conditions, the audience not only gets a feel for the play, but what it
was like to be there.  By only performing the play, we get the modern
version of a Elizabethan/Jacobean play.  By recreating the conditions in
which this play would have been performed, we give the audience and the
actors even more of a taste of Shakespeare's world.  Personally, I think
that is exciting and rather fun.  I do understand how people get rather
sick of the authenticity police coming around and analyzing how a
particular stitch on a doublet is not completely "period."  But in the
attempt to recreate the performance conditions, we get much more of a
sense of the history and culture of Shakespeare's time.  In any other
production, the audience might have only a brief inkling of what period
costumes were like and some grasp of the language.

I am of the school of thought that says Renaissance Faires should lean
toward more of the new Globe is doing, rather than becoming the hideous
theme-park monstrosities they are morphing into.  The educational value
of seeing living history as opposed to the dead words on the page is
staggering.  I will venturing into the teaching world in the fall and
hope to do some work with Shakespeare at Hingham High School (Hingham,
MA).  If I could take the students to London to see the production of
Henry V, I would.  I hope I will be able to take students there in the
future in order to experience this exciting theatre endeavor.

Sincerely,
Jodi Clark
Emerson College
Theatre Education, Graduate Program

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 02 Jun 1997 21:18:34 +1300
Subject: 8.0625  New Globe Theatre
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0625  New Globe Theatre

Bob Stubbs writes

> Within the last week, a project first envisaged by Sam Wanamaker
> in 1949 was finally brought to fruition. An exact replica of the
> Globe Theatre has been completed at Southwark, London.

I expect those involved would want to deny that it's an "exact replica"
since the lack of evidence, especially for the interior decoration,
makes it much more a 'best guess'.

> The theatre of Shakespeare's day cannot be reproduced. Is it
> not more important to unpack and understand the many layers of
> meaning in Shakespeare's works than to produce what may be seen
> as a Disneyesque Theme Park type event?

An obvious response would be that the meaning might be in part
conditioned by the building and playing conditions for which a play was
written. The detail of costuming reconstruction might seem excessive,
but John Astington's article on how gallows scenes (that is, hangings)
were staged concluded that a stiff wicker harness was worn under the
victim's costume and the real suspension line (as opposed to the purely
cosmetic noose) was attached to the harness which took the force of the
'fall'. Such a harness would greatly inhibit movement, which is why
Bel-Imperia asks Horatio "why sit we not down?" in the arbour.

Even underwear seems worth reconstructing. The article is in Theatre
Notebook 37.1 (1983) pp3-9.

Gabriel Egan

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Franklin J. Hildy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 02 Jun 1997 16:20:12 -0400
Subject: 8.0625  New Globe Theatre
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0625  New Globe Theatre

Bob Stubbs asks:

>Am I alone in wondering what exactly is the point in this seemingly
>endless quest for replication and quasi authenticity?

>The theatre of Shakespeare's day cannot be reproduced.

>Is it not more important to unpack and understand the many layers of
>meaning in Shakespeare's works than to produce what may be seen as a
>Disneyesque Theme Park type event?

>What do others think?

Bob Stubbs has once again raised those interesting questions concerning
authenticity in performance that have been asked in relation to
Shakespeare since at least the time of the Charles Kean production of
KING JOHN in 1823.   I am a great fan of authenticity and a great fan of
the  Globe (as well as a critic of it) and I would argue that there are
many "layers of meaning in Shakespeare's work" that can only be unpacked
by the kind of experimental work that is now being done at the Globe-
but I'm not sure the list wants to get into all this again.

I am honestly perplexed by his reference to a "Disneyesque Theme Park
type event," however.    This comparison between the Globe and Disney
has been made for so long that it makes me wonder if anyone has ever
bothered to examine it.  Certainly when it comes to an interest in
authenticity, the two organizations would seem to be at polar
opposites.  I am ashamed to say that the only "Disneyesque Theme Park" I
have ever found time to visit is the Epcot Center,  and that visit was
only as part of a technology tour organized by the US Institute for
Theatre Technology some years ago.    So I am hardly an expert on
Disneyesque parks.  But my theatre work has given me occasion to talk
with several Disney "imagineers" over the years and I have had former
students working for Disney on occasion.  I have yet to hear or read
that authenticity has ever been a goal of any of the Disney projects,
however.  Is there some hidden depths at Disney that I have missed?  All
the buildings at Epcot, for example, are built of fiberglass and poured
concrete.  As far as I know they intended the same thing for the
American history park they proposed, and then backed out of, in Virginia
in 1993-95.  The Disney people seem to be in 100% agreement with those
who do not see any value to authenticity and therefore do not attempt to
employ it .   Could someone enlighten me, then, as to what is meant by
linking the Disney Co.  to historic authenticity?   I would  have
thought, for example, that Colonial Williamsburg, or something like the
Henry Ford Museum, would be the obvious institutions for comparison, or
perhaps some of the many historic theatres of Europe I have visited
where  "authentic" productions are attempted (say the Drottningholm in
Sweden or the Almagro in Spain).  One could even compare all this
authenticity at the Globe to the numerous early music groups that insist
on using replicas of historic instruments to play period music on.  Is
it just that these comparisons are not derogatory enough for those who
aren't interested in what the Globe is trying to do?

