Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1998 :: March ::
Re: Editions; R2 Video; Shrew; Play as Blueprint
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0235  Wednesday, 18 March 1998.

[1]     From:   Evelyn Tribble <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 Mar 1998 18:04:09 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0227  Q: Editions

[2]     From:   Tanya Gough <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 Mar 1998 16:53:37 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0233  Q: R2 Video

[3]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 Mar 1998 15:40:35 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 9.0231  Re: Shrew

[4]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 Mar 1998 22:04:18 -0500
        Subj:   Re:  Play as Blueprint


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Evelyn Tribble <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 17 Mar 1998 18:04:09 +0000
Subject: 9.0227  Q: Editions
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0227  Q: Editions

In response to Christine Gilmore's question about the Norton:

I adopted it this term, and I also found the paper too thin.  However,
they have reprinted it with somewhat thicker paper, and I just received
a desk copy today.  The new paper is an improvement over the old.

I too would be interested in other people's responses to this edition.
One thing I've discovered is that you need to alert the students to the
rhetorical moves Stephen Greenblatt makes in his introductory material.
Often he will present one narrative, only to undercut it-e.g. the MND
intro describes its performance at an aristocratic wedding & then says
that there is actually no evidence that this ever happened, however
compelling a story it is.  I've found my students consistently miss the
second part of this rhetorical strategy; they get the myth part but not
the debunking part.  But this has started a number of interesting
discussions.

Lyn Tribble

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

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tanya Gough <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 17 Mar 1998 16:53:37 -0500
Subject: 9.0233  Q: R2 Video
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0233  Q: R2 Video

Harvey Greenberg asked about a decent R2: the BBC version is available
for about $100 (and yes, we are still petitioning them to reduce their
prices!).  There really isn't anything else even remotely decent out
there right now.  As for audio, we're just in the process of
investigating titles.  The CBC or the Beeb are probably your best bets.

Tanya Gough @ Poor Yorick

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 17 Mar 1998 15:40:35 -0800
Subject: Re: Shrew
Comment:        SHK 9.0231  Re: Shrew

I thoroughly enjoyed J. Kenneth Campbell's close reading of Shrew.  The
kind of productions I most enjoy, Jonathan Miller's for the RSC and the
BBC, take this line.  Alas, I have read Fletcher's sequel to Shrew and
have to wonder, as those of us who haven't yet given up on discerning
authorial intent do, if that approach was Shakespeare's.

Surely there is evidence for it in the text, as Mr. Campbell points out
so well.  The sequel reads to me as knockabout slapstick without any
real depth or feeling.  It could be that Fletcher just didn't get the
point of the original.  It could be he got it, but discarded it.  Could
it be that The King's Men mounted a sequel in the spirit of the
original?  Until they invent that time machine, we won't know.  There is
a good chance that the original production lacked the sophistication so
many of us like to find in the text.

Cheers,
Mike Jensen

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 17 Mar 1998 22:04:18 -0500
Subject:        Re:  Play as Blueprint

Stevie Simkin is right to correct the record.  He did not introduce the
metaphor that a "play is a blueprint," to which I responded by noting
that a blueprint must be followed as intended by the draftsman, or the
house falls down.  It was Matt Gretzinger who first introduced the
image.  I apologize to them both.  Larry Weiss
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.