1998

Re: Lust in Rom.

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0764  Friday, 14 August 1998.

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 08:45:37 -0700
        Subj:   SHK 9.0758  Re: Lust in Rom.

[2]     From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 11:55:59 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0758  Re: Lust in Rom.


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 08:45:37 -0700
Subject: Re: Lust in Rom.
Comment:        SHK 9.0758  Re: Lust in Rom.

Was the problem of Romeo and Juliet lust or something else?  I don't
know, but in the words of one of this century's more noteworthy Romeos
on the flaw of that character, "It is difficult to sympathize with
someone who lets his erection do his thinking for him."

I don't have Laurence Olivier's book in my office, so that may be a
paraphrase.  I believe it is pretty close.

Mike Jensen

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 11:55:59 -0400
Subject: 9.0758  Re: Lust in Rom.
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0758  Re: Lust in Rom.

Let me join Ed Taft in admiring *Rom*.  If we accept the traditional
chronology, Shakespeare wrote it during or shortly after the hiatus in
his theatrical career caused by the closing of the theaters in on London
between June 1592 and June 1594, when he wrote the two long narrative
poems and many if not all the sonnets.  It makes sense to me that work
on the sonnets in particular sharpened his awareness and mastery of
structure, for *Rom* has a complexity and elegance of organization much
greater than any of the earlier plays.  And that organization displays
the exquisite balance of a great Petrarchan or Shakespearean sonnet,
Montague and Capulet, youthful passion against mature prudence, private
vengeance against public order, not just thematically but structurally.
As Susan Snyder taught us to see, the play acts like a comedy (spotted
with dark forebodings) until almost exactly halfway through the killings
of Mercutio and Tybalt and the consummation of the secret marriage swing
it toward tragedy (shot through with comic gleams), in a process so
carefully conducted that on either side of the catastrophe the
individual scenes manage both to repeat and reverse the sequence of the
other half.  The play lacks the metaphysical and political reach of the
"great" tragedies, but it is psychologically acute (not just in its
treatment of adolescent liebstod, but more generally-see Kirby Farrell's
brilliant analysis of the play's exploration of the psychopathology of
patriarchy).  And it's great fun to watch and read.

I share Ed's discomfort with Aristotelian approaches to this or any
Shakespearean tragedy.  If the lovers have faults, however, lust is not
one of them; nothing in the language of this play echoes Shakespeare's
treatment of that theme in *Lucrece*, the sonnets, or *Othello*, nor
does any of the characters except Mercutio give it more than a passing
glance, and his reductive assessment of Romeo's state is countered by
the spiritualizing imagery of both balcony scenes.  Shakespeare takes
care to get the youngsters to the altar before the bed; their lovemaking
is legal if not sensible, and from the point of view of the plot can be
viewed as fully authenticating the marriage and thus raising the status
of Capulet's obstinate insistence that Juliet marry Paris to a real
problem.  The text does repeatedly call attention to Romeo's (and
Capulet's) impulsiveness, through both speeches and actions, and to
Juliet's privileging of fancy over reason.  But these are characteristic
qualities of the young, which education tries to control but which are
also expected to be schooled by the responsibilities that follow
marriage.

The particular interest here, I believe, arises from the way the social
sickness of Verona, by distorting normal patterns of friendship and
courtship, deflects the lovers out of a path in which their love might
have developed productively  with the sanction of their parents and
rulers and into a destructive cul de sac.  At the base of this process
lies not just the self-interested patriarchal obtuseness of the parents,
especially Capulet (one of the brilliant inventions of the play is the
presentation of Paris, a little dull, perhaps, but a nice guy with more
than adequate social and personal advantages, by contrast with Thurio,
who occupies the analogous structural spot in *Two Gents*), but the
culture of chivalric violence, which rose to a peak in the
early-to-mid-1590s, with the publication of *The Faerie Queene* and
*Arcadia*, romantic hotheads like Raleigh and Essex in the ascendant at
Court, and the London streets full of "tall fellows" who had blooded
their swords in the Low Countries or Ireland.

