Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1998 :: December ::
Re: Intros; Presentism; Rhetoric; Sh Notes; Edward 3
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.1288  Saturday, 12 December 1998.

[1]     From:   Anatole Fourmantchouk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 10 Dec 1998 10:32:40 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.1271  Re: Introductions

[2]     From:   Hugh Grady <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 10 Dec 1998 10:58:25 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.1277  Re: Presentism

[3]     From:   Ed Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 10 Dec 1998 10:47:26 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Rhetoric

[4]     From:   Hugh Grady <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 11 Dec 1998 16:30:28 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.1245 Re: *Sh. Notes*

[5]     From:   Robert Neblett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 11 Dec 1998 09:01:50 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.1104  Re: Shakespeare's Edward III


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Anatole Fourmantchouk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 10 Dec 1998 10:32:40 -0500
Subject: 9.1271  Re: Introductions
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.1271  Re: Introductions

Yes: 1. introduction
        2. identification
        3. interruption / as a distinguished feature of the style/
        4. repetition / twice or three times the same thing is repeated
-another feature of a style./
        5. division of the episodes
        6. prolonging, or duration, or whatever - the time to process
and as consequence-
        -7. amount of words- poetry.

I believe for that purpose stands the final scene in Romeo & Juliet
when  the events we have just seen are repeated in the descriptions.
Descriptions? Yes - from the literary point of view. But what does it
mean from the theatrical one? When a character describes he doesn't act
- here we come to the point of, so to speak, Chekhov's 'subtext' - a
very dangerous definition which presumes that there is another, hidden
text . That's impossible. I believe , Shakespeare is as good  in
'subtext' as Chekhov. Because from the theatrical approach meaning of
text is always opposite to the meaning of action /cause -effect /, and
if we can get everything from the reading what's the point of the
performing.

Anatole Fourmantchouk.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hugh Grady <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 10 Dec 1998 10:58:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 9.1277  Re: Presentism
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.1277  Re: Presentism

The numerous loose ends and responses to responses of this thread now
seem to defy any gathering together. I had hoped to respond to the issue
of a supposed "myth" of Tillyard hegemony c. 1940-1970 (short answer:
the fact of numerous dissents from Tillyard's position in the era in the
face of its continued institutional dominance is evidence of its
hegemony: the leading position is always swiped at by challengers, in
the classic primate-hierarchy behavior which structures so much of
academic debate!). And I wanted to address Bill Godshalk's puzzlement at
my wording about Other and present by at least suggesting that a change
from Zinfandel to a Faulknerian shot-glass, followed by repeating the
mantra, "Other...self, Other...self, Other...self..." might bring about
the desired enlightenment. Alas, that too seems to have been lost in the
general sourness of the last round of commentary. So I leave it to a
short reply to the gracious post of Sean Lawrence. Your point that the
past is an Other which we  have to re-create after an encounter ("The
Other escapes categories, or rather is only integrated into our
categories post hoc") seems to me a fair paraphrase of what I was
saying! I would register some skepticism about some direct, authentic
encounter beyond or above language-but I'm not certain that's what you
or Levinas is in fact asserting. Perhaps the difference is around the
nature of our encounter with the past, which I see as always partial,
speculative, and ideological. But perhaps this thread has run out.

Best wishes,
Hugh Grady

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 10 Dec 1998 10:47:26 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Rhetoric

I wish to second Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer's praise of Randal Robinson's
*Unlocking Shakespeare's Language: Help for the Teacher and the Student*
(Urbana: NCTE, 1989), which leads the reader through a series of
well-thought-out exercises that culminate in a good, practical knowledge
of Shakespeare's language and rhetorical techniques. Another fine
article by Professor Robinson, "Improvisation and the Language of
Shakespeare's Plays," unites rhetoric and acting in important and
helpful ways, and can be found in the *Nebraska English Journal* 35.3.4
54-64.

Ed Taft

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hugh Grady <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 11 Dec 1998 16:30:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 9.1245 Re: *Sh. Notes*
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.1245 Re: *Sh. Notes*

I finally reached Steve Doloff, editor of the launching journal
"Shakespeare Notes." He told me that after some unfortunate delays he
was planning on bringing out the first issue in 1999.

--Hugh Grady

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robert Neblett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 11 Dec 1998 09:01:50 -0600
Subject: 9.1104  Re: Shakespeare's Edward III
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.1104  Re: Shakespeare's Edward III

I am beginning to think I am crazy.  When I was reading over the posts
about EDWARD III, I went to my Shakespeare anthologies to look at the
play, and it was not there.  I distinctly remember seeing it in the
table of contents (and flipping past it on my way to other plays), but,
alas, it is no more!  Are there any anthologies (e.g. Bevington,
Riverside, etc.) which have published E3 in the past?
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.