Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: February ::
Re: Reviews
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0303  Monday, 17 February 2003

[1]     From:   Ruth Ross <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 14 Feb 2003 09:48:14 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.0278 Reviews

[2]     From:   David Lindley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 14 Feb 2003 15:55:38 GMT0BST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0278 Reviews

[3]     From:   Graham Hall <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 14 Feb 2003 16:23:43 +0000
        Subj:   The oldest profession

[4]     From:   Claude Caspar <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 14 Feb 2003 15:03:31 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0278 Reviews

[5]     From:   Ted Dykstra <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 16 Feb 2003 16:45:41 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0278 Reviews


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ruth Ross <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 14 Feb 2003 09:48:14 -0500
Subject: 14.0278 Reviews
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.0278 Reviews

Am I the only subscriber who is tired of the sniping between Mike Jensen
and Charles Weinstein? Can't these two guys take their differences to a
private place and duke it out. It's boring, annoying, and juvenile, to
say the least.

Ruth Ross

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Lindley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 14 Feb 2003 15:55:38 GMT0BST
Subject: 14.0278 Reviews
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0278 Reviews

>I have never decried the practice of reviewing Shakespearean
>productions.  I don't even mind if
>academics do it, though they can hardly bear comparison with
>professional reviewers.

One knock perhaps justifies another - but my own experience of reading a
great many reviewers of Tempests is that with a few notable exceptions
the best, most informative and balanced reviews tended to come precisely
from the academics Mr Weinstein derides - Peter Holland, Russell Jackson
and Robert Smallwood, to name but three.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Graham Hall <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 14 Feb 2003 16:23:43 +0000
Subject:        The oldest profession

Assuming that Charles Weinstein is not pursuing a course of facetious
provocation in his remarks about academics and professional reviewers
(14.0278) - and I courteously assume that he does indeed hold
interesting opinion on the topic - it would be useful if he were to
expand upon his position. I am uncertain how he differentiates between
professional and academic in the case of, to pick an example for no
other reason than it is but an example (if I may take the liberty and be
forgiven for doing so) Robert Smallwood (and folk of his ilk). Such as
he, and many like him, appear to fall into both camps I would have
thought. What qualities and training make a reviewer "professional" ?
How do the approaches differ?  Are they comparable? I can think of
numerous aspects to this conundrum and a thousand questions and answers
come to mind about which I (genuinely) seek enlightenment.

Best wishes,
Graham Hall

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Claude Caspar <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 14 Feb 2003 15:03:31 -0500
Subject: 14.0278 Reviews
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0278 Reviews

I have to wonder what's really going on here, though I suspect the
worst. Are you saying that you don't think someone like Harry Berger,
Jr.'s comments would be up to par?  If he is unknown to you that might
be part of the problem.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ted Dykstra <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 16 Feb 2003 16:45:41 EST
Subject: 14.0278 Reviews
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0278 Reviews

>I don't even mind if
>academics do it, though they can hardly bear comparison with
>professional reviewers.

In my experience the only difference between "professional" reviewers
and anyone else who cares deeply about the theatre is that they are,
miraculously, paid for their opinions. I suppose that makes them more
fortunate, but certainly not more qualified.

Ted Dykstra

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail 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.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.