2001

Re: Tragic Hero

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1169  Tuesday, 22 May 2001

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 May 2001 08:31:06 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero

[2]     From:   Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 May 2001 14:52:01 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero

[3]     From:   Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 May 2001 15:13:56 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero

[4]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 19 May 2001 08:25:12 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero

[5]     From:   Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 21 May 2001 01:32:27 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1132 Re: Tragic Hero


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 May 2001 08:31:06 -0700
Subject: 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero

In all Ms. Hughes (probably unintentional) smoke screens about right and
left brain thinking, "and and" thinking, and the rest, I was diverted
from the point:  a mistake is still a mistake, and lack of evidence is
still lack of evidence.  Smoke screens created by a naive understanding
of brain research may blind me for a day or two, but that doesn't change
the basic fact that a mistake is still a mistake and lack of evidence is
still a lack of evidence.

I and others will continue to read posts on this list hoping to be
exposed to great new ideas, or at least ideas new to us.  When we see a
mistake, or if an off the wall ascertain is made without evidence, we'll
continue to question that.  If Ms. Hughes does not like to be questioned
in this way, I'm sure she can figure a couple of ways to avoid it.

Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 May 2001 14:52:01 -0400
Subject: 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero

F. Amit refers to <<1.The articles and cash that Jessica will take with
her in her flight (with an expelled Marrano) from V>>

Sorry... Lorenzo is not an expelled Marrano. He is a member in good
standing of the Christian community.  I can find no textual evidence to
suggest otherwise.

While I know Amit is passionately committed to her interpretation of
MoV, I think we have had sufficient scholarship presented on this list
refuting her interpretation that perhaps it's time to stop having to see
it over and over?  PLEASE?????

Mari Bonomi

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 May 2001 15:13:56 -0400
Subject: 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero

S. Hughes continues not to "get" it:

She writes: <<I never said (or never intended to say) that holistic
thinking
should be substituted for
critical thinking, >>

However, holistic thinking is PART of critical thinking... it is she who
is doing either/or, not I.

She continues, <<. I don't thing that ideas based on incomplete
information can be considered valid. >>

In that case, nothing Hughes has said is valid, for she does not have
complete information.  In fact, nothing any of us says on SHAKSPER is
valid, for none of us-- not being a divinity-- has complete information.

What matters is the quality of "information" on which we base our
ideas...  and the range of information that we gather first.  Any time
we get a theory in our heads and refuse to admit to the testing lab any
information which does not seem already to support our theory, we are
ill-informed and our ideas are indeed not valid.  That kind of
incompleteness is created by blind adherence to one's personal  hobby
horses.

I'm open (as are most of our compatriots of SHAKSPER)  to a lot of
different kinds of information on Shakespeare's life, works, companions,
culture, etc.  I am *not* open to out-of-context, twisted and misused
"facts" clinging like barnacles (to keep to my metaphor) to a theory.

Were there cases in the law courts about usury, about young men cleaned
out by unscrupulous folk? I'm sure there were then; there are today;
there have been an  unending stream of such cases between these two
moments in time.  Have we had placed before us a SPECIFIC incident in
Shakespeare's times that immediately precedes and perhaps continues
during the time he seems to have written MoV? Not yet.  Have we been
given evidence that Shakepeare himself was connected with such a case?
Not yet.

I think the idea that MoV is a subversive condemnation of Puritan
hypocrisy to be an interesting one worth pursuing...  I do not think
Hughes has provided much light in that pursuit.

With one thing Hughes said I heartily concur: THANK YOU HARDY!!!!!

Mari Bonomi

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 19 May 2001 08:25:12 -0700
Subject: 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero

Stephanie Hughes writes:

>If we did not know that Arthur Miller wrote "The Crucible" during the
>period that Senator McCarthy was destroying the lives of writers, we
>would perhaps be content to draw the line at the obvious source in
>history, the witch trials of Salem. I would not be satisfied with that,
>and I'm not satisfied with the kind of continual questioning of the
>meaning of the caskets, whether Shakespeare was anti-Semitic, whether
>the play was based on the Lopez trial, etc., that go round and round and
>have done for centuries, not knowing for sure when the play was written
>or the background to its writing. "The Crucible" was written about the
>Salem witch trials of long ago AND about the treatment of the artistic
>community by the government at the time the play was written.

