Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1998 :: December ::
Re: Census; Powers of Language; Pop; Presentism; TV
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.1298  Monday, 14 December 1998.

[1]     From:   William Sutton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 12 Dec 1998 09:10:08 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.1286 Re: Census of 1623 First Folio

[2]     From:   Catherine Fitzmaurice <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 12 Dec 1998 21:07:48 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.1291 Shakespeare and the Powers of Language

[3]     From:   Richard Nathan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 12 Dec 1998 18:50:53 +0000
        Subj:   Shakespeare and Pop Culture

[4]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 12 Dec 1998 10:47:55 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.1288 Re: Intros; Presentism; Rhetoric; Sh Notes;
Edward 3

[5]     From:   Carol Barton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 13 Dec 1998 21:44:14 EST
        Subj:   Fonda's "Tempest"


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Sutton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 12 Dec 1998 09:10:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 9.1286 Re: Census of 1623 First Folio
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.1286 Re: Census of 1623 First Folio

Thanks everyone. I found A.J. West in the Library and apparently Harold
M. Otness will be useful when I can track our copy down. STC wasn't that
helpful. The hunt goes on.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Catherine Fitzmaurice <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 12 Dec 1998 21:07:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 9.1291 Shakespeare and the Powers of Language
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.1291 Shakespeare and the Powers of Language

May I suggest you not ignore the SOUND aspects of language? there has to
be a spoken word or voice specialist near you somewhere. And for Harry
Hill who thinks that 1992 is old history: I was at Central and also
taught there before then. How long before then I refuse to divulge. And
I do not lie re the non-reference to literary theory. But we managed to
make more sense, I like to believe, after highly intense conservatory
training, than many actors trained to "do it right" now.

Catherine Fitzmaurice

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

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Nathan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 12 Dec 1998 18:50:53 +0000
Subject:        Shakespeare and Pop Culture

There's a reference to Shakespeare in the current issue of "THE ROLLING
STONE."  In a list of 99 interesting things about television, they make
the following comment about ALLY McBEAL:  "The first thing we do, let's
feed all the lawyers."

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 12 Dec 1998 10:47:55 -0800
Subject: 9.1288 Re: Intros; Presentism; Rhetoric; Sh Notes;
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.1288 Re: Intros; Presentism; Rhetoric; Sh Notes;
Edward 3

Hugh Grady wrote:

>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!

My point was not that the past is an Other which we have to re-create
after an encounter.  On the contrary, it is-absolutely-whether we
recreate it or not. In fact, its absolute claims-its Otherness, qua
otherness-are removed if it becomes the object of our re-presentation.
To integrate the past into our categories kills it.  It ceases to be
Other is the radical sense; in fact, it ceases to be past and becomes
present. It also ceases, at the moment of its re-presentation, to be an
ethical command. Such a fall may be inevitable; it is not good, however,
and does not effect in any way the past's priority over its
reintegration into the present.

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.

That's certainly what I take Levinas to be saying in his critique of
Derrida in "Proper Names":  the entire economy of "the said" rests upon
a pre-original saying which stands outside it.  There is an outside the
text, just as there is an otherwise than being. The saying may
inevitably be betrayed into the said, but the said and the problems of
its economy do not in any way mitigate the claims of the saying.

>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.

And my point is that we encounter the past before ideology.  In fact, we
encounter it ethically before any epistemology or ontology whatsoever.

Cheers,
Sean.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carol Barton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 13 Dec 1998 21:44:14 EST
Subject:        Fonda's "Tempest"

Oh, dear.

Like ham and pineapple pizza, it may be interesting, but the real thing,
it ain't.  This is about as true to Shakespeare as the Demi Moore
_Scarlet Letter_ was to Hawthorne: why do they insist on keeping the
original name?

Carol Barton
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.