1999

Re: Writing from Experience

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0442  Friday, 12 March 1999.

From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 11 Mar 1999 17:30:01 -0000
Subject:        Re: Writing from Experience (was $ in Love)

Stephanie Hughes writes

>Even the most cursory study of the lives of great artists should show
>that the best art does indeed arise from what Terrence Hawkes calls
>these "deeply corrupting presuppostions," namely that great art arises
>from personal experience, and that artists write (paint, compose,
>choreograph) with most credibility and passion when they are dealing
>with personal issues.

Let us suppose for a moment that Hughes's claim in granted. Does that
mean science fiction cannot be among "the best art" because the writer
has not been to distance galaxies? If what is great about great science
fiction is how experiences lived on Earth are shown to be applicable
elsewhere in the universe, the entire genre need not exist and SF
writers might as well about life on Earth.

Experience might well matter, but even within liberal humanist
conceptions of art there is an important role for imagination, for going
beyond what you've known and felt. And I suggest that neither experience
nor imagination is going to take one far in accounting for what James
Joyce is up to in Finnegan's Wake.

>Science, IF read right, has much to tell us. One of the
>things it insists upon is that you can't get something from nothing

Alas this is quite untrue. In a vacuum a proton/anti-proton pair will
spontaneously appear and move away from one another.  While the total
energy will remain nil (since they cancel each other out) you certainly
can get two somethings from nothing.

Gabriel Egan

PS: There were a number of "scare quote" marks in this posting, but in
the light of recent discussions I've realized that I don't know what
they are for so I've removed them.

Re: Shakespeare in Love

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0441  Friday, 12 March 1999.

[1]     From:   Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 11 Mar 1999 08:18:50 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0434 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[2]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 11 Mar 1999 10:48:39 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 10.0434 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[3]     From:   Peter T. Hadorn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 11 Mar 1999 15:57:00 -0600
        Subj:   RE: SHK 10.0418 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[4]     From:   Judy Lewis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 12 Mar 1999 23:09:32 +1300
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0434 Re: Shakespeare in Love


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 11 Mar 1999 08:18:50 -0600
Subject: 10.0434 Re: Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0434 Re: Shakespeare in Love

It seems patent to me that WS read a great many books (see Bullough),
and that this experience played a major role in what he wrote. (I
thought a large problem with the pleasant film was that it ignored this
bookish fellow's enormous reading. The fact that Jonson may have read
more is no disproof of anything about WS.) North's Plutarch isn't a box
of Wheaties, though both project role models to the consumer, for what
it's worth. Why (Shakespeare's) reading should be so readily dismissed
by so many of those who do it for a living and bespeak its crucial value
all the time is beyond me. Reading isn't chopped liver, much less
"nothing." This matter is no simpler than the stage and page issue,
which it resembles in its capacity to summon up cartoons.

Frank Whigham

>One of the things it ["Science"]
>insists upon is that you can't get something from nothing. You can't
>write a romance that lasts four hundred years from reading about
>somebody else's feelings, any more than you can get nourished from
>reading the ads on cereal boxes.
>
>Stephanie Hughes

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 11 Mar 1999 10:48:39 -0800
Subject: Re: Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        SHK 10.0434 Re: Shakespeare in Love

I find some the comments about the expressions of artists to be, well,
not very historically informed.

Of course some artists express their deepest feelings.  There is little
doubt that Michelangelo's appreciation of the male form informed some of
his sculpture as well as the pitiful guilt expressed in his sonnets.
Certainly if an artist is completely ignorant of something, he or she
can not express it.  Pretty obvious, that.  Does this mean all artists
must feel something deeply to express it deeply?

Stephanie Hughes accepts a very modern/psychological construct of this.
Not her fault.  She was formed when this construct was common and it is
reinforced in modern biographies where the authors look for
psychological causes for artistic effects.  There was a time, not all
that long ago, when this view did not exist.  There may be a time when
it is considered a silly blip that our era foolishly found valid.  That
is the danger of mistaking social constructs for reality.

The fact is that before the invention of the museum and the concert
hall, most art was made for practical purposes.  You want a house?  You
hire a carpenter.  You want an altarpiece?  You hire a painter.  A
carpenter needed to know building materials and have a plan.  So did the
painter.  Both artifacts had practical purposes: of putting a roof over
your head or reminding the illiterate of a religious story and its
meaning.

