2000

Re: The Topic

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0686  Tuesday, 4 April 2000.

[1]     From:   John Lee <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 3 Apr 2000 14:13:30 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
        Subj:   SHK 11.0662 Re: The Topic

[2]     From:   Ed Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 03 Apr 2000 09:25:42 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   The Topic, etc.

[3]     From:   L. Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 3 Apr 2000 10:42:39 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0662 Re: The Topic

[4]     From:   Tom Reedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 3 Apr 2000 13:00:17 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0662 Re: The Topic

[5]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 03 Apr 2000 11:15:01 -0700
        Subj:   SHK 11.0662 Re: The Topic

[6]     From:   Allan Blackman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 3 Apr 2000 22:06:25 -0400
        Subj:   Reply to Egan


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Lee <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 3 Apr 2000 14:13:30 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
Subject: Re: The Topic
Comment:        SHK 11.0662 Re: The Topic

> The liberal defence of free speech as an absolute (based on a false
> distinction between saying and doing) betrays a failure to grasp
> post-Saussurian linguistics' principle that language is not an innocent
> window on the world; it is itself performative.
>
> Gabriel Egan

Oh go on then, I'll take the bait and angelic teasing again, and ask why
on earth Saussure is quoted to prove (the principle) that language isn't
an innocent window (or even an evil window) but is instead performative.

John Lee

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 03 Apr 2000 09:25:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        The Topic, etc.

Judy, you write that it was common knowlegde that Romano's pornographic
drawings were the "subtext" of WT. I mean this question earnestly: What
does this subtext mean?

--Ed Taft

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           L. Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 3 Apr 2000 10:42:39 -0500
Subject: 11.0662 Re: The Topic
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0662 Re: The Topic

Gabriel Egan wrote,

"I'd be surprised if SHAKSPERians defended a listmember's right to
assert that the Nazis didn't murder millions of Jews, communists,
gypsies, and others."

This listmember would certainly defend such a right, and view such a
ridiculous assertion with equal parts of amazed disbelief and heartfelt
pity for the insane poster who asserted such, that reaction being the
best and quickest way to destroy the "argument" ab ovum, since the
poster would have unhorsed himself and his position by presenting
himself as a damned fool.  I hope that would be the reaction of all
posters here, who seem to have the intelligence to protect themselves
against such colossal nonsense.  (On the other hand, if this site were
for children, whose unformed minds may be  prey to such idiocy, I would
censor such remarks.)

L. Swilley

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Reedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 3 Apr 2000 13:00:17 -0500
Subject: 11.0662 Re: The Topic
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0662 Re: The Topic

Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

<snip>

> I'd be surprised if SHAKSPERians
> defended a listmember's right to assert that the Nazis didn't murder
> millions of Jews, communists, gypsies, and others.

You would be surprised indeed.  All people, listmembers and
nonlistmembers alike, have the right to espouse any idiocy they please
to any adult audience who will listen.  I fail to see how your example
would apply to a Shakespeare-related list, though, and I would support
the suppression of such material on SHAKSPER.  Hardy already suppresses
a similar denial of history on the list, the denial that Shakespeare
wrote his works.

> The liberal defence of free speech as an absolute (based on a false
> distinction between saying and doing) betrays a failure to grasp
> post-Saussurian linguistics' principle that language is not an innocent
> window on the world; it is itself performative.
>
> Gabriel Egan

What, then, is the true distinction between saying and doing?  Or do you
make any distinction at all?  No one claims that language is neutral,
but it is a long way from being all there is.  Saying I will murder a
person is not the same as actually murdering a person.

And before you protest the ridiculousness of my example, keep in mind
that it is as relevant to the topic as your example of holocaust denial
is to the topic of Shakespearean allusions in the popular culture.
(Somehow I know I could have written that last sentence clearer.)

Tom Reedy

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 03 Apr 2000 11:15:01 -0700
Subject: Re: The Topic
Comment:        SHK 11.0662 Re: The Topic

I decided not to comment further, but since Ms. Craig, despite my
sympathetic attempt to help her, has chosen to make personal and
insulting comments about me, I shall.  I prefer not to let her get away
with that unchallenged:

> I guess we can then decide that all critical effort in Shakespeare
> studies is meaningless since the author is dead and that any stab anyone
> makes at interpreting Shakespeare is as good as any other.

