Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: December ::
Re: Link Suggestion
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2786  Monday, 10 December 2001

[1]     From:   Kristen McDermott <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 7 Dec 2001 13:39:09 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2769 Link Suggestion

[2]     From:   William Sutton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 7 Dec 2001 10:57:34 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2773 Re: Link Suggestion

[3]     From:   Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 8 Dec 2001 23:25:31 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2769 Link Suggestion

[4]     From:   Philip Weller <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 07 Dec 2001 12:20:40 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2773 Re: Link Suggestion


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kristen McDermott <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 7 Dec 2001 13:39:09 EST
Subject: 12.2769 Link Suggestion
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2769 Link Suggestion

My main concern about the Absolute Shakespeare website is the lack, as
far as I could tell, of bibliographic references for the content of the
site.  I always instruct my students to disregard any site that doesn't
reference its own sources VERY clearly.  It's an uphill battle as it is
to help them separate scholarly websites from those that, while they may
be of varying levels of quality, don't offer a model of responsible
scholarship.  I'm not critiquing the content of the site, which I
haven't yet explored carefully, but I wanted to let James Hodge know
that I can't link a site like Absolute Shakespeare to my teaching pages
unless it posts its own sources and credentials.

Kristen McDermott
Central Michigan University

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Sutton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 7 Dec 2001 10:57:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 12.2773 Re: Link Suggestion
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2773 Re: Link Suggestion

Hello everyone,

I'm with Gabriel on this one. Here's the contents of a mail I sent to
James after my look through his website.

Vantika any complete works gives a far better background of Shakespeare
and his life and times than this site's misinformation. Try Amy Ulen's
site or Terry Gray's links. This site is not for people who know their
Shakespeare and even worse for those who wish to.

Hi there,

I took this link from your post to SHAKSPER. I applaud your initiative
but please get the story straight.  Just a few of the glaring and
contradictory errors that caught my attention are that Shakespeare had
eight children, bought new place at age fifteen and eighteen, had twins
born in 1592 and followed by Hamnet's death in 1596 age 11. They were
born Susanna in 1583 and Hamnet and Judith in 1584/5 (not 1592 which you
inexplicably put as a header).

And what's the fixation with Cardenio and lost plays?

And the never cheated on Anne Hathaway?

Why in the whole Globe story do you not mention the Theatre where it all
started, built by James Burbage father of Richard and Cuthbert?

Who is Robert Burbage?

Since when is Venus and Adonis a sonnet?

Also the death date is as much an assumption as the birth date. Fact has
him buried 25th April.

Edmund is Shakespeare's brother not child.

The breech of copyright (he states the sonnets) is still a mystery, the
argument for is as likely.

Since when has Meres 'mellifluous' comment ever been considered an
attack on Shakespeare?

The homosexuality poem (for and against) is generally considered to be
20. (a woman's face with nature's own hand painted) 'since she prick'd
thee out for woman's pleasure'. and the idea came far sooner than
post-modern critics.

The 2 poems from passionate pilgrim were alternate versions of his
sonnets 138 and 144.

What is 'deal' (some material the Globe was made from)? And where did
you get the stolen playhouse frames?

I don't believe the method you use enables anyone to make a conclusion
about Shakespeare's authorship. Dave Kathman makes the best accountable
fact-finding mission on his authorship page.

Your gruelling quiz is actually very simple and thankfully you don't get
too specific.

I find this kind of misinformation confusing and I love Shakespeare.
Pity the poor kid who is gleaning facts from your site by the teachers
web who gave you an award. Better to link them to where they can arrive
at an unbiased and well-argued look at the authorship question.

Yours in the name of Will,

William Sutton
www.iloveshakespeare.com

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 8 Dec 2001 23:25:31 -0500
Subject: 12.2769 Link Suggestion
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2769 Link Suggestion

Hmmm...

1.  Banners and pop up ads... the latter even more offensive than the
former; I do understand the need to cover hosting costs, but I tend to
avoid such sites.

2.  The so-called "commentary" is described thusly:  "Detailed
description of each act with translations and explanations for all
important quotes. The next best thing to an modern English
translation."  Last time I looked Shakespeare wrote in English <G>....

3.  Perused the R&J "commentary" for Act I.  Came across the following
in 1.1:  "Romeo meets up with Benvolio"-- a bit too colloquial for my
tastes. In general, this section is plot summary with occasional
(definitely NOT "all important"!) quotations (and with explanations of
key words) reads like something one of my HS sophomores might have
written for a friend.  Plot summary surface and shallow, but accurate as
far as it goes.  Perused the Othello "commentary"-- same shallow but
accurate plot summary though more detailed than the R&J summary by far.

4.  Puts "authorship" under "trivia" which is where to my mind it
belongs; offers sketchy summaries of the arguments, one odd expression
coming on the links: "The facts for William Stanley as the real
author."  Facts?

5.  The critical essays for the plays are approaching 200 years old
(which of course means they're not copyrighted) but no credit for the
source from which the website creator took the texts is given.  It's
Coleridge and Hazlitt btw., at least on the plays at which I looked.

Summary: in general the kind of site high school kids LOVE to find...
saves them, so they think, from the dreadful tedium of actually
*reading* Shakespeare and/or forming their own interpretations based on
the reading/performing/watching of the text.

I'll not be passing it on to my colleagues, I think.

Mari Bonomi

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Philip Weller <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 07 Dec 2001 12:20:40 -0800
Subject: 12.2773 Re: Link Suggestion
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2773 Re: Link Suggestion

Is Vantika Gupta's post supposed to be satiric?

_______________________________________________________________
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>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.