Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: June ::
Re: Why Shakespeare
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1510  Thursday, 14 June 2001

[1]     From:   Don Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 14 Jun 2001 09:28:48 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1489 Re: Why Shakespeare

[2]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 14 Jun 2001 08:23:12 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1489 Re: Why Shakespeare

[3]     From:   Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 14 Jun 2001 19:40:37 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1489 Re: Why Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Don Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 14 Jun 2001 09:28:48 -0500
Subject: 12.1489 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1489 Re: Why Shakespeare

           Mike Jensen's rejoinder to Sam's remarks:

(>>Shakespeare's work is about love, hate, betrayal,
>>sexual longing, jealousy, pride, life, death, power, corruption, revenge -
>>these are the things that curse and bless every culture and race on
>>earth.  Petty philosophies, on the other hand, flutter around like autumn
>>leaves; are admired briefly and then become the compost of the
>>year to come.) strikes me as merely petty:
>
>Gee, Sam, thanks for setting us straight.  William Shakespeare - a man
>not of his time.  A man without opinions or prejudices, without
>limitations or blind spots, etc. etc.

Sam's remark might be faulted for an element of posturing, but I'm not
clear what's wrong with it. Shakespeare did depict all those things with
great skill and impact. I believe that's why we're involved with this
list.  Likewise, yesterday's philosophies are mostly forgotten, and
recalled mainly to show their failure. What Mike attacks does not seem
to be anything that Sam said.

(Footnote: Sean's citation on the Eskimo visitors to Elizabethan England
left me uncertain whether it was serious or a leg-pull. If serious, I am
startled to find people identifiably Eskimo (Inuit) as far south as Nova
Scotia, which I would have considered "Indian country." If a leg-pull,
may I suggest that the Esquimaux may be one the lost tribes of Israel,
and the couple's visit may account for WS's knowledge of Hebrew.)

Cheers,
don

>A man who saw all and knew all.  He was
>never petty, always wise.  A man who cast her divine pearls before the
>likes of you and me.
>
>Where can I worship and bow down?
>
>Or maybe he was a mass of opinion and prejudice like the rest of us,
>limited by his times and the way he was made.  Hmmmm.  Come to think of
>it, LOTS of people have identified his limits and prejudices.  And all
>those law petty law suits, and the obsession with family status.  Maybe
>he was human after all, and maybe that makes him even more impressive,
>in a way.
>
>Yeah, give me reality.  It lasts longer.
>
>Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 14 Jun 2001 08:23:12 -0700
Subject: 12.1489 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1489 Re: Why Shakespeare

First, three apologies for my three mistakes.  Referring to Shakespeare
I wrote:

>A man who cast her divine pearls before the
>likes of you and me.

The pronoun, of course, should be "his."  Take that, EG!

>And all those law petty law suits,

That one has one too many "law"s, the result of revision and shoddy
proof reading.  Sorry.

Also, I know Gabriel was not an Archangel.  Not sure why I wrote it that
way.  Sorry again.

Lying awake last night, musing over people who deserve the M word, I
realized that while Conan Doyle had met someone rather Holmes like,
there is no recorded Moriarty in his life.  Siegel and Schuster did know
a woman a bit like Lois Lane, but no one like Superman, nor did
Burroughs know a Tarzan, nor Lee Falk a Phantom, nor Ray Bradbury a
Martian.  The position is absurd, in fact it is mor---

Oops.  Almost used the M word.

Mike Jensen

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 14 Jun 2001 19:40:37 +0100
Subject: 12.1489 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1489 Re: Why Shakespeare

Peterson-Kranz 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
  writes,

"Returning to Shakespeare, I think Takashi's citing of Ariel as a purely
imaginary characterization might hold up under scrutiny.  Possibly
Caliban as well."

Isn't there an argument somewhere (Robert Graves, if memory serves, if
no more scholarly source) that Caliban is at least partly based on Ben
Jonson?

Robin Hamilton

_______________________________________________________________
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.