2001

Re: Seminars

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1046  Monday, 7 May 2001

From:           Stephanie Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 5 May 2001 09:35:14 -0700
Subject: 12.1034 Re: Seminars
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1034 Re: Seminars

Regarding the tone of academic debate: a classic debate before an
audience, in which one side is set to defend a particular viewpoint and
the other one that is opposed to it, requires a combative stance.  It is
delightful when the combatants are so skilled that they manage to make
points while maintaining a courteous demeanor. That is part of the
enjoyment of the procedure.  The audience rarely learns much from a
debate (unless they happened to know nothing about the issues before
entering the auditorium), but usually they leave with the same point of
view that they brought in. During the debate, the debaters ignore points
that they fully accept but that would not contribute to their side of
the argument.

Debates have come down to us from the medieval schools methods of
teaching. The debate has stamped every venue since. Many books, speeches
and articles are little more than a longer, more complex exposition of
one side of some ongoing debate. In many ways this sort of intellectual
prizefight, though it energizes the search for the truth, can have us
circling it and never finding it.  How many have pursued some question
that has a long history to find that in the end, both sides were right?
Or, that both had some right ideas and some wrong ideas.

The development of the Internet and of list groups like SHAKSPER offers
an opportunity for a kind of discourse across the entire
(English-speaking) world that previously took place only in the pubs in
university towns. Of necessity there will be, not just opposing
viewpoints but also differing paradigms, not just a different formula,
but a different way of seeing the world. None of us has the truth by the
tail. To see the truth we need to correlate what we know with what other
people know. We need to listen as well as speak.

It is the possibility of such discourse that keeps me on this and other
worthwhile lists. I have learned a great deal from listening to the
discussions and hope to learn more. When I offer a thought of my own, I
usually do so in hopes that it will open some minds to another way of
viewing the issue. I cannot hope to persuade anyone to my point of view
(which is based on fifty years of reading of all sorts, and on a great
deal of thought) in one or two short posts. But I can let the list know
that there is ANOTHER way of thinking about the issues we discuss.

I think that some of the unnecessary rudeness comes from an instilled
and automatic debate response. If you're right then I'm wrong. In this
brave new world of diverse paradigms, both can be right without anyone
being wrong.  Many of the arguments we have about Shakespeare cannot be
proven one way or the other.  There is pleasure in the discourse,
nothing more is needed. If my point of view is so hateful to you that
you find nothing in it to discuss, but only wish to trod it into the
dust, it is simplicity itself to delete it, and so, for you, dust it
becomes.

Stephanie Hughes

_______________________________________________________________
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: Tragic Hero

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1045  Monday, 7 May 2001

From:           Stephanie Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 5 May 2001 08:38:51 -0700
Subject: 12.1032 Re: Tragic Hero
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1032 Re: Tragic Hero

Dear Stevie Gamble,

It is true that I have not made the necessary effort to respond to your
challenges or to do the kind of research and digging necessary to fully
answer the questions you have posed on this thread. I have not done so
partly because it would require a great deal of time and effort, the
kind of time and effort that I need for the projects I am committed to
finishing, partly because some of my points seem so self-evident that
"proving" them is like proving that grass is green, including the idea
that Shakespeare wrote MOV out of a particular set of circumstances that
were known to his audience, not that a particular individual suffered
from a particular cruel moneylender, but that many in his audience did,
had done so, and knew others who had been "ruined" in the term of the
day.

In the history of the theater I see that all great plays have to do, not
just with great eternal issues, which they usually do, but ALSO with
particular issues of the moment. If challenged to respond with proofs to
this idea, I must simply say that I've had my say, I've made my point in
every way I know how, and I'm done with this discussion on the list. If
you wish to pursue the argument further, please post me privately.

Stephanie Hughes

_______________________________________________________________
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: The Tamer Tamed

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1043  Monday, 7 May 2001

From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 04 May 2001 10:01:33 -0700
Subject: Re: The Tamer Tamed
Comment:        SHK 12.1035 Re: The Tamer Tamed

In these combined productions, did the actors who played Kate, return to
play Petruchio's second wife?  Was the characterization noticeably
different?  This would make a long evening.  Were the plays cut much?

Enquiring minds want to know,
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>

Re: Shakespearean Acting Workshops

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1044  Monday, 7 May 2001

From:           Jodie Neller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 4 May 2001 14:32:34 EDT
Subject: 12.1031 RE: Shakespearean Acting Workshops
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1031 RE: Shakespearean Acting Workshops

>Thanks to everyone who responded to my query!  I've contacted
>"Shakespeare and Company" and printed the "Washington Post" article for
>future reference.
>
>Sincerely,
>Mary Tickel

Dear Mary,

I have trained with "Shakespeare and Company" and if you want to *act*
Shakespeare, it is the place to go.  I traveled all the way from
Australia, twice, to go there and my theatre company is now based upon
their's; using their techniques, my partner and I have adapted for the
Australian context.

Warmest Regards,
Jodie Neller
ARTISTIC DIRECTOR

THE POWER OF WILL THEATRE COMPANY
POWER OF WILL: THEATRE-IN-EDUCATION
PO BOX 467
CLEVELAND.  QLD.  4163

PHONE: (07) 3286 9646
MOBILE: 0401 390 841
E-MAIL: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
http://members.aol.com/powtied/power1.html

_______________________________________________________________
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: Time in Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1042  Monday, 7 May 2001

From:           Judith M. Craig <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 4 May 2001 12:52:54 -0400
Subject: 12.1029 Re: Time in Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1029 Re: Time in Hamlet

Steve Roth writes:

<One could argue from his reading (and eloquence) <that Hamlet is a
<lifelong scholar like Tyndale, but it feels like quite a <stretch to
me.
<Southampton, Essex, Rutland, Oxford, and James <seem more likely
models.

I can't help but post my objection to this conclusion:  I find that idea
interesting that Tyndale might be a model for Hamlet.  Southampton, as a
model for scholarship in Shakespeare's mind might be refuted by Sonnet
35 which castigates the young man (often attributed to be Southampton)
as possessing a "sensual fault" (line 9) and in Sonnet 53 for lacking a
"constant heart" (line 14).  In Sonnet 82, he grants that "thou wert not
married to my Muse" (line 82) and even gives away his "gift, thy tables"
in Sonnet 122.

I would say that the Biblical allusions in practically all of the plays
are a subtext that makes the age of Hamlet equivalent with Tyndale in
school most interesting.  I would also argue that the tone of the
sonnets certainly does not argue that Southampton was a great or learned
scholar or even valued books a great deal (assuming that Southampton is
the "young man" of the sonnets).

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

_______________________________________________________________
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.