2000

Re: Adams' Essay on Desdemona

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2124  Monday, 20 November 2000.

From:           Norman J. Myers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Nov 2000 13:10:01 -0500
Subject: 11.2113 Re: Adams' Essay on Desdemona
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2113 Re: Adams' Essay on Desdemona

I certainly agree with John Robinson's view in the following exchange.
Judging the past by the "standards" of the present is a common
historiographical mistake.  Moreover, such judgment implies that the
"standards" of the present are superior.  Though I guess that's true.
Clearly, we today are *so* much less racist, sexist, narrow-minded and
*so* much more loving, forgiving and tolerant of differences than those
ignorant, self-centered, parochial boobs of the past.

Thanks for listening.

Norman Myers

Re: Rule a Wife, Have a Wife

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2123  Monday, 20 November 2000.

From:           Tom Dale Keever <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Nov 2000 13:27:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 11.2116 Rule a Wife, Have a Wife
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2116 Rule a Wife, Have a Wife

>Can anyone help me locate a copy of "Rule a Wife, Have a Wife" by John
>Fletcher?  Thank you.
>
>Christopher Moore
>www.classicaltheatre.com'

The copies I have are in the following collections:

The Works of Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher, Volume III
Cambridge English Classics
Edited by Arnold Glover and A. R. Waller
Cambridge at the University Press, 1906

Typical Elizabethan Plays
by Contemporaries and Immediate Successors of Shakespeare,
Edited by Felix E. Schelling and Matthew W. Black,
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1926

It is also in Schelling's second edition of 1931.  I don't know if it
was retained in the 1949 edition.

Re: Fops

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2121  Monday, 20 November 2000.

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Nov 2000 09:17:40 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.2111 Re: Fops

[2]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Nov 2000 12:56:29 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.2111 Re: Fops

[3]     From:   Werner Broennimann <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 20 Nov 2000 10:58:03 +0000
        Subj:   Fops


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Nov 2000 09:17:40 -0800
Subject: 11.2111 Re: Fops
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2111 Re: Fops

Bill writes:

>And I think that Sean is misusing the word "claim."  When I make a
>claim, I actively make a claim. I work with my students helping them to
>word their claims more precisely and carefully.

Not necessarily.  To say that all claims have to be made actively, by a
self with volition (and, I might add, will) is to over-simplify.
Someone can make a claim on our caring without actually wanting to do
so, not even subconsciously.

>I think Sean means something like "sympathize" or "empathize."  We and
>"those around her" may sympathize with Lavinia's plight -- raped and
>mutilated.  Or some of us may laugh -- one of the recorded responses to
>a performance.  In any case, Lavinia cannot actively step from the pages
>of the script and actively make any claim upon ME.  You, maybe, but not
>me.

This is to make the imperative entirely into an internal matter of how I
choose to respond, what I read into a person in literature, or a
'real-world' person understood (as Clifford has pointed out)
literarily.  Phenomenologically, however, it seems clear to me that the
imperative always comes from without.  One might even compare it to the
voice of God.

Of course, we can then choose to ignore the imperative, just as we can
ignore Lavinia, or a horse being beaten in the streets, or, Biblically,
a Divine command, as Jonah does.  None of this makes it any the less
external to us (in the case of God, radically external), or any the less
of a compulsion, coming from without.

This is also, by the way, the supplement I would wish to add to
Clifford's long but by no means long-winded treatment of the question.
No, we cannot know the content of another mind; such is the existential
distinction between self and Other.  On the other hand, this distinction
is also what makes the Other external, like an imperative, unchosen.  Of
course, which others we decide to treat as 'Other' in the strong sense
I'm using here becomes in many ways a social or political question.
Perhaps, as Levinas says somewhere, society exists not to limit
brutality but to limit generosity.  But none of this really detracts
from the radical externality of the Other, coming as a rupture in the
Same.

Cheers,
Se


Online Shakespeare Concordances

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2122  Monday, 20 November 2000.

[1]     From:   Pervez Rizvi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Nov 2000 21:40:30 -0000
        Subj:   Matty Farrow's Shakespeare Online Concordance

[2]     From:   Abdulla Al-Dabbagh <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 19 Nov 2000 21:47:41 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Shakespeare Concordance


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Pervez Rizvi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Nov 2000 21:40:30 -0000
Subject:        Matty Farrow's Shakespeare Online Concordance

Many list members will know that, until now, by far the best Shakespeare
concordance on the web has been the one produced by Matty Farrow:

http://www.gh.cs.su.oz.au/~matty/Shakespeare/Shakespeare.html

People who've used this will know how very useful it can be. I've been
dismayed to find recently that I can no longer access it: I always get a
message back saying I am not authorised to view it. I thought to contact
Matty Farrow, who appears to work for the Computing department at the
University of Sydney in Australia, but I find I am not even authorised
to view his home page (which I found through Yahoo).