What all this means is that, as usual, no single issue-Aristotelian
hamartia or Freudean death-wish or the craze for Petrarchan
sonnetry-will begin to account for the richness of the play as a whole,
or for its continuing popularity in classrooms and theaters.

Copiously,
Dave Evett

Re: KJV

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0763  Friday, 14 August 1998.

[1]     From:   Tad Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 09:39:14 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0759  Re: KJV

[2]     From:   Stephanie Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 20:16:05 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0754  Re: KJV Team

[3]     From:   Stephanie Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 23:10:02 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0759  Re: KJV


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tad Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 09:39:14 -0400
Subject: 9.0759  Re: KJV
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0759  Re: KJV

David Evett wrote:

> A recent contributor is surprised that so little documentation survives
> for the King James Bible project-a handful of preliminary discussions of
> what was to be done and generally by whom, a list of translators, a
> couple of accounts of the way groups worked, a few notes from one
> participant.  No contemporary notice of the book's publication.  No
> apparent splash.

No great mystery about any of this: clearly the bulk of the translation
was done by the Earl of Oxford.

Tad Davis

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephanie Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 20:16:05 -0700
Subject: 9.0754  Re: KJV Team
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0754  Re: KJV Team

> From: Chris Kendall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

> As a programmer currently working on Y2K issues, I can imagine how the
> KJV team operated and so account for all of the above. The king hired 54
> men based on LOE estimates submitted by non-translators. They met for 3
> years arguing about specs. Meantime, one man spent his spare time
> actually doing the translation, which was submitted to the group in more
> or less finished shape in 1607 and then argued over for three more
> years, until the king fired the whole group and published the thing
> himself. The translator who had done the work had long since left to
> write adventure stories and was forgotten.

Excellent scenario!  Here's another.  For years poets have been
translating the more poetic parts of the Bible, the psalms (the most
popular translations for years, dozens doing it, some execrable, some
superb), the Song of Solomon, etc., and passing them around in
manuscript. With James on the throne, Bacon (who was devoted to getting
important works published, including his own stuff), urged the King that
having a definitive Bible would be a lasting memorial to his reign
(which was looking a bit seedy at that point). Bacon was tight with a
lot of the more gifted and educated Bishops, and got a committee
together. They collected some of the better stuff by poets, and gave
various good writers, including Jonson and Donne, and the more talented
Churchmen, the task of translating the rest. Once it was done, a cover
story was invented that would spread the responsibility evenly over a
community that could best benefit by the praise and withstand the blame.

Stephanie H.

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephanie Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 23:10:02 -0700
Subject: 9.0759  Re: KJV
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0759  Re: KJV

From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

> linguistic accuracy and doctrinal validity.
> These two concerns dominate all the surviving  discussions of the KJV
> translation process, as they dominate the prefaces and other documents
> relating to all the earlier and most of the subsequent translations of
> the Bible in English and other languages.  Esthetic considerations may,
> no doubt, have affected particular translators as they worked on
> particular pieces of text.  But they could never be more than secondary
> or tertiary; it is for this reason above all that scholars and priests,
> not professional writers, were recruited for the task.

Most interesting and useful posts. However I couldn't disagree more with
the above paragraph. As someone mentioned on this thread, many of the
translations are not precise. Was that because the translator didn't
know his Greek? I don't think so. The English society was so steeped in
poetry, from the tippy tip of the most educated, with their imitations
of Petrarch, to the lowest of the low, with their ballads, rhyming
duels, and ancient inheritance of Celtic bardism, that this, the
repository of their common faith, had to sound good, was equally as
important as linguistic accuracy and doctrinal validity, if not more so.
They were such good scholars, whoever they were, that they knew that the
original Greek had a beautiful, mellifluous flow. Lovers of poetry all,
they knew that the better it sounded, the deeper the meaning, and the
richer the emotional response. We must be careful not to judge our
forbears by ourselves.

And, let us not forget whose book this was, and who, therefore, was
doubtless assisting all 52 in their translating!

Stephanie H.

Re: New York CYMBELINE

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0761  Friday, 14 August 1998.

