2007

A Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0067  Monday, 29 January 2007

From: 		Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 26 Jan 2007 19:29:05 +0000
Subject: 18.0038 A Question
Comment: 	RE: SHK 18.0038 A Question

John Cox writes:

  >Those who are suspicious of this enterprise can help the discussion
  >by acknowledging presentism's first point: that we indeed cannot
 >entirely shed our own identity when trying to understand the past.

After consuming a Greenblatt concoction, I always walk away feeling 
sated and fully nourished. How different is wading through many a 
jargonaut's constipated prose, in what passes for critical theory-its 
governing principle a truism, its logic confused, its reasoning 
circular, its semantics muddled, requiring their own demystification.

As creatures in the present, we are the perfect issue of our past, in 
fact and not just in theory. We are constantly being reminded we look 
upon our forebears across the swirling mists of time with the eyes of 
the present. Somewhere Brutus explains, "the eye sees not itself but by 
reflection." The issue is one of focus. Presentists argue we view the 
eyes of the Other not as a window but as a mirror reflecting our own 
eyes staring back at us in infinite regress. Hamlet and Othello learn 
the tragic effect of such self-regarding focus in mistaking their own 
want of faith for that of the innocent Other, be she Ophelia or 
Desdemona. Should we not aspire to look at her true face beyond the eyes?

Hugh Grady yearns for an "oppositional" discourse to discredit 
capitalism and storm its ramparts. Terence Hawkes longs for studies to 
function as "agents of radical change." Is truth their lodestar value? 
"Facts, after all, do not speak for themselves. Nor do texts"(Hawkes). 
Of course, they do; only we hear them in translation. Despite the tepid 
hedging by Profs. Hawkes and Grady, the temptation for budding 
Stalinists of all stripes to manufacture the past for driving their 
agendas into an Orwellian abyss will become irresistible. 'Twas ever 
thus, but why encourage them? Their apologists invariably descend to 
maligning Horatios on the bridge like Orwell, that "guilt-racked 
imperialist", that "copper's nark"-all of which may be true, but 
willfully and knowingly beside the point.

Religious traditionalists and self-styled "postmodernist" ideologues are 
currently joined in unholy alliance to undermine or "deconstruct" 
Enlightenment values, or their distorted version of same. Listen to NT 
Wright, Anglican bishop of Durham: "We postmoderns may chafe in our 
slavery to the Enlightenment, but the way to freedom is to challenge the 
slavemaster."  Again: "it should come as a relief not to have to aim at 
an impossible objectivity..."  And again, with reservations: "it is part 
of the task of the church today to accept the postmodern critique of 
modernity." Wright concludes: "I believe postmodernity is to be 
welcomed...it deconstructs, in particular, the dangerous ideology of 
'progress'".

Esteemed colleagues, whose side are we on? Hugh Grady and Terence 
Hawkes, how many fingers?

Re-guards from an Enlightenment thrall,
Joe Egert

For further illumination, please consult the finely honed arguments of 
David Lindley and RDH Wells among others in earlier go-rounds on 
SHAKSPER. Also follow the link to Graham Good's 1996 "The Hegemony of 
Theory." Enjoy!

http://www.greggsimpson.com/Hegemony.htm

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Wordless Macbeth

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0066  Monday, 29 January 2007

From: 		Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 26 Jan 2007 12:43:50 -0500
Subject: 18.0058 Wordless Macbeth
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0058 Wordless Macbeth

 >If not, isn't it likely that "wordless" productions-however
 >wonderful they may or may not be as theatrical
 >experiences-aren't really wordless at all? That is, Shakespeare's
 >"words" are so well known that we can leave them unspoken

A few years ago I attended a performance at the Brooklyn Academy of 
Music given by a mime who had received rave reviews for his 
"interpretation" of Hamlet.  The performance consisted of a series of 
vignettes in which the brilliant actor gesticulated wildly and contorted 
his face into inhuman shapes said to represent scenes from "Hamlet." 
The only words I could think of were "leave your damnable faces and 
begin!"  And, of course, Hamlet's advice to the actors.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Understanding Antony

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0064  Monday, 29 January 2007

From: 		Louis Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 29 Jan 2007 08:29:00 -0600
Subject: 	How should we understand Antony in "Julius Caesar"?

Does Antony see Caesar as Shakespeare has shown him to us, a pompous, 
power-greedy person? If he does, how can we account for Antony's 
praising soliloquy over the corpse? (Does Antony admire Caesar and 
lament his death as a Mafioso might admire a murdered, murderous 
godfather?) If he doesn't, should we assume that the practical, 
hard-nosed Antony ("This many then shall die, etc.") has awakened to the 
*real* Caesar sometime between his lament for the dead Caesar he has 
mistakenly respected and his later, heartless capitalizing on the power 
vacuum Caesar's death has created? If we say that Antony has admired 
Caesar but at some time sees him what he was, at what point in the 
Antony's speeches could his "awakening" be made clear? (The problem is 
particularly critical for the director of the play and the actor who is 
to play Antony.)

L. Swilley

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Querying Academic Journals

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0065  Monday, 29 January 2007

From: 		John V. Knapp <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 26 Jan 2007 13:06:57 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 18.0057 Querying Academic Journals
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0057 Querying Academic Journals

As the new editor of *Style*, I would like to echo Peter Holland's 
sentiments.  It's always a good idea to skim the Table of Contents of 
the last two or three years/volumes and not send us the latest in a 
series of three or four similar essays on, say, the language of decay in 
Hamlet.  Always include a brief (100 - 150 word) Abstract with your 
essay-it will save me the time asking for it should your essay be 
accepted.  To paraphrase a certain White House (temporary) inhabitant: 
making decisions is hard work!!


_______________________________________________________________
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.

Shakespeare Quotations

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0063  Monday, 29 January 2007

From: 		Fred Shapiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Saturday, 27 Jan 2007 14:53:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 	Shakespeare Quotations

While compiling my book, The Yale Book of Quotations, recently published 
by Yale University Press, I became interested in the question of whether 
there were Shakespeare quotations that were not traditionally "famous 
quotes," but that, for one reason or another, did become newly famous in 
the 20th century.  The only example I have found so far is "Rosencrantz 
and Guildenstern are dead."  Can anyone suggest any others?

Fred Shapiro

_______________________________________________________________
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.