2002

Re: Accents

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1142  Friday, 26 April 2002

[1]     From:   Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 10:44:49 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1125 Re: Accents

[2]     From:   R.A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 11:07:49 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1127 Re: Accents

[3]     From:   Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 14:00:28 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1127 Re: Accents

[4]     From:   Michael Shurgot <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 11:31:48 -0700
        Subj:   RE: SHK 13.1127 Re: Accents

[5]     From:   Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 13:32:35 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1127 Re: Accents

[6]     From:   Steve Urkowitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 18:59:24 -0400
        Subj:   Accents

[7]     From:   Stuart Manger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 26 Apr 2002 00:23:34 +0100
        Subj:   SHK 13.1127 Re: Accents

[8]     From:   Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 18:01:37 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1127 Re: Accents

[9]     From:   Graham Bradshaw <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 26 Apr 2002 17:59:12 +0900
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1127 Re: Accents


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 10:44:49 -0500
Subject: 13.1125 Re: Accents
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1125 Re: Accents

Despite a level of fatigue from this subject (accents) I will add one
more, perhaps less annoying, comment, for I find it has a connection to
another subject that had been bounced around here lately, that of
composition.

One of the things that I tell my students when I explain the need for
proper forms -- everything from spelling and punctuation to a Works
Cited bibliography -- is that they make things easier for the reader. If
writers and readers agree on an arbitrary set of rules for all forms,
then the readers are not constantly slowed or stopped by forms that
force them to figure out what the writer intends to say, but didn't
quite. They can concentrate on the content and not be distracted by the
medium. This is what I mean by "transparency" when applied to ordinary
expository writing.

In acting, it applies to an accent and other things that allow the actor
to get the character across. It should not intrude unless there is some
good reason for it. In a previous post, I cited *1 Henry IV* but I will
shamelessly cite it again. Of the major characters, most are Englishmen
and aristocrats, but one is Welsh, one is Scottish, and few are not
aristocrats.  For Glendower, a Welsh accent is virtually a necessity,
though it does not have to be excessively thick for (as he says) he
lived for a long time in the English court. You can do G without it if
you can't find a actor with the skill to learn the accent, but the loss
(to me) is a heavy one. So, likewise with Douglas. His native language
is, if not precisely English (a nod to Mr. Hamilton who has enlightened
me on the subject), at least a closely related one, and he would surely
speak English to the English, albeit with a noticeable Scottish accent.

Although noticeable, however, these accents are not intrusive because
they are important elements of the characters. Glendower should be WELSH
to have the proper impact, and Douglas should be SCOTTISH. Otherwise
they're little more than names.

The same thing applies to Mistress Quickly, Bardolph and the others.
They do not belong to the aristocracy and so shouldn't talk as if they
do. Mrs.  Quickly is hostess of tavern in East Cheap. For an American
audience any sort of consistent cockney accent will probably do. For a
British one, though, you might want to have the actor spend some time in
Cheapside to get it right (so that it doesn't sound like an American
doing cockney). But once more these are character traits and quickly
become transparent in their turn because they the fit the character and
situation.

Now you see my problem. If you do the play in Wales, and all the actors
sound like Glendower, then Glendower doesn't sound like Glendower any
more.  And, of course, you have the problem of all these Englishmen (and
one Scot of Scots) speaking with a Welsh accent. If you do the play in
Scotland, you have the same problem. I suppose if you do it in Cheapside
you do, also.

I recognize that not all plays have these regional / national factors.
But they all do have class factors. Though there are relatively few
members of the middle class in the plays, there are invariably servants.
If they speak the same upper-class English as the aristocrats, they will
sound like Jeeves -- not at all what S had in mind. But you can't have
them all speak some working class form either without generating still
more unwelcome laughter from the audience. It seems to me that you have
to be able to differentiate the characters by class or do serious damage
to your effort.

