1998

Qs: Sweet Revenge; Shakespearean Adaptations

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0251  Tuesday, 24 March 1998.

[1]     From:   H. R. Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 23 Mar 1998 22:10:02 EST
        Subj:   Sweet Revenge

[2]     From:   Thomas Larque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 24 Mar 1998 13:13:47 -0000
        Subj:   Shakespearean Adaptations


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           H. R. Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 23 Mar 1998 22:10:02 EST
Subject:        Sweet Revenge

I am trying to locate two books published in last few years which have
addressed
the subject of revenge in general and revenge tragedies in particular or
is
it only one book   I seem to recall from an LRB review that John
Kerrigan is
the author of one or both or one.  Can anyone give me a complete
citation including
press year, title, subtitle, pagination?  Thanks much.

H. R. Greenberg

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Larque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 24 Mar 1998 13:13:47 -0000
Subject:        Shakespearean Adaptations

I am currently beginning to research for an index / encyclopaedia of
Shakespearean Adaptations  - novels, plays and poems which respond to or
are based around Shakespeare's works - and would be very grateful for
any suggestions of adaptations (especially less well known, newly
performed or published, and out-of-print titles) which members of the
list feel should be included in this index.

I am already aware of the Spin-offs Bibliography which is held in the
SHAKSPER archives, and to which I have contributed in the past.

Many thanks for your help.

Thomas Larque

Re: Anti-Semitism

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0250  Tuesday, 24 March 1998.

From:           Kristine Batey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 23 Mar 1998 14:21:09 -0600
Subject:        Anti-Semitism

Ira Abrams wrote:

> it is clear that Shakespeare
>could imagine villains who were not Jews-just as he could imagine Jews
>who were not villains (i.e., Jessica).

Jessica-who proves she's really a good egg by converting to
Christianity.  And sitting with her new Christian friends, laughing at
and making fun of the father who loves her.

Kristine Batey
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: R3's "amorous looking-glass"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0248  Tuesday, 24 March 1998.

[1]     From:   John McWilliams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 23 Mar 1998 15:20:43 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0243 Qs: R3's "amorous looking-glass"

[2]     From:   Paul Franssen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 23 Mar 1998 16:23:27 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0243 Qs: R3's "amorous looking-glass"

[3]     From:   Ed Peschko <epeschko@den-mdevl>
        Date:   Monday, 23 Mar 1998 14:48:50 -0700 (MST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0243  Qs: R3's "amorous looking-glass"


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John McWilliams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 23 Mar 1998 15:20:43 +0100
Subject: 9.0243 Qs: R3's "amorous looking-glass"
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0243 Qs: R3's "amorous looking-glass"

> But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
> Nor made to court an amorous-looking lass;
>
> Doesn't this make more sense?

Well it makes more direct sense, but isn't really half as good is it? I
mean, aren't all complex images slightly 'strained' (if you want to put
it like that). They undermine any too cosy ways of thinking, challenging
us to imagine the unimaginable. Just read Christopher Rick's on
Marvell's self-reflexivity to see what I mean.

If we were to go through English literature and make amendations like
this everywhere it would be criminal damage in my opinion...

Best,
John McWilliams
Cambridge

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Paul Franssen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 23 Mar 1998 16:23:27 +0100
Subject: 9.0243 Qs: R3's "amorous looking-glass"
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0243 Qs: R3's "amorous looking-glass"

Pervez Rizvi suggested that Richard's "amorous looking glass" should be
emended to "amorous-looking lass." However, Richard does return to the
idea of a looking glass after wooing Anne: in his soliloquy at the end
of 1.2 he says he will be "at charges for a looking glass" now that he
has won the heart of Anne, and asks the sun to shine until he has bought
the mirror, so that he can see his shape reflected in his shadow. All
this, it seems to me, makes the suggested emendation rather less
attractive.

Paul Franssen
Utrecht University
The Netherlands

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Peschko <epeschko@den-mdevl>
Date:           Monday, 23 Mar 1998 14:48:50 -0700 (MST)
Subject: 9.0243  Qs: R3's "amorous looking-glass"
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0243  Qs: R3's "amorous looking-glass"

> Consider the opening speech of Richard III in which he claims that he
> cannot prove a lover because of his deformity:
>
> But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
> Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
> I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
> To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
> (1.1.14-17)
>
> I've always found 'court an amorous looking-glass' to make sense in a
> very strained way, if at all. It occurred to me that there might be a
> subtle misprint here and that the phrase might actually be
> 'amorous-looking lass', i.e.

