The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1334 Friday, 30 June 2000.
From: Larry Weiss <
Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 2000 11:44:30 PDT
Subject: 11.1317 Exploitation of Actors
Comment: Re: SHK 11.1317 Exploitation of Actors
First, I apologize for any confusion as to who is sending this post.
Yes, it is really me, Larry Weiss. The comment to which this responds
did not arrive at my usual e-mail address, so I have to use this
alternative in order to quote exactly from Mr. Myers post. I prefer not
to paraphrase as that would lose some of its flavor.
Jeff Myers originally asked
> > >Wasn't Shakespeare part of a management team that
> > >exploited actors (at least, non-shareholding actors)?
And I asked in turn
> > Is "exploit" the currently PC term for "employ"?
to which he answers:
>Sadly, the two words have more often than not been synonymous, as almost
>anyone other than a Limbaugh-listening . . . would have realized after a
>few glimpses at the world.
Actually, the two words have different roots -- employ from the Latin
"implicare" and exploit from the Latin "explico, explicatum,
explicitum." A glance at a dictionary is often worth a lot more than "a
few glimpses" at the word (or did you really mean "world," Jeff). Can
you cite any reputable dictionary or thesaurus that defines the two
words as synonyms?
Then Jeff asks,
>Does anyone doubt that at least some actors
>in Shakespeare's day were exploited through their employment as actors?
>About Shakespeare's role in such exploitation I am unsure, which is why
I find this chillingly familiar. First of all, what evidence do you
have that anyone was "exploited"? (And what do you mean by exploitation,
anyway?) But even if there were some "exploitation," how can you justify
suggesting that Shakespeare (or anyone else for that matter)was guilty
of it when you admit being "unsure." This sounds like: "Does anyone
doubt that there are commies in the Department of the Army? As for
Secretary Stevens role in this, I am unsure, but lets accuse him and
have a nice bunch of public hearings."