Did every artist who painted a crucifixion with sorrow on the faces of
those around the cross feel that sorrow, or did they learn to do that
through technical means, just as putting bits of white on a painting of
a glass gives the illusion of light reflecting on it?  Were all
crucifixion painters deeply religious?  Probably not.

I know a comic book writer who does the same thing.  He is one of the
coldest and most emotionally distant people I have ever met.  In his
work he seems very wise and caring.  He knows how to pull it off through
technical means. True, Ms. Hughes, he has to understand it at some level
or he could not portray it, but he does not understand it in the deep
personal way that you mean.

As a lad who has published a sonnet or three, I can tell you that I have
set out to express a particular feeling, but the structure would not
allow that feeling, or more accurately, I was not clever enough to get
it to do so.  I ended up saying something else that others found very
moving.  I just didn't feel it very strongly.

I hope I don't come off as having made any definitive statements here.
I believe this issue is too complex to answer to the generalizations
given on this list.  Indubitably, some artistic expressions come from
the deeply felt experience of the artist.  To claim that it MUST flies
in the face of a lot of other evidence.  Perhaps a more even handed
approach is in order?  Can we not accept that it comes by different
means for different artists, or a mixture of the deeply felt and the
technical for some?

Mike Jensen

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter T. Hadorn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 11 Mar 1999 15:57:00 -0600
Subject: 10.0418 Re: Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        RE: SHK 10.0418 Re: Shakespeare in Love

Maybe I'm indulging in bardolatry, but Shakespeare in Love picked up on
something that I've been thinking about a lot lately: Shakespeare's
writing "firsts."

According to the movie, Romeo and Juliet is the first play to depict
"real" romantic love.

I have read elsewhere that when he wrote A Midsummer Night's Dream,
Shakespeare was fully aware that it was the best comedy written to
date-whatever "best" means.

I just finished teaching "Shrew" and remarked that Petruchio and
Katherine's first exchange is probably the first non-cliched
(non-Petrarchan) "wooing" scene that he, or perhaps anyone else, had
written (you might say it's not a wooing scene, but they do get married
in the next scene, and Katherine does seem upset that Petruchio doesn't
show).

The class noted that this convention is now quite popular:  those who
will be lovers start out hating each other, go through various verbal
(and sometimes physical) sparring matches, and end up loving each other
(again assuming that P and K do end up loving each other.  Compare also
Beatrice and Benedick).

I'm afraid this might be getting confused, but my point is that this
sort of relationship, as far I can gather, started with Shakespeare.  Is
this true?  Are there any other "firsts" that we can identify?  And is
it really useful to pursue this line of questioning?

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judy Lewis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 12 Mar 1999 23:09:32 +1300
Subject: 10.0434 Re: Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0434 Re: Shakespeare in Love

Francis Barasch wrote: They wanted to know about Alencon's
cross-dressing....

But the suitor shown in Elizabeth was not Alencon but his older brother
Anjou who was homosexual, probably a cross-dresser, never set foot in
England and was aged about 19 to Elizabeth's 37 at the time that a
marriage was suggested between them. Alencon did not enter the equation
until 1572.  Only several among many inaccuracies.

David Frankel wrote:  I take it as an axiom that plays (films, novels,
etc.) reflect contemporary concerns no matter where and when they may be
set.  Elizabeth, ultimately, is not a historical document about an
English queen of the 16th century; whatever it says, and whether done
well or ill, it speaks to and about the current world.

Enlighten me.  What does it speak?

Fitzmaurice Voicework Five-Day Intensive

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0439  Thursday, 11 March 1999.

From:           Catherine Fitzmaurice Kozubei <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 23:22:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Fitzmaurice Voicework Five-Day Intensive

[Editor's Note: This was originally posted by Nancy Houfek
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. on
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..  -Hardy]

 Dear Fellow VASTAVOXer's --

As April 1 draws near, I'd like to put out a reminder to those of you
interested in the Fitzmaurice Voicework 5-day Intensive to be held at
the American Repertory Theatre in Cambridge, JUNE 22 - 26, 1999. The
slots are filling up with a remarkable group of people, and I'd like to
make sure that those of you who have contacted me (617-496-2000 X:8875
or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) have received your information packets, and
are getting your applications back to me by the April 1 deadline.

