2002

Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1878  Wednesday, 11 September 2002

[1]     From:   John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 17:03:29 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 13.1866 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

[2]     From:   Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 10:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1866 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

[3]     From:   L. Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 10 Sep 2001 13:42:49 -0500
        Subj:   More on that Ghost

[4]     From:   Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 11:51:09 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1866 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

[5]     From:   David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 16:54:35 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1866 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

[6]     From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 21:39:25 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1866 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 17:03:29 +0100
Subject: 13.1866 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment:        RE: SHK 13.1866 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

He that is giddy thinks the world turns round, Bill!

Or are you saying that in the US they still behave in the ways that they
did in Elizabethan England. I must look out for a hanging, drawing, and
quartering when I cross the pond next!

And is it in Cincinnati that they still whip prostitutes?

Come on, now Bill, you know as well as I do that once we move from crude
biology to culture then significant historical differences emerge.  And
I think that even in certain questions of biology we may not be talking
about universals either.

It's comforting to think that everybody else thinks the way we do, and
it's always a shock when we realise that they don't!  I recommend a
glass of zinfandel

All the best,
John Drakakis

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 10:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 13.1866 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1866 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

It may seem unlikely, but I have it from my sources within the church
itself that a priest is indeed
indicated as the exorcist for each diocese.

Brian "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" Willis

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           L. Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 10 Sep 2001 13:42:49 -0500
Subject:        More on that Ghost

Whitt Brantley observes,

>An English Protestant, raised on the Geneva Bible and Reformation
>doctrine would have understood Hamlet's serving the ghost as a dangerous
>error.  He also would have known of  the Bible's warning that revenge
>belongs only to God which was much used by Elizabethan writers to
>reserve the execution of vengeance to God.
>
>Instead of heeding these warnings, the seed planted in Hamlet's mind by
>the ghost takes root. Hamlet avenges his father's murder but loses his
>life and kingdom. Shakespeare's "Christian tragic heroes" each succumb
>to a temptation, one that they recognize and that they know could have
>terrible consequences. For Hamlet the temptation is listening to the
>counsel of the "dead."

[But Hamlet does so only after determining - as well as he can - that
the ghost's story is true.  We certainly discover that it is (Claudius'
soliloquy). But, considering all this, do we forget that Hamlet is a
prince of the realm and seeks - although he does not say he seeks it for
that - terms for *public exposure* of the crime? He cannot act merely
for revenge, and he knows it.  His error, a poor, an unfair estimate of
the supposed defection of Ophelia and R & G (who, after all, have been
given every evidence of his illness of mind and, therefore, as all of us
do in such situations, handle the mentally disturbed "with a
difference"); his resulting turn away from those who might have helped
him, his related desire for personal revenge (leading him to think, "now
might I do it," then doesn't, and for very wrong reasons, too) that
peaks in the mindless stabbing of Polonius - all this instead of seeking
princely justice, which he knows is his duty. And isn't it interesting
that when Claudius is finally caught up with, his crime shown to the
surrounding public is NOT his murder of Old Hamlet at all, but that of
Young Hamlet, and the Queen? ]

[Hamlet is a man who hasn't the proper respect for his friends, doesn't
know how to make proper, ready use of those whom he trusts (Horatio),
and estranges those who might have helped but whom he considers suspect,
although they are reacting just as he should certainly have expected to
his planned and executed  "antic disposition." ]

[In this vein, too, one wonders particularly about Horatio, who has seen
the ghost first and certainly seems to be around often enough, but has
nothing to suggest to Hamlet about a plan of action. Curious.  (Like
Emilia's silence on the handkerchief issue in "Othello" - until it's too
late.).  Horatio's remarks after the play are not conclusive of his
estimate of it as proof of Claudius' guilt - but if they are interpreted
as conveying his doubt, he says nothing to check the exuberant Hamlet
who immediately sees Claudius' reaction as confession of the crime.
(Horatio's first outspoken, adverse criticism of Hamlet's actions is his
obvious disapproval of Hamlet's disposing of R & G.). One wonders, too,
about Ophelia: she must be something of a mealy-mouthed ninny to listen
to Hamlet's rant without defending herself with observations about his
recent nutty conduct - socks down and wandering through her apartment
backwards, indeed! All of these characters - Horatio, Ophelia, R & G -
appear unable to poke a finger into Hamlet's chest, sit him down and
give him a "loyal opposition" opinion. (Are we to see them as such
weaklings, and being chosen friends of Hamlet, a comment on his
selection of friends?). ]

[(Pardon me for wandering a little way from the issue of the ghost - but
these matters do seem somehow related to that issue)]

[L. Swilley]

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 11:51:09 -0700
Subject: 13.1866 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1866 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

Whitt Brantley:

>I do find one thing curious though.  How can a ghost come "from the
>undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveller returns?"