[1]     From:   Carl Fortunato <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 09:48:17 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0756  Re: New York CYMBELINE

[2]     From:   Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 10:54:48 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0756  Re: New York CYMBELINE

[3]     From:   Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 11:00:06 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0756  Re: New York CYMBELINE

[4]     From:   Diane Grecco <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 12:09:18 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0752  Re: New York CYMBELINE

[5]     From:   Dana Spradley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 14 Aug 1998 09:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0752  Re: New York CYMBELINE


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carl Fortunato <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 09:48:17 EDT
Subject: 9.0756  Re: New York CYMBELINE
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0756  Re: New York CYMBELINE

>Good luck getting tickets; we got ours through friends in the
>production.  I don't know this year's method of distributing the grace
>of free tix.

It's not hard to get tickets.  They pass them out at 1:00 pm, and if you
show up at 10, you should get a good seat.  This sounds like a long
time, but sitting in the park and reading a book for 3 hours is actually
a rather pleasant chore.

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 10:54:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 9.0756  Re: New York CYMBELINE
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0756  Re: New York CYMBELINE

The remarks on CYMBELINE in New York leads me to remind those who are in
driving distance of Atlanta that the Atlanta Shakespeare Tavern is doing
a nice production of PERICLES, uncut. For information phone
404-874-5299.  Meanwhile across town the other Shakespeare company,
Georgia Shakespeare Festival, is doing a first-rate MEASURE for MEASURE:
it's one of the smartest and most interesting productions of this play
that I've ever seen. The GSF phone is 404-504-3400. Y'all come.

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 11:00:06 -0400
Subject: 9.0756  Re: New York CYMBELINE
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0756  Re: New York CYMBELINE

Almost 30 years ago I had the great good fortune to see two wonderful
productions of CYMBELINE within a month of each other: the NYSF at the
Delacourt, and one at Stratford, Ont.  They were very different, partly
because of directorial conception, but mostly because of the performance
conditions of their respective theatres.  I rather preferred the
Stratford one, which was traditionally costumed, unamplified and staged
presentationally, with huge beautiful voices propelling the poetry
between characters on distant diagonals, usually speaking as if at least
as conscious of their public roles and social positions as of the degree
of intimacy between them.  The big scenes, and Jupiter on his eagle,
were thrilling.  The NYSF was electronically amplified, and consequently
in some ways more naturalistic. People stood next to the characters they
were speaking to, and addressed them personally.  But it was also more
expressionistic-the contending armies were in someting like Big Bird
costumes.  The intimate scenes, played at a near-whisper, were very
moving. Both productions made a good case for the play.  Two cases, in
fact: almost two separate plays, one about right rule and loyalty, one
about love and faith. The size, sweep and variety to be found in the
play bowled me over.

G.L.Horton <http://www.tiac.net/users/ghorton>

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Diane Grecco <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 12:09:18 -0400
Subject: 9.0752  Re: New York CYMBELINE
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0752  Re: New York CYMBELINE

> It bothered my wife that the actress that played Imogen
> was slightly pregnant, but I didn't even notice until she pointed it
> out.

As John Mahon mentioned, we saw CYMBELINE this past Thursday, and we all
enjoyed it.  We were wondering if Imogen was supposed to be pregnant
(that was how it was played on stage, because at one point, Cloten
speaks to her growing stomach), or if the actress herself was pregnant
and the actors were manipulating the dialogue to reflect her pregnant
state.  I don't think we ever came to an agreement about it, either.

Diane Grecco
Editorial Assistant
The Shakespeare Newsletter
Iona College

[5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dana Spradley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 14 Aug 1998 09:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 9.0752  Re: New York CYMBELINE
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0752  Re: New York CYMBELINE

Is Andrei Serban the guy who directed an amazing 12th Night at the ART
in Cambridge, MA, in 1990 or so? If so, glad to hear he's still going
strong, and has tackled another of my favorite plays. The guy does
wonderful stuff: scenically lush and inventive, yet amazingly close to
the text.