Class differences can presumably be registered in any regional accent
pattern, and so I presume you can do the plays anywhere with any accent
and have them work (provided, as Sam reminds us, the actors pronounce
their consonants whatever they do with their vowels). I must say,
however, that I find a production with a bunch of people speaking
middle-class, Middle Western American to lack a good bit of the magic
that's available.

Cheers,
don

P.S. Do companies in the UK do other plays in regional accents --
Coward, Wilde, Gay, Congreve, Wycherley -- or are these (especially the
last three) too rarely done to signify?

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R.A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 11:07:49 -0500
Subject: 13.1127 Re: Accents
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1127 Re: Accents

> Does Mr. Weinstein seriously think

I believe that he does. Whatever else Charles Weinstein is, he is a
master of heuristic method and a deft pedagogue.

All the best,
R.A. Cantrell
<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 14:00:28 -0400
Subject: 13.1127 Re: Accents
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1127 Re: Accents

I sent this the last time we had this discussion (January?) but it
didn't seem to elicit any response-- perhaps the subject was exhausted
then, and has had a nap now and is full of energy and opinion once more?

Anyway:

I have strong feelings on this subject.  There's no particularly reason
why a producer-- or anyone-- should aim to please me, but I'll state my
prejudices anyway.

To my ear, contemporary English productions of Shakespeare sound as if
the standard is "mid-Atlantic" rather than RP.  This makes sense, given
that many tour or are tourist attractions.  Any accent that is
unfamiliar to the listener requires some minutes of work to be de-coded,
during which important bits of information may be lost.  International
"classic" or "costume" films have long used Mid-Atlantic English, so
audiences are used to listening to it, and find it easy to follow.

Meaning, relationship and word-music are most important: probably in
that order Open vowels aid projection and crisp consonants preserve
clarity during rapid speech: rapid speech is better than slow as the
norm for wordy texts like Ws's.  Dialects add color.  Historical or
sociological accuracy isn't very important when choosing a dialect for a
character. The first consideration should be whether the audience will
understand the denotations of the words spoken in dialect, the second
whether the dialect helps or hinders the audience in "placing" the
character in the web of relationships with other characters. Obviously,
but a rule often violated, siblings should speak the same dialect unless
they were separated at birth or one of them is "putting on airs" to fit
in with a group that doesn't speak the way the character's family does.

Native/foreign, city/country, upper/lower -- such distinctions are
colorful, but it is better to ignore them than to apply them
inconsistently.

I very much enjoyed the range of dialects in the "cosmopolitan"
production of MOV at the New Globe in London.  Some actors spoke various
flavors of English from around the Empire, but all were clear and most
were musical, and none distorted the patterns of sound and sense in
their lines.

I've also enjoyed Northern England or Scots-flavored Shakespeare, and
even a Southern-USA  one.

But I've never understood why, in many English translations of French or
Greek or Roman theatre, the servants, whether city or country folk,
speak Cockney.

Geralyn Horton
http://www.stagepage.org
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Shurgot <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 11:31:48 -0700
Subject: 13.1127 Re: Accents
Comment:        RE: SHK 13.1127 Re: Accents

Dear Colleagues:

Pardon my ignorance (having been born into the urban squalor of Buffalo,
NY, and having grown up with all those Ukrainian, Polish, Italian,
Africa-American, German, and Irish "accents," heard and digested in
dozens of squalid neighborhood bars, etc.), but what the hell in this
latest round of laborious fuselages is "RP"?

Regards,
Michael

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 13:32:35 -0400
Subject: 13.1127 Re: Accents
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1127 Re: Accents

John Velz said:

> I shudder when I remember a campus production from early 1970s of
> *Antony and Cleopatra* in which Antony moaned "I am dyink Egypt,
> dyink."  Don't laugh, it HAPpened.

Shaw described a high point of Mme. Modjeska's Cleopatra as "Ohveederdee
degarlano devar."