> For some reason-maybe it is age and irritability-I cannot accept your
> muddleheadness on this issue.  I think Shakespeare can be known fairly
> and convincingly; good and talented minds have been working on this
> problem for a long time with fruitful results.  Personally, I hate
>seeing a man of character and literary ability maligned just because
> certain of us are too weak-willed and lazy to defend him.

As to your first paragraph, Ms. Craig, I did not say that.  You have, as
you have done so many times on this list, put words into another's mouth
and insulted them for those words.

It is difficult to come up with a definitive statement about what
Shakespeare believed.  It is a simple fact that much of the excellent
criticism you accuse me of slighting, attributes a wide variety of
opinion to the Bard.  Many opinions on the same issue are found in his
writing.  Shakespeare saw many sides of many issues.

Some things are discernable.  I'm fairly confident he thought revenge
was bad, and had unusually enlightened racial attitudes for his time, to
give two examples.  Other attitudes are  difficult to figure out.  The
example I cited, and you ignored because it demonstrates you are wrong,
addressed his political views.  "Critical effort" has led some to
conclude that Shakespeare was a royalist, and others to conclude he was
subversive.  Both have good reasons for their conclusions.

Unlike you, Ms. Criag, I have learned from scholars on both sides, and
find certain plays illuminated by their comments.  However, they do
emphasize my point that his opinions can be difficult to pin down.

You call me muddleheaded, weak-willed, and lazy.  You imply that I do
not have a good or talented mind.  All that may be true, but why blow my
cover?

May I suggest that the person who understands the complexity of these
issues is a clearer thinker, stronger-willed, more persistent, and by
implication has a better and more talented mind that one who does not
understand the complexity of the debate and settles for easy answers?
Based on your many comments on this list, I'll be happy to measure my
mind or my moral character against yours anytime.

Play nice, or I'll tell your Mommy what kind of person you turned out to
be.

Mike Jensen

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Allan Blackman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 3 Apr 2000 22:06:25 -0400
Subject:        Reply to Egan

In reply to Gabriel Egan's challenge, I would have no difficulty
supporting the right of racists or Holocaust deniers to express their
views on this list.  However, this list belongs to Hardy, whose First
Amendment right to control who speaks in his forum takes precedence.  A
similar issue comes up every year in New York City when the organizers
of the St. Patrick's Day parade deny the application of a homosexual
Catholic group to march under its own banner.  The courts have
consistently upheld that denial.  As the parade organizers determine who
can march in THEIR parade, so Hardy decides who can post on HIS list.

On the other hand, one might argue that any kind of censorship is
inconsistent with academic pursuits and that this list SHOULD be open to
all postings.

An alternative is to have an unmoderated list.  Some may be aghast as
this suggestion, but I can say, as one who has been a member of many
Internet groups over the years, that although there are occasional
discussions of irrelevant topics and some foul language on unmoderated
lists, these are minor annoyances.  More than 99% of the postings turn
out to be unobjectionable by anyone's standards.  And the best way to
deal with "inappropriate" postings is to ignore them. Anyway, I keep my
mouse pointer poised over Delete, with my finger caressing the left
mouse button.  Postings of no interest are disposed of in nanoseconds!

This list is clearly a labor of love for Hardy, but it is unreasonable
to expect him to spend three hours a day editing responses.  I say: Free
Hardy!  Make this list unmoderated.

Allan Blackman

A Few Matters Regarding SHAKSPER

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0685  Monday, 3 April 2000.

From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, April 03, 2000
Subject:        A Few Matters Regarding SHAKSPER

Dear SHAKSPEReans,

A few quick observations regarding SHAKSPER:

1. I will be at the SAA but only as an observer this year. Nevertheless,
I do not have the energy - I may some day - to organize a gathering for
the members. If someone else would like to, I will communicate the
arrangements before I leave. I will, however, as usual be staring at
everyone's label to see if I recognize anyone I do not know. Remember
though that there are 1400 of you and only one of me.

