The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0251  Thursday, 30 March 2006

[1] 	From: 	David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Wednesday, 29 Mar 2006 12:58:48 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0238 Shakespeare in Time Magazine (Europe)

[2] 	From: 	Norman Hinton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Wednesday, 29 Mar 2006 13:04:57 -0600
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0238 Shakespeare in Time Magazine (Europe)

[3] 	From: 	Reg Grouse <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 22:38:26 +1000
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0238 Shakespeare in Time Magazine (Europe)


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Wednesday, 29 Mar 2006 12:58:48 -0500
Subject: 17.0238 Shakespeare in Time Magazine (Europe)
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0238 Shakespeare in Time Magazine (Europe)

Colin Cox's list of Shakespeare's pop. lit. contemporaries should 
include my own favorite among them, Thomas Nashe, who along with 
Marlowe has verbal and imaginative energy that challenges comparison 
with Shakespeare's, though the polemical and satirical pamphlets and 
plays on which he mostly spent it are too topical to sustain broad 
modern interest.

David Evett

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Norman Hinton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Wednesday, 29 Mar 2006 13:04:57 -0600
Subject: 17.0238 Shakespeare in Time Magazine (Europe)
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0238 Shakespeare in Time Magazine (Europe)

 >So why does postmodernism reject the idea of literary genius?

Probably because P-M doesn't recognize quality in writing (officially, 
at least - most post-modernists I know actually prefer some writers over 
others, but wouldn't be caught dead admitting it in print).  And they 
regard any attempt at aesthetics as hopelessly unenlightened and 
old-fashioned.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Reg Grouse <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Thursday, 30 Mar 2006 22:38:26 +1000
Subject: 17.0238 Shakespeare in Time Magazine (Europe)
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0238 Shakespeare in Time Magazine (Europe)

Edmund Taft remarks, 'we all recognize "genius" in mathematics and in 
music: most of us know that we can't write music the way Duke Ellington 
could or theorize mathematically the way Einstein could.'

We could add that we cannot make sculptures the way Michelangelo could 
nor paint pictures the way Leonardo could.  It is difficult to refute 
the evidence that some artist's works last longer in the human domain 
than some others that we care for but fleetingly. Surely time is the 
significant judge of the quality of art.  Or if we judge it in more 
modern terms, as by how much money it is worth, I have no doubt that 
Shakespeare would rate as highly as the others.  Imagine what an 
original manuscript of Hamlet would bring today. As much as the Mona 
Lisa? These artists come but rarely amongst us.  They are what one might 
call 'thousand year artists'.  They not only intrigue us intellectually 
but move us emotionally and they continue to do so for  all time.

Cheers,
Reg

_______________________________________________________________
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.