For those of you who are interested, but haven't gotten back to me yet,
please do so at your earliest convenience. The following is the earlier
notice that went out in December which describes a little more about
Fitzmaurice Voicework and the structure of the Intensive.

I look forward to hearing from you soon!

Nancy Houfek
Head of Voice & Speech
American Repertory Theatre
Institute for Advanced Theatre Training
Harvard University
(617) 496-2000 X: 8875

> Dear Colleagues --
>
> I am pleased to announce that the American Repertory Theatre and Institute
> for Advanced Theatre Training at Harvard University will host a five-day
> intensive program of Fitzmaurice Voicework from June 22 - 26, 1999, in
> Cambridge, Masssachusetts.
>
> Fitzmaurice Voicework is an integrated approach to vocal training which
> incorporates somatic study and energy work into more classical training
> methods. This work, developed by Catherine Fitzmaurice from her training in
> England with Barbara Bunch, Cicely Berry, and J. Clifford Turner together
> with her studies in yoga, bioenergetics, meditation and shiatsu, synthesizes
> and utilizes aspects of the above in service of the actor's vocal freedom
> and focus.
>
> The work of Catherine Fitzmaurice is both deep and energizing.  It is an
> important addition to the body of comtemporary voice work taught and/or
> used by theatre professionals and educators.  The work is both
> revolutionary and entirely compatible with other approaches to teaching
> and using the voice as a comprehensive, efficient and effective method of
> accessing release, spontaneity, expressiveness, natural resonance and
> support.
>
> These techniques have been used by Catherine Fitzmaurice in productions
> directed by Frank Galati, Des MacAnuff, Joanne Akalaitis, as well as in
> productions at the Guthrie Theatre, Stratford Festival, South Coast
> Repertory Theatre and the A.R.T. They are currently being taught at
> M.F.A., conservatory and undergraduate theatre programs throughout the
> country (The Actors' Center, U.C. Irvine, A.R.T., Temple University,
> University of Wisconsin, and U.S.C. to name a few.)  This workshop is intended
> for actors and directors, as well as for coaches and teachers of voice.
>
> During the five-day workshop at A.R.T. in June, sessions will be led by
> Catherine Fitzmaurice (Professor, University of Delaware), and Master
> Teachers Nancy Houfek (Head of Voice & Speech, A.R.T.), and Donna Snow
> (Chair, Theatre Department, Temple University.)  Associate Teachers
> Cynthia Barrett, Grace Zandarski, and Roberta Sloan will also join in the
> presentations.  Other Master and Associate teachers may also be in
> attendance.
>
> The cost for the workshop is $475. Members of VASTA will receive a
> discounted price of $375.  Housing and food are not included, although
> A.R.T. company apartments will be provided at a highly reduced rate for
> workshop participants (in order to defray the exhorbitant Boston area
> housing costs.)
>
> If you are interested in more information, and/or reserving yourself a
> place in the June 1999 A.R.T./Harvard Fitzmaurice Voicework intensive,
> please contact me directly via e-mail or phone (617) 496-2000 X:8875.
>
> I look forward to hearing from you; if our past five-day workshops at
> Temple Unversity, U.C. Irvine, and Cal State Fullerton, and the 1998
> five-week certification program in New York City, have set any example,
> the June 1999 intensive promises to be an exciting one, filled with
> discovery, growth, learning, and entrance into a group of wonderful voice
> practitioners.
>
> Yours,
>
> Nancy Houfek
>

You and Thou

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0440  Thursday, 11 March 1999.

From:           Ching-Hsi Perng <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 11 Mar 1999 16:50:41 +0800
Subject:        You and Thou

While translating some passages from Shakespeare's plays, I find the
change of pronoun from "we" to "I" or "you" to "thou," and vice versa,
significant.  For example, Claudius in his soliloquy that ends 4.3
switches from first person singular to plural and back in correspondence
to his awareness of his position as King  or private self.  And in
"R&J", 2.4.45-91, Mercutio uses "you" and "thou" with Romeo to indicate
different degrees of fellowship (e.g. "You gave us the counterfeit
fairly last night," "Now art thou sociable, now art thou Romeo").  I'd
be grateful if anyone can direct me to any works done in the area of
Shakespeare's use of pronouns.