Martin Seward:

>Hamlet ... tells us, in his moment of greatest
>self-revelation, that the traveller cannot return from the undiscovered
>country of death.

For those who take the "to be" speech at face value, thinking it reveals
Hamlet's true beliefs and noblest inmost thoughts, please run, don't
walk, to James Hirsh's "To Take Arms Against a Sea of Anomolies."

http://www.brunel.ac.uk/faculty/arts/EnterText/hamlet/hirsh.pdf

(the immediately accessible online presentation of his insights), and to
the two earlier papers where he first presented those insights:

"The 'To be, or not to be' Scene and the Conventions of Shakespearean
Drama" (MLQ 42 1981 pp. 115-36)

"Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies" (MLQ 58 1997 pp. 1-26)

Hirsh shows (quite conclusively in my opinion) that this 800-pound
gorilla of all soliloquies is in fact a "utterly impersonal," feigned
set-speech, put on for the benefit of Claudius and Polonius lurking
behind the arras. (Just one piece of evidence among many: there's not
one first-person singular pronoun in this soliloquy; all the others are
riddled with them, generally from the very first line.)

It's fruitless to consider that soliloquy without considering that
dramatic and conventional "framing."

Steve
http://princehamlet.com

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 16:54:35 -0700
Subject: 13.1866 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1866 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

I'm glad to see a few people pointing out that it's still possible to
believe in ghosts, though I suspect it's harder for most of us than for
most of Shakespeare's audience. Horatio, on the surface a good
Renaissance Christian ("that is most certain") resists the ghost story
until his own eyes avouch it. The appearance of the ghost releases a
flood of Roman imagery, along with some confused speculation about
hallowed and unhallowed times. The result, it seems to me, is a sense of
awe and mystery. No one quite knows what to make of it, but it reminds
us all that there's a lot we don't know, and that mystery can erupt in
front of us any time. I think this can be true in at least an analogical
sense for those of us who still don't believe in ghosts. Some of the
impact of Hamlet has shifted its ground from supernatural credulity to
willing suspension of disbelief. In a similar displacement, the
Christian prohibition of personal revenge can still touch the feelings
of a secular unbeliever who would want to refrain from taking the law
into his or her own hands.

The Christian prohibition does come into play for Hamlet, though. If he
doesn't quite mention it directly, he does talk about the danger of
being damned; and when Laertes comes rushing in to take his parallel
revenge, he says explicitly, "I dare damnation."

There's also the problem that Claudius is not just a man but a king,
which intensifies the danger of damnation. At the same time it
definitively removes any hope of justice from the king since the king is
the criminal. To punish Claudius, Hamlet must get beyond personal
revenge to objective justice, which in this case he can only do by
transforming himself, symbolically at least, into the king, and then
punishing a criminal who has been objectively proven guilty.

The symbolic transformation, into "Hamlet the Dane", comes with his
first act of direct rebellion (not merely intended, as with Polonius,
but accomplished). He forges the commission and seals it with his
father's signet. This he can do on the basis of evidence: the commission
proves Claudius a tyrant, and Hamlet carefully hands the evidence over
to Horatio for later presentation to the people. This still doesn't
quite suffice, though, because Claudius only intended to kill Hamlet
without succeeding. He could deny it all. At the end Hamlet must take
over by demanding an investigation of his mother's death ("Let the doors
be locked") and hearing Laertes' dying testimony ("the King's to
blame"). Now he can kill Claudius for the one intentional, and
successful, crime of which Claudius has been objectively proven guilty:
killing Hamlet. Even so, Hamlet kills Claudius not with a sword thrust
("I am but hurt") but with his own poison, "temper'd by himself." Had
Claudius not poisoned the sword and the wine, he would not die from
Hamlet's actions. Meanwhile, personal revenge for Hamlet's father has
all but faded away as a motivation in the final fray, replaced,
emotionally, by the impulse to revenge his mother. This is not exactly
revenge, however, since Claudius did not intend to kill Gertrude. The
emotion nevertheless releases some of the pent up energy of revenge,
while it also gives Hamlet a partial further excuse of hot blood.
Meanwhile, the legal underpinning, justice for Hamlet's own death,
provides the justification with which, along with the commission,
Horatio will save Hamlet's name. Shakespeare's solution has to be as
complicated, and delicate, as Hamlet's problem.

