2004

Popular Culture: Fan Fiction

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1394  Wednesday, 7 July 2004

From:           Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 7 Jul 2004 02:07:01 -0400
Subject:        Popular Culture: Fan Fiction

On the lighter side, came across this from a favorite fanfic author:

"You make quite the Lady Macbeth."

"Don't be ridiculous I could never be Lady Macbeth, I would have worn
gloves."

_______________________________________________________________
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 Fairly OddParents - Odd Jobs / Movie Magic

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1393  Wednesday, 7 July 2004

From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 6 Jul 2004 20:08:13 -0400
Subject:        The Fairly OddParents - Odd Jobs / Movie Magic

Arnold Schwarzenegger's parodic Hamlet in John McTiernan's Last Action
Hero is parodied in an episode of Fairly Oddparents.  Here, Arnold
Schwartzengerman does "To be or not to be" for a film Timmy is making.
Sylvester Stylone is also parodied.

The Fairly OddParents - Odd Jobs / Movie Magic
Episode Number    27
First Aired    January 27, 2003

Guest Stars: Kevin Michael Richardson (as Arnold Schwartzengerman) Dee
Bradley Baker (as Sanjay / Elmer) Grey Delisle (as Chad) Gary Leroi Gray
(as A.J.)

_______________________________________________________________
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.

M for M at The Globe

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1391  Tuesday, 6 July 2004

From:           Thomas Larque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 5 Jul 2004 18:06:29 +0100
Subject: 15.1385 M for M at The Globe
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1385 M for M at The Globe

 >The Guardian review dated Friday 02.07.04 is damning, Lyn Gardner calls
 >it three hours of being patronised, M for M for kiddies. Really acerbic,
 >thumbs-down stuff for Rylance and Co.

An interesting contrast to the "Guardian" review that Stuart mentions is
Liz Hoggard's "Observer" review for the same newspaper group (the
"Observer" is a Sunday paper; the "Guardian" runs weekdays and Saturdays).

Hoggard sees the Globe production as "very funny", "satisfying[...]",
and celebrates the appearance of a "new star" in the form of Liam
Brennan as Angelo "in a Renaissance parody of stand-up.  We may be
appalled, but we can't help but laugh with him".

She sees the only shortcomings of the play as its lack of the political
depth of the National production, the miscasting of Mark Rylance as the
Duke, and an apparently unsexy "schoolmarmish" Isabella (Sophie
Thompson) that Hoggard cannot imagine anyone having dirty thoughts
about.  Interestingly, Gardner in the "Guardian" saw Rylance and
Thompson (the actors, rather than their characters or performances) as
the only redeeming feature of the production, while Hoggard sees their
performances as the major fault within it.

Anybody wishing to see these reviews for themselves can read them at the
following web addresses:

For the "Guardian" review, see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/reviews/story/0,11712,1252271,00.html

For the "Observer" review, see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/reviews/observer/story/0,14467,1253285,00.html

Thomas Larque.

"Shakespeare and His Critics"       "British Shakespeare Association"
http://shakespearean.org.uk           http://britishshakespeare.ws

_______________________________________________________________
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.

CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1392  Tuesday, 6 July 2004

[1]     From:   Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 5 Jul 2004 06:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1387 CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada

[2]     From:   Pat Dolan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 5 Jul 2004 09:24:07 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1387 CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada

[3]     From:   Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 5 Jul 2004 10:34:24 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1387 CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada

[4]     From:   Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 6 Jul 2004 00:12:58 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1380 CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 5 Jul 2004 06:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 15.1387 CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1387 CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada

Larry Weiss writes, "I find myself in the odd position (for me) of
agreeing wholeheartedly with Bill Arnold and disagreeing with T. Hawkes,
who said: Why do some of our colleagues assume that 'clarity' in
language is a free-floating, essential and transhistorical quality? ...
Its avid pursuit is usually the last resort of fools and scoundrels."

OK: that was *wise* of you to admit, Monsieur Weiss!  And I take
compliments anyway I can get them, even if they are back-handed.  And
now that you have joined the ranks of agreeing with a lucid professor of
English, you should no longer have to feel *odd* at all.  We are Alice
in Wonderland, here on SHAKSPER.  As you recall, it was *only* Alice in
Wonderland who was *lucid* while others were *obscure*!  The more
appropriate adjective for you to attach to yourself among professor of
lucid English would be *lucid* with all its proper lexical meanings.  It
is as simple as that, lucid speaks, lexically.  Socio-psycho-babble
comes from the bastions of socio-psychology which has a dearth of
meaning to express about dry facts they mangle with their bizarre prose
and I could never appreciate their gobbledygook, and never shall.  It is
*not* lucid!

Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Pat Dolan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 5 Jul 2004 09:24:07 -0500
Subject: 15.1387 CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1387 CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada

Hey folks,

Terence Hawkes did not say that "clarity is bad business." What he
implied was that "clear" frequently means, "sounds like me and people
like me," and "opaque" frequently means, "We don't need to think about
it." Clarity has its place, but it's not the only value out there, even
in non-fiction prose. Hawkes asked a perfectly reasonable question, it
seems to me.

Which leads us to a Shakespearean pedagogical question: When your
students whine that Shakespeare is unclear and "he uses way more words
than he needs to make his point," what do you say?

Cheers,
Pat

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 5 Jul 2004 10:34:24 -0400
Subject: 15.1387 CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1387 CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada

The recent comments begging for "clarity" in critical discussions
reminds me of the arguments I have heard students make when they ask why
they cannot read Shakespeare in translation for the sake of clarity.
The passage that has elicited so much scorn seemed clear enough to me,
although I did not think it was aimed at the general reader.

Fran Teague
http://www.english.uga.edu/~fteague

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 6 Jul 2004 00:12:58 -0500
Subject: 15.1380 CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1380 CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada

  Terence Hawkes writes

 >"Why do some of our colleagues assume that 'clarity' in language is a
 >free-floating, essential and transhistorical quality? By and large it
 >consists of  a number of tricks of style validated for the purpose by
 >particular social groupings at specific times. Its avid pursuit is
 >usually the last resort of fools and scoundrels."

Once again I must question the redoubtable Hawkes. It is all very well
to question facile definitions of "clarity in language" but does that
mean that all language is equally clear? That there is no such thing as
clarity? That we must accept that which is turgid, convoluted, obscure,
deceitful, stupid, and simply crappy just because definitions of that
which is not are socially specific?

I grant that there is much to be said (logically) for mandating such an
acceptance, but the necessary results are appalling. And where will that
leave TH the next time he wishes to tear into one of the participants on
the list who has written something deserving of tearing into?

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.

Eric Sams

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1390  Tuesday, 6 July 2004

From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 5 Jul 2004 09:12:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 15.1382 Eric Sams
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1382 Eric Sams

Why not the Folger?

_______________________________________________________________
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.