I don't think that anyone would disagree with this.  There's a world of
difference, however, between drawing the parallel in general terms and
trying to tie (say) John Proctor's concern with his name to Marilyn
Monroe's use of a Hollywood pseudonym, or to argue that the play was
actually ghosted by Lee Harvey Oswald.  The parallel is only
interesting, in fact, insofar as it suggests a return to broader issues.

If people are still watching the play in a hundred years (I think that
they will) it certainly won't be to find out what covert meanings could
only possibly be known to an audience from the 1960s.  Philosophy
generally trumps history, and it certainly trumps the sort of search for
happenstantial minutiae that you seem to want to indulge in.

Cheers,
Se


Re: Time in Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1168  Tuesday, 22 May 2001

[1]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 May 2001 11:19:25 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1158 Re: Time in Hamlet

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 May 2001 13:05:44 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1158 Re: Time in Hamlet

[3]     From:   Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 May 2001 13:41:42 -0400
        Subj:   Re: Time in Hamlet

[4]     From:   Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 21 May 2001 01:31:12 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1128 Re: Time in Hamlet


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 May 2001 11:19:25 -0400
Subject: 12.1158 Re: Time in Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1158 Re: Time in Hamlet

>'Who is Hamlet's REAL father?' has always been one of the crucial
>Shakespearean questions. The dawning realisation that it's Claudius
>gives the final gathering up of the bodies  -particularly when
>Fortinbras's words are spoken properly- its most disturbing dimension.

writes Terence Hawkes.

When Terence is willing to countenance "reality" within a fiction, I
become quite alarmed.  Obviously, fictional characters do not have real
fathers; they have fictional fathers. And who precisely is Hamlet's
fictional father? And how can you tell for sure since fictional
characters are begotten without recourse to intercourse?

And -- most important -- how should Fortinbras's words be spoken -- and
which words are we to speak properly? I prepare myself for an attack of
levity.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 May 2001 13:05:44 -0400
Subject: 12.1158 Re: Time in Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1158 Re: Time in Hamlet

>If I understand this correctly, you're saying that an attempt to fix
>Hamlet's age is essentially tautological? If that's correct, I would
>like to disagree.

It's not exactly correct.   A director needs to fix Hamlet's age in
advance in order to cast an appropriate actor (unless the job has been
done pro tanto in a star driven production) as well as to make other
dramaturgical choices.  But, for the audience Hamlet's age has already
been fixed as the age the actor appears to be.  To be sure, there is a
history of idiosyncratic casting against type, and my point does not
work when non-traditional choices are made; but when the production is
intended to present the story as written, Hamlet will be perceived by
the audience to be about as old as the actor is or is made up to appear.

This threatens to segue into the thread about color-blind casting.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 May 2001 13:41:42 -0400
Subject:        Re: Time in Hamlet

Steve Roth writes:

"I believe [my] theory is both supported by and demonstrative of
(Clifford will like this, I think) the creative release that men feel
upon their father's deaths. So I find the play's dual "coming of age"
themes (Hamlet's and the modern world's) echoed in the coming of age
that men experience when their fathers are no longer looking over their
shoulders. This paragraph is perhaps psychobabble, but I find it
compelling."

So do I.  Park Honan argues that Shakespeare only felt free to pursue
some of his investments after his father's death.  That's a practical
example, of course, but it follows the same psychological dynamic. I
might add that those of us who have lost fathers also often notice that
there is a "double reaction" that soon sets in: on the one hand, the
sense of freedom that Roth and Honan note; and, on the other hand, the
subsequent realization that this "freedom" leads, ineluctably, to our
acting more and more like the father we thought we had freed ourselves
of!  Hamlet's oft-noted "coarseness" as the play draws to its end seems
to merge him with his dead father. In fact, after Hamlet has been
poisoned, he is a walking, talking dead man, much like the Ghost that he
met in 1.5.