Three points about accents:

1. I don't think Shakespeare's own actors were quite out of the top
drawer.

2. Class and regional issues are separate--there are rich people and
poor people in, e.g., Liverpool (or Atlanta)

3. Television, movies, and radio have a strong homogenizing effect on
accents.

Dana Shilling

PS--speaking of fatal Cleopatras--"reciprocate" = The Second Part of the
Taming of the Anthrax?

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Steve Urkowitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 18:59:24 -0400
Subject:        Accents

So if you wanna sneer, fella, watch out I don't stuff ya' foot in it.
Labov demonstrates that the least sensitive to and most fierce adherents
of linguistic class-marker correctness are drawn from the
psychologically and economically insecure lower middle classes.

I think I'll go to my campus production of Hedda Gabbler right now to
cheerfully listen to New York sounds, gleefully enacting high culture in
its best spirit.

Say g'night, Gracie.
Steve Urconcoursowitz

[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stuart Manger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 26 Apr 2002 00:23:34 +0100
Subject: Re: Accents
Comment:        SHK 13.1127 Re: Accents

It seems sad to me that this thread which started with a very
interesting scholarly and well-documented debate about the diverse ways
in which Shakespeare could be delivered in ENGLAND now and then, was
abruptly clouded with a degree of misinformation and understandable
misunderstanding by non-UK respondents, and then, as more or less
usually, appropriated by 'the usual suspects' and then settled into the
wearisomely predictable slanging match between American scholars (plus
some demagogues and slurry-shifters) about how Shakespeare is / was /
might be / ought to be delivered in USA, through which the way in which
changing British English pronunciation, regionalism and fascinating
issues of what is 'the Shakespeare Audience' was lost in transit.

It seems to me that some of the expectations expressed on this thread of
how Shakespeare 'ought' to be delivered relate to a criterion of spoken
/ public English of yesteryear in UK and then re-sown in USA. Such are
the new orthodoxies in UK theatre schools and on stages, that very
little of that yesteryear method survives now, as Lise Olson patiently
explained what seems aeons back.

Only today (25.4.02) , both The Times and The Guardian are lamenting
Stuart Wilson's poor verse speaking in the new 'A and C' with the RSC,
while heaping unstinting praise on Sinead Cusack's Cleo. The Antony is
largely a screen and TV actor. Cusack is theatre through and through.
Coincidence? Would anyone like to make something of THAT as a
determinant of accent / diction / delivery / verse speaking etc? Are
drama colleges preparing actors more for TV and big bucks, than the
stage, upon which a method of delivery of originally intended public
rhetoric has to flourish? Can you / should you in the name of right-on
accessibility mumble Shakespeare like a soap opera on a stage?

How good an Iago would Kevin Spacey be? Or is that a can of worms as
well?

Stuart Manger

[8]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 18:01:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 13.1127 Re: Accents
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1127 Re: Accents

Thanks to Holger, Mari, Martin, Karen, Judi, Arthur, and David in
particular for making very exceptional and intelligently argued points
on this issue. They expressed what I could not, in my anger, have
expressed properly.

Pacino is from Brooklyn by the way. And played MANY Shakespearean roles
onstage, to much critical acclaim, before he became famous in The
Godfather. I would laugh at such pure bigotry if it didn't infuriate me
so much. But I guess that's what Charles wants to get out of me so he
wins, doesn't he?

The accents of Glendower and co. in Henry IV or Fluellen, Macmorris and
co. in Henry V are exceptions to this rule. The discussion is in regards
to Shakespeare in general being done outside of a "proper" (whatever
that means) accent. I'm sure that Pacino was not planning Richard III as
a Brooklynite at all, but to speak in his own accent. The only thing I
can fault him for is slipping into a slight British accent every now and
then (yes, he does if you listen closely). The real problem is the
perception that Shakespeare can only be done properly in an English
accent. When I first performed Shakespeare, I was told by my directors
that I was lapsing into a British accent to speak my lines. Utterly
ridiculous for me to do. With help, I eventually realized that I could
speak the verse trippingly in my own American accent.  It didn't bother
me to perform at the Shakespeare Institute with my American accent while
surrounded by primarily British actors. I'm proud to say I never slipped
once and didn't even have thoughts of slipping. To paraphrase the
Democratic campaign slogan for 1992 - it's about the performance,
stupid. Don't let your personal biases get in the way or you have no
business being a critic of Shakespearean performance.