And he doesn't labor under the delusion that he should cut things short.
The 12th Night, as I recall, was well over 3 hours and slowly paced to
bring out every nuance of the text, yet sustained interest over that
longer span better than most "punched up" productions do over a shorter.

Just wish I were still on the East coast! But since I'm not, can anyone
answer a question for my reflecting my own interests in the play - was
there any suggestion of political overtones in the production, pointing
either to Shakespeare's contemporary Jacobean context and the Union
controversy, or to modern day equivalents? I doubt it, since even if
they were operative in 17th century productions, they'd be almost
impossible to reproduce today with any success. But just thought I'd
check.

Re: Sonnets and Homosexuality

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0762  Friday, 14 August 1998.

[1]     From:   Carl Fortunato <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 11:25:19 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0757  Re: Sonnets and Homosexuality

[2]     From:   Carl Fortunato <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 11:33:31 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0757  Re: Sonnets and Homosexuality

[3]     From:   Carl Fortunato <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 11:46:14 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0757  Re: Sonnets and Homosexuality

[4]     From:   Peter T. Hadorn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 11:54:48 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 9.0757  Re: Sonnets and Homosexuality

[5]     From:   Chris Stroffolino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 13:16:06 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0757  Re: Sonnets and Homosexuality

[6]     From:   Peter Groves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 14 Aug 1998 08:23:09 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0755  Sonnets and Homosexuality

[7]     From:   Dana Spradley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 14 Aug 1998 09:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0757 Re: Sonnets and Homosexuality


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carl Fortunato <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 11:25:19 EDT
Subject: 9.0757  Re: Sonnets and Homosexuality
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0757  Re: Sonnets and Homosexuality

> Does it matter?  Are the sonnets any less or more effective, artful,
> person to person, for that determination?

It does not make any difference in their artfulness.  It *does* make a
difference in determining their meaning, and in determining whether or
not they are autobiographical.

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carl Fortunato <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 11:33:31 EDT
Subject: 9.0757  Re: Sonnets and Homosexuality
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0757  Re: Sonnets and Homosexuality

>However, Sonnet 20 is pretty damned obviously a love note to a fellow
>male, with its references to "the master-mistress of my passions" and
>the closing couplet.  (I've written a paper using this poem as my
>thesis, essentially, and demonstrating a strong homoerotic and
>homosocial thread running through the plays.)

Many people view sonnet 20 as the opposite - a statement that WS loves
the young man, but has no use for his "appendage" - which would seem to
be a statement of heterosexuality.

>Here are two big questions, however:
>1.      Is the order of the Sonnets Shakespeare's order or an editor's order?
>Do they trace a love affair with a youth or do they merely describe
>moments that someone other than the poet has shaped into a story?

I have an old edition of the Sonnets which claims to have discovered the
"true" orders by some means of match rhymes.  I have no idea if it's
accurate, but the order arrived at is actually a good one.  In that
order, Sonnet 20 becomes Sonnet 1 and opens the set.

>2. Whether or not there is a sequence, are the Sonnets personal
>revelations or works of creative fiction, if you will, where the poet is
>exploring potentialities and emotional possibilities in the way a novel
>might?  I have a gay friend who has written incredibly moving
>straight-love poems as well as equally moving gay-love poems, both about
>imagined rather than real experiences.

I have always assumed that they were autobiographical.  I would think
that the "Will" sonnets are a strong indication of that, as well as the
personal references and sheer vagueness of some of them.  Rowse made a
whole career on the supposition that they were autobiographical.  He
denied their homosexuality, but he was a homophobe (At one point,
arguing against Shakespeare's homosexuality, he writes, "Shakespeare was
perfectly normal.")

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carl Fortunato <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 11:46:14 EDT
Subject: 9.0757  Re: Sonnets and Homosexuality
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0757  Re: Sonnets and Homosexuality

>If Carl absolutely can't bear to think of Will as AC/DC, there might be
>an arguable wiggle in the master-mistress sonnet. 14 feminine endings?
>There's a major private joke there, we just have no idea what the joke
>is-but it makes me feel queasy about taking anything it says or hints
>for true.

