June
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1080 Wednesday, 4 June 2003 From: David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 2003 21:43:04 -0400 Subject: 14.1063 Re: Hamlet and Belleforest Comment: Re: SHK 14.1063 Re: Hamlet and Belleforest >Nor does Polonius sending money mean that Laertes has driven himself to >bankruptcy, Quite apart from my own experience as college student and parent of college students (3 of them), I have a very clear sense from many other imaginary and actual world experiences that young people away from home for extended periods, in many cultures, pretty routinely call or wire home for money above and beyond their grubstake or monthly allowance. You can't be bankrupt until you have some assets of your own from which creditors need to be forfended; must folks of the Laertes type haven't got there yet. Poorly, Dave 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1079 Wednesday, 4 June 2003 From: Jay Feldman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 2003 17:39:07 EDT Subject: 14.1026 Re: Actors v Scholars Comment: Re: SHK 14.1026 Re: Actors v Scholars Ed Taft asks: >Without doubt. But what I don't understand is: How can an actor >play the part of a character who is MORE intelligent than the actor >him- or herself? I regularly act more intelligent than I am and my friends consistently act as if they believe it. Their ability to convince me of my acting skill assures me of their superior intelligence, hence we are friends. None of us are professional actors nor do we rely on a prepared scripts, our interaction seems to come naturally. It is only on rare occasions, after a few too many beers for example, that the truth may slip free, but we rationalize that the alcohol has made us stupid. Jay Feldman _______________________________________________________________ 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 14.1078 Wednesday, 4 June 2003 [1] From: Michael Shurgot <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 2003 11:29:42 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 14.1055 Re: Edmund [2] From: John-Paul Spiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 03 Jun 2003 15:28:36 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 14.1055 Re: Edmund [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Shurgot <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 2003 11:29:42 -0700 Subject: 14.1055 Re: Edmund Comment: RE: SHK 14.1055 Re: Edmund Dear Colleagues: Edmund Taft writes of Edmund just before he dies: "I happen to think his show of goodness is genuine, and here's why. Just before Edmund decides that he means to do some good, he says: Yet Edmund was beloved. The one the other poisoned for my sake And after slew herself. (5.3.244-46) He is referring, of course, to Regan and Goneril. This is the first time in Edmund's life that he feels truly loved, and the feeling transforms him into the person he would have been, had his father shown him real love." But, how can we possibly know that at this moment in a play, created by an author, a character is experiencing love for the first time? We know nothing of Edmund other than what the play tells us, and the play tells us only that he is a bastard who is not welcomed by his father. We must deal with the black marks on the white page, and none of these marks tell us anything about an imagined life before the play, other than his relationship with his father. We cannot argue about what we do not know, about what does not exist as part of what the author has told us about his/her characters. A character is not a somebody who walks into our house one day with 25+ years of having actually lived on this planet while experiencing "life," which in his/her particular life may or may not have included being loved. Kind regards, Michael Shurgot [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John-Paul Spiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 03 Jun 2003 15:28:36 -0400 Subject: 14.1055 Re: Edmund Comment: Re: SHK 14.1055 Re: Edmund Edmund Taft writes, >I happen to think his show of goodness is genuine, and here's why. Just >before Edmund decides that he means to do some good, he says: > > Yet Edmund was beloved. > The one the other poisoned for my sake > And after slew herself. (5.3.244-46) > >He is referring, of course, to Regan and Goneril. This is the first time >in Edmund's life that he feels truly loved, and the feeling transforms >him into the person he would have been, had his father shown him real >love. The actor playing Edmund (to answer another of your questions)), >needs to begin crying with the earlier lines, "I was contracted to them >both . . . ." and continue his tears through line 260 -- that will get >across to the audience what is actually happening. Edmund's discovery of "being loved" comes from seeing two people kill each other for him. If this is love, it is only exhibited through annihilation and competition, which are the only things Edmund understands. He thinks that willingness to kill and die are the only ways of expressing love. Mr. Taft continues, >In my view, both Edmund and Edgar (Ed and Ed) are similarly motivated by >rage against the father, Gloucester. Neither fully acknowledges his >motivation, but Edmund comes a lot closer to doing so than Edgar, who >has to hide his anger under pious commonplaces and nostrums. There are >two keys to Edgar: (1) his actions toward his father (as opposed to his >words), and his name, Edgar, which contains the word _rage_. The rage is >directed toward the letter that is left out, d, for Dad. So the key to understanding Edmund is to see that he is "dumned," which is a combination of "damned" and "dumb." He is also "numded" or "denumd," unabled to feel. He uses language to "mudden" or "enmudd" others' meaning, ultimately so he can "un-medd," that is, destroy his own identity ("un-me") and counteract the palliative, redemptive power of Cordelia's tears ("un-med"). John-Paul Spiro CUNY Graduate Center _______________________________________________________________ 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 14.1077 Wednesday, 4 June 2003 From: Jeffrey Myers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 2003 13:53:42 -0400 Subject: 14.1062 Re: Hirsh and "To Be" Comment: RE: SHK 14.1062 Re: Hirsh and "To Be" >At the risk of being dumped into the bin marked "realist," I >would like to point out that if Hamlet is pretending to be >mad (and he says he intends to do this, and persuades the >court that he is, and does a lot of goofy stuff), he has to >be pretending every public moment. If he's moving through the >castle towards some kind of meeting with the king, he cannot >assume that he's not being spied upon. Might I further point out that Claudius's "we have closely sent for Hamlet hither" does not necessarily mean that Hamlet believes he is on his way to a meeting with Claudius. "Closely sent" might mean that Claudius has hidden the fact that he himself has sent for Hamlet, who might have been summoned to the scene on a completely different pretext, as I think likely. Jeff Myers _______________________________________________________________ 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 14.1076 Wednesday, 4 June 2003 From: Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 2003 13:19:34 -0400 Subject: Re: Hamlet and Grebanier Comment: SHK 14.1064 Re: Hamlet and Grebanier What Bill Arnold fails to grasp is that however strong our resolve to 'stick with the text, and deal with it contextually' (whatever that means), there is absolutely no chance that we will be able, as a result, to come into contact with 'the play Will Shakespeare wrote'. The past, and its art, are just not available to us in those simple terms. Indeed, for all his scorn concerning what he misleadingly calls 'some schools of New Criticism', his insistent reduction of 'Hamlet' to a kind of Ibsen-and-water study of the Prince's 'character' and motivation strikes me as decidedly modern. Perhaps the truth is that Bill Arnold, to say nothing of poor Grebanier, is some sort of presentist. Like everyone. T. Hawkes _______________________________________________________________ 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.