Regards,
Ching-Hsi Perng

Re: "Elizabeth"; DVD; Fools; Puritans; A Shrew;

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0438  Thursday, 11 March 1999.

[1]     From:   C. David Frankel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 11:23:35 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 10.0421 Re: "Elizabeth"

[2]     From:   D. Maruyama <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 12:49:08 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0419 Re: DVD

[3]     From:   Lucia Anna Setari <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 14:13:30 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: Fools, Arlecchino

[4]     From:   Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 12:29:46 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Puritans and Plays

[5]     From:   Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 10:37:13 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0431 Q: Taming of A Shrew

[6]     From:   Roger Schmeeckle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 10:07:36 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0422 Re: Sins; Iago; Maps

[7]     From:   Ros King <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 19:27:08 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0417 Re: Women on the Early Modern Stage


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           C. David Frankel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 11:23:35 -0500
Subject: 10.0421 Re: "Elizabeth"
Comment:        RE: SHK 10.0421 Re: "Elizabeth"

I take it as an axiom that plays (films, novels, etc.) reflect
contemporary concerns no matter where and when they may be set.
Elizabeth, ultimately, is not a historical document about an English
queen of the 16th century; whatever it says, and whether done well or
ill, it speaks to and about the current world.

cdf

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D. Maruyama <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 12:49:08 EST
Subject: 10.0419 Re: DVD
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0419 Re: DVD

Greetings:

DIVX is evil.  DIVX is a format Richard II would have thought of.
People can now rent and see DVDs in video stores.  This makes more sense
than the buy and throw it away scenario.

Laser is going out.  Tower is having a fire sale.  They are also
packaging coupons with some DVD player purchases to encourage the
purchase of titles.

Longevity?  I figure DVD will be like CD.  I have CDs that have degraded
over time.  They are not scatched or otherwise damaged.  CD rot, I
suppose is the term.  DVD rot seems to be highly probable.

Video tapes will still exist for a while.  You still can't get all
titles on Laser or DVD.  You can get most with tape.  It is the same
with CDs.  Some vinyl titles have yet to be released on CD even today.
This explains why record shows are still popular.  Vinyl can't die
because too many still need to find the obscure titles still unreleased
on CD.  Also, many highly obsessive audiophiles prefer vinyl to CD
regardless.

With the DVD audio specifications, multichannel audio, the growth of
home theater systems-the various companies seem poised to push this
do-everything-for-you format as the prime mover of home entertainment.
Consumers do seem to agree.  Many audiophiles love the 24/96 audio.
Many videophiles like the convenience of the format and DTS and Dolby
Digital.  It does not seem likely that DVD will fall on its face like
DAT, Philips' Digital tape, Beta.  Too much support seems to be out
there.  Now, you can play a DVD disc on your computer with the new
drives for PC now available.

d maruyama

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Lucia Anna Setari <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 14:13:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject:        Re: Fools, Arlecchino

Lawrence Manley wrote:

>That's an interesting suggestion about English "patch," but from what
>I've read, Arlecchino, a French addition to the commedia, derives his
>costume from the wild man or wild "wode":  his patches were originally
>leaves and remain green and brown.  This I know for sure-he is scary,
>and anything but wise.  Never leave him a task to do, he'll turn into a
>nightmare, and he tends to "flip out" with the least provocation.
>Doesn't seem like a Sufi wise man to me.

And:

> I turned my attention (for completely
>different reasons) to an old essay bby John H. Long on "The Balla Medley
>and the Fool," SP 67 (1970).  Noting that the term "medley" (meaning
>"musical hotch-poth") is only cited by the OED from 1819, Long examines
>a number of Eliabethan ballad medlies (which mingled bits from many
>different ballads) and goes on to connect "medley" with "motley"
>(Hakewell in David's Vow, 1622, speaks of "motley cloth, or a meddly
>colour") and thus with "patch."  He also notes that Cardinal Wolsey's
>jester (geez, he had one?) was nicknamed Patch.

I started to wonder if  'pazzo' could really come from 'patch just
because of Cardinal Wolsey's jester nicknamed Patch and of Florio's
explanation of  the Italian word 'pazzo' (which is 'madman' or 'very
extravagant man', and has no connection at all with jesters, but in the
figure of the Neapolitan 'Pazziariello' ) as "fool, patch.." etc.

