Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: March ::
Re: Shakespeare Bashing
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0538  Wednesday, 7 March 2001

[1]     From:   Jack Heller <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 06 Mar 2001 16:39:46 +0000 (GMT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0525 Re: Shakespeare Bashing

[2]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 06 Mar 2001 09:51:16 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 12.0525 Re: Shakespeare Bashing


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jack Heller <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 06 Mar 2001 16:39:46 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: 12.0525 Re: Shakespeare Bashing
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0525 Re: Shakespeare Bashing

Based on a thread I added to, Clifford Stetner wrote:

> It's possible that plays have been overrated and underrated, but, if you
> are interested in "what Sh was trying to accomplish," I don't see how
> any of it can be uninteresting or irrelevant.  The most mundane or ill
> constructed works can shed the most light through their cracks and flaws
> on the poet's method and on his more artistically flawless works.

I couldn't agree more, and when I noted which plays I think are not
Shakespeare's best, I am not saying that I regret reading or seeing them
when given the opportunity. That includes Romeo and Juliet. To my
earlier comments, I should add that some of my ambivalence about that
play stems from its cultural status; it has become too much the measure
of romance. Give teenagers Antony and Cleopatra.

I would add to Mr. Stetner's comments that if Shakespeare's lesser plays
"can shed the most light through their cracks and flaws on the poet's
method," so also can the works of his contemporaries. If a person is
reading Two Gentlemen of Verona and is not reading A Chaste Maid in
Cheapside, that person is not reading the better play. I was asked to
expand my list of worthy plays by Shakespeare's contemporaries. I
acknowledge the subjectivity of such a list, but I think these are
better than Two Gentlemen and some of the other lesser Shakespearean
plays. I'll not repeat the list I made previously.

The Knight of the Burning Pestle, Francis Beaumont
The Maid's Tragedy, Beaumont and John Fletcher
A Chaste Maid in Cheapside, Thomas Middleton
The Changeling, Middleton and William Rowley
The Duchess of Malfi, John Webster

Jack Heller

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 06 Mar 2001 09:51:16 -0800
Subject: Re: Shakespeare Bashing
Comment:        SHK 12.0525 Re: Shakespeare Bashing

It is always difficult to know how to respond to arch Oxfordian
Stephanie Hughes, or even if it is worth bothering.  Life's too short to
address everything she wrote, so I'll keep it very short.  She makes an
absurd claim about *The Tempest,* a play that pretty much could not have
been written until 1611. She writes it was written for a specific
occasion.

> a private wedding play, this one for the marriage of the Earl of
> Derby to Elizabeth Vere, in 1595.

Hardy, you left the back door open, and a hungry lion is seeking whom
she may devour.  Her agenda is disturbingly transparent.

Mike Jensen
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.