Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: April ::
Re: Sonnet 20
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0780  Thursday, 13 April 2000.

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Apr 2000 15:44:10 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0751 Re: Sonnet 20

[2]     From:   Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 12 Apr 2000 15:34:09 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0765 Re: Sonnet 20


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Apr 2000 15:44:10 -0700
Subject: 11.0751 Re: Sonnet 20
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0751 Re: Sonnet 20

Douglas Chapman writes:

>But it's a shame when that line becomes reality for you.

Actually, I'd say that it's authenticity.  It's when all lines become
equal that the true risk of theory makes itself manifest in cynicism.
Or when "towing the line" becomes only towing the line, not actually
challenging oneself and questioning one's ideas.

>Kids in classes inherently understand that Shak. is about sex and fun and
>power and joy; it is only precious in the teacher's minds. Thus all the
>tittering in 8th grade. Shak. was not, nor would he have been today, a
>scholar. He would today be Steven Spielberg; it's the money, guys.

Well, I guess that makes you a materialist, at least in the normal,
broad, definition of the word.  But before you go about complaining how
much contemporary criticism distorts the work, you might want to look at
all you're leaving out in reducing Shakespeare to just another
contestant on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?"

>Eric Hoffer is-was-my hero. A bright, gifted man who did not wish to
>waste his life teaching and theorizing in some University or another (I
>mean no offense, but teaching and thinking are antithetical
>concepts-don't protest too loudly) but was a longshoreman at San
>Francisco's docks.

Shucks.  If teaching and thinking are antithetical concepts, I guess
that we have nothing to learn from Socrates, the pre-Socrates, Plato,
Aristotle, etc., who all taught, or from the scholastics, who held posts
in medieval universities.

Time to start over, I guess, with learning remaining occult and
unshared. Or perhaps fall back on Newt Gingrich, who couldn't cut it in
academia.

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.