As to the  Italian Arlecchino, I agree that in its origin it is not
wise.  But  in our Commedia dell'Arte Arlecchino didn't remain always
the same character. It was first a sort of 'Zani' (that is a silly
servant John) and would speak Bergomask dialect, but afterwards it  grew
into a wise/fool and at last it spoke Venetian.

Italian players of  Commedia dell'Arte made their characters well known
in Europe and in England too, as you all know (the word 'zany'was
introduced in England by them , and Shakespeare too in many plays and
expecially in The Tempest took some inspiration from Italian comedians).

It seemed to me very interesting  if while the word 'zany' came from
Italian stage to  English common language, the word 'patch' coming with
wandering jesters  produced the Italian  word 'pazzo.' But, since the
term 'pazzo' was already in Italian language in XIII cent., I think that
it is more likely that the two terms 'patch', as professional fool (like
Wolsey's jester...), and 'pazzo', as madman and natural clown, were
linked to each other by Florio because of their similarity, but have
different origins.

(I hope my bad English might be understandable...)

L.Anna S.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 12:29:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Puritans and Plays

John Savage wrote:

>Putting on plays in Shakespeare's day was very
>much an iffy business.  Questions of the plague aside, powerful Puritan
>forces regarded such productions as immoral and constantly tried to
>close the theatres down.  They felt that women would be dishonored and
>degraded if they appeared on stage.  My feeling is that the theatrical
>troupes went along with this, no matter how much they would have
>preferred having women play women's parts, because the important thing
>for them was to stay in business and keep eating.

I would be very careful of using the term "Puritan" for theater
opponents.  First, not all opponents of theater were Puritans; Stephen
Gardiner, the bishop of Winchester, opposed the stage because of its
anti-Papal tendencies. Second, people who were noted as Puritans went to
plays occasionally; contemporary records show their attendance at _A
Game at Chess_. And third, various studies are now showing Puritan
sympathies in works by such dramatists as Thomas Dekker, John Webster,
Thomas Middleton, Thomas Heywood, etc.

Jack Heller
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 10:37:13 -0600
Subject: 10.0431 Q: Taming of A Shrew
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0431 Q: Taming of A Shrew

For a stage history see the introduction to the new Cambridge edition of
A Shrew, just out.

Frank Whigham

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roger Schmeeckle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 10:07:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 10.0422 Re: Sins; Iago; Maps
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0422 Re: Sins; Iago; Maps

> I don't find Hamlet to be slothful. For a couple of real sluggards, try

For sloth, substitute acedia, which means spiritual sloth, despair, what
we would today probably regard as depression, inability to find any
meaning, disgust with life, etc., unless, of course, we still take
"spirit" seriously, in which case acedia will do.

     Roger

[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ros King <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 19:27:08 +0000
Subject: 10.0417 Re: Women on the Early Modern Stage
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0417 Re: Women on the Early Modern Stage

There's a world of difference between Mary Frith doing a turn at the
Fortune - stand-up banter and a bit of lute playing - and actually
playing the character of Moll in the Roaring Girl. The court citation
may suggest the former, but not the latter. Playing oneself is not easy,
and this is a major role, not a cameo. I would have thought that
watching Mary watching a professional boy/young man playing Moll would
have afforded any audience much more fun: two shows for the price of
one.

However, it's not impossible that the prosecutors did not want, or were
not able, to distinguish between the two i.e. that Moll's singing and
playing (by the actor within the play), was deemed to be Mary's.  In
1982 the director Michael Bogdanov was subjected to a private
prosecution for procuring and 'being party to the commission by a man of
an act of gross indecency' under the Sexual Offences Act of 1956 - for
directing The Romans in Britain (National theatre, London). Prosecutors
and reporters of the case in the Times seemed incapable of
distinguishing between a representation on the stage and an actual act
of buggery. He too faced imprisonment. The case was dropped - which was
distressing to the defence since, having been put through the misery,
they wanted to argue the case through to a proper judgement. Now Oliver
Stone is up against it. The three cases are, of course, all slightly
different but the notion that representation is the same as the thing
being represented is a fallacy which almost always characterises
anti-theatricality and may be operative with regard to Moll/Mary. We
would need a transcript of the trial to know.

Ros King
School of English and Drama
Queen Mary and Westfield College
University of London

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.