Bringing the ghost back from hell accomplishes two things. First, it
makes hell vividly real for Hamlet, and the audience (within limits),
thus setting up the great Christian obstacle to revenge. Second, it
changes the old story by making the murder a secret. Hamlet can't tell
the public he killed the king on the word of a ghost, so he has to look
for evidence, even though to do so in a way betrays the ghost, who in
person seems undeniably honest. The ghost cares nothing about objective
evidence because he knows the truth--and thinks that should be enough
for Hamlet. Nor does the ghost care about the Christian prohibition on
revenge (against Claudius), or about the danger of chaos in the state,
or about the danger to Hamlet's soul. Hamlet is different. He cares
about all those things--as, analogically at least, do we. Hence the play
has five acts.

Best wishes,
David Bishop

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 21:39:25 -0400
Subject: 13.1866 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1866 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

"Would those who are commenting on this issue please read the works
mentioned above before continuing?  We're inventing the wheel on this
issue."  John Cox

To John's list of relevant older texts I would add Fredson Bowers,
"Hamlet as Minister and Scourge," PMLA 70 (1955): 740-49.

David Evett

_______________________________________________________________
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: Pronunciation of Arcite

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1877  Wednesday, 11 September 2002

[1]     From:   Ronald Moyer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 10:35:36 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1869 Pronunciation of Arcite

[2]     From:   Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 12:21:30 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1869 Pronunciation of Arcite


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ronald Moyer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 10:35:36 -0500
Subject: 13.1869 Pronunciation of Arcite
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1869 Pronunciation of Arcite

The sibilant pronunciation is offered by Dale Coyne in _Pronouncing
Shakespeare's Words_, Louis Colaianni in _Shakespeare's Names: A New
Pronouncing Dictionary_, Kenyon and Knott in _A Pronouncing Dictionary
of American English_, and Daniel Jones and A. C. Gimson in _Everyman's
English Pronouncing Dictionary_.  Seems to be the way to go.  Best,

--Ron Moyer

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 12:21:30 -0400
Subject: 13.1869 Pronunciation of Arcite
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1869 Pronunciation of Arcite

>The instructor of my Chaucer course, B. J. Whiting, pronounced the C in
>Arcite as a sibilant; so did his younger colleague, William Alfred.
>I've followed their example.  But the actors in the current Stratford
>Festival production of *TNK* make the C hard: ArKite.  Ideas about this
>from the list?  Reliable sources of info?
>
>Dave Evett

I'm guessing that it derives from bow as in arciform bow shaped (soft c,
although arcus is hard); on the other hand, there are two Greek writers
named Archytas (hard c). There's also Archidamas from WT and Cymbeline
which imply that a hard c before i would be spelled in Shakespeare with
an h.  Chaucer with his French influence must have meant it soft as in
Marc Arcis, a French sculptor of the 17th c.

Clifford Stetner
CUNY
http://phoenixandturtle.net

_______________________________________________________________
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: First Post Syndrome

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1875  Tuesday, 10 September 2002

[1]     From:   D. Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 09:36:16 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1857 First Post Syndrome

[2]     From:   Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, September 10, 2002
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1857 First Post Syndrome


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D. Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 09:36:16 -0500
Subject: 13.1857 First Post Syndrome
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1857 First Post Syndrome

Jonathan Hope writes:

>Don't worry - Hardy has several aliases he uses now and again to post
>Really Stupid Things so that the rest of us feel better.  And one of
>them is
>
>Jonathan Hope
>Strathclyde University, Glasgow

Good God! You mean some things I believe in may not be true? That there
is no clear boundary between illusion and reality? Oh, dear! Perhaps we
could ask that everyone prove that they exist and that they wrote what
they wrote.  No, it would never work. We'd never be sure that we weren't
simply creations of the Mind of Hardy.