I'd say that it makes perfect sense - Shakespeare is playing around with
the different types of love that one can aspire to:

'shaped for sportive tricks' - love of company && friendship
'court an amorous looking-glass' - love of self, narcissism.

' I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph' - courtly love, love of women

In other words, Richard is not only denying that he has the ability to
love in the traditional sense, but that he can love at *all*. He is
completely damaged, out of the reach of normal human companionship, and
deformed completely both inside and out.

At least, that's how I read it.

Ed

Re: Postmodernism

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0249  Tuesday, 24 March 1998.

[1]     From:   Paul Zabkar <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 23 Mar 1998 11:47:20 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Pomo Debate

[2]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 23 Mar 1998 17:00:03 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0240  Re: Postmodernism


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Paul Zabkar <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 23 Mar 1998 11:47:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject:        Pomo Debate

"It's an anti-French intellectual escapade."  Writer Roger-Pol Droit saw
the broadside as part of a sinister new vogue for "scientific, as
opposed to political, correctness."

I think this quote sums up the whole debate about this new book written
by narrow-minded scientists who rely on the specificity of scientific
terminology and context for their attack on French philosophy.  Of
course people like Deleuze & Lacan use the terms differently, just as
the scientific community appropriated words from other contexts to
create their own theories.  I see the authors of this book in the same
vein of action as Slobodon Molisovic and his ethnic cleansing techniques
in Bosnia, except here the scientists are performing a cleansing of
words, so that we all understand the sameness of meaning apparently
attached to them.

Didn't the word "evolution" used to describe a Biblical event, at least
until Darwin came along?

Paul Zabkar
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 23 Mar 1998 17:00:03 -0500
Subject: 9.0240  Re: Postmodernism
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0240  Re: Postmodernism

Gabriel Egan writes:

>Tallis isn't issuing a warning that without empirical truth anything can
>be true, as Godshalk appears to believe. Rather, he's testing the limits
>of what a community of like-minded people (his category of `Theorists')
>are prepared to contest.
>
>And that, I submit, is a tacit acceptance that `empirical truth' is an
>unhelpful notion. What matters is what people are prepared to spend time
>and energy trying to persuade each other about. Rhetoric and power, not
>truth, is the issue.

Egan, I gather, misses Godshalk's irony as well as Tallis's meaning. As
a scientist, Tallis, of course, believes in certain empirical truths
that are indeed quite helpful in his work.  Cancer, unfortunately,
exists, whether Egan is prepared to believe so or not, and light will
travel at a certain speed whatever one's personal belief system or
political stance. I hold these truths to be self-evident, etc., etc.,
whatever rhetoric and power Egan may use to persuade me otherwise. We
won last time; this time we shall prevail.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

Announcing ArdenNet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0247  Tuesday, 24 March 1998.

From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, March 24, 1998
Subject:        Announcing ArdenNet

I would like to encourage all SHAKSPEReans to register for ArdenNet
<http://www.ardenshakespeare.com/ardennet> while it is still free.

ArdenNet proclaims itself "THE CRITICAL RESOURCE FOR SHAKESPEARE
STUDIES."  It "offers a carefully selected range of up-to-date resources
from eminent Shakespeareans and an unprecedented opportunity to
participate in online debate."

The site is structured as follows: Professional ("This section provides
those involved in Shakespeare studies with the everyday information they
need in their work."); Internet ("This section groups together those
essays and resources in ArdenNet which relate to the wider Internet."
This section also reviews "sites useful for Shakespeare research on the
Internet."); Scholarship ("The Scholarship section is the heart of
ArdenNet - and you are invited to participate. Its purpose is to exploit
the potential of the World Wide Web by providing a space for shorter
pieces, "work in progress" towards academic papers, articles or books,
or for discussion papers, ideas and thoughts which are either too short
or inappropriate for publication via the currently available
channels."); News ("The News and Reviews section is where to come for
listings and comment about Shakespeare books, multimedia and
performances (on both stage and screen).); Teaching ("This area of
ArdenNet is devoted to the discussion of teaching Shakespeare - from
high school to postgraduate level."); and Discussion ("Join the
debates... ArdenNet invites you to join the community's discussions of
the issues raised by our resources.")

SHAKSPEReans might be interested to know that in the Internet section
SHAKSPER is described as follows:

"The electronic mailing list SHAKSPER includes many eminent scholars as
its members, but unfortunately also has many high school and
undergraduate students and amateurs. It has suffered increasing
trivialisation as Internet access has spread beyond academia. An
unmoderated Shakespeare Usenet newsgroup exists but its discussions
rarely rise above high school level."

Let me also remind members that the Discussion area invites "discussions
of the issues raised by our resources."

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.