Brian Willis

[9]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Graham Bradshaw <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 26 Apr 2002 17:59:12 +0900
Subject: 13.1127 Re: Accents
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1127 Re: Accents

This "accents" line is becoming very interesting. I have no trouble in
believing that Sean Connery's Hotspur was wonderful, and I suspect that
the contrast between North and South/rough and mellifluous figured in
the Globe contrasts between two Hals. (Of course one can't know.) An
intense, electrifying delivery is just that, in Scots, American, or
Australian, whatever the vowel sounds, or intonation, or other RP
hangups. But rhythmic distortion is always wrong, isn't it? I still
suspect that the crucial representational issue has to do with metrical
rhythm, and then, with whether or how metrical rhythm can be a
constituent of meaning. I think it is.

Best wishes, Graham Bradshaw

_______________________________________________________________
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: Composition

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1141  Friday, 26 April 2002

[1]     From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 11:21:34 EDT
        Subj:   Composition and Higher Education

[2]     From:   Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 13:02:18 -0400
        Subj:   Composition

[3]     From:   Karen Peterson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 11:13:06 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1131 Re: Composition

[4]     From:   Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 11:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1131 Re: Composition


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 11:21:34 EDT
Subject:        Composition and Higher Education

Open admission, as the practice of admitting to an institution of higher
education any person with a high school diploma is called in the United
States, is, of course, a practice whose general social utility can be
and has been vigorously debated.  The issue is doubly complex in the US
because our system of higher education is relatively comprehensive--a
student at a 2-year (community) college can take courses in Shakespeare
and in firefighting or double-entry bookkeeping, fourth-year students
can major in accounting as well as history.  Not much of the kind of
"education" we envisage when we see a picture of St. John's College,
Cambridge, with students and dons strolling the lawn in their gowns,
goes on there.  (How much goes on at St. John's?)  But I can't accept
Gabriel Egan's dismissive assessment of the economic value of the
undertaking to the individual students: "they and/or their parents have
paid ten of thousands for the meagre privileges degrees confer."
College degrees are absolute requirements for entry-level positions in
industrial management, the supervisory segments of the civil service,
all the professions-literally millions of jobs that offer the
possibility of some measure of workplace autonomy and initiative and the
opportunity if not the certainty of promotion to higher levels.  And
there is plenty of evidence to show that over a lifetime college
graduates on average earn several hundred thousand dollars more than
high school graduates on average.  The initial cost can, indeed, be
high-but not necessarily "tens of thousands of dollars." Four-year
undergraduate tuition at my former university, toward the high end of
public institutions around the country, is a little more than $20,000;
by doing the first two years at a 2-year college you can cut 3 or 4K
from the total.  Add a couple of thousand more for books and incidental
fees.  It's still a pretty good investment, especially for students who
lack the imagination and initiative to do well in the entrepreneurial
fields where it is, indeed, possible, to thrive without those letters
after your name.

An element in this that's not often recognized is that a primary
function of the American system is to prepare students to work in
complex institutional environments-corporations, bureaucracies.  If you
can satisfy the rules and regulations of a place like Cleveland State,
do enough academic work well enough to earn a degree, you can probably
get by in the offices of IBM or the Commerce Department, whether or not
you actually remember any of the particular content of Philosophy 214 or
Physics 301.

Like Gabriel Egan, I, too, yearned throughout my career for more
students who wanted to argue the kinds of questions we treat on this
list.  And I certainly thought that a lot of the others would have
served the society better by becoming good plumbers.  But by no means
all of them.  And the system did provide the opportunity for a few, of a
type that would never be admitted to an English university even today,
to catch intellectual fire.

