March
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0493 Friday, 2 March 2001 [1] From: Tim Perfect <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Mar 2001 08:06:07 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 12.0482 The Glass Menagerie [2] From: Harry Hill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Mar 2001 11:41:23 EST Subj: Re: SHK 12.0482 The Glass Menagerie [3] From: Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Mar 2001 21:02:46 -0800 Subj: Fw: SHK 12.0482 The Glass Menagerie [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Perfect <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Mar 2001 08:06:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: 12.0482 The Glass Menagerie Comment: Re: SHK 12.0482 The Glass Menagerie >Have other 20th century playwrights referred to themselves, if only in a >roundabout way, as Shakespeare? The only other reference (not a playwright, alas) that comes to mind for me (probably due to the fact that I recently saw it again) is in Kevin Costner's film "The Postman". The evil General Nathan Bethlehem refers to Costner's character as "Shakespeare", after learning that Costner's character was an actor. They have a kind of silly back and forth recitation battle of lines. Tim Perfect [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Mar 2001 11:41:23 EST Subject: 12.0482 The Glass Menagerie Comment: Re: SHK 12.0482 The Glass Menagerie Well, my friends used to call me Beethoven because I played the piano from an early age. Surely it is a kind of friendly banter that calls Tom Shakespeare? [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Mar 2001 21:02:46 -0800 Subject: 12.0482 The Glass Menagerie Comment: Fw: SHK 12.0482 The Glass Menagerie Not only is Tom an alter ego for Williams (whose real name was Thomas), but Amanda and Laura are very much based on Williams's own mother and sister (his sister, I believe, was eventually committed to an asylum and her death, apparently, left him with a strong sense of guilt). I've taught the play in both English and acting classes, and it's fascinating to me how drastically one's opinions of the characters changes as one gets older. Who is the 'hero' of the play (if there is one), anyway? Regarding the Shakespeare question, I don't think it's much of a big deal in the play; his friend, Jim, calls him Shakespeare simply because he writes poetry on the job, and I think that's as far as it goes. Jim is a pretty flat character who is quite insensitive to Laura's vulnerability; it seems to me that Williams paints him as a drudge whose only real, deep interest is making money. The only other reference to Shakespeare of this nature, that I can think of, is in Anouilh's _The Cavern_, in which the Superintendent tells The Author that Shakespeare probably had difficulty writing his plays, too (The Author in this play is the main character, and the play is "presented" by him as unfinished, piecemeal -- a variation on Pirandello); the Author then complains that one "should never utter Shakespeare's name to another playwright; it's hurtful." This is hardly like the mentions of Shakespeare in _TGM_, however, so I don't know that it will help you. Paul E. Doniger
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0492 Friday, 2 March 2001 [1] From: Michele Marrapodi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Mar 2001 16:42:27 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 12.0477 Castration Query Conference [2] From: David Linton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Mar 2001 12:02:56 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 12.0477 Castration Query Conference [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michele Marrapodi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Mar 2001 16:42:27 +0100 Subject: 12.0477 Castration Query Conference Comment: Re: SHK 12.0477 Castration Query Conference >I wonder if anyone on the list could direct me to primary or secondary >texts dealing with castration in early modern England/Europe. I am >particularly keen on finding works from which I could glean early modern >attitudes toward castration, eunuchs, and so on. For a brilliant and wide-ranging treatment of the eunuch topos in early modern drama, see Keir Elam, "The Fertile Eunuch: _Twelfth Night_ Early Modern Intercourse, and the Fruits of Castration," _Shakespeare Quarterly_, 47 (Spring, 1996), pp. 1-36. Michele Marrapodi, University of Palermo. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Linton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Mar 2001 12:02:56 -0500 Subject: 12.0477 Castration Query Conference Comment: RE: SHK 12.0477 Castration Query Conference It may be of general interest to the list that Gary Taylor, author of Reinventing Shakespeare and co-editor of the Oxford Shakespeare has just published a fascinating book called Castration which includes a good deal about castration practices in early modern England and other times and places as well.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0491 Friday, 2 March 2001 [1] From: Jonathan R. Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Mar 2001 16:32:02 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 12.0483 Shakespeare Bashing [2] From: Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 01 Mar 2001 16:35:12 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 12.0483 Shakespeare Bashing [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan R. Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Mar 2001 16:32:02 +0100 Subject: 12.0483 Shakespeare Bashing Comment: Re: SHK 12.0483 Shakespeare Bashing I'm fond of the following, probably unintentional, bashing of the bard's bonce from Anthony Powell's Journals (for 11 March 1982): 'I now habitually end the day with reading Shakespeare in bed, followed by some poetry.' Jonathan Hope Strathclyde University Glasgow [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 01 Mar 2001 16:35:12 +0000 (GMT) Subject: 12.0483 Shakespeare Bashing Comment: Re: SHK 12.0483 Shakespeare Bashing >Maybe this could be the beginning of a thread about what we Shakespeare >lovers hate about Shakespeare. I, for example, could never read The >Tempest without being disappointed. I've tried a lot of times to find >the play good but, alas, I find it stiff and boring. (Oops, have I outed >myself as a tasteless greaseball?) As one whose research has as much to do with Shakespeare's contemporaries as with Shakespeare himself, I suggest that such a discussion may be usefully balanced by asking what plays by other writers do we favor over particular plays by Shakespeare. And a third useful category could be what Shakespeare plays we think are underrated. I have seen some fascinating productions of plays that aren't generally considered his best, so even if I say that Two Gentleman of Verona does not present Shakespeare at his highest powers, I remember vividly a touring group from the Kennedy Center staging it as a Western. Just listing, then, here goes: Shakespeare's weakest: Romeo and Juliet (to me, his most overrated work. The boring underwritten lovers and family members are easily upstaged by Mercutio and Tybalt. The play should have been about them.) all of the Henries the Sixes Two Gentlemen of Verona Titus Andronicus Merry Wives of Windsor Plays better than any of those above by Shakespeare's contemporaries Marlowe's Edward II Ford's Perkin Warbeck Webster's The White Devil Marston's Sophonisba Middeton and Dekker's The Roaring Girl Jonson's Bartholomew Fair This list could be much longer, but I'll save the rest. Underrated--or Underperformed Shakespeare: Coriolanus (which could make a great movie) King John (which, with its plot based on power gained by strong possession, could have merited a mention back in December) Jack Heller
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0490 Friday, 2 March 2001 [1] From: Skip Nicholson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Mar 2001 07:03:44 -0800 Subj: RE: SHK 12.0484 Hal (was Welsh, etc.) [2] From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 01 Mar 2001 16:03:15 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 12.0484 Hal (was Welsh, etc.) [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Nicholson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Mar 2001 07:03:44 -0800 Subject: 12.0484 Hal (was Welsh, etc.) Comment: RE: SHK 12.0484 Hal (was Welsh, etc.) Happy St David's Day to Hal and all... Cheers, Skip Nicholson South Pasadena [CA] HSThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 01 Mar 2001 16:03:15 -0500 Subject: 12.0484 Hal (was Welsh, etc.) Comment: Re: SHK 12.0484 Hal (was Welsh, etc.) Merri Neidorff writes: >Is this the accepted reading of these lines? I have never formally >studied Shakespeare, but I've done a lot of reading and, as this is a >favorite play, have it in a number of editions (Riverside, Bevington, >Folger, Arden). I don't see it in the footnotes. I've always read the >"foul and ugly mists" as Hal referring to his own dalliance, the "loose >behavior" he promises to throw off. I'm not big on accepted readings, because every now and again a student will come up with a totally unacceptable reading that I find quite acceptable and insightful. So perhaps the "base contagious clouds" are Hal's own actions rather than his base followers. But he does begin his speech: "I know you all, and will a while uphold /The unyok'd humor of your idleness" (Riverside 1.2.195-6). He may be addressing the departing or departed Poins and Falstaff, or the audience at large. In any case, I feel that "you all" makes a better referent for "ugly mists" than Hal's "loose behavior" (208). But I certainly see the strength of your argument: "So when this loose behavior I throw off" may refer back to "breaking through the foul and ugly mists/Of vapors." >Let me hasten to add, before the arrows start to fly, that I *am* aware >there is no "real" Hal, but this is how I envision him when I read the >play; and that the above is my own interpretation and I don't require >anyone to adopt it. Absolutely! Characters are not real people. But we make believe that they are, and we treat them "as if" (als ob) they are more than mere words on a page. Nevertheless, as Norm Holland reminds us, it would be silly to ask: "Where is Hal these days?" If I asked that about King Henry V, you could answer quite rightly: "We know exactly where he is." Yours, Bill Godshalk
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0489 Thursday, 1 March 2001 From: Peter Porco <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 01 Mar 2001 01:40:42 -0900 Subject: Query from Alaska [Editor's Note: Here is another one of those queries from a non-member that someone may be moved to answer. If you do so, please respond directly toThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . -HMC] Dear SHAKSPER Fileserver: I'm a newspaper reporter for the Anchorage Daily News in Anchorage, Alaska. I'm working on a story about a recent nine-day, open-to-the-public, round-the-clock reading of the entire works of Shakespeare that occurred this month in Fairbanks, Alaska. In order to make an impression on the reader as to what such a task might entail, and to indicate to the reader the scope of Shakespeare's vocabulary and its hold on the readers, I thought I would try to answer the following questions: * Exactly how many words are contained in the complete Shakespeare oeuvre? * How many different words are there in the complete works -- the limit of his vocabulary? * Who are the writers closest to him by these measures? For example, I have read that the Bible contains about 2,000 different words. Joyce's "Ulysses" contains about 8,000 different words. How many might all of Shakespeare's works have, and who is the writer nearest to him? A professor I know thought it might be Milton. If these are not the kinds of questions readily answered, would you know where I might go next? If an editor of a concordance or online compendium would know, could you suggest who? I appreciate that this request will take a little bit of time (but not much, I hope), and you have my deepest gratitude for whatever help you may provide. Sincerely, Peter Porco, reporter Anchorage Daily News P.O.B. 14-9001 Anchorage, AK 99514-9001 email -This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (or)This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (907) 257-4582 [ fax 258-2157 ]