2004

Shakespeare Humourous Novel

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1840  Wednesday, 6 October 2004

[1]     From:   D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 Oct 2004 07:44:16 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1819 Shakespeare Humourous Novel

[2]     From:   Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 Oct 2004 12:27:26 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1819 Shakespeare Humourous Novel


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Oct 2004 07:44:16 -0500
Subject: 15.1819 Shakespeare Humourous Novel
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1819 Shakespeare Humourous Novel

As long as we're selling things, I have a used pick-up truck that I'd
like to bring to everyone's attention. It's called Polonius and most of
the rust has been covered with spray paint. The engine and transmission
are in equally excellent condition, and the upholstery is fine as long
as you're careful where you sit.

You can see it if you go to e-bay and search for "Polonius" under the
Worthless Trash heading.

Cheers,
don

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Oct 2004 12:27:26 -0700
Subject: 15.1819 Shakespeare Humourous Novel
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1819 Shakespeare Humourous Novel

It didn't find Shakespeare, but when I came across "hot, humid, damp
evening," I knew for certain it was my man Edward Hall back from the dead.

Cheers,
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.

Modified Procedures

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1839  Wednesday, 6 October 2004

[1]     From:   Stuart Hampton-Reeves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 05 Oct 2004 18:06:31 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1827 Modified Procedures

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 05 Oct 2004 15:30:20 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1827 Modified Procedures

[3]     From:   Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 Oct 2004 17:47:19 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1827 Modified Procedures

[4]     From:   Stephen Dobbin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 6 Oct 2004 09:26:53 +0100 (BST)
        Subj:   Current U.S. Francophobia


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stuart Hampton-Reeves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 05 Oct 2004 18:06:31 +0100
Subject: 15.1827 Modified Procedures
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1827 Modified Procedures

I must reply briefly to Bill Arnold. I never accused Charles of libel or
anything else. I hope it was clear that my remarks were about general
issues raised by the recent discussion, prefaced as they were with the
phrase  'whether the comments are libellous or not.' Strangely, I made
few of the points that Bill has taken the trouble to so wittily rebut.

Monsieur Stuart

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 05 Oct 2004 15:30:20 -0400
Subject: 15.1827 Modified Procedures
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1827 Modified Procedures

Enough already about libel law.  Bill Arnold's impressions are overly
simplistic and, therefore, inaccurate.

What Chas Weinstein wrote were expressions of opinion, not assertions of
fact.  Therefore, under both US and (I believe) UK law, they cannot be
defamatory.  In addition, as Russell Beale is a public figure, any
statement about him is privileged in US law (even false assertions of
fact) unless it is made with actual knowledge that it is false or with
reckless disregard for whether it is true or not.

Let's stop this.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Oct 2004 17:47:19 -0400
Subject: 15.1827 Modified Procedures
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1827 Modified Procedures

It is neither clear, consistent, nor comprehensive, but elaboration will
have to wait.

--Charles Weinstein

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephen Dobbin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 6 Oct 2004 09:26:53 +0100 (BST)
Subject:        Current U.S. Francophobia

Bill Arnold gives us a very precise summary of U.S. libel issues. But
why on earth does he dub Stuart Hampton-Reeves "Monsieur."?

Is this simply a crude extension of the current Republican post-Iraq
idea that you can slur John Kerry by linking him to the French? (He
looks French, which is suspicious. He speaks French, which is weird. He
once vacationed in France, which is unpatriotic. He must be just waiting
to hand our foreign policy over to the French)

Or - in defiance of the maxim that war is God's way of teaching
Americans geography - does Bill Arnold imagine that Stuart
Hampton-Reeves is a typical French name and the University of Central
Lancashire is just south of Paris?

If Lafayette were alive today he'd be turning in his grave!

