2001

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0550  Thursday, 8 March 2001

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 07 Mar 2001 09:59:23 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 12.0541 Re: Tempest Reference

[2]     From:   Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 08 Mar 2001 00:14:24
        Subj:   Kermode (Tempest Reference)


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 07 Mar 2001 09:59:23 -0800
Subject: Re: Tempest Reference
Comment:        SHK 12.0541 Re: Tempest Reference

I usually wait until a thread is over before writing to thank everyone,
but in this case discussion has evolved from the answer to my question
to other matters.  Thanks to everyone who answered both on and off
list.  Your suggestions are greatly appreciated.

BTW, we had a lot of fun with post-colonialism and an alternative in
class last night, and some of the fun came from your suggestions.  My
cap is tipped.

All the best,
Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 08 Mar 2001 00:14:24
Subject:        Kermode (Tempest Reference)

Judy Craig <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> writes:

>What I personally found interesting about the lecture was his admission
>that he was an aging radical and as such felt qualified to comment on
>some of the stances taken by modern radicals.

I was not present at Kermode's lecture. I'm curious on what ground (or
in what sense) he considered/s himself a "radical". Is he a "radical"
because he challenges "modern radicals"? When his book Shakespeare's
Language came out last year, some reviewers considered him conservative
rather than "radical". (The definition of "radical" can be another issue
here...) I'm curious about different perspectives, especially from
Professors Hawkes and Vickers. (Is John Drakakis on here, too?) I'm not
intending to cause any stir. I'm just curious on what ground Kermode
said he was a "radical". I hope curiosity doesn't kill a SHAKSPERean.

Takashi Kozuka
PhD Student
Centre for the Study of the Renaissance
University of Warwick (UK)
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.