Ultimately if you are sold on deconstruction there is indeed little
value    to the kind of authenticity Dr.  Stubbs has questioned-but I'll
bet you would find the productions interesting just the same and a
fascinating postmodern collision of high culture with popular culture.
But keep in mind that for the last one hundred years about half of the
people working in professional theatre have viewed their task as the
translation of a playwrights work into a performance text that is
meaningful to a modern audience.  (The other half see the playwright as
just one of many contributors to the production who should have no
special privileges.) For those who privilege the playwright it seems
valuable to actually know something about the work being
translated---just as it might be more interesting and effective to know
French if you want to translate Fucault,  it might be more interesting
to know something about Elizabethan staging techniques if you are going
to translate a Shakespearean performance.   So for this group of theatre
artists it is not possible to know too much about the original method of
production for a play even though complete knowledge is not possible and
no two productions of any play have ever been the same.  And for the
audience it is just interesting in the way that historic reenactments
are interesting-it may also be a refreshing change-I mean, how many 19th
century or modern dress productions of Shakespeare can you see before it
becomes just so passe you can hardly stand it?

Dr.  Franklin J.  Hildy
Director, Southeastern Region
Shakespeare Globe Centre

[5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Laura Fargas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 2 Jun 1997 17:33:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 8.0625  New Globe Theatre
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0625  New Globe Theatre

Apologia: I'm a working poet and this will be a wholly unscholarly
answer.

> Bob Stubbs asked:
>
> Am I alone in wondering what exactly is the point in this seemingly
> endless quest for replication and quasi authenticity?

Joy.

There may be (in my view, certainly are) other reasons, but why can't
the sheer sizzling pleasure of it be first?

> The theatre of Shakespeare's day cannot be reproduced.

Of course not.  Instead, the best one can hope for is the exquisite
dilemma posed in Borges' story, "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote."

For one thing-the one thing that in its own way would be most wonderful
to me-we'd need Henslowe's Rose a hundred yards away with its stinking
drain enlivening the reading of 'a rose by any other name,' and Ned
Alleyn still bombasting out old Hieronimo to compete for the
groundlings' copper so that Shakespeare would always only be as good as
his next play.  We would have to have a first act when Hamlet's life is
full of choices and we wonder if by God he'll do it pat.

Until a time machine is invented, I'm grateful for the New Globe. In
fact, in some moods I'm goofily exuberant about the New Globe.

> Is it not more important to unpack and understand the many layers of
> meaning in Shakespeare's works than to produce what may be seen as a
> Disneyesque Theme Park type event?

To my mind, the answer to this question is neither yes nor no.

This invites a ranking of the 100 Most Important Things To Do
With/About/Concerning Shakespeare.  Which invites the debate, important
to whom, as well as all the other possible debates.  It also suggests
that there's just one single pool of resources that can be allocated to
All Stuff Relating To Will S., and that we-whoever "we" are-must husband
and apportion them in some careful central fashion.  Not so, Mr.
Interlocutor.

For me, there's a certain charm in taking a naive stance in favor of
replicating the sensory side of Shakespeare on a day when the Bad
Critical Writing Contest results have dropped on this list.  I want to
see what the sun of that latitude looks like when it hits a doublet dyed
with indigo-sunny day, cloudy day, soaked with sweat.  I want to smell
the thatch.  These things will give me great pleasure, and I can't
wait.  I also look forward to reading all the intricate and sometimes
exquisite scholarly thinking that interrogates every aspect of the
Shakespearean universe, including my ability to have and articulate
these (faux?) naive feelings.

Laura Fargas

[6]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 2 Jun 1997 12:29:42 -0700
Subject: 8.0625  New Globe Theatre
Comment:        RE: SHK 8.0625  New Globe Theatre

What interests me most, Bob, is how the "Elizabethian and early Stuart
audience norms of heckling and informality" were being touted a few
years back as liberating us in some vague, neo-Brechtian manner.  Now we
see that they're just another piece of period bric-a-brac that can be
fetishized with all the organic fabrics and puffy clothes of Merchant
Ivory-esque commodification.

As for whether the Globe should be reconstructed, my response is
something like "sure, why not.  Call it an experiment."  On the other
hand, this loving recreation of the past strikes me as a peculiarly
British sort of nostalgia.  Perhaps it's the flip side of the iconoclasm
of a decade of Tory rule that only the most materialistic, consumerist
sorts of nostalgia are any longer tolerated.

Cheers,
Sean

[7]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stuart Manger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 2 Jun 1997 20:24:05 +0100
Subject: 8.0625  New Globe Theatre
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0625  New Globe Theatre

I'm afraid, Bob, I agree. Is this the equivalent of the 'authentic'
movement in music? It is authentic in all the externals - if indeed it
is - but we have irrevocably changed in cultural, religious, social and
political ideologies since then. Our actors, directors. audiences have
TOTALLY shifted their approach to Shakespeare, and play-going. This is
theme-park Shakespeare, and I am afraid this exactly what peter Brook
would call 'deadly theatre' ('The Empty Space'). It is now in the 'Oh,
Elmer, did you see that ruff?' school of literary / theatrical
criticism. What has astonished me is the involvement of so excellent an
actor as Mark Rylance in the project. It'll make money - in the
summer-but is it art?

Stuart Manger

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.