The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0226 Monday, 27 March 2006
[1] From: Carol Morley <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 24 Mar 2006 19:51:11 +0000
Subj: RE: SHK 17.0211 Henry IV, Part 1 Query
[2] From: Marvin Bennet Krims <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 25 Mar 2006 08:21:40 -0500
Subj: RE: SHK 17.0211 Henry IV, Part 1 Query
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carol Morley <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 24 Mar 2006 19:51:11 +0000
Subject: 17.0211 Henry IV, Part 1 Query
Comment: RE: SHK 17.0211 Henry IV, Part 1 Query
Michael Luskin <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
>Act III, scene 1 has always seemed curious. The conspirators meet,
>among other things, to divide up England, plan move rivers to makes
>things more fair, and so forth. From the very start, Hotspur is rude
>and aggressive towards his allies, and says things that might well
>provoke a duel, or at least a crack in the alliance.
>
>For example, when Glendower says that he can call spirits from the
>vasty deep, Hostspur's funny rejoinder deserves a cup of coffee in his
>face.
>
>Why is Hotspur so rude and unpleasant, why do the others act like
>anything but allies, why don't they discuss strategy a bit?
I don't know how 'academic' Hardy will vote your question, but I think
it's an interesting one. The first thing that occurs to me is that
dividing a kingdom three ways is never a good start to any Shakespearean
enterprise.... that the allies are all mistrustful of each other, uneasy
with their prospects and therefore blustering. Add in some
racial/regional tensions, with Glendower trying to Welsh out alpha-male
the Northumbrian cock of the walk, and there's bound to be a
territorial, testosterone-charged battle of egos. But honestly, also,
Harry Percy has a good point in calling the druid-magus wannabe's bluff;
trying to discuss an armed insurrection with him one minute, the next
he's channeling Derren Brown (or David Copperfield), I think, for
American readers.
When the scene is played for maximum regional accent diversity (with
Mortimer RP into the mix), I think it provides a wonderful collision of
voices into the bargain.
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marvin Bennet Krims <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 25 Mar 2006 08:21:40 -0500
Subject: 17.0211 Henry IV, Part 1 Query
Comment: RE: SHK 17.0211 Henry IV, Part 1 Query
When Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin met to divide the post War War II
world between them, I suspect the dialogue was quite similar in tone.
Marvin Krims
[Editor's Note: Second guessing what I decide to post to the list is not
a contest. I tried for ten years to get members to take responsibility
for their submissions to the conference before I decided in February
that I needed to become a dictatorial moderator. If members actually
require me to state my preferences, then . . . I see the doubling
threat today as a model for the type of discussion I would like to
encourage, while I find tedious virtually all discussions of theme,
character, and motivation and I would welcome a long rest from posts
about Hamlet and Shylock.]
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
