Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: March ::
Re: Classical Acting: Decline
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0681  Wednesday, 6 March 2002

[1]     From:   Don Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 Mar 2002 14:58:03 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0654 Re: Classical Acting: Decline

[2]     From:   Arthur Lindley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 6 Mar 2002 09:33:01 +0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0654 Re: Classical Acting: Decline


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Don Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Mar 2002 14:58:03 -0600
Subject: 13.0654 Re: Classical Acting: Decline
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0654 Re: Classical Acting: Decline

Without trying to defend other aspects Mr.Weinstein's point, I have to
agree with him over some things. Chaucer is so good that we trouble to
learn Middle English (and a fair amount of late Medieval history) just
so we can savor him. And even if there weren't Chaucer, there would
still be the Pearl-poet and Langland, both writers of unquestioned
greatness, not to mention some lesser lights, such as Gower. But after
Chaucer the quality of writing in English drops rapidly (except in
Scotland where he more or less lives on). I can stomach Skelton only in
small quantities. Wyatt occasionally wrote excellently, and Surreyeven
less often, and then there's another dry spell until the explosion on
the scene of Sidney and Spenser and some dozens of poets. And after them
--

Now I will gladly retract what I've just said, which I know is a
terrible clich

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.