June
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1013 Wednesday, 16 June 1999. [1] From: Terri Mategrano <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 15 Jun 1999 13:34:00 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 10.0991 Re: Q1 Hamlet Productions [2] From: Andy White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 15 Jun 1999 10:39:50 -0400 Subj: Q1 Hamlet Productions [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andy White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 15 Jun 1999 10:39:50 -0400 Subject: Q1 Hamlet Productions Someone asked about the authors of Q1 -- I'd refer them to Granville-Barker's Preface, in which he argues that Q1 was written by bit players. His evidence is that their memory of lines seems to go in and out, with some scenes seemingly drawn verbatim from what became Q2 (they played Marcellus or Bernardo, for instance) and other scenes appallingly reconstructed from conjecture. G-B's reading of Q1 was interesting: to him, Q1 provides evidence that even bit players (presumably given "sides" for rehearsal) ended up learning all the lines from their scenes by heart. He also noted that, mangled line readings aside, Q1 offers a different order of scenes from Q2 and Folio, so in that sense at least offers a more primitive version of the play. Reconstructing the early version of Hamlet from Q1, therefore, might involve combining Q1 with later versions (where the memory of lines is below par), but preserving the order of scenes indicated. Andy White Arlington, VA [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terri Mategrano <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 15 Jun 1999 13:34:00 EDT Subject: 10.0991 Re: Q1 Hamlet Productions Comment: Re: SHK 10.0991 Re: Q1 Hamlet Productions Thanks to all of you who were kind enough to provide information on Q1 Hamlet productions. If any of you hear of any productions planned for the future, please keep me (and Daniel Traister) in mind and post them on the list. Again, many thanks, Terri Mategrano
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1012 Wednesday, 16 June 1999. [1] From: David Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 15 Jun 1999 09:08:02 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 10.1002 Re: Pasties [2] From: Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 15 Jun 1999 08:47:08 -0700 Subj: SHK 10.1002 Re: Pasties [3] From: Rosalind C.King <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 16 Jun 1999 10:33:50 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 10.1002 Re: Pasties [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 15 Jun 1999 09:08:02 -0500 Subject: 10.1002 Re: Pasties Comment: Re: SHK 10.1002 Re: Pasties Tom Dale Keever wrote: > Dave Kathman's distinction between British "pasty" pronounced to rhyme > with "nasty," and American "pasty," which rhymes with "tasty," is > correct, but he errs when he says: > > > The British "pasties" are completely unknown in the U.S., > >where the term refers to a small patch worn over a woman's > >(usually a stripper's) nipples, > > Surely during his time in Michigan he must have encountered the British, > or more precisely Cornish, meat pies. They are very common in the Upper > Peninsula where they were introduced by Cornwall men who came over to > work in the copper mines and found them the ideal packed lunch to take > down in the pit. I saw "Pasty stands" as far south as Grand Rapids > while I was in school at MSU. Bill Godshalk wrote: > >Ah, transatlantic language differences strike again. The British > >"pasties" are completely unknown in the U.S. . . . > > writes Dave Kathman. > > And, actually, this is untrue. Where I grew up in eastern Pennsylvania, > pasties were and are still eaten daily. There are pasty shops, and the > locals argue over who makes the best ones. And I hear tell that they > also make them in upper Michigan. Andy White wrote: > In the UK, the pies in question are pronounced "pah-stees", whereas the > preferred piece of stripper gear in the US is pronounced "pay-stees." A > recipe show on Public Radio began once with a brief, giggle-laden > discussion of the differences in pronunciation and meaning ... > > They are, indeed, different. But has anyone told you about the donut > shop in Broward County, Florida that features topless waitresses? A > sure sign, if any, that Floridians are utterly hypocritical when it > comes to their morals ... Kristine F. Batey wrote: > Actually, the British pasties can be found in the U.S. Great Lakes > region in several Wisconsin and Michigan communities that were heavily > settled by Cornish immigrants. The foodstuff "pasty" is pronounced with > the same short "a" as is in the word "past" (or sometimes with the "ah" > sound made by the "o" in "hot", whereas the nipple coverings are > pronounced with the long "a" of "paste" (because they're pasted on). The > pie-type pasties are a favorite item at Renaissance fairs, where the use > of the long "a" and any attendant snickering are considered to be > declass
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1011 Wednesday, 16 June 1999. [1] From: Eric Luhrs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 15 Jun 1999 08:39:34 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 10.1009 Non-HTML editions on the Web [2] From: Michael E. Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 15 Jun 1999 06:51:09 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 10.1009 Non-HTML editions on the Web [3] From: Nora Kreimer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 15 Jun 1999 18:47:58 -0300 Subj: RE: SHK 10.1009 Non-HTML editions on the Web [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Luhrs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 15 Jun 1999 08:39:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 10.1009 Non-HTML editions on the Web Comment: Re: SHK 10.1009 Non-HTML editions on the Web > Does anyone know where I can find plain-text (that is, non-HTML) > versions of the plays on the Web to download? Mike, http://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/data/shakespeare is one place to download text versions of Shakespeare's plays. There is also a glossary in plain text. These text editions are based on "The Complete Moby(tm) Shakespeare," which was the origin of MIT's HTML Shakespeare site. Eric [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael E. Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 15 Jun 1999 06:51:09 -0700 Subject: 10.1009 Non-HTML editions on the Web Comment: Re: SHK 10.1009 Non-HTML editions on the Web Dear Mike-- You asked >Does anyone know where I can find plain-text (that is, non-HTML) >versions of the plays on the Web to download? Barring that, does anyone >out there know a way to convert HTML documents to usable format (sans >HTML code) for use in WordPerfect or Word? It is pretty easy to save HTML as plain text that any word processor can easily digest. Here's how it works on the Mac with Navigator, and on Windows using Internet Explorer. When any page is open in your browser, simply choose Save As from the File Menu (both Mac and Windows). A window will open asking you where you want to save the file, and giving you a chance to name it. In that window is a pop-up menu: on the Mac it says "Format" and it lets you choose between Text and Source; on Windows, it says "Save as type" and lets you choose between HTML file and text file. Save the page as text. That's it; the HTML tags will not be in the file you saved, but simply plain text, formatted using spaces and tabs that try to approximate the layout of the page. Michael [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nora Kreimer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 15 Jun 1999 18:47:58 -0300 Subject: 10.1009 Non-HTML editions on the Web Comment: RE: SHK 10.1009 Non-HTML editions on the Web Open the html file in Word 97 and save as a Word document with the extension .doc and the slot reading All Files Regards, N. Nora KreimerThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1010 Tuesday, 15 June 1999. From: David G. Hale <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 14 Jun 1999 21:10:26 -0400 Subject: McKellan's Richard III Am I the only one who thinks the British commander in Kosovo (Lt. Gen. Sir Michael Jackson) looks a lot like McKellan's Richard III, especially in combat gear at the beginning and end of the film?
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1009 Tuesday, 15 June 1999. From: Mike Field <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 14 Jun 1999 15:50:00 -0400 Subject: Non-HTML editions on the Web Does anyone know where I can find plain-text (that is, non-HTML) versions of the plays on the Web to download? Barring that, does anyone out there know a way to convert HTML documents to usable format (sans HTML code) for use in WordPerfect or Word? Please feel free to reply off-list to Mike atThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.