Oh, no, it doesn't bother me.  I just think it's interesting.

Were they *called* "feminine endings" in Shakespeare's day?

>However, other language throughout the plays shows a very thorough
>knowledge of the puns of buggery

Yes,  but he often seems to be making a bit of mockery of the subject.
Patroclus and Achilles come in for a good bit of mockery for being
lovers.  And with Coriolanus and Aufidius he seems to be using
homoerotic imagery as a way of treating warriors' violence as some sort
of sick repressed sexuality.  At least that's what I make of it.

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter T. Hadorn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 11:54:48 -0500
Subject: 9.0757  Re: Sonnets and Homosexuality
Comment:        RE: SHK 9.0757  Re: Sonnets and Homosexuality

Regarding Shakespeare's sexuality.  I refer Carl to the brief section on
Shakespeare's sexuality in Stephen Booth's edition of the poems.  The
first two sentences read thus:  "William Shakespeare was almost
certainly homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. The sonnets provide no
evidence on the matter."  Perhaps Booth (and I) are being coy, but I
firmly believe that the reader will find in the sonnets what the reader
wants to find.  Just as all Catholics will believe Shakespeare was
Catholic, Protestants will think he is Protestant, and atheists will
think he was an atheistic.

[5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris Stroffolino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 13:16:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 9.0757  Re: Sonnets and Homosexuality
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0757  Re: Sonnets and Homosexuality

I like the idea that the first 18 sonnets can also be read as
Shakespeare talking to himself, telling himself "thou single will prove
none" for instance-and the procreative metaphor may be equally about the
desire to write PLAYS, to "divide himself up into characters" (or as
CYMBELINE puts it "cut the roots into characters"). I do not mean to
discount other readings, including the homosexual aesthetic eugenics one
Pequigney raises, but I'm curious if this "self-reflective" reading has
occurred to others.....

   Chris Stroffolino

[6]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Groves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 14 Aug 1998 08:23:09 +1000
Subject: 9.0755  Sonnets and Homosexuality
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0755  Sonnets and Homosexuality

> Does anyone have any opinions on the Sonnets?  Was Shakespeare gay for
> part of his life, or is something else being expressed here?

He denies having any interest in actual sodomy:

And for a woman wert thou first created,
Till nature as she wrought thee fell a dotinge,
And by addition me of thee defeated,
By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.
But since she prickt thee out for womens pleasure,
Mine be thy loue and thy loues vse their treasure.      Son. 20.9-14

But in the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, a key witness in the
Profumo affair, he would say that, wouldn't he?

[7]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dana Spradley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 14 Aug 1998 09:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 9.0757 Re: Sonnets and Homosexuality
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0757 Re: Sonnets and Homosexuality

Glad to see people have by now pretty much gotten their heads around
this issue in interesting ways. One position not quite taken here yet:
the male beloved / female rival scenario could be seen as a way
Shakespeare in having fun with / toping off a tradition that typically
had things the other way round.

At least, that's the partial view that magnifies Shakespeare's
invention. And if it's true in part, it makes it even more surprising
that some of the poems read so resonantly that I for one have little
doubt there most be some real love affair(s) or at least desires behind
them. The Sonnets are doubtless true - and also a great work of fiction.
Sometimes life's just like that - indeed, maybe it's real life at its
best when it also seems most artful.

Acquisition and Appropriation

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0760  Thursday, 13 August 1998.

From:           Scott Crozier <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 13 Aug 1998 14:57:35 +1000
Subject:        Acquisition and Appropriation

I apologise for this posting before I start.  Some time ago Professor
Edward Pechter mentioned these concepts in association with his "survey"
of poststructuralist critical responses to Shakespeare's plays.  I have
lost the evidence of that discussion and hope that either Professor
Pechter or others on the list interested in how theory can inform
productions, would be able to set me in the right direction.  I am
interested in how Shakespeare's texts [contexts] have been acquired for
productions in the latter 20th C and then how appropriation of the texts
[contexts] appears in productions of specifically MND.

Again apologies for repeating what has already been discussed.

Regards,
Scott Crozier

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.