1999

Q: Bard Games

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.06627  Wednesday, 14 April 1999.

From:           Peter M. McCluskey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 13 Apr 1999 11:56:11 -0600 (CST)
Subject:        Bard Games

How many Shakespeare games are there?  I have two: Avalon Hill's
"Shakespeare Bookcase Game" and a reproduction of an antique card game
issued by Merrimac entitled "The Shakespeare Game."  Are there others?

Full of game,
Pete McCluskey

  Peter M. McCluskey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
  Department of English, University of New Orleans

Re: Current Views on Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.06626  Tuesday, 13 April 1999.

From:           Karen Peterson-Kranz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 13 Apr 1999 09:43:28 +1000
Subject: 10.0653 Current Views on Why Shakespeare Matters
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0653 Current Views on Why Shakespeare Matters

Thanks to Daniel Traister for the NEH commentary.  To my mind, his
"minnow-like carps" were to the point and highly relevant.  Beyond that,
I wonder if anyone else on the list found the following troublesome:

>Shakespeare is for everyone, but he is only one example of the
>humanities in action. The humanities are the subject areas of history,
>literature and languages, which taken together offer the best insights
>we have into our values, traditions and ideals. Focusing on these ideas,
>discussing them, drawing strength from them and becoming more human
>because of them is the humanities in action. The humanities bind us
>together as a nation and help us live more meaningful lives.

It may be because I live and teach outside the North America/UK/Western
Europe cultural axis, but I was curious about that line about how "the
humanities bind us together as a nation."  First, what nation might that
be?  The US, I take it, but if "Shakespeare is for everyone," how about
those of us not of the US persuasion?  "Drawing strength" was
interesting, too.  Taken together with the "binding together" imagery, I
found this an oddly (dare I say it?) fascistic way of representing why
Shakespeare, and the humanities, matter.

In my own teaching and research, I have found that Shakespeare (and many
of the other canonical texts/authors) tend to work like light-refracting
crystals.  An audience member or reader applies her own subjectivity,
"values, traditions and ideals" to the text.  The text helps the subject
(audience member/reader) see those ideals in refraction, whether or not
they are the same "ideals" that the NEH apparently intends or expects
one to see.  Through this process, there is greater appreciation for the
endless variety and particularity of those refracted responses.  If
anything, Shakespeare's (and here I am using "Shakespeare" as a metanym
for the Western humanistic canon) functional role might be in
highlighting difference, rather than reiterating some essential,
"traditional" sense of (American/W.European) "humanity."

Any thoughts?

Cheers,
Karen Peterson-Kranz
University of Guam (a proud colony of the USA!)

Book Query

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.06624  Tuesday, 13 April 1999.

From:           David J. Schalkwyk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 12 Apr 1999 09:31:00 -0500
Subject:        Book Query

I'm looking for Lee-Ann Sonino's _A Handbook of Rhetorical Terms_, which
is out of print.  Does anyone have any advice as to how I could get a
copy?

Thanks,
David Schalkwyk

Affronting Ophelia

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.06625  Tuesday, 13 April 1999.

From:           Catherine Loomis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 12 Apr 1999 16:57:35 -0600 (CST)
Subject:        Affronting Ophelia

News from New Orleans

On March 26, David Baron, the film critic for the Times Picayune, wrote
that Gwyneth Paltrow's Academy Award acceptance speech reminded him of
Ophelia's "mad scene in King Lear."  In an unprecedented fit of
precision, the TP fired Baron who has been reviewing films for the paper
since 1979.  Fear it, Ophelia, fear it, and pay attention to your
English professor.

(New Orleans' alternative weekly, The Gambit, reports the rumor that
Baron wrote "a correction that, among other things, said he was
deliberately testing the readers' knowledge with the misquote.")

Re: Shakespeare Related Films

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.06623  Tuesday, 13 April 1999.

[1]     From:   Richard A Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 12 Apr 1999 11:45:37 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0657 Re: Shakespeare Related Films

[2]     From:   Thomas Cartelli <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 12 Apr 1999 17:30:16 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0647 Re: My Own Private Idaho

[3]     From:   Annalisa Castaldo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 12 Apr 1999 22:05:11 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0657 Re: Shakespeare Related Films


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard A Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 12 Apr 1999 11:45:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 10.0657 Re: Shakespeare Related Films
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0657 Re: Shakespeare Related Films

Two corrections:

Never Been Kissed is based on As You Like It, not Twelfth Night.

And it's Patrick, not Peter Verona in Ten Things.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Cartelli <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 12 Apr 1999 17:30:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 10.0647 Re: My Own Private Idaho
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0647 Re: My Own Private Idaho

Not liking My Own Private Idaho is anyone's prerogative but it's
probably a good idea to get the casting straight.  Yes, River Phoenix is
positioned in the role of sidekick of the "prince', hence, I suppose,
Poins.  No, Dennis Hopper isn't in the film.  And in addition to the
piece by Wiseman listed by Dick Burt, there's a brilliant essay on the
film by Curtis Breight published in Shakespeare and National Cultures,
an essay-collection edited by John Joughin.  I use the film as a point
of departure in the Democratic Vistas section of my own recent book,
Repositioning Shakespeare.  Finally, your "liking" or not liking the
film is, I would think, less pertinent to this list-group than
determining how the film stages/reproduces Shakespeare which it does in
very intriguing ways.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Annalisa Castaldo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 12 Apr 1999 22:05:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 10.0657 Re: Shakespeare Related Films
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0657 Re: Shakespeare Related Films

I know that "10 Things I Hate about You" is based on Shrew but I didn't
know that Never Been Kissed is any relation to 12th Night. I haven't
seen the film, but the promos don't make it seem very similar. Can you
explain?

Annalisa Castaldo

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.