Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1998 :: April ::
Re: Untaught Plays; Hamlet's Oath; Literary and
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0302  Thursday, 2 April 1998.

[1]     From:   John Velz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 1 Apr 1998 23:29:56 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Untaught Plays

[2]     From:   John Velz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 1 Apr 1998 23:29:34 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Hamlet's Oath

[3]     From:   Terence Hawkes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 2 Apr 1998 04:33:36 -0500
        Subj:   SHK 9.0294  Re: Literary and Scientific Theory


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Velz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 1 Apr 1998 23:29:56 -0600 (CST)
Subject:        Untaught Plays

Dear Ron Dwelle:

Lots of things can be done.  Note that Titus and 2H4 both are capable of
being played (taught) off other plays resp. King Lear and 1H4.  Errors
has a picture frame plot like MND and it also shares elements with
Shrew.  As for the rest, I would consider seriously Troilus and
Cressida, and Coriolanus.  Working with the lesser known, lesser taught
plays is very revealing to teachers as well as students.  Coriolanus,
for instance was hardly ever taught to u.g. students when I was in
college in the early fifties.  By the sixties it was often chosen by my
students on evaluations as the play they most liked.  Fashions rise and
fall.  There is something to be said for each of the untaught plays on
your list.  Maybe some other SHAKSPERians have contributed stuff I have
not seen on other plays-have been out of town.

Teach 'em all.

John

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Velz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 1 Apr 1998 23:29:34 -0600 (CST)
Subject:        Hamlet's Oath

Messrs. Lawrence and Sonjae:

Joking about the supernatural is one way of getting people to think you
are taking reckless chances and ergo are mad.  But another way at the
problem is to remember that we always laugh at things we take
seriously.  Thank goodness that politics and sex still make the cartoon
pages.  The slowly gathering religious revival in very late 20th c. U.S.
is signaled by the return of religious figure and religion to the joke
circuit and the cartoons in *New Yorker*.  .  I think we laugh to
protect ourselves from the grim, the gruesome, the grotesque.

Best to all,
John

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 2 Apr 1998 04:33:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Literary and Scientific Theory
Comment:        SHK 9.0294  Re: Literary and Scientific Theory

'Literary theorists . . .  end up proposing such concepts as the
arbitrariness of the sign' says Dana Spradley. What nonsense. However
they may have developed the concept, the notion of the arbitrariness of
the sign was certainly not first proposed by 'literary theorists'.
Furthermore, Shakespearean criticism did not climax with Johnson. Some
of his remarks on Macbeth achieve a level of crassness quite beyond the
reach of most modern scholars.

Terence Hawkes
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.