November
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2164 Monday, 27 November 2000 From: Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 26 Nov 2000 12:20:36 -0500 Subject: 11.2126 The Merchant of Florida Comment: Re: SHK 11.2126 The Merchant of Florida How about George W as Hal? Doing lines with Falstaff, driving around drunk, and insider trading until his conversion when he rises to the occasion of avenging his father on his enemies, putting down the rebel Democrats, sending criminals to the chair, and succeeding to the throne to become the ideal Christian president?
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2163 Monday, 27 November 2000 From: Robert J. Matter <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 26 Nov 2000 04:58:02 -0600 Subject: Macbett Anyone seen this (new or old translation) and care to comment? It is playing in Chicago. MACBETT Eugene Ionesco's absurdist take on Shakespearean drama is presented in a new translation by Greasy Joan & Company member Gavin Witt. Joanna Settle directs this coproduction of Greasy Joan and Division 13 Productions. Chopin Theatre, 1543 W. Division, 773-761-8284.Previews November 25 through December 1: Thursdays-Saturdays, 8 PM; Sundays, 5 PM. $15. Opens Saturday, December 2, 8 PM. $30. Through January 21: Thursdays-Saturdays, 8 PM; Sundays, 5 PM; no shows Sunday, December 24 and 31. $20; "pay what you can" on Thursdays. -Bob Matter Hammond, IN
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2162 Monday, 27 November 2000 [1] From: Eric Luhrs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 24 Nov 2000 17:35:55 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 11.2150 More Provenance . . . [2] From: Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Nov 2000 04:47:00 EST Subj: SER COMPUTER / Carol Barton's Mail [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Luhrs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 24 Nov 2000 17:35:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: 11.2150 More Provenance . . . Comment: Re: SHK 11.2150 More Provenance . . . > Recently, however, a computer program designed by English company SER > Systems determined that Shakespeare was 88 percent likely to have been > the sole author of "Henry VIII." Dear SHAKSPEReans, SER's website gives more details about the program (SERbrainware) and its results: http://www.ser.com/news/101700.htm Cheers, Eric Luhrs [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Nov 2000 04:47:00 EST Subject: SER COMPUTER / Carol Barton's Mail A few notes on Carol Barton's post RE: the new SER computer program which assigns an 88% chance of the authorship of Henry VIII being Shakespeare alone - - (1) An 88% chance of the play being Shakespeare alone presumably doesn't invalidate claims that PART of the play was written by Fletcher. The import of such a wide band statistical claim may be doubted in any case in that it tells us nothing of the possible division of authorship or comparative rates with the works of Fletcher etc. (2) Jonathan Hope's findings for Regulation rates of the auxiliary 'do' and relative markers (who/which/ that/zero) confirmed a distinct division of authorship in the play contradicting Cyril Hoy's claim that the play was solely by Shakespeare. Hope divides up the authorship thus: Section A to Shakespeare, Section B to Fletcher and a strong likelihood of Section C also being by Fletcher . [A= 1.01,1.02,3.02a,5.01 /B= 1.03,1.04,3.01,5.02,5.03,5.04/C= 2.01,2.02,3.02b,4.01,4.02] (3) Ward Elliott's more extensive testing of the whole Canon and Apocrypha (too complicated to list here -ask Ward) also rejects Shakespeare as sole author of the play and in fact his wide ranging tests seem to indicate that S's authorship of any part of the play may be doubted (the play receives a a total of 15 rejections compared to a Shakespeare Core Profile of maximum 3). * What does everyone else think? Agree with Hope/ Elliott or think the play is Shakespeare's? * I hope such a question doesn't collide too much with the banned 'authorship question' (?) Yours, Marcus
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2161 Monday, 27 November 2000 From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 23 Nov 2000 08:32:16 -0800 Subject: Romeo and Juliet Virus Hi, guys. There's an announcement this morning from McAfee of a new virus called "Romeo and Juliet", that infects Outlook systems. It is, however, low-risk, and seems to have nothing to do with the play. It doesn't, for instance, promote teen suicide, or fry a couple of print servers in order that the warring Unix and Windows applications will start talking to each other. The announcement is here: http://technews.netscape.com/news/0-1005-200-3802629.html?pt.nc.htmldisp.hl.ne Cheers, Se
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2160 Monday, 27 November 2000 From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 23 Nov 2000 08:56:22 -0000 Subject: Video Formats I suppose if viewed from the Pacific it might appear that "Most other countries ... have the NTSC system", but the reality is more complicated. When colour television was introduced Japan and the US chose the NTSC system (sometimes dubbed Never Twice the Same Color). Technical improvements were desirable to suit broadcast conditions in Europe, so Germany and Britain chose the PAL system, and France and the Soviet Union chose SECAM. There were thus three systems for everyone else to select. (I am mildly puzzled that Quebec doesn't use SECAM ...) None of this would matter for DVD, of course, if it wasn't for the infamous regional coding ... Oh, and contrary to appearances, Connecticut isn't in the UK! Regards, John Briggs