The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1242 Monday, 28 May 2001
[1] From: Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 25 May 2001 11:29:22 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 12.1184 Re: Why Shakespeare
[2] From: Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 25 May 2001 18:36:23
Subj: Re: Why Shakespeare
[3] From: Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 25 May 2001 23:15:14 -0700
Subj: Re: SHK 12.1234 Re: Why Shakespeare
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 25 May 2001 11:29:22 -0500
Subject: 12.1184 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment: Re: SHK 12.1184 Re: Why Shakespeare
Stuart Manger writes that Shakespeare became so admired throughout the
world because (in part) of " the domination of the public school culture
imperative."
I have problems at time with attributives, perhaps a sign of advancing
age, but this phrase puzzles me. I can sort of conceive of a "public
school culture," though I'm not sure whether it is the culture that
produced mass, tax-supported education, or the culture produced *by* it,
or some uneasy combination of both. (Uneasy because there is an
implication that public schools changed society significantly; but if
that's true, then the society that produced public schools should have
been quite different from the one that came after.)
Worse, I don't know what "imperative" means as a noun being modified by
the three attributives. Nor am I positive what the imperative is
dominating.
Personally, I have no trouble understanding the admiration for the man,
since I teach him regularly. The only author in English that remotely
compares to him in richness of character depiction, theme development,
insight, and humor (not even going into writing style) is Chaucer. Of
course, that assumes that excellence in these five categories constitute
greatness in writing.
Doubtless other people have a different list.
Regards,
don
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 25 May 2001 18:36:23
Subject: Re: Why Shakespeare
Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> writes:
>No-one debates as to whether Germaine Greer is a feminist or not,
>therefore her views on women, if not entertaining, are completely
>predictable.
I've been told that in her talk on Othello at Warwick University
Germaine compared (contrasted?) Othello with Ali G. I don't know who she
compared Desdemona with.
I don't know how logically 'therefore' in Small's argument works because
some people (including Germaine's own supervisee) don't regard her as a
feminist any more.
Takashi Kozuka
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 25 May 2001 23:15:14 -0700
Subject: 12.1234 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment: Re: SHK 12.1234 Re: Why Shakespeare
Mr. Small writes:
>No-one debates as to whether Germaine Greer is a feminist or not, therefore
>her views on women, if not entertaining, are completely predictable.
Let's see if I understand you. All feminists have the same views on
woman? Care to clarify that before it hits the fan?
Mike Jensen
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>
