The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1306 Friday, 23 July 1999.
[1] From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 22 Jul 1999 10:17:25 +0000
Subj: Re: SHK 10.1290 Re: Shakespeare vs. Shakespeare...
[2] From: Evelyn Gajowski <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 22 Jul 1999 16:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 10.1290 Re: Shakespeare vs. Shakespeare...
[3] From: Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 23 Jul 1999 02:54:53 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 10.1290 Re: Shakespeare vs. Shakespeare...
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 22 Jul 1999 10:17:25 +0000
Subject: 10.1290 Re: Shakespeare vs. Shakespeare...
Comment: Re: SHK 10.1290 Re: Shakespeare vs. Shakespeare...
Chris Stroffolino queries:
>But did you
>ever read I think Karen Newman's essay about the "Shakespe arean editor
>as shrew tamer" (in ELR 1992 Spring i think) which makes a good case for
>the "ur-Shrew" which keeps the Sly framing device in the end of the play
>as well (which was practically the only good "innovation" the Central
>Park production added, but wasn't enough to redeem it)?
I would tend to think the opposite: the efforts of post-Shakespearean
editors and producers to put the ending back in, or of Shakespeare's
near-contemporaries to accompany the play with a sequel, are attempts to
pin down what is left disturbingly vague by Shakespeare's text. Is
everything which happens the fantasy of a drunken tinker? Is all a sort
of giant joke?
Cheers,
Se