On the matter of Hamlet's age, the iconoclastic Leah Marcus notes in
_Unediting the Renaissance_ (New York & London: Routledge, 1996), pp.
147, that in Q1 "[Hamlet] is a young man of about twenty. . . ."  She
theorizes that Burbage, as he aged, may have found it harder and harder
to play the role, so, around 1601-03, Shakespeare wrote Q2, in which the
prince is 30 years old.  On the other hand, Q1 might be later than Q2
and an acting version of the play meant for one of the fine, young
apprentice actors -- say, the boy who plays Rosalind in _As You Like
It_.  However you slice it, Hamlet's age continues to be a problem --
and the real answer to the question may be gone forever in the lost
interstices hidden in the dark backward and abysm of time.

--Ed Taft

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 21 May 2001 01:31:12 -0400
Subject: 12.1128 Re: Time in Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1128 Re: Time in Hamlet

First I would like apologize for leaving posts on and off list
unanswered and to inform the handful of list members who knew my father
from Brooklyn College, Columbia and C.W. Post that he passed away early
Monday morning from cancer. He was cremated, and his immediate family
will be scattering his ashes around the Columbia library as per his
wishes next week. I nevertheless could not postpone my oral exam on
Wednesday (passed) which I have been studying for the past year, so it
has been an emotionally difficult week.

For what it's worth, having been raised atheist, the son of a
Shakespearean scholar, I find that my recourse in times of personal
tragedy is to Shakespearean texts.  When my father finally slipped into
coma and died the next day, I thought immediately of Brutus learning of
the death of Portia and the stoic philosophy his reaction seems to
illustrate.  And his cremation puts me in mind of the Phoenix and the
Turtle at whose urn I can only sigh a prayer and go on.

Mike Jensen writes:

> Clifford, I'm stunned.  Are you really supporting authorial intent?

I think it's impossible not to speculate about what an author was
thinking when he chose one set of words over another.  The question is
whether we can ever get beyond speculation, and whether the internal
ruminations of the sole author are positioned in our analyses of textual
relics as the be-all and end-all of textual meaning.

Ed Taft writes that Hamlet:

>...has the mind of an adult and the emotions of an
> adolescent boy.

It's also interesting to note that this was a somewhat cliche form of
compliment for an adolescent, while we would take it as a character flaw
in an adult, so even if we agree as to the disjunction, its significance
still depends on Hamlet's "true" age.

>Hamlet's first soliloquy, with all of its
>attendant problems, occurs BEFORE he meets the Ghost.

And it could have been just as easily rendered the other way round.  In
this order, it supports the ambiguity as to Hamlet's sanity.  Had he
been a happy go lucky amorous prince until the interview with the ghost,
we would be much more secure in seeing his antic behavior as the pure
dramatics he claims, but we know that his prophetic soul and so
particular depression has been working on his imagination at least since
the also ambiguously dated death .  Furthermore, the order of events is
not something we would easily mark as auditors of the play.  It would
take at least two viewings to notice it at all, and would probably only
be clear to readers.

Se


Re: Accommodations near the Globe

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1166  Tuesday, 22 May 2001

From:           Kathleen Breen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 May 2001 10:29:50 -0400
Subject: 12.1161 Re: Accommodations near the Globe
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1161 Re: Accommodations near the Globe

Regarding accommodations near the Globe:  One possibility might be
Bankside House at 24 Sumner Street, London, SE1 9JA.  For more
information, consult the web site:

http://www.lse.ac.uk/accommodation/bankside.htm

Kate Breen

_______________________________________________________________
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>

Re: Shakespeare the Taoist

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1167  Tuesday, 22 May 2001

[1]     From:   Karen Peterson-Kranz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 May 2001 07:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1160 Shakespeare the Taoist

[2]     From:   Kezia Vanmeter Sproat <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 May 2001 11:06:07 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1160 Shakespeare the Taoist


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Peterson-Kranz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 May 2001 07:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 12.1160 Shakespeare the Taoist
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1160 Shakespeare the Taoist

Robert Peters asks,

>I have often wondered why Shakespeare obviously
>didn't care about his
>plays after he had written them.

