2002

12th Night at Stanford

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1359  Monday, 20 May 2002

From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 18 May 2002 16:20:01 -0700
Subject:        12th Night at Stanford

There will be a student production of *Twelfth Night,* here called *What
You Will,* at Stanford on May 22 and 23 at noon and 6:30 p.m., presented
by We Players.  Those in the Palo Alto environs who want to check it out
should gather on the lawn in front of the law school.

I recommend using the Margarite Shuttle for the noon performances.  I
don't remember the price of the campus pay lots, but they are quite
high, and you probably won't get value for your several dollars, though
I hope I am wrong about that.  Most parking regulations are not enforced
after 4 p.m., so you may park most places on campus after that time.

Anyone needing directions should check the campus web site
(www.stanford.edu), or may contact me off-list.

Mike Jensen

_______________________________________________________________
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: Conspicuous Silence

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1358  Monday, 20 May 2002

[1]     From:   Jan Pick <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 18 May 2002 20:22:48 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1343 Re: Conspicuous Silence

[2]     From:   Edward Pixley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 19 May 2002 18:44:49 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1343 Re: Conspicuous Silence


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jan Pick <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 18 May 2002 20:22:48 +0100
Subject: 13.1343 Re: Conspicuous Silence
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1343 Re: Conspicuous Silence

My favourite is the silence after Volumnia 'persuades' Coriolanus not to
march on Rome!  It does depend somewhat on the nerve of the actor as to
how long it is held, though!

Jan

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edward Pixley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 19 May 2002 18:44:49 -0400
Subject: 13.1343 Re: Conspicuous Silence
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1343 Re: Conspicuous Silence

> From:           Anna Kamaralli <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

> My personal favourite "conspicuous silence" comes right at the end of
> _Measure for Measure_ when the Duke asks Isabella to marry him TWICE and
> she makes no reply.  W.W. Lawrence had "no doubt that she turns to him
> with a heavenly and yielding smile" but some of us may no be so sure...

I always like to think that, during the first proposal, she is so intent
on seeing the living Claudius that she doesn't even notice the Duke's
proposal -- one more instance of his misplaced assumptions about how
people will behave.  Why should he assume that she will be more focused
on her expected gratitude to him than she is on a reconciliation with
the brother whom she has spent most of the play trying to either keep
alive or in a state of grace for sanctified death?  But just as he has
been readjusting to the independent actions of his willful subjects
throughout the play, to make sure the end comes out the way he wants it
to, so here he is forced to propose a second time.  I like to think
that, this time, he makes some physical effort to ensure that she not
only hear but accept his proposal.  He certainly gives her no time to
reject it.

Ed Pixley

_______________________________________________________________
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: Issues

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1356  Monday, 20 May 2002

[1]     From:   David Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 18 May 2002 10:51:36 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1340 Re: Issues

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 18 May 2002 12:46:51 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1340 Re: Issues

[3]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 19 May 2002 10:13:29 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1340 Re: Issues


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 18 May 2002 10:51:36 -0600
Subject: 13.1340 Re: Issues
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1340 Re: Issues

>I've mulled since my young teens the oddity that organic life itself
>(and most any other type of life that one would care to assert or
>ponder) contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. I know there's
>been a great deal written on this, which I haven't attended to for some
>decades. I'm happy to see that I'm in good company among some weighty
>Shakespeareans; not much citing of sources going on here.
>
>So, some possibilities which must be weighed in light of their lack of
>authoritative backing:
>
>1. Life's complexity and coherence is just an abberation, a randomly
>generated blip in the larger-scale tendency toward entropy.
>
>2. There is an intentional force promoting the development of
>complexity, and/or the environment in which that development is
>likely/possible.
>
>3. The second law of thermodynamics is wrong, or at least
>incomplete--only true at certain scales or in certain contexts.
>
>I mostly favor 3b, the "incomplete" theory, though 1 is in pretty much a
>dead heat for me.
>
>The most interesting approach for me would be to explore the ways and
>contexts in which the second law is wrong. What is it about the
>intrinsic nature of the universe that allows or encourages life's brash
>affront to that law?

