Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: October ::
Re: Kent
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1722  Monday, 11 October 1999.

[1]     From:   John Drakakis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 8 Oct 1999 20:25:54 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 10.1710 Re: Kent

[2]     From:   Graham Bradshaw <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 11 Oct 1999 01:32:26 +0900
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1710 Re: Kent


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Drakakis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 8 Oct 1999 20:25:54 +0100
Subject: 10.1710 Re: Kent
Comment:        RE: SHK 10.1710 Re: Kent

And it's true that pigs fly

Cheers,
John Drakakis

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Graham Bradshaw <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 11 Oct 1999 01:32:26 +0900
Subject: 10.1710 Re: Kent
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1710 Re: Kent

Dear y'all,

I wonder, is there anybody else online who is as embarrassed as I am by
this kind of discussion of Lear and Kent? Really, I can't believe it
goes on without some protest, however feeble.

What is all this stuff about innate homosexuality, anyway? I always
assumed that Nature put the steam in the engine, and Society built the
rails...

I stumbled on this unbelievable weekend wanker stuff just after reading
some ex-students's reminiscences of [F. R] "Leavis's Downing Seminars".
I know, I know, SHAKSPER memories of non-American, non-World Power
criticism don't normally reach back past five years, but here is a trip
down memory lane. (I'm not partisan, and anyone who has looked at the
same book will see that I figure as a non-, or anti-"leavisite". Still,
Leavis's appalled reticence seemed to me more eloquent and suggestive
than all the chatter about closet gays etc etc). Quote:

""King Lear'. Certainly there the disturbing radical attitude to life.
The desperate Shakespeare is certainly there. The last turn of the
screw, realy disturbing. Not prepared to talk glibly about it. No one
is. Not prepared to say anything about it." (!!!)

Might there be something (more) worthwhile in that cryptic report? Or
something that has more to do with (to recall a central Lear-idea)
seeingand feeling feelingly?

Oh well, maybe not.., I'm just trying to enter into the spiritless
(materialist, non-) spirit of such empty, well-paid chatter.

Shame! Or (as St Terry would say), Cheers!

Graham Bradshaw

PS, for what it's worth, on Kent. Years ago, I remember setting an Essay
Question on "love and service" in KING LEAR, and being struck by the way
in which not one student thought of mentioning Oswald (who serves the
wrong master-mistress of his passion, but is given verse, and dies
trying to "serve"). Though self-consciously contrived, the Peter
Brook-Brechtian staging of the scene where Kent assaults Oswald seemed
to me to have one great merit, in presenting Kent as a familiar kind of
moral thug. (Almost a Leavisite? Shakespeare never makes things easy,
eh?)
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.