Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: February ::
Re: Psychodrama; Jesters; Myth; KJ; Ring/Fire
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0259  Monday, 15 February 1999.

[1]     From:   Clifford Stetner <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 13 Feb 1999 14:37:22 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Is Oedipus Rex a Psychodrama?

[2]     From:   Stephanie Hughes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 13 Feb 1999 10:32:20 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0248 Re: Touchstone (Jesters)

[3]     From:   Simon Spiero <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 14 Feb 1999 10:02:47 -0800
        Subj:   RE: SHK 10.0241 Re: Early Myth

[4]     From:   Melissa Cook <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 14 Feb 1999 10:02:42 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0224 Re: King John (Play and Performance)

[5]     From:   John Velz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 14 Feb 1999 12:41:37 -0600
        Subj:   Ring of Fire


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clifford Stetner <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 13 Feb 1999 14:37:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Is Oedipus Rex a Psychodrama?

Brian Haylett says:

"This and some other responses make me feel that if you play around too
long with your methodology you may go blind. There must be a few members
of the Conference willing to do a bit of straightforward brainstorming
that sticks to the point. I couldn't care less if the Merchant is a
psychodrama - but I do care about the structural and textual problems
that I hung upon it. A few scatter-gun questions"

Well I never! I take it you don't think much of my theory of this play's
meaning.  I anticipated a number of possible objections, but I
overlooked an appeal to its self-evident absurdity.  As to the four
level exegesis, I can't take credit for it-only for my particular
interpretation of the allegory.  I must say you are a little unkind for
someone who has posted a request for input.

Haylett continues:

"[mine] are practical questions which touch on such enduring mysteries
as Iago's motivation. Let's not get lost in literary theory, ancient or
modern.  I was brought up on textual criticism - which deserves a
renaissance."

Although you are free to choose to dispense with ancient literary theory
(or, frankly, dispense with whatever you like; this is not a textual
criticism conference), the Elizabethans did not.  It was a part of the
renaissance they felt to be deserved.

Teiresias: Though your are king, the right to speak does not belong to
you alone.  it is my right as well and I shall claim it.  I am not your
servant and Creon is not my patron.  I serve only Loxian Apollo.  And I
tell you this, since you mock my blindness. You have eyes, Oedipus, and
do not see our own destruction.

Clifford Stetner
CUNY

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephanie Hughes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 13 Feb 1999 10:32:20 +0000
Subject: 10.0248 Re: Touchstone (Jesters)
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0248 Re: Touchstone (Jesters)

>Rumor has it that Branagh suffered the deadly experience of playing
>Touchstone to no or few laughs and that this experience influenced his
>and Michael Keaton's decision to go for visual as well as verbal humor
>on the part of Dogberry in Much Ado: "Michael Keaton and I were agreed
>that Dogberry should be not only a verbal but a physical malaprop.  I
>suspect that I am not alone in finding the character's play on words
>less funny than the the character himself. . . . " (Kenneth Branagh,
>"Introduction," xiii, Much Ado Screenplay).

I wonder about Branagh's sense of humor, then. The Keaton Dogberry was
flat out awful in an otherwise marvelous film. It was like being halfway
through a cheesecake and crunching down on a rock. I hated it all the
more that the rest of the film was so lovely. Even Keanu Reeves was okay
(forgiven all for his lovely torso). Is there anyone who actually liked
Keaton's Dogberry?

Stephanie Hughes

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Simon Spiero <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 14 Feb 1999 10:02:47 -0800
Subject: 10.0241 Re: Early Myth
Comment:        RE: SHK 10.0241 Re: Early Myth

The story of Proteus is in the Odyssey ,Chapter4.

However it is not Odysseus who strives with Proteus, but Menelaos, as
correctly mentioned in some letters.

Telemachos goes to see him to find if he has news of Odysseus.  Menelaos
then tells how he fought with Proteus ",The Old Man of the Sea " in
order to find out the whereabouts of Agamemnon,Proteus also tells him
news of Odysseus.The Odyssey is full of stories within stories.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Melissa Cook <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 14 Feb 1999 10:02:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 10.0224 Re: King John (Play and Performance)
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0224 Re: King John (Play and Performance)

I believe that the character of the bastard in King John is one of
Shakespeare's masterful twists on conventional views.  The strength of
the character and of a lot of the play is that it challenges the view
that poor(er)=dumb/immoral.  As far as the play goes, from the DC
production which is all I can base my opinion on as I have not read my
play and this is the first performance that our illustrious moderator
has seen of it on stage let alone his green daughter, I don't think the
play is as weak as it is made out to be.  Perhaps that is just the
artistry of the actors and directors at the Shakespeare theatre, but I
liked it.  Though it's not the best of the best it's a heck of a lot
better than a lot of other plays from before, during and after
Shakespeare's time.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Velz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 14 Feb 1999 12:41:37 -0600
Subject:        Ring of Fire

Nice to have Love's ring of fire for Valentine's Day.  Thanks to Pete
McCluskey!

An approximation is Henry Vaughan's

            I saw Eternity the other night
            Like three rings of pure and endless light
            All calm as it was bright.

Vaughan is not Elizabethan, but 17th c.

John Velz
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.