When Robin suggested that the ghost in *Hamlet* could be generated by a
computer message / program created by the king before his murder, was he
hinting at something that had Already Happened to us? Have our lives
been taken over (one year after 2001) by a giant computer called
HARDY??? How can we be sure that the plays, allegedly written by an
insignificant actor, weren't actually written by HARDY just to provide
us with an illusion of meaningfulness?

And, if so, do I still have to grade all these @#$%^& Comp and Lit
papers sitting on my desk?

don

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, September 10, 2002
Subject: 13.1857 First Post Syndrome
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1857 First Post Syndrome

Now, there I go.

Using my Don Bloom alias, I have like the Wizard of Oz revealed all of
my secrets. Yes, I, Hardy M. Cook editor of SHAKSPER, am a BOT, an
artificial intelligence computer program that brings close to 1,400
members from 53 countries daily doses (to some overdoses) of
Shakespeareana.

I must confess, however, that not being a very gregarious or sociable
program, I have since my return from my virtual visit to the UK been
having a difficult time writing an adequate share of daily chatty
postings for the entertainment of members of the list and to keep me
occupied with my editing and formatting chores for the requisite number
of hours per day.

As John Cox, I nearly exposed myself earlier today by suggesting that I
was so pressed of late that I have been reinventing the wheel in too
many of my effusions.

My internal processes have informed Eric Luhrs, webmaster
extraordinaire, to reprogram me so that my future posts are more focused
on matters of substance and less so on my pressing need to have myself
appear before you in my most familiar guises.

Virtually yours,
Hardy, the BOT, Cook

PS: Jonathan and Don, thanks for the laughs; they have been very
therapeutic.

_______________________________________________________________
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 Webpage <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: "Blackboard"- Enhanced Course

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1876  Wednesday, 11 September 2002

[1]     From:   Alberto Cacicedo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 11:06:54 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1867 "Blackboard"- Enhanced Course

[2]     From:   Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 11:12:58 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1867 "Blackboard"- Enhanced Course

[3]     From:   Annalisa Castaldo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 11:27:53 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1867 "Blackboard"- Enhanced Course

[4]     From:   Victor Reed <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 16:22:05 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1867 "Blackboard"- Enhanced Course

[5]     From:   Walter Cannon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 22:12:43 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 13.1867 "Blackboard"- Enhanced Course


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Alberto Cacicedo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 11:06:54 -0400
Subject: 13.1867 "Blackboard"- Enhanced Course
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1867 "Blackboard"- Enhanced Course

I've been running web-enhanced discussions for courses, both with my own
and with Blackboard's protocols, for about seven years. So far, this is
what I've discovered about using the discussion board in Blackboard:

1)  Don't depend on the students to come up with ideas for discussions
on their own.  Begin the discussion with something provocative and then
intervene from time to time with further provocation.  I make an effort
not to be the "authority" on those discussions, except when someone asks
a direct question.

2)  Make the discussions count for something in the final grade for the
course.  It doesn't have to be a terribly large component of the final
grade, but students like the idea that what they think and say "counts."

3)  Sometimes I use the group function on Blackboard, and make a group
responsible for keeping the discussion going in regard to a particular
play or issue.  The danger with this approach is that other students may
think that they are off the hook (to stop which, see # 2).

4)  The Blackboard site allows you easy email communication with
everyone in the class, without your having to type in the addresses of
all the students one at a time.  Make sure that the students have
amended their profiles so that the email they really use is what shows
up on the Blackboard site.  If your school is like mine, the site
administrator simply plugs in the .edu eddress, which often students do
not use at all.

Have fun.  It's refreshing sometimes to see the students going at it on
their own!

Alberto Cacicedo
Albright College

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 11:12:58 -0400
Subject: 13.1867 "Blackboard"- Enhanced Course
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1867 "Blackboard"- Enhanced Course

>Edna Z. Boris writes;

>Some aspects of the Blackboard enhancement are easy: posting course
>documents and links to internet addresses.
>
>What I would like guidance on is how best to use the discussion board
>feature.  Does anyone have any experience with that?  What kinds of
>rules facilitate discussion?  What kinds of questions work well in such
>a medium?

