Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: May ::
Re: Why Shakespeare
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1272  Wednesday, 30 May 2001

[1]     From:   Karen Peterson-Kranz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 28 May 2001 08:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1242 Re: Why Shakespeare

[2]     From:   Sam Small <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 29 May 2001 01:51:07 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1242 Re: Why Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Peterson-Kranz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 28 May 2001 08:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 12.1242 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1242 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."
[snip] > 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.

Perhaps Stuart Manger will step in to clarify matters.  I read "public
school culture imperative" in the British sense -- i.e. "public school"
as in "playing fields of Eton" and all that, rather than in the American
sense of mass, tax-supported education.  Was I wrong?

Cheers,
Karen Peterson

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sam Small <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 29 May 2001 01:51:07 +0100
Subject: 12.1242 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1242 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.

Mike Jensen writes:

Let's see if I understand you.  All feminists have the same views on
woman? Care to clarify that before it hits the fan?

My point is general rather than particular, and, being no expert on miss
Greer's career writing I would obviously get details about her wrong.
My general thrust, which I believe to be sound, is that an adherent of
any particular political credo or religious philosophy would not write a
play where the cherished school of thought is proved
wrong/bad/indefensible/immoral/stupid.  Only an author of true
independent thought can throw disparate persons on a stage and let them
fight it out.  That is true conflict and that is why Shakespeare,
amongst a few others, is such a great artist.  To give an example: the
scene is when our everyman, a nice guy, meets a racist.  They have a
verbal confrontation.  If the writer was someone committed to the
generally accepted anti racist philosophy then would that writer
research into racists' attitudes? or would they find a racist and talk
to him?  or would they actually become a racist for the brief moment
they are writing those speeches?  I can tell you from experience that
such exercises are costly to the human spirit.  Goodness only knows what
Shakespeare did to himself in order to write Iago, Aaron, R III and
other such characters.   So what I'm saying Mike, is that to put -IST
after your self description is easy and predictable, to omit it is to be
brave.

SAM SMALL


_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail 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>
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.