Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: June ::
Assorted Responses
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1037  Friday, 18 June 1999.

[1]     From:   John W. Mahon <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 17 Jun 1999 14:05:36 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0999 DC Merchant, et al.

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 17 Jun 1999 09:41:42 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1026 Re: No, It's Not True!

[3]     From:   Judith Craig <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 17 Jun 1999 15:54:27 -0500
        Subj:   Re : Chooseth

[4]     From:   A. D. Murphy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 18 Jun 1999 10:16:49 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1013 Re: Q1 Hamlet Productions


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John W. Mahon <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 17 Jun 1999 14:05:36 +0000
Subject: 10.0999 DC Merchant, et al.
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0999 DC Merchant, et al.

I had the good fortune to attend a performance of the Shakespeare
Theatre's production of THE MERCHANT OF VENICE last weekend and
completely agree with Jimmy Jung's judgment that Hal Holbrook's
performance is itself worth the price of a ticket.  I'm looking forward
to reviewing the production in the Spring issue of THE SHAKESPEARE
NEWSLETTER, due out in July, so I won't go into detail here, except to
observe that Michael Kahn's concept so problematizes the play that its
comic aspect is almost completely missing.

When Jimmy Jung writes of the "through and balanced production," and
repeats "through" in his next line (so he doesn't mean "thorough,"
apparently, and has chosen to use the preposition "through" as an
adjective), I frankly don't understand his use of "through," but I think
he is mistaken in seeing the production as "balanced," "not neglecting
any of its themes . . . ."  A production in which Shylock is the wronged
victim, justifiably motivated by righteous anger, and all the Christians
are vicious racists can hardly be termed "balanced."

Sincerely,
John Mahon

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 17 Jun 1999 09:41:42 +0000
Subject: 10.1026 Re: No, It's Not True!
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1026 Re: No, It's Not True!

What most of these pseudo-etymologies seem to have in common is an
incredulity at anything which reinforces our vision of the past.
Generally speaking, anything that makes the past seem dirty, uncouth,
and politically incorrect seems to fly.  If it would be in character for
(say) the medievals in the French comedy Les Visiteurs, or certain Monty
Python films, then otherwise intelligent people will pass the story
along.

I suppose the moral of this whole episode has to do with how na

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.