We don't know enough to know whether he "obviously" didn't care, DID
care, or somewhere in between.

>Wasn't he proud of
>his genius, wasn't
>he proud of his "children"?

Again, we don't know.  "Genius" as used here is a term of the Romantic
period, and thus anachronistic.  The trope of "text as child" does
appear some in Shakespeare.  Some critics have argued that he WAS proud
of at least some of his works (*Venus and Adonis* and *Lucrece* spring
to mind).  There is some evidence that he may have been proud of others,
and interested in promoting them.  See Katherine Duncan-Jones'
biographical discussion, *Ungentle Shakespeare* (2001), as well as
Gordon Williams' *Shakespeare, Sex and the Print Revolution* (1996) for
further discussion of these possibilities.

>Why didn't he keep his
>manuscripts, why
>didn't he care himself for a proper publication?

Again, we don't know that he didn't.  In some cases (the non-dramatic
narrative poems) he did care about "proper publication."  Katherine
Duncan-Jones in her introductory essay in the new Arden edition of the
Sonnets argues that he may have cared about their publication as well.

>We
>could do without a
>lot of this wearisome esoteric scholarly lore about
>publication, foul
>papers, prompt-books, Q1s and Q2s and F1s and F2s.

Such "wearisome esoteric scholarly lore" is the only way we have found
so far, and possibly the only way we will ever have, to get at even
partial answers to the questions Mr. Peters asks.

>So was
>Shakespeare actually a Taoist?

I hope Mr. Peters, in asking this, means "Did Shakespeare's artistic
philosophy resemble what now may be broadly labelled as 'Taoist'?"  In
my more innocent days I would have *assumed* this, but having recently
been exposed to an ostensibly serious paper that argued that Shakespeare
had access to Hindu texts relating tantric sex practices and that those
tantric sex practices inform the sonnets, I will not assume, but only
hope.

>Was there so little
>vanity in him that he
>didn't care about fame?

We don't know.  We probably can't know with certainty.  And again,
"fame" is a concept with multiple meanings and cultural inflections.  As
is "vanity."  If we care to nail down specifically late 16th-early 17th
century definitions for these terms, perhaps some meaningful response
might be made to this last question.

Cheers,
Karen Peterson

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kezia Vanmeter Sproat <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 May 2001 11:06:07 EDT
Subject: 12.1160 Shakespeare the Taoist
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1160 Shakespeare the Taoist

He didn't have to be a Taoist not to care. The greatest American poet,
Emily Dickinson, didn't care either, did she? Keats apparently cared
about fame, but was very young. Shakespeare did care when he wrote the
sonnets, apparently.

Older people care less and less. Wisdom of age. Think about it. Look
around you. In our culture, fame is a disease that those who have it
would be happy to lose. In any culture, it's Ozymandias-ville.

Nameless and Happy

_______________________________________________________________
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>

Re: Baby Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1165  Tuesday, 22 May 2001

[1]     From:   Janet Costa <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 May 2001 06:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare

[2]     From:   Kezia Vanmeter Sproat <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 May 2001 10:54:32 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare

[3]     From:   Laura Blankenship <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 May 2001 10:42:07 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare

[4]     From:   Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 May 2001 12:06:09 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare

[5]     From:   Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 May 2001 12:41:47 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare

[6]     From:   Eva Dikow <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 May 2001 23:00:27 +0200
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare

[7]     From:   Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 21 May 2001 10:14:43 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Janet Costa <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 May 2001 06:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare

'Baby Shakespeare' is indeed part of a series designed for babies, maybe
partly in response to Teletubbies.  The music, bright colors, and format
have been designed to cue a baby's attention to the rhythms in various
composers, and the Shakespeare one emphasises the beats of Shakespeare's
poetry. Its overall impact is not to turn Baby into an editor or theatre
buff, just to stimulate those all important senses.

