May
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1270 Thursday, 9 May 2002 [1] From: Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 8 May 2002 11:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 13.1263 Re: Henry VI [2] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 08 May 2002 03:08:17 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 13.1263 Re: Henry VI [3] From: Anna Kamaralli <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 09 May 2002 15:48:04 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 13.1263 Re: Henry VI [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 8 May 2002 11:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 13.1263 Re: Henry VI Comment: Re: SHK 13.1263 Re: Henry VI Marcia, Thanks for the response. I am also interested to find out what is usually cut from the plays in an abridged production. I've never seen an abridged production, but my guess is that the Talbot scenes from Part One are heavily excised. Am I correct? Has anyone researched this and know the answer? Could you let us know after you see them about the production and what was cut? Thanks and I hope it's a great show. :) Brian Willis [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 08 May 2002 03:08:17 -0400 Subject: 13.1263 Re: Henry VI Comment: Re: SHK 13.1263 Re: Henry VI > The Henry VI plays are being condensed into two plays and are being > played at the Stratford festival this year. <snip> > I'm interested to see what the two condensed plays will be like. They are almost always done this way. The only exception I can think of is the BBC/Time-Life version, in which 1HVI stood nicely on its own (albeit cut drastically). The director mounted the entire tetralogy in the same set, an "imagination playground" which got darker and darker as the series progressed. And Margaret was, indeed, a leading character throughout, even having the last laugh in RIII (from the top of a pile of corpses). One of the best group of productions in the BBC series. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anna Kamaralli <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 09 May 2002 15:48:04 +1000 Subject: 13.1263 Re: Henry VI Comment: Re: SHK 13.1263 Re: Henry VI >I also agree with Brian about the importance of Queen Margaret, >who nearly always plays second-fiddle to Joan la Pucelle. These characters are both fabulous examples of women who display characteristics that would at one time have made them objects of censure, but that are now more likely to render them objects of admiration. Their ability to stand up and lead when those nominally in charge falter makes them figures of tremendous power. Joan's soliloquy in which she consults her demons is one of those scenes that strikes me as almost impossibly modern for a play written hundreds of years ago. Highly recommended for fledgling thesps looking for an audition monologue that isn't Juliet. Both Joan and Margaret are also highly effective "misogynometers". The castration anxiety of the critic operates in direct proportion to the need to sexualize, trivialize and demonize these women. _______________________________________________________________ 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 13.1269 Wednesday, 8 May 2002 From: Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 8 May 2002 12:59:17 +0100 Subject: 13.1254 Issues Arising from Discussion of Possible Comment: Re: SHK 13.1254 Issues Arising from Discussion of Possible Southampton Portrait Jack Heller comments on Joseph Cady's refutation of the Bray/Foucault 'new invention' theory of homosexuality: > As I recall, Joseph Cady's evidence for challenging "new > inventionism" are two or three citations of "masculine love" > in the works of Thomas Heywood and Francis Bacon. As > I further recall, whatever Heywood meant by "masculine > love," the context(s) implied he wasn't in favor of it. So Cady's not wrong? Cady also has one French and one Italian example. > I have found Cady's evidence to be rather minimal for the > sweeping claims he bases on it. One has only to find a single example of an homosexual identity in the period in order to demolish the Foucault/Bray claim that there wasn't one. Cady finds four. Moreover, he closes with an objection to the 'new inventionist' reliance on legal definitions. I objected that Philip Tompowski's electrical engineering metaphor ("genetics hardwires shame), is inappropriate for the interaction of genetic and cultural pressures, and Philip responded: > Surely you don't mean to suggest that such fundamental human > traits as shame are not intrinsic to the human psyche. You would, > I think, be hard pressed to find a reputable mental health professional > who would suggest that the inability to feel shame was not a serious > abnormality. What shames us, and how we react and express that > shame are the factors affected by cultural and environmental conditions. It's not obvious what you mean by the adjective "intrinsic", which is no clearer than the verb 'to hardwire'. Both words suggest a distinction between the immutable-biological and the changeable-cultural. This is a false distinction. The important difference is between the slow rate of evolutionary change and the rapid rate of cultural change. Like all creatures we live with genes which are well adapted to situations encountered in the past. > Cultural phenomenon create complex, and often > contradictory social effects. So do genetic phenomena. Sickle-cell anaemia, for example, results from inheriting an abnormal 'haemoglobin S' gene from both parents and is life-threatening, but getting it from one parent gives one a beneficial resistance to malaria. Even more simply, we don't need an appendix (which processes cellulose) but we have one because of our pre-human ancestors' feeding habits, and it conflicts lethally with other bodily processes we now have. > Your theory implies, to me, a direct linear causal > relationship between a social change and a biological > effect. Tolerance of homosexuality leads to fewer > 'cover' heterosexual marriages, thereby fewer children > of homosexuals, ending with fewer homosexuals altogether. > You fail to consider other, conflicting scenarios, for example, > greater tolerance of homosexuality leading to more gay > families in which one or both partners bear or sire children. > I feel you dismiss too lightly the suggestion made by Jonathan > Hope and myself that the desire to procreate is likely to play > an important part. I'm not 'implying' that there is a causal relationship, I'm claiming it overtly. Your calling it "direct" and "linear" implies that my claim is simplistic, but you haven't shown why. Like Jonathan Hope you claim that other factors might outweigh it, and I accept that possibility. But your evocation of these counterbalancing forces surely indicates your acceptance of the existence of the pressure that you call upon them to counterbalance. > We are, of course, engaged in a moot debate. Aren't all debates moot? "That can be argued; debatable; not decided, doubtful" (OED moot a.) Is there another sense?* > For my part, I see no reason to assume that the level of > homosexuality has ebbed and flowed as a result of social > and cultural factors. The strange assumption would be that the level hasn't changed despite social, cultural, and genetic factors, unless one can find a pressure to promote stability. > Given that these factors play off genetic proclivity > in complex and conflicting ways, it seems logical > to me that, to some extent, they cancel each other > out to create a condition of evolutionary stasis. To create "stasis" they'd have to cancel not merely "to some extent", as you assume, but quite precisely. It may be that at a certain level of homosexuality in a population there is achieved a system which has advantages over systems at other rates of homosexuality, and that these advantages tend to give systems at this rate greater longevity than others. Were it the case that a system near to such a level experiences a pressure to go to the advantageous level, one would expect to find systems at the advantageous level more often than would be the case if systems had, as it were, to stumble upon the advantageous level and had nothing to keep them there. Such a 'local pull' around the advantageous level would indeed create a pressure towards stability. In the absence of such a pressure towards stability, the reasonable assumption is that the rate of homosexuality is not stable, even in the absence of knowledge of the interaction of genetic and cultural determinants of the behaviour. In other words, without evidence of an optimum level of homosexuality it should not be assumed that there is an optimum level and that the current level is it. One should not assume that the 'local pull' effect happens only in respect of characteristic-levels at which benefits of stability and longevity are conferred on the system. Equally possible is a local pull around a level of a characteristic that drives the characteristic (or indeed the entire population) to extinction or to rapid growth. Gabriel Egan * Perhaps you meant 'moo'? ("A cow's opinion; doesn't matter", JTED moo a.) _______________________________________________________________ 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 13.1268 Wednesday, 8 May 2002 From: Judi Wilkins <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 8 May 2002 10:08:02 +1000 Subject: Accents Someone mentions the Actor's Church (sic) in Covent Garden. I hate to be picky, but who is the actor, and why does he have a private church? This solecism on what purports to be a serious academic list!!!! Cheers, Judi _______________________________________________________________ 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 13.1267 Wednesday, 8 May 2002 From: Robert Icke <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 7 May 2002 18:18:11 +0100 Subject: The Hollow Crown Hi, Noticed this on the RSC website, sounds interesting... Anyone seen it on its current tour, or in any previous productions? I'd be interested to hear any opinions on either the scripting or on any productions of it. Some info from the RSC below Regards, Robert Icke RSC Royal Shakespeare Theatre 16-20 July THE HOLLOW CROWN Devised/Directed by John Barton The Hollow Crown was devised in 1961 by John Barton for the Royal Shakespeare Company as a celebratory entertainment, by and about, the Kings and Queens of England. From Richard II's soliloquy at Pomfret Castle through to Malory's Morte D'Arthur, by way of Victoria's naively moving description of her own coronation and a15year old Jane Austen's 'partial, prejudiced and ignorant historian's' entertaining account of the monarchy from Henry IV to Charles I, the production gives a human face, often in their own words and usually comedic, to the changing role of the monarchy through the ages in an illuminating and beguiling way. The Hollow Crown has proved to be one of the most successful and entertaining productions the RSC has staged over the years. Over 70 actors have performed it at different times and we re proud to present a highly distinguished cast including - Derek Jacobi, Ian Richardson and Donald Sinden - in this exceptional revival. _______________________________________________________________ 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 13.1266 Wednesday, 8 May 2002 From: Kevin J. Donovan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 7 May 2002 11:44:52 -0500 (CDT) Subject: 13.1253 Re: King Lear's Daughters Comment: Re: SHK 13.1253 Re: King Lear's Daughters Edmund Taft proposes that Lear's having supposedly fathered his daughters late in life suggests his exorbitant virility (and we know that in his day he could really make them skip with his trusty falchion). Is it fair in this context to think of that Mars of men Tony Randall? _______________________________________________________________ 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.