Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1998 :: October ::
Re: Maguire, et. al; Berger: Dollimore
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0978  Friday, 9 October 1998.

[1]     From:   William Williams <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 08 Oct 1998 12:32:30 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0971  Re: Interpretational Practices

[2]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 08 Oct 1998 16:25:48 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0964  Re: Representations of Clergy

[3]     From:   Karen E Peterson-Kranz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 9 Oct 1998 12:31:52 +1000 (GMT+1000)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0971  Re: Interpretational Practices


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Williams <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 08 Oct 1998 12:32:30 -0400
Subject: 9.0971  Re: Interpretational Practices
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0971  Re: Interpretational Practices

John Robinson said:

>Perhaps I'm missing something but...if the object of study is
>Shakespeare then the text closest to Shakespeare's manuscript is the
>important one: Q2 in Hamlet's case. If your interest is Drama then the
>text that is the most coherent may be your best bet, how the text got
>that way may be a secondary concern. Any one who chooses F1 Hamlet as
>Sh. . . ."

Well, perhaps I'm missing something but why, without doubt or argument,
is it automatically Q2 Hamlet and not Q1?  I'd have thought Maguire,
Long, et al. had pretty much dented, if not completely destroyed, our
old Bad Qs view of things and hence, why just Q2 (I'll leave the old
chestnut of Shak's ms for that's a swamp where most of us could sink
without a trace).  And, in my further missing things, why is coherent
best and why is a knowledge of how it got that way of no concern in the
theatre?  One might ask Sher and Doran about the chariot/jeep in Titus
and whether they now wonder/wish they had known how it got into the New
Oxford Shakespeare.

WPW

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 08 Oct 1998 16:25:48 -0400
Subject: 9.0964  Re: Representations of Clergy
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0964  Re: Representations of Clergy

Tom Berger suggests:

"See AN INDEX OF CHARACTERS IN ENGLISH PRINTED DRAMA TO THE RESTORATION
(1975) but about to reappear as AN INDEX OF CHARACTERS IN EARLY MODERN
DRAMA, with additions of lost plays, and Latin plays, etc."

If I wonder if Tom would be kind enough to tell us all when the new
edition is (finally) published. I'd like a copy, and I'll bet it sells
out quickly.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen E Peterson-Kranz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 9 Oct 1998 12:31:52 +1000 (GMT+1000)
Subject: 9.0971  Re: Interpretational Practices
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0971  Re: Interpretational Practices

In response to Gabriel Egan's comment about Dollimore and *Radical
Tragedy*, that "brutalized, revenging anti-heroes are made by bad
circumstances, often at court" ---

The qualification I would offer is related to something I (probably
rather tediously) try to teach all my students: Everything in life is
more complicated than you think it is.

I think, Gabriel, you may be oversimplifying Dollimore's argument.
Since I too struggle, and am struggling, with *Radical Treagedy* I
hesitate to speak for Dollimore, but I suspect the problem with your
summary is in the choice of "circumstances."  There are some significant
differences between contingent, often material, factors in the
construction of subjectivities, and circumstantial factors.

For what it's worth.  Or I may simply have missed the point.

-- Karen Peterson-Kranz
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.