Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1998 :: December ::
Re: Bloom; Presentism; Pop
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.1258  Monday, 7 December 1998.

[1]     From:   Carol Barton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 6 Dec 1998 11:55:49 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.1250 Harold Bloom on Shakespeare

[2]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 06 Dec 1998 19:55:41 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.1243 Re: Presentism

[3]     From:   Tom Mueller <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 6 Dec 1998 18:26:00 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.1246 Re: Shakespeare and Pop Culture


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carol Barton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 6 Dec 1998 11:55:49 EST
Subject: 9.1250 Harold Bloom on Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.1250 Harold Bloom on Shakespeare

>  Dennis Cummings from Haverford, PA:  I have a basic question that I
>  would love your help with. What to you is the main fallacy in the
>  Oxonian vs. the Shakespearean argument?
>
>  HB: There isn't any argument. You could say anything you want to about
>  any author as to who wrote his or her work. The Oxonians are simply
>  crazy; it is a harmless lunacy, but it is a lunacy. There is no more
>  reason for their claim than to say that Queen Elizabeth wrote
>  Shakespeare or anybody else you choose. The plays are still the plays.

How ironic, that Simon should do us the courtesy of forwarding this
post, just at the moment that I have submitted a short article to Notes
and Queries on the verbatim quotation of Elizabeth's personal motto (in
translation from the Latin, of course) in the now-infamous Sonnet LXXVI
(the one the Oxonians use, _Tale of a Tub_ishly, to "prove" that
Shakespeare was really Vere).  One might indeed use such "evidence"
(stronger and clearer than the silly deconstruction of "evere" into E.
Vere) to prove the Swan a queen!

To that extent, I agree with Harold Bloom: it would be nice if we could
put all these lovely mysteries to rest, but if the Shakespeare canon had
been written by a one-eyed one horned flying purple people eater, it
wouldn't change the quality of the works contained therein . . . it
would just make it that much harder to claim him-politically-as "one of
us."

Carol Barton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 06 Dec 1998 19:55:41 -0500
Subject: 9.1243 Re: Presentism
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.1243 Re: Presentism

Hugh Grady writes:

>My point is that the idea of the Otherness of the past
>always already implies a relation to an identification with the present
>and that in trying to know the past we have to reconstruct it through
>the language, culture, ideologies, and discourses at our disposal now.
>The history of reception of any Shakespeare play shows how much the
>past changes as history sweeps along from one "present" to the next. In
>short, my argument is that we can and should posit the Otherness of the
>past, reconstruct it more or less adequately using the various kinds of
>evidence--but never simply appropriate it in itself.

I'm pretty sure I don't understand what "a relationship to an
identification with the present" means, but if "we have to reconstruct
it [i.e., the past] through the language, culture, ideologies, and
discourses" of the present, how could we ever "simply appropriate it
[i.e., the past?] in itself"? Given our historical limitations, wouldn't
such an unmediated appropriation be impossible?

If it is impossible, why worry about it?

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Mueller <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 6 Dec 1998 18:26:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 9.1246 Re: Shakespeare and Pop Culture
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.1246 Re: Shakespeare and Pop Culture

That would be the segment titles Darmok. We just viewed that episode for
a class in "Information Needs and Preferences, the purpose being to
understand some of the intricacies needed to fully augment
communication.  Almost the entire episode was spoken in "tropese", much
of it not in English (or any actual language).

Tom Mueller

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

> Shakespeare saturates Star Trek!  The Undiscovered Country Film  (I'm
> not sure which number...I lose count)  quotes Shakespeare in almost
> every scene!
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.