Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: September ::
Determined to Be a Villain
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1813  Thursday, 18 September 2003

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 17 Sep 2003 09:50:04 -0700
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.1802 Determined to Be a Villain

[2]     From:   Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Sep 2003 09:26:02 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.1802 Determined to Be a Villain


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 17 Sep 2003 09:50:04 -0700
Subject: 14.1802 Determined to Be a Villain
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.1802 Determined to Be a Villain

I enjoyed Clifford Stetner's note on how existential and deterministic
readings of Richard's character occasionally run together.  The
following, though, suggests a response:

It would be interesting to know, incidentally, why "to be determined"
and "to be resolved" are used as passive verbs when "to determine" and
"to resolve" are available.

The obvious answer, IMHO, is that the passive form sounds better because
it scans better.

Yours,
Sean.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 18 Sep 2003 09:26:02 +0100
Subject: 14.1802 Determined to Be a Villain
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.1802 Determined to Be a Villain

Dear All,

Just a quick note on what is a side issue to this thread -

Clifford rightly points out the textual and philosophical connection
between 3HVI and Richard III and the way in which the character of
Richard III is developed, however his comment that:

Henry VI is, of course, the later play.

is a blase way of side stepping the chronological debates about the
textual histories of both plays.

To me it is important that Shakespearean scholars if they wish to use
textual history as a part of a larger aesthetic / philosophical or
historical argument / debate should be careful over their known textual
'facts'. That is, there is NO clear evidence that I know of which
indicates that 3HVI is a later play than Richard III. If there is I
would like to know where it is to be found. (And until it is brought
forward we could remove any *of courses* from the argument).

All the best,
Marcus 'Nashe didn't write 1HVI and I can prove it' Dahl

_______________________________________________________________
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.