The second law of thermodynamics applies to *closed systems*, but the
Earth is *not* a closed system; it is constantly receiving energy from
an external source (the sun).  There is nothing about organic life, or
evolution, which violates the second law.

For a concise explanation of why this common red herring of
anti-evolution writers is without foundation, see Robert T. Pennock's
*Tower of Babel*, pp. 78-82.

Dave Kathman
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 18 May 2002 12:46:51 -0400
Subject: 13.1340 Re: Issues
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1340 Re: Issues

> 3. The second law of thermodynamics is wrong, or at least
> incomplete--only true at certain scales or in certain contexts.

The law of entropy does not appear to be wrong or incomplete, but it
does postulate certain conditions which might make it seen wrong or
incomplete: It assumes a closed system and presupposes an existing state
of complexity.  The universe itself would be impossible if the law of
entropy applied without these conditions, as the universe is far more
complex and organized than the chaotic matter and energy of the Big
Bang.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 19 May 2002 10:13:29 +0100
Subject: 13.1340 Re: Issues
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1340 Re: Issues

>But there are many examples of individual
>evolutionary developments that result in less complexity. (Please don't
>ask me to cite them--haven't read about this stuff for years.)

Six or seven years ago a cave that had been sealed off from the rest of
the world for (it was assumed) many centuries was discovered, containing
a number of living organisms of varying complexity from microbes up to
arthropods. Incredibly, zoologists identified something like thirty new
species in this cave, which had evolved in complete isolation from every
other type of environment. The one I remember, because it was the most
striking, was a spider that, unlike its eight-eyed cousins, had no eyes
at all (there was, of course, absolutely no light in this cave).

The apparent "progress" of evolution does not contradict Newton's second
law: "complexity" in organisms, precisely because it requires a greater
movement of energy, is directly related to entropy. To argue that
biodiversity or increased complexity has resulted in increased
"coherence" is suspiciously teleological. Sufferers of cystic fibrosis,
appendicitis, sickle-cell anaemia, all the various, nasty forms of
cancer, etc., etc., etc. have all too real experience of how unstable is
the unwieldy system by which we reproduce. And in the end, golden lads
and girls all must like chimney sweepers come to dust.

Reference:

Apart from my old A-Level Biology textbooks, I guess the best place to
start looking (if not Darwin's masterpiece itself or Steve Jones's
recent rewrite, "Almost Like a Whale") is in the admirably lucid "The
Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, Chapter 7 "Constructive
Evolution", esp. pp.217-223 of the re-issued Penguin edition of 2000.

On p.206 he likens evolution to the process of sculpting: "Nothing is
added to the block of marble. The sculptor only subtracts, but a
beautiful statue emerges nevertheless". Of course he goes on to say that
"mutation can add", but his basic idea of natural selection is as a
process of paring-down.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

World Shakespeare Bibliography Online

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1357  Monday, 20 May 2002

From:           Jim Harner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 18 May 2002 13:12:36 -0500
Subject:        World Shakespeare Bibliography Online

If anyone has had problems attempting to subscribe to the World
Shakespeare Bibliography Online, please contact me offlist.

Jim Harner
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

_______________________________________________________________
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: Desdemona

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1355  Monday, 20 May 2002

From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 18 May 2002 09:42:10 -0700
Subject: 13.1344 Re: Desdemona
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1344 Re: Desdemona

Don Bloom suggests that

>To put it most simply, if a man rides your horse without permission, you
>might charge him with theft, but you don't shoot the horse. You may love
>the horse, but you don't marry it, and you thus don't have your ego
>invested in its "honor" (chastity, fidelity). You don't assume that your
>horse willingly shamed you by going off with another man -- not unless
>you're a real nut case.

Strangely, Richard II does assume this:

That jade hath eat bread from my royal hand,
This hand hath made him proud with clapping him.
Would he not stumble?  Would he not fall down,
Since pride must have a fall, and break the neck
Of that proud man that did usurp his back? (5.5.85-89)

Nevertheless, even in his high-strung emotional state, he seems to
recognize his error in the next few lines, and we may dismiss the whole
passage as a brief and temporary instance of anthropomorphism.  Your
point, in other words, still holds.

Cheers,
Se


Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.