April
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1052 Tuesday, 16 April 2002 From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 15 Apr 2002 15:45:57 -0400 Subject: 13.1035 Re: Productions at New Globe Comment: Re: SHK 13.1035 Re: Productions at New Globe Karen Peterson asks me, > Did you see the 1999 *Tempest*? Where would you place it in your list? > My own reactions were mixed. The Caliban-groundling interactions were > fun, and I quite liked the (female) Ariel. I thought Vanessa Redgrave > was disappointing, and to use your term, gimmicky. I'm curious about > your thoughts, and of course the responses of others who saw it. Yes, I did see it. In going over my programs last night I realized that it had completely slipped my mind, which probably says it all. I would place it on the list just above JC, in other words: pretty low. I agree with Karen that the Caliban-groundlings by-play was fun, but was it Shakespeare? And is it consistent with the character? I agree that Redgrave was weak, but I didn't find her portrayal gimmicky, just flat. She played the part sufficiently androgynously to make me believe she was male. _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1051 Tuesday, 16 April 2002 From: Seija Sinikki <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 15 Apr 2002 11:42:38 -0800 Subject: 13.1033 Re: Plagiarism and Update Comment: Re: SHK 13.1033 Re: Plagiarism and Update >Where the student/faculty ratio enables close attention to >individual >students, making their process of composition something like >our >own--with repeated drafts and genuine intellectual engagement >between >writer and reader--plagiarism nearly disappears. > >Robert Knapp Don, this was my point in posting the comment to which you replied: >Seinikki-san's comment is certainly apt > >>When I was a student, the professors using this method were >my >>favorites. For they taught me to write good papers. I >appreciated the >>time they took to comment and re-comment on my drafts. I >always thought >>their goal was to help us to compose research papers. How >innocent I >>was! Nevertheless, I continue to believe in the purity of >their motives.) > >but a little beside the point. In America, composition is >taught by >graduate students or Departments of Rhetoric, not necessarily >mutually >exclusive entities. In those colleges where the lit profs do >teach >composition, they become slightly fragmented, having one >personality for >the teaching of literature and another for the teaching of >composition. > >Cheers, >don I did, incidentally, study in America, not in Japan. One of those ideal teachers of mine was an History professor, the other one taught English literature. Yes, the classes were small, and I selected my professors very carefully. Seija _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1050 Tuesday, 16 April 2002 [1] From: Andrew Walker White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 15 Apr 2002 14:15:45 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 13.1041 Critics Who Hate Adaptations [2] From: Erica Hateley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 16 Apr 2002 10:47:03 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 13.1041 Critics Who Hate Adaptations [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 15 Apr 2002 14:15:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 13.1041 Critics Who Hate Adaptations? Comment: Re: SHK 13.1041 Critics Who Hate Adaptations? If you can wait a week or two, check out the response to my paper on-line, entitled, "Hamlet, Thou art Translated! An Argument for Shakespeare in Modern Poetic English" -- that ought to draw out the swords, rest assured. Andy White [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Erica Hateley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 16 Apr 2002 10:47:03 +1000 Subject: 13.1041 Critics Who Hate Adaptations? Comment: Re: SHK 13.1041 Critics Who Hate Adaptations? > I've been asked a question, via my website, that perhaps SHAKSPEReans > will be able to help with. > > Can anybody give me the names of one or more "living Shakespeare > scholar[s] of a conservative nature, ... not totally in favour of > adapting Shakespeare's work"? I have a feeling At the risk of taking us off into a side-track, I would tentatively suggest Harold Bloom. In "Invention of the Human" he comments: "What does not work, pragmatically, is any critical or theoretical fashion that attempts to assimilate Shakespeare to contexts, whether historical or here-and-now. Demystification is a weak technique to exercise upon the one writer who truly seems to become himself only by representing other selves." 10/11 It seems to me that this assessment could easily be applied to the act of updating or adaptation. There are also critics like Marianne Novy, who ostensibly value appropriations of Shakespeare, but demand an overt and specific political goal to perform 'legitimate' appropriations, which strikes me as an alternate form of conservatism. Her introduction to "Transforming Shakespeare: Contemporary Women's Re-Visions in Literature and Performance" included the following: "Not every allusion to Shakespeare, of course, is significant enough to make a work a rewriting; nor is every rewriting a significant enough variant of Shakespeare's perspective to be considered a transformation. The comparison of a female suspect to Lady Macbeth for example...simply enlists Shakespeare as "authority on motivation." This practice is the opposite to the way most of the works in [Transforming Shakespeare] question received interpretations of Shakespeare and challenge his authority." I suspect some may disagree with me on what I am arguing as Novy's covert conservatism, but I believe Richard Burt alludes to a similar trend in recent criticisms of appropriation in the introduction to "Shakespeare After Mass-Media": "What critics implicitly tend to cordon off from legitimate academic study is a field of Shakespeare citations and replays that threatens the coherence of their critical practice. That coherence depends on a firm boundary being in a place between Shakespeare adaptations and citations that can be regarded as dialogical or hermeneutic and those that are postdialogical and posthermeneutic. Whereas the former can be assigned a meaning and hence be read as political or protopolitical, the latter do n I have probably completely failed to answer the initial query, but there are many interesting aspects to the initial question which I believe move far beyond "name the critic". Cheers, Erica _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1049 Tuesday, 16 April 2002 From: Ann Carrigan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 14:03:50 -0400 Subject: 13.1030 Re: 1981 Cressida Comment: Re: SHK 13.1030 Re: 1981 Cressida I am always glad to see a discussion of Cressida, about whom I enjoy puzzling and supposing. It's been a lot of years since I read Joseph Papp's introduction in _The Festival Shakespeare Troilus and Cressida_, and though I visited it again in September 1998 while re-reading the play (I posted some commentary on Usenet at ttp://groups.google.com/groupshl=en&th=a97471fb5c03094e&rnum=1), I was focused more on the vowing and parting scenes. (Not that my comments hold great value, but I quoted Papp somewhat, so you can get a feel for his point of view.) I see several used copies listed in Bookfinder.com, (http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?st=sl&ac=sl&qi=XXgfWuvzzNSIolIcsfwG6vrXXg6FIMwG:25:163) or you may try your library or Interlibrary Loan. It was published in 1967, so of course there are no "modern" productions referenced, and certainly not the 1981 one to which you referred. Best regards, Ann Carrigan _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1048 Tuesday, 16 April 2002 From: Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 15 Apr 2002 17:58:14 +0100 Subject: Billy Connolly at The Globe Comment: SHK 13.1039 Billy Connolly at The Globe Middleton significantly refers to the river-boat as "a choice pain of noblemen's oars". I assume that relatively few of the Globe customers were noblemen; and hence my objection to Billy Connolly's statement that "this was how many of the theatre-goers would have arrived". I didn't mean to suggest that NONE of them arrived in this fashion, which would have been presumptuous. Connolly's statement seemed to me akin to saying that "many of the opera-goers at Covent Garden arrive in stretch limos". Untrue, although I have seen it happen more than once. m [who traverses the city in tube or on bike] _______________________________________________________________ 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.