2002

Michael Rubbo's "Much Ado About Something"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0463  Monday, 18 February 2002

From:           Kenneth S. Rothwell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 16 Feb 2002 10:43:16 -0500
Subject: 13.0439 Re: New York Times Articles
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0439 Re: New York Times Articles

I attended the press screening of  Michael Rubbo's "Much Ado About
Something" at Film Forum last week and found it to be a witty and
visually attractive essay on the authorship controversy. Even Rubbo's
attempts to turn Marlowe into Shakespeare are more charming than
strident, and Jonathan Bate and Stanley Wells speak cogently and sternly
for the Stratfordian side. Before hastening to condemn, go and see it.
It's an entertainment. Ken Rothwell

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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.

Re: Replacement for Devil's Horn

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0462  Monday, 18 February 2002

[1]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 16 Feb 2002 12:23:05 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0441 Replacement for Devil's Horn

[2]     From:   John Velz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 16 Feb 2002 23:04:33 -0600
        Subj:   The Devil's Horn


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 16 Feb 2002 12:23:05 -0000
Subject: 13.0441 Replacement for Devil's Horn
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0441 Replacement for Devil's Horn

I think I agree with you, Bill.

"Let's write Good Angell on the Devill's horn, / 'Tis not the Devill's
Crest" surely means, "Were we to write 'good angel' on the devil's horn,
that would not make 'good angel' the true motto for the devil's crest."
It's about appearance and reality, as you state in your note in SQ.
Shakespeare has Juliet say something similar - "a rose by any other name
would smell as sweet"; or, in other words, "Let's write 'Venus fly-trap'
on the rose's thorn, / Rotting meat is not the rose's smell".

m

(non Angeli sed Angli)

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Velz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 16 Feb 2002 23:04:33 -0600
Subject:        The Devil's Horn

Register me as coming down solidly on the Godshalk side of this case.

The whole business of angels in the play as focused on Angelo's name is
of central importance.  Angelo, suitably to his name, wants
hybristically to rise to a realm where disembodied Angels preside and in
which no passion and no sexuality are present.  The events of the play
teach him that there is no escaping our human sexuality. Lucio and
Pompey both have speeches about the fundamental role of sex in human
makeup.  Pompey 2.1.237-39  "If you head and hang all that offend that
[sexual] way but for ten year together, you'll be glad to give out a
commission for new heads."  Lucio 3.2.100-101.  "It is impossible to
extirp it [lechery] quite, Friar, till eating and drinking be put down."

JWV

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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.

Notes from Oregon Shakespeare Festival

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0460  Monday, 18 February 2002

From:           Robert Teeter <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 15 Feb 2002 16:08:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject:        Notes from Oregon Shakespeare Festival

The following notes, which were sent out on the mailing list of the
Oregon Shakespeare Festival, give some idea of the directors'
conceptions of these plays as they prepare them for performance this
season.

(I have no connection with OSF, except as a long-time member, etc.  More
info at http://www.orshakes.org/ )

MACBETH

[Note: Macbeth will be in the new small theater (260-350 seats), which
is somewhat bigger than the old small theater.]

Look forward to a roller coaster like-ride when you come to see
MACBETH.  Lue Morgan Douthit, Dramaturg and Literary Director, likened
the production to the "Blue Streak" a well known roller coaster at Cedar
Point in Sandusky, Ohio.  This production directed by Libby Appel uses
six actors to tell the story as relentlessly as a roller coaster.

JULIUS CAESAR

Laird Williamson directs with a remarkable vision for the play that
masterfully integrates its cerebral/verbal elements with its
visual/emotional elements.  While the production is not set in a
specific period, it is firmly rooted in the 20th Century. The set and
costumes reflect echoes of Germany's Weimar Republic during the brief
interlude between the two World Wars.  The designers are employing a
limited color palette to reflect a constructivist, slightly facistic
aesthertic.  It is a cold, almost inhumane look, beautifully
illustrating Laird's final comment of the evening:  "If you do evil in
order to achieve good, just see where it will lead you."

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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.

Re: Sonnet 116

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0461  Monday, 18 February 2002

From:           Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 15 Feb 2002 19:36:33 -0500
Subject: 13.0444 Re: Sonnet 116
Comment:        Fw: SHK 13.0444 Re: Sonnet 116

Clifford Stetner and Alex Went both make a similar reasonable point:

Cliford Stetner:

>  ... The subject is an understood "I": ie "If this is
> true, and proved on me, I never wrote, nor ever loved no man." "I [not]
> ever loved no man=[nor I] no man ever loved" could refute: "at one time,
> I loved a man" or "some men," or "I [for]ever loved a man" or "men" (ie
> loved with an eternal love

And -- Alex Went:

>It is a construction common in English
> to have two co-ordinate clauses in which the subject of the second is
> the same as the subject of the first, understood. For example: "I wrote
> to SHAKSPER, and [I] received many useful replies."

Of course, if the inverted direct object construction is used, the
repeat of the subject ("I") is left out (it would be understood). This
construction, then, consisting of an independent clause, a coordinating
conjunction, and a dependent clause, would negate the need for a comma
between the two clauses. Are there any editions of this sonnet where the
comma is omitted?  I've never seen one. I rather think that Alex is
closer to the truth when he says:

> The more conventional reading is, to my mind, equally possible. Let me
> correct that. I see nothing inherently more 'conventional' in either
> reading.  My conviction, as this case draws to a close, is that the
> ambiguity is typical, almost certainly intentional, and completely
> delightful.

But the ambiguity, I think, is a bit of an overreach in this instance;
this appears to be a simple statement by the speaker in the poem. It
seems to me that this argument is more like Occam's razor -- the
simplest explanation, here, seems most likely the right one (if there IS
only one right answer).  At any rate, I find this so-called ambiguity
difficult to believe in.

Paul E. Doniger

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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.

Re: Staged Reading by Generator

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0459  Monday, 18 February 2002

From:           William Proctor Williams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 15 Feb 2002 19:03:44 -0500
Subject: 13.0447 Re: Staged Reading by Generator
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0447 Re: Staged Reading by Generator

> John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> said, "
> Many thanks to William Proctor Williams for posting this - I have now
> booked my ticket!
> I have a few doubts, however.  Why Henry V?  Even if we can't be sure
> where it was staged, it wasn't at the Rose.  And why does Henry V need
> adapting, by John Barton or anyone else?"

Beats me.  I'm just a Rose member and get their emails.  Their URL is:
http://www.rdg.ac.uk/Rose/HomeFrame.html and perhaps there is an
explanation on it, or you could ask them.  I was just passing on an
email from them and, alas, since I am stuck here in Ohio I won't be able
to attend.

William Proctor Williams

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.