Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: January ::
Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0027  Friday, 5 January 2001

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 03 Jan 2001 10:09:42 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 12.0009 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

[2]     From:   Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 3 Jan 2001 16:25:57 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0009 Re: Julie Taymor's TITU

[3]     From:   Werner Broennimann <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 04 Jan 2001 10:48:37 +0000
        Subj:   Julie Taymor's TIT

[4]     From:   Melissa D. Aaron <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 04 Jan 2001 06:02:09 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0020 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

[5]     From:   Paul E. Doniger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 3 Jan 2001 21:24:10 -0800
        Subj:   re: performers and professors


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 03 Jan 2001 10:09:42 -0800
Subject: Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS
Comment:        SHK 12.0009 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

Sam Small writes:

> So once again I find myself disagreeing with the bold Mr Jensen and the
> troubling Mr Pervez Rizvi who believes that a valid Shakespeare reaction
> should be vetted by him and his dubious University.  I am surprised he
> can count all the way to ten.

Hardy, I thought the plug had been pulled on personal comments about
this topic?

This statement is as inaccurate as it is unfair.  While I do teach
sometimes, my main work is in publishing.  Pervez Rizvi works with
computers in some way; I'm sorry I don't remember his job title.  We
both have publications in Shakespearean journals, but have never claimed
to have full time jobs at Universities.  Rizvi wrote a comment
reinforcing my hope that the level of discourse on this list be elevated
from the snide dismissiveness of Mr. Small's previous post.  It is
therefore dismaying t

Neither Rizvi nor myself suggested that anyone on this list submit their
comments to us for approval.  Mr. Small has again posted something that
is not true in order to hurt the reputation of someone who has stood up
to him on this list.

I suggested we elevate the level of discourse above falsehood and mere
dismissiveness. I urged that people who post have opinions that are
informed.  As Sean Lawrence and I made clear in our later comments, one
need not be an academic to have an informed opinion, and it would be a
loss if any informed opinion went unposted.  Because Mr. Small's
comment, quoted above, is not informed, it serves as an excellent
example of the kind of comment that some list members feel brings down
the level of discourse.

As I pointed out in a recent post, to just post a diatribe or dislike
for a particular performer or performance is as unproductive as it would
be if someone replied, "You are wrong.  It was great."    These comments
are meaningless except as a means of voting.  When informed reasons back
up the opinion, then the opinion is informative and we can all learn
from it.  When someone merely says it is lousy or it is great, then
readers don't learn anything except how the poster feels.

I want more.

Sincerely,
Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 3 Jan 2001 16:25:57 -0500
Subject: 12.0009 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0009 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

Re S. Small's commentary of 12/30/00:

You had me fooled there, for a bit, S. Small.  You were saying in one
part of your letter precisely what I had said and believe: that
performers and academicians need each other for Shakespeare to live on
in our lives and our culture.  I was hoping we were going to have some
useful discourse at last.

But then you went and did it again: choosing the gratuitous insult, this
time the snide swipe at Pervez Rizvi.  It was unnecessary, it was
insulting, it lowered the tone of the discourse from an exchange of the
goods of the mind to the gutter of wastes and garbage.

Please, S. Small, provide your ideas without your crude assaults on
others?  Why gut your most sensible commentaries by wielding the knife
of insult on the innards of others?  Does it accomplish anything
constructive? I think not; I suspect many other SHAKSPERians, of both
performance and academic credentials and interests, agree.

Specific to your commentary, I do not believe that the majority of the
posters think one of those sets of credentials "is worthless whilst the
other is next to Godliness."  Rather, I think that what most are saying
is "Whatever your opinion, offer specific details and tie those details
to the text."

As a high school teacher, I do not accept student essays that say simply
"Romeo is foolish. He should make better decisions" and go on to natter
broadly about how if only Romeo did X, and he should have done Y, etc.
etc.  etc.

Students need to define "foolish," "better" and "decisions," eliminate
"should" and deal with what IS, not what IF, and then point to specific
lines in the text that illustrate and support their points.  That same
approach to discussion is what we need on this list; most of the posters
do indeed approach their posts in that manner.

Oh, by the way, it's "In ideal times the two sides COMPLEMENT [not
"compliment"] each other"... we may not say nice things, but we do work
best when we work in tandem, like strawberries and chocolate or steak
and baked potatoes.

Bemusedly,
Mari Bonomi

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Werner Broennimann <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 04 Jan 2001 10:48:37 +0000
Subject:        Julie Taymor's TITUS

My apologies to Sam Small for calling him Sam Wood in my last.  The
explanation for this mishap is simple.  In writing my message I was
evading other duties, such as writing my report on the licentiate paper
right in front of me, which is entitled: "The Function of the Forest in
a Selection of Utopian Novels".  Somewhat awkward title, but a good
piece of work.  Incidentally, when Sam Small writes "Looking into
Shakespeare's face is like looking in the mirror" I take this to be a
reference to the stubble on the Droeshout portrait, which will remind
Sam to reach for his Philishave.  But I don't want to push the
deforestation topic too far.

Werner

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Melissa D. Aaron <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 04 Jan 2001 06:02:09 -0800
Subject: 12.0020 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0020 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

Werner Br

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.