David Evett

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 13:02:18 -0400
Subject:        Composition

John Velz writes:

>Until American taxpayers agree to triple the money they spend on
>schooling and see teacher student ratio reduced to a figure that will
>enable learning, the problem of students in college who did not learn
>to write in high school will remain with us.

Absolutely right. As John points out, schoolteachers who actually try to
assign regular writing burn out in a short time and leave the profession
-- or they just give up assigning compositions.

But there's little hope, John, that American taxpayers will do what they
need to do. Instead of increasing funding and making sure that poor
districts get their fair share, the substitute action is the high-stakes
test, with the teacher (even in poor districts) held accountable for
students' performances.

That's why colleges have to try to do the job if they can.  But I must
confess that I'm not sure we can do it. For what it's worth, it seems to
me that composition courses can make a bad writer a better bad writer,
or a good writer a better good writer, but we do not yet have the
expertise or know-how to make a bad writer a good writer. It just
doesn't happen.

If this observation is granted, then two possible conclusions follow:

(1) Students who cannot write by the time they come to college cannot be
taught to write because they have missed the "window of opportunity"
only open during grammar and high school.

(2) Such students can learn how to write, but we, as yet, don't know how
to do it effectively.

(1) is hopeless and (2) is hopeful, but I don't have a clue as to which
one is really true.

--Ed

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Peterson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 11:13:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 13.1131 Re: Composition
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1131 Re: Composition

I must give an enthusiastic "second" to Alan Pierpoint's comments about
Bill Arnold's suggestions.
Alan wrote, in part:

> and had I seen
> anything like Bill's
> system in a methods class, I'd have used it, I'm
> sure.  It puts the
> responsibility, and the work, squarely on the
> student where it belongs
> in ways that strike me as both effective and humane.

I entirely agree, and have saved Bill's post for my own "professional
development" file.  While I rather hope I will not have to teach
*straight* composition (as opposed to teaching composition within the
context of teaching literature) again, it certainly could happen.
Bill's ideas look as if they would work brilliantly in both reducing
instructor frustration and in improving student-writing skills.

Thank you, Bill!

Cheers,
Karen

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 11:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 13.1131 Re: Composition
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1131 Re: Composition

Alan Pierpoint writes, "I hope that all subscribers who teach
composition noted Bill Arnold's post, which I thought had more
constructive ideas about managing the workload of a comp class, while
narrowing the possibilities of plagiarism, than anything I can recall
having learned in my MA program at Cal State San Bernardino in the late
'80's (and I had mostly good professors there).  I taught freshman comp
at CSUSB for a year before settling down at my present job, and had I
seen anything like Bill's system in a methods class, I'd have used it,
I'm sure.  It puts the responsibility, and the work, squarely on the
student where it belongs in ways that strike me as both effective and
humane.  Much more helpful than sarcastic jibes at our students' lack of
preparation, however justified."

Alan, thank you.

As a follow up, inasmuch as my first post was meant to be a mere
introductory thought about my former method, as I am now retired from
the trenches and only a humble writer, I would add this ONE important
reason WHY many others might find the basic method so successful at
producing writers.  I have taught colleagues my method, over the years,
for those who were frustrated and wanted to learn from what I was doing,
and something very similar is taught in every newsroom in the world by
editors of interns in the trenches of daily deadline writing.

And that is: it IS a journal writing approach.  The students KNOW it is
their OWN journal to keep at the end of each semester, and many took my
courses for TWO semesters.  Also, I, as professor,
could in the initial forays into a student's writing, red-line the KEY
elements, and later, if I saw the SAME sorts of things, and we are
talking the SIMPLE stuff here, spelling, punctuation, capitalization,
lack of neatness, therefore a lack of understanding what the student is
TRYING to say, I did NOT have to repeat myself again and again, but I
could say, "Consult page 3, and note you are NOT capitalizing.
Therefore, MEMORIZE the two-page CAPITALIZATION handout, etc."  Or, if
the student is a poor speller, REQUIRE them to get the little RED book,
_The Word Book II_ by American Heritage Dictionary, with over 40,000
words spelled and divided, a quick
reference work.  Of course, all these tools were on the syllabus, and
because not all students had those problems, the additional books were
only required of students with specific problems.