I have not tried this medium, but I understand it is very time consuming
and often very difficult to facilitate.  Most people I know have gone to
asynchronous postings (like SHAKSPER) rather than synchronous
discussions.  Grading can then be done on the number of posts (you can
assign a number) and their quality (even the length of a post might be
part of the assignment) and the number per day or week or whatever time
frame you have.  The more explicit the assignment, the more successful
it will probably be.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Annalisa Castaldo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 11:27:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 13.1867 "Blackboard"- Enhanced Course
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1867 "Blackboard"- Enhanced Course

I've used Blackboard for several years. I find the discussion aspect
really depends on the students' willingness to use it. Usually I begin
by posting what I hope are thought provoking questions on the first play
and asking students to respond. As the semester progresses, the students
start to post questions to and answer each other. But if I don't start
things off, nothing ever happens.

I always use fairly open ended questions because I certainly don't want
the discussion board to turn into a kind of on line quiz. So instead of
asking "Why does Oberon want to torture Titania?" I'd ask "Is tricking
Titania into falling in love with something horrible a way to get the
changeling boy? Why would Oberon want to do this? How does this relate
to the behavior of the other lovers?"

Annalisa Castaldo

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Victor Reed <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 16:22:05 +0000
Subject: 13.1867 "Blackboard"- Enhanced Course
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1867 "Blackboard"- Enhanced Course

I have had some experience with using the Blackboard program as a member
of a mathematics class.  I cannot say that the program worked well for
most members of the class, but I liked it -- with reservations.  The
Discussion Board feature was one of the best and easiest parts of the
system.  Students and instructors got to post their comments one after
another, and eventually the whole thing worked as a kind of thoughtful
chatroom.  The chatroom feature itself, however, was an absolute bomb.
Almost no one managed to meet someone on his own level at any given
time.  I will be fascinated to see how it works out in a Shakespeare
course.

Victor Reed--<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Walter Cannon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Sep 2002 22:12:43 -0500
Subject: 13.1867 "Blackboard"- Enhanced Course
Comment:        RE: SHK 13.1867 "Blackboard"- Enhanced Course

I've used the Blackboard platform for teaching Shakespeare but mostly
because it allowed me to voice stream audio recordings of the plays to
the students' computer sound systems.  This seemed less cumbersome than
having them use cassette tapes or even CDs.

I am afraid that this new technology (which seems designed for "distance
learning") does in fact increase the distance between me and my
students. Perhaps I'm just ham-handed in my use of it, but it hasn't
really made my classroom more lively.  I'll keep at it a little while
longer though.

Good luck Edna.

Walter Cannon

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Tying up a Loose End: Plagiarism Revisited

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1874  Tuesday, 10 September 2002

From:           Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 9 Sep 2002 13:35:54 -0700
Subject:        Tying up a Loose End: Plagiarism Revisited

This is offtopic but by our Moderator's leave I would like to tie up a
loose end, the plagiarism thread of a few months ago.  It seemed as if
conversation between a teacher and student over possible plagiarism
would escalate in one step to being did-not, did-so.  In another list
(Digital-Copyright, at UMUC) I found the University of North
Carolina-Charlotte's policy, which outlines an intermediate step that is
also a practical solution:

Here is the policy for the use of Turnitin.com at the University of
North Carolina-Charlotte
(http://www.uncc.edu/unccatty/syllabus.html#plagiarism):

If you plan to use Turnitin.com [or another plagiarism detection
program] in your class:  As a condition of taking this course, all
required papers may be subject to submission for textual similarity
review to Turnitin.com for the detection of plagiarism.  All submitted
papers will be included as source documents in the Turnitin.com
reference database solely for the purpose of detecting plagiarism of
such papers.  No student papers will be submitted to Turnitin.com
without a student's written consent...and permission.  If a student does
not provide such written consent and permission, the instructor may: (i)
require a short reflection paper on research methodology; (ii) require a
draft bibliography prior to submission of the final paper; or (iii)
require the cover page and first cited page of each reference source to
be photocopied and submitted with the final paper.

-----
I like this approach because it can save face, head off noisy judicial
proceedings, and add educational value, and it allows the teacher to
stay in control of things.

Al Magary

_______________________________________________________________
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.