I might suggest an accompanying toy for a baby's bath: a Shakespeare
duck can be found at www.celebriducks.com. They also have one of
Elizabeth I.    Resistence is futile.....

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kezia Vanmeter Sproat <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 May 2001 10:54:32 EDT
Subject: 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare

Buyers need first to read the work of David Elkind, "The Hurried Child."

Kezia Vanmeter Sproat

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Laura Blankenship <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 May 2001 10:42:07 -0500
Subject: 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare

I have not seen any of the videos, but have seen them debunked in
various parenting magazines and on NPR.  I have babies, and have read
the real thing to them instead.  My five-year-old has heard The Tempest
and was once subjected to Gawain and the Green Knight.  My two-year-old
hasn't heard Shakespeare yet, but has been through two readings of
Paradise Lost--once in utero and once around 3 months.  Frankly, I think
these experiences will have more effect on their intelligence than the
videos you mentioned.  Not to mention their natural inclinations.

Laura Blankenship

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 May 2001 12:06:09 -0400
Subject: 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare

I bought it, and it is a disappointment from a critical perspective.
Just the 'I know a bank where the wild thyme . . ." speech form MND.
Rest is not Shakespeare.   The title is misleading, in other words. Our
son likes it (he's 18 months), though he likes Baby Mozart better.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 May 2001 12:41:47 -0400
Subject: 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare

>What in the
>world IS this?  If anyone knows, please share.

We finally cracked open a copy to satisfy our own curiosity.  Basically,
the videos offer up a surreal visual pastiche, with overlapping text and
vocabulary building.  The opening of Baby Shakespeare shows a sock
puppet dragon, named bard, but with a reading of Ogden Nash's Custard
the Dragon heard overtop, giving the impression that the dragon might
actually be named Custard.  Then a group of children sing the ABC song,
followed by the introduction of the word "train", a few poems and
classical music accompany a "music video" of toys in action.  The next
word is "flower", which is reinforced by Bard the dragon sneezing up the
word (my mother is concerned my little nephew might grow up thinking the
word for sneeze is flower), then a brief quotation from Midsummer
Night's Dream - the only actual Shakespeare in the video.  Apparently,
"Shakespeare" is taken euphemistically to mean "poetry".

All in all, the tape is an oblique, disjointed array of images and
sounds, kind of like the Teletubbies on ecstasy. No story line, no
linear progression of thought.

Weird.

Tanya Gough
Poor Yorick Shakespeare Multimedia
www.bardcentral.com

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Eva Dikow <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 May 2001 23:00:27 +0200
Subject: 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare

I am not sure whether this is about the same thing but about a year ago
I read a couple of articles in German magazines which said that there
were a lot of going-ons in America as to how to upspeed babies'
capacities and intellectual development.

I suppose the 'Baby Shakespeare' might be something along this line and
I read it as a further development in the sad development of "we need
*educationel* television for children younger than those who watch
Sesamy Street" which also brought us the Teletubbies...

In the articles I read they talked about teaching children to read at
the age of three or even earlier.

Who knows, in a couple of years we might be confronted with legions of
toddlers telling us "Nothing will come of nothing: I want more
porridge"...  Even if I don't think very highly of a development which
draws always more and always younger children for more and more time in
front of the television I must say that Shakespeare seems to be somewhat
of an improvement after the Teletubbies ;-)

Eva Dikow

[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 21 May 2001 10:14:43 -0400
Subject: 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare

A quick followup on the Baby Shakespeare video:  apparently my 14 month
old nephew loves the tape to bits, and my mother claims it's a wonderful
introduction to classical music and themes.    I still think the lack of
linear thinking is a bit disturbing, but perhaps that's a grownup
bugaboo, brought on by an unfortunate incident with the teletubbies a
few years back.

Tanya Gough
Poor Yorick Shakespeare Multimedia Catalogue
www.bardcentral.com

_______________________________________________________________
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>

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.