In other words: within one month, ONE MONTH, each student knew: whether
he could spell or not, capitalize or not, punctuate or not, etc.  And I,
as professor, could concentrate on remarks like, "Hey, did you really
MEAN to say, here?"  Within TWO months, those that were going to KEEP
any one of the KEY problems in Comp for their lives, KNEW it, and I knew
it, and believe me, I wrote in RED ink, you better deal with (a) or (B)
composition problem, or you are getting a bad grade with me, and FOR
EVER in every class in college, because all classes in college require
you to WRITE.  I also added: "Nobody is going to understand what YOU
MEANT TO SAY with all these other problems IN THE WAY."

Now, I also taught them that writing was a learned skill, and in no way
would professors teach them to THINK, or LISTEN, and WATCH carefully,
before they wrote.  SPEAKING, basically, I left to speech classes.  But
I did REQUIRE students who spoke out, to speak UP, and slow down, be
clear, and say EXACTLY what you MEAN TO SAY.  And no one could help them
with these other skills but via understanding what they MEANT to say
when they spoke or wrote.  I EMPHASIZED that these common errors got in
the way of other people understanding what they REALLY meant to say.

So, for those with REAL communication problems, I told them to deal with
basics, express yourself honestly, and peel away one problem at a time:
focus on your OWN worst problem, which is stopping you from advancing
most.  Then focus on the next.  And the next.

Within THREE months, they either HAD it down, or they were doomed to
failure, because there is NO way they could NOT see it in a contiguous
JOURNAL.  More anon, as requested.  Back to the Bard!

Bill Arnold

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Electronic Databases

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1139  Thursday, 25 April 2002

From:           Jeffrey Myers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 08:51:46 -0400
Subject:        Electronic Databases

My library is considering subscribing to an electronic database to
supplement our collection of primary texts in English from the Middle
Ages through the Restoration.  Is anyone on the list currently using
such a database that you could recommend to us?

Thanks,
Jeff Myers

_______________________________________________________________
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.

TOC Journal of Theological Studies 53.1 (April 2002)

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1140  Thursday, 25 April 2002

From:           Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 09:27:02 -0500
Subject:        TOC Journal of Theological Studies 53.1 (April 2002)

The Journal of Theological Studies
April 2002; Vol. 53, No. 1

Reviews:

Carol Thysell: The Pleasure of Discernment. Marguerite de Navarre as
Theologian
Reviewed by Jennifer Britnell, pp. 378-380

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph C. McLelland, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli: The Oxford Treatise and
Disputation on the Eucharist, 1549
Reviewed by Diarmaid MacCulloch, pp. 380-383

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Carleton: Bishops and Reform in the English Church, 1520-1559
Reviewed by D. J. Crankshaw, pp. 383-387

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Green: Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England
Reviewed by John Spurr, pp. 387-393


_______________________________________________________________
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.

1580 Earthquake

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1138  Thursday, 25 April 2002

From:           Sophie Masson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Apr 2002 20:34:27 +1000
Subject:        1580 Earthquake

Does anyone know if there are any records as to whether, and how, the
April 6, 1580 earthquake, in Easter week, whose epicentre appears to
have been Oxford(or at least Oxford appears to have suffered a
reasonable amount of damage), affected Stratford? Apparently it was felt
as far away as London--some sources say even in France, and that there
were huge waves in the sea as well, and lives lost there. I've been
looking for a calendar of events in Eliz. Stratford, which I've found
before, but cannot locate right now. I would be very grateful indeed for
any information, or pointers to sites or books that may have that
information.

Also, was April 6 before or after Easter that year?

Many thanks,
Sophie Masson
Author site: http://www.northnet.com.au/~smasson

_______________________________________________________________
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.