2. I have not decided yet if I will attempt to edit SHAKSPER digests
during my time in Montreal, but keep your submissions coming in and I
will wait and see when I will get to them.

3. As for the traffic on SHAKSPER of late, the message level has been
rather heavy, causing me to have to expend around three hours a day or
more editing. Either I have to find a new position with fewer
responsibilities (which is not something that I would dismiss out of
hand) or the number of responses has got to shrink to a more manageable
level. So I ask, please count to ten before you hit the reply key; this
is especially true of frequent contributors.

4. Another request is that if your name is NOT included with your e-mail
address, please give your full name at the end of your submission. I do
not let postings go out without attributing them to the member of the
from whom they came, so if your name is not present I have to look it
up, taking more of my time.

I leave very early Thursday morning and look forward to seeing as many
SHAKSPEReans as I can.

Best wishes,
Hardy

Re: Two Noble Kinsmen

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0683  Monday, 3 April 2000.

From:           Edward Pixley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 01 Apr 2000 11:36:15 -0500
Subject: 11.0644 Re: Two Noble Kinsmen
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0644 Re: Two Noble Kinsmen

> I just saw a production of Two Noble Kinsmen at Cuyahoga Community
> College here in the Cleveland area.  It wasn't silly and sentimental at
> all, but kindly satirical, funny, and most delightful.  Quite Chaucerian
> in fact.  I came away thinking that the play should be studied and
> produced more often.
>
> I was also struck by its similarities to Two Gentlemen of Verona.  I had
> expected the production to be more as Ed described-pre Corneille or
> Racine-and was pleasantly surprised that it did not turn out that way at
> all.
>
> Susan Oldrieve
> Baldwin-Wallace College

Thanks, Susan, for your much more positive response.  Chaucerian?  Hm!
I will definitely have to take another look.  My response may have been
the production, but it could also have been me.  I think we saw it on
the third day of 106 degree temperatures in Ashland and were perhaps not
in the most receptive mood.

Ed Pixley

Re: First and Last Names

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0684  Monday, 3 April 2000.

From:           Werner Broennimann <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 03 Apr 2000 11:37:16 +0100
Subject: Comment:        SHK 11.0656

I would spontaneously guess that "first name-last name combos" are
either a sign of respect or disrespect; Michael Cassio is also called a
"a Florentine" (by Iago), which I take to be a contemptuous reference to
the city where Machiavelli was born.

But previous postings contain useful bibliographical information.  Peter
Holland mentioned Anne Barton's The Names of Comedy (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1990), Jim Lake Murry cited J. Levith's WHAT'S IN SHAKESPEARE'S
NAMES, Archon Books, 1978, Terence Hawkes "a fascinating essay" by Harry
Levin called 'Shakespeare's Nomenclature' in Gerald W. Chapman (ed.)
Essays on Shakespeare, Princeton UP 1965, pp. 59-90, and Jonathan Hope
refers to Random Cloud, 1991, '"The very names of the persons": Editing
and the invention of dramatick character', in David Scott Kastan and
Peter Stallybrass (eds) Staging the Renaissance: reinterpretations of
Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, pp. 88-96 (Routledge).

Werner Br


Re: What is truth in theatre?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0682  Monday, 3 April 2000.

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 31 Mar 2000 17:46:13 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0651 Re: What is truth in theatre?

[2]     From:   Karen Peterson-Kranz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:18:20 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0651 Re: What is truth in theatre?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 31 Mar 2000 17:46:13 -0800
Subject: 11.0651 Re: What is truth in theatre?
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0651 Re: What is truth in theatre?

Clifford Stetner writes:

> If it
> could be demonstrated that the particular staging of a particular play,
> regardless of any aesthetic or internal textual (if such a thing really
> exists) meaning, performs a specific function in the circulation of
> cultural poetics (Greenblatt) then we can determine not only what is
> being said, but why it is being said to these people at this time, and
> that, for me, is the significant truth of it, because it can then be
> used to illuminate analogous functions in our own culture to which our
> proximity might otherwise blind us.

Too bad the aesthetic keeps polluting the political.

Cheers,
Se


Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.