Do other people have this experience? Can anyone who knows Dr. Farrow or
has contacts at the University of Sydney tell me what the problem is and
if this site will come back?

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Abdulla Al-Dabbagh <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 19 Nov 2000 21:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject:        Shakespeare Concordance

Dear SHAKSPERians,

It looks like I need your help once again, so soon after your valuable
suggestions for a literary criticism textbook that have taken us out of
a long impasse. Is there a Shakespeare concordance, or anything similar
to it, online? How does one go about finding out where a certain term,
word or concept, occurs in the oeuvre? (Please forgive me if this is too
easy--"Elementary, my dear Watson" would not be minded at all as the
introduction to a response)

Thanks in advance,
Abdulla al-Dabbagh

Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2120  Monday, 20 November 2000.

[1]     From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Nov 2000 14:17:07 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.2110 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

[2]     From:   Debra Murphy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Nov 2000 08:55:33 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.2110 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

[3]     From:   Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 19 Nov 2000 16:30:34 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.2097 Julie Taymor's TITUS

[4]     From:   Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, November 20, 2000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.2110 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Nov 2000 14:17:07 -0500
Subject: 11.2110 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2110 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

I saw the Taymor exhibition when it was in Columbus, OH, and recommend
it heartily to those living near Washington or planning a visit there
sometime soon.  As the Post review indicates, the pieces don't come
fully to life, of course, as they do, quite wonderfully, on the stage.
But they are beautiful and beguiling by themselves.  And the glimpses
the exhibition gives of this remarkable artist at work are informative
and appealing.  The Columbus show, by the way, featured "Fool's Fire" in
its entirety--fascinating.  If you ever have a chance to see it, do.

Dave Evett

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Debra Murphy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Nov 2000 08:55:33 -0800
Subject: 11.2110 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2110 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

I have to agree that Taymor's TITUS is one of the best of Shakespearean
film adaptations.  The Bladerunner-meets-Fellini art direction worked
for me, but then I'm partial to that sort of mix-n-match style, not only
as a way to express universality, but also, and more specifically, as a
way to convey the idea that we smug moderns/postmoderns, who have
willy-nilly imbibed notions of historical and moral "progress", are not
as far removed from the brutal realities of pagan Rome as we might wish
to think.

As for the opening martial choreography, I was literally stunned,
thought it one of the best film openings of any sort I'd ever seen.  It
almost gave me nightmares, as a matter of fact.  It was to me a most
eloquent visual way of screaming, "Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas
anymore!"

Yours,
Debra Murphy
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
http://www.bardolatry.com

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 19 Nov 2000 16:30:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 11.2097 Julie Taymor's TITUS
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2097 Julie Taymor's TITUS

Taymor's film bored me, and its details are fast receding into
oblivion.  There is no horror in it, only decor.  Like most "advanced"
directors, Taymor concentrates on production design rather than
dynamics, sets and costumes rather than character and conflict, things
rather than people.  The result is the postmodern equivalent of the
19th-century theatre's pictorialism: cluttered yet empty, painstaking
yet futile, overstuffed yet dull.

Taymor is a puppeteer rather than a director.  Thus, it comes as no
surprise that the acting in Titus is inadequate. Anthony Hopkins, an
epigone of Richard Burton, is no more capable of significant emotion
than his precursor.  Charismatic containment broken by spasms of
unpersuasive rant did not make Burton a great Shakespearean, and has
done nothing for Hopkins either.  Jessica Lange delivers her customary
skim-milk performance; the player of Aaron picks his way uneasily
through the language like an amateur; Colm Feore (Canada's idea of a
major classical actor) does nothing with his apostrophe to Lavinia; and
Alan Cumming is not convincing as either a heterosexual or a bisexual.

Taymor's film is no different in kind from the tinsel rubbish purveyed
on both sides of the Atlantic during the past 15 years by the likes of
Andrei Serban, Adrian Noble and other window-dressers masquerading as
humanists. Those who wish to know what a truly frightening Titus is like
should listen to Lavinia's abduction on the 1965 Caedmon recording.
Without any visual dimension whatsoever, the unrelenting savagery of
Maxine Audley's Tamora and the tear-streaked agonies of Judi Dench's
Lavinia freeze the blood, harrow up the soul and make the hair stand on
end as Taymor's chic, inhuman film never does.  A Titus without horror
is no Titus at all.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, November 20, 2000
Subject: 11.2110 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2110 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

For those who live in the Eastern United States and have access to the
Bravo channel, tonight, Monday, November 20, at 10:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m.
will be a Bravo Profile of Julie Taymor. People in other regions should
consult local listings.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.