Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: July ::
Less said the better, it seems
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1254  Thursday, 28 July 2005

[1]     From:   Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 25 Jul 2005 17:03:42 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.1245 Less said the better, it seems

[2]     From:   Alan Pierpoint <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 25 Jul 2005 12:05:53 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1245 Less said the better, it seems

[3]     From:   John Perry <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 25 Jul 2005 13:47:29 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1245 Less said the better, it seems

[4]     From:   Colin Cox <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 25 Jul 2005 14:19:11 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1245 Less said the better, it seems

[5]     From:   Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 26 Jul 2005 08:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1234 Less said the better, it seems


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 25 Jul 2005 17:03:42 +0100
Subject: 16.1245 Less said the better, it seems
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.1245 Less said the better, it seems

Dear All,

Re: Jack Heller's more sensible caution to my perceived bardolatry I am
tempted to wheel out the good old imaginary poker game of Marjorie
Garber - each play put down by Marlowe like a card to be outplayed by
Shakespeare thus:

M: The Jew of Malta             S: The Merchant of Venice
M: Dido Queen of Carthage       S: Anthony & Cleopatra
M: Edward II                    S: Richard II
M: Dr. Faustus                  S: Macbeth

I know it's cheating but it's illustrative of my point I think?

All best,
Marcus

PS: by only talking about drama we invariably leave out Thomas Nashe who
is of course the too often forgotten genius of his age.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Alan Pierpoint <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 25 Jul 2005 12:05:53 EDT
Subject: 16.1245 Less said the better, it seems
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1245 Less said the better, it seems

Congratulations all!  This has been the funniest thread I've tapped into
in three years, at least!   -
Alan Pierpoint

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Perry <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 25 Jul 2005 13:47:29 -0400
Subject: 16.1245 Less said the better, it seems
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1245 Less said the better, it seems

Jack Heller writes:

 >I would not take this for granted. First, in the sense that we do have
 >and read Marlowe and other contemporaries, Shakespeare has not outlasted
 >them.

Maybe in the sense that professional English scholars still read them.
Us unwashed masses know and love almost all of Shakespeare's products,
and the only reason I even know the other guys' names is that I
subscribe to this list.
Well, ok, that's a small exaggeration ...

 >Nor do I think that every Shakespeare play is better or more
 >meritorious than plays of his contemporaries.

Well, I don't remember who said it, but I agree with the generalization
(yes, recognizing the weaknesses of generalizations) that the greatest
art is recognized as great by the unwashed masses as well as the
scholars.  Bach, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Verdi, Dickens, Michelangelo, ...

John Perry (unwashed engineer)

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Colin Cox <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 25 Jul 2005 14:19:11 -0700
Subject: 16.1245 Less said the better, it seems
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1245 Less said the better, it seems

"Are Bartholomew Fair or The Roaring Girl worse than Romeo and Juliet?"

Having been in both plays, I would have to answer Yes. But really a bad
comparison. Bartholomew Fair is a comedy that was written in 1614. You
have the whole canon of Shakespeare to pick from by 1614 and then,
surely, no contest. The Middleton/Dekker "Roaring Girl" was penned in
1611. Would you really compare this frothy, cross-dressing, "Cutpurse
Moll" comedy to The Tempest? Defoe, maybe.

Colin Cox

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 26 Jul 2005 08:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.1234 Less said the better, it seems
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1234 Less said the better, it seems

Bob Grumman writes, "I'm not involved in this thread, but couldn't keep
from jumping on Kathy Dent for her assumption that dictionaries are some
kind of Important Authority on the accurate use of words...In any case,
my nearest dictionary has this as its first definition of 'sentimental':
'marked or governed by feeling, sensibility, or emotional idealism.'  It
defines 'sentimentality' as 'the quality or state of being sentimental
esp. to excess or affectation.'  It can thus have a 'good' meaning."

I, too, have avoided this thread.  I find that the movie On Golden Pond
was excessively sentimental like war stories about every typical
family's aunt Bess tale.  The need to be typical generates more
sentimentality than anything else under the sun.  But who thinks
Shakespeare wrote typical stuff?  Not me.  And yet I can wax sentimental
about Shakespeare.

What I find more endearing in memory about Shakespeare is the words.
The famed quotes, short and long, which are in our minds like the very
sentimental radio songs of today, regardless of one's favorite genre.
It is these famed quotes, taken out of context, and reused, and misused,
which is the fodder of everyday speechwriters round the globe.  And that
fodder is the root of our sentimentality about Shakespeare.

In other words, Shakespeare has survived because he is there, in our
minds, and comes to the fore in words more often than any other writer
in English.  Well, most often more than any other writer.  And that is
the point, is it not?  He has endured, taken over chunks of our minds,
and is a shared entity worldwide.  Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow...

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

_______________________________________________________________
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.