Stephen.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Twilight of the Gods

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1837  Wednesday, 6 October 2004

From:           Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Oct 2004 18:23:27 -0400
Subject: 15.1823 Twilight of the Gods
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1823 Twilight of the Gods

Brian Willis writes:

 >"Although Charles quotes a certain selection from Ian Holm's
 >autobiography, seemingly placing Olivier on a pedestal as physical and
 >vocal perfection for actors everywhere, it is an incomplete image. I met
 >Ian Holm last week when he signed his book in Stratford. He did indeed
 >discuss Olivier. He also discussed his later disenchantment with Olivier
 >and the egotism of his acting. Although I'm sure that this first
 >enlightenment of his vocation was truly an epiphany, in a later section
 >(as he reiterated in person), he discussed his hero worship with Alec
 >Guinness who shared it. They both had fallen a little out of love with
 >Olivier, who could betray moments of flashiness and self-involvement.
 >Although I appreciate and enjoy a majority of Olivier's work, I find it
 >intriguing that two of the great chameleon actors of our time could move
 >away from his example towards a subtler form of acting."

In his book, Holm recounts his dinner with Guinness and reports the
latter's reservations about Olivier., viz., that he sometimes distorted
meaning for effect.  Holm then writes:

"I could see what he was saying--Olivier was, after all, a magnificent
show-off, occasionally wringing impressions from the text that
emphasized his own virtuosity rather than being based on any interpretation.

'I see what you mean,' I replied with characteristic non-commitment,
though seeing what Guinness meant didn't necessarily imply that I agreed
with him, and I think he sensed that.  I could forgive Olivier for his
moments of operatic whimsy, especially as they seemed to be a part of
the way he functioned as an actor, a sort of flamboyant preface for
something irresistible which might be just around the corner."

I have no idea what Holm said to Mr. Willis in person, but the above
does not strike me as a palinode.  And with all due respect and
admiration for both of them, it is hardly irrelevant to note that
Guinness never achieved greatness in Shakespeare, and that Holm has not
come close to rivaling Olivier (as I suspect Holm himself would be the
first to admit).

--Charles Weinstein

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Question on Measure for Measure

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1838  Wednesday, 6 October 2004

[1]     From:   Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 Oct 2004 13:37:26 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1825 Question on Measure for Measure

[2]     From:   Sarah Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 05 Oct 2004 08:15:50 -0700
        Subj:   Question on Measure for Measure / Millihelens


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Oct 2004 13:37:26 +0100
Subject: 15.1825 Question on Measure for Measure
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1825 Question on Measure for Measure

David Evett writes ...

 >I believe that's a microhelen.  Millihelens darken the entire Aegean
 >with ships.

I think you mean kilohelens.  A millihelen (helen times ten to the minus
three) is a unit of beauty sufficient to launch one ship.  A microhelen
(times ten to the minus six) would be sufficient to launch part of a
plank, i.e. a total minger.

Peter Bridgman

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sarah Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 05 Oct 2004 08:15:50 -0700
Subject:        Question on Measure for Measure / Millihelens

A millihelen is one thousanth of a helen, the quantity of beauty
required to launch a single ship. To darken the Aegean with ships would
probably take a thousand helens, or a kilohelen. A microhelen is a
millionth of a helen, which would launch driftwood. [Think of
millimeters, kilometers, and micrometers.]

Juliet's rating is at least one millihelen. Her beauty is sufficient to
launch one ship, steered by Romeo:

  I am no pilot, yet wert thou as far
  As that vast shore wash'd with the farthest sea,
  I should adventure for such merchandise.

Sarah Cohen

_______________________________________________________________
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.

John Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1836  Wednesday, 6 October 2004

From:           Dennis Taylor <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Oct 2004 14:53:43 -0400
Subject: 15.1812 John Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1812 John Shakespeare

 >I think the reason there has been no "full-scale biography" of John
 >Shakespeare or John Heminges is that there is simply not enough material
 >from which to construct one. A chapter or an article, yes; a full-scale
 >biography, no.
 >
 >For John Heminges [and a number of other early modern theatre people of
 >significance] see the newly published Oxford Dictionary of National
 >Biography, now [or soon to be] available at your library [or to very
 >rich people], or by subscription on-line.
 >
 >Bill Lloyd

Actually there may be more biographical (as opposed to theatrical)
details available about John than about his son (about whom hundreds of
biographies have been written). If you do a "John Shakespeare" search in
the "Shakespeare and Religion Chronology"

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/relarts/shakespeare/shakespeare.html

you will pull up many details, each of which needs to be imbedded in the
complex contexts of the time.

I understand that Professor Bearman is soon to publish a biographical
article on John in the Shakespeare Quarterly

Best
Dennis T

_______________________________________________________________
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.