2003

Re: Deconstruction

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1443  Thursday, 17 July 2003

[1]     From:   Sally Drumm <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 11 Jul 2003 09:40:57 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1425 Re: Deconstruction

[2]     From:   D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 11 Jul 2003 11:35:23 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1393 Re: Deconstruction


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sally Drumm <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 11 Jul 2003 09:40:57 -0400
Subject: 14.1425 Re: Deconstruction
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1425 Re: Deconstruction

>Regarding "experience doesn't exist without words":

We think in images; words border image the way shape borders color.

Sincerely,
Sally Drumm

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 11 Jul 2003 11:35:23 -0500
Subject: 14.1393 Re: Deconstruction
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1393 Re: Deconstruction

>From:           Terence Hawkes
>
>'Experience' does not hang, unsupported and free-floating, in mid-air.
>'Pain' 'remorse' or 'hunger' do not waft through empty rooms, looking
>for victims on whom to alight. People have experiences. People feel
>pain, remorse, hunger etc. If there were no people, how could these
>'experiences' take place? Since all human beings normally have their
>being within societies or communities, they can only occur within and as
>part of cultures, languages, ways of life, and the histories which
>embrace them all. Whoever bumps into a large oak branch whilst mowing
>the lawn does so as a member of a specific culture at a particular time
>and in a material place. The extent to which those factors may modify or
>create the experience, or the language it generates, or is generated by,
>can clearly be a matter for debate. But there can be and is no possible
>appeal to an essential 'experience itself' that lies beyond them.

I was still puzzled by this until I went back to Martin Steward's
original statement and my response. To wit:

>>Deconstruction is only about language and not about "reality", except
>>insofar as its practitioners generally hold the epistemological position
>>that the world is experienced exclusively through language.

>I'm finding some difficulty working this out. How do you experience the
>world through language? At all, much less "exclusively"?

>I experience other people's experiences through their use of language
>(some poetical, some not). I can express my experience of the world
>through my use of language. But the experience itself is handled other
>where.

I remarked at one point that we seemed to be talking about different
meanings of the word experience, but it turns out we were using
different meanings of the word "language." This appears to be a
synecdoche for individual consciousness, whereas I thought of it merely
as words, word, words. I would perhaps suggest a deconstructive
construction like "meta-language" to clarify the difference -- but let
it pass.

Cheers,
don

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Bowling for the Globe

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1442  Friday, 11 July 2003

From:           Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 11 Jul 2003 10:41:06 +0000
Subject:        Bowling for the Globe

Hardy's remark about a 1993 SHAKSPER thread on the Globe and Sam
Wanamaker led me to read it.

Interestingly the current debate on Bankside involves the pros and cons
for building (another) block of (unaffordable) flats close to the site
of the present Globe. Ordinary mortals, it appears, don't get sufficient
remuneration to be able to afford the mortgages. Nor indeed the price of
a ticket in the central lower gallery. But that applies throughout the
UK.  However the area now - a decade on - looks immeasurably more lively
and prosperous compared to what it was. To paraphrase Max Boyce, "I
know, 'cos I used to be there". The Tate Modern and a number of other
variables make assessment difficult but it is hard not to conclude that
the construction of the Globe has brought a measure of prosperity and
life to someone. And the someone includes shopkeepers, street artists,
ice-cream sellers, publicans, taxi drivers, and waiters as well as
property developers and a variety of franchised coffee parlours that
bring a new dimension to the term "mugging".  Street sweepers were not
so much in evidence; possibly they are unable to get a look in due to
the thronged pavements and parked Porches on the South Bank. Beggars,
winos, social misfits, tattooed itinerants, parking wardens and actors
can still be seen there of course but they appear to be a better class
of person than they once were. Most of the buskers, for example,
comprise four-piece string quartets.

So, all in all, "play it Sam". And play it again.

Graham Hall

_______________________________________________________________
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: Deconstruction

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1440  Friday, 11 July 2003

From:           Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 10 Jul 2003 21:30:53 -0400
Subject: 14.1425 Re: Deconstruction
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1425 Re: Deconstruction

>' . . .the statement I found quite insane, which was that experience
>doesn't exist without words, or something of that nature'.
>
>But in your posting dated 1 Jul 2003 ( SHK 14.1335) you quote my  'There
>is no 'experience itself' '' and then immediately begin "This seems
>quite insane to me."

>T. Hawkes

Okay.  I guess I see what you mean.  But what I said after "This seems
quite insane to me" included examples of "experience itself."  In my
opinion.  But I'll admit to not being able to keep up with these
word-games, so will withdraw from further comment.

--Bob G.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Middleton in Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1441  Friday, 11 July 2003

From:           Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 11 Jul 2003 00:59:26 EDT
Subject:        Middleton in Shakespeare

I've seen references to a theory associated with the forthcoming Oxford
Middleton to the effect that Measure for Measure originally had a
Mediterranean setting and that when he revised it Thomas Middleton moved
the action to Vienna. Does anyone know if any papers or articles have
been published about this?

For that matter, does anyone know when the Oxford Middleton will be
available for purchase? I've visited the website, where one can find
long lists of titles, contributors and playing companies, but no
information on how soon we can expect the book.

Thanks,
Bill Lloyd

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Nothing Boaring

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1439  Friday, 11 July 2003

From:           Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 10 Jul 2003 21:38:22 +0000
Subject:        Nothing Boaring

The girls play with Dick at the Globe and do it excellently. Kathryn
Hunter scuttles over the stage in a series of contorted freeze-frames
and angular dislocations reminiscent of Steamboat Willie sketches before
smooth out.  She delivers her lines with a sardonic overtone and timbre
that bores through the Wooden O and rejuvenates the grain. Her facial
expressions launch a thousand unspoken quips. Dialogue and plot are
essentially untouched and staging/setting has the good solid feel of
conventional expectation. Richmond, tall, blond, wholesome and good
looking, is a cross between Dan Dare and Biggles - which is a phenomenal
achievement for a lady and perfect for the character. This production is
a seriously entertaining couple of hours with a large number of laughs
(Richard bashing one of the precocious princes got a well-deserved
cheer, for example) and unexpected spot-on business that supplements and
compliments the text. There's a need to give this Women's Company - all
of whom gave sterling turns - equal runs with the all-male gang. And
just for balance how about The Shrew with Rylance and Hunter?  That
could fizz along. The Globe just got a little better thanks to the
Richards.

Best,
Graham Hall

_______________________________________________________________
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.