2007

A Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0047  Monday, 22 January 2007

From: 		Graham Bradshaw <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Saturday, 20 Jan 2007 06:55:21 +0900
Subject: 18.0043 A Question
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0043 A Question

 >John D. 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."

 >Scot Zarela replies: "Why should this be acknowledged?  Has it ever
 >been seriously disputed? Who, exactly, has held that we (or anyone
 >else for that matter) can entirely shed our own identity ---  whether
 >when trying to understand the past, or at any other time?   Entirely?
 >Surely whatever claim presentism aims to correct is itself more
 >modest and more worth serious consideration than this suggests."

Oh, the whirligigs of time! Cox's comment and Zarela's rejoinder 
reminded me of a passage in Herbert Butterfield's "The Whig 
Interpretation of History" (1931): "The whig interpretation of history 
is not merely the property of whigs and it is much more subtle than 
mental bias; it lies in a trick of organisation, an unexamined habit of 
mind that any historian may fall into... It is the result of the 
practice of abstracting things from their historical context and judging 
them apart from their context-- estimating them and organising the 
historical story by a system of direct reference to the present." To 
think of "presentists" as whiggish seems waggish, but, as Butterfield 
also pointed out,  "Whiggism" in its broader sense "describes the 
attitude by which men of the Renaissance seem to have approached the 
Middle Ages" and "the  attitude of the 18th century to many a period of 
the past" and is not  tied to any particular political perspective.

Graham Bradshaw

_______________________________________________________________
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 18.0046  Monday, 22 January 2007

From: 		Alisha Huber <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Saturday, 20 Jan 2007 09:04:34 -0500
Subject: 	Querying Academic Journals

Dear everyone,

I'm a long-time lurker, occasional poster.  I've come upon a problem 
that I thought the membership could advise me on.  In preparing various 
sections of my masters' thesis for potential publication in academic 
journals, I discovered that I have _no idea whatever_ how to write a 
query letter for such a journal.  Can anyone give me a few pointers on 
style, content, and etiquette?  I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks,
Alisha Huber
MLitt (American Shakespeare Center)

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Globe-ness

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0044  Friday, 19 January 2007

[1] 	From: 	Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 16:56:42 -0000
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0039 Globe-ness

[2] 	From: 	Ted Nellen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 11:14:25 -0600 (CST)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0042 Globe-ness

[3] 	From: 	Will Sharpe <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 17:59:17 +0000
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 18.0039 Globe-ness

[4] 	From: 	Ruth Ross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 17:16:24 -0500
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 18.0039 Globe-ness


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 16:56:42 -0000
Subject: 18.0039 Globe-ness
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0039 Globe-ness

John Drakakis writes ...

 >And another thing...the Globe won't burn (like the original)!
 >There are no orange sellers, prostitutes, or pickpockets!
 >And everybody washes before they go to the theatre!

I dunno.  I've seen the odd prozzie there.

And some of us take great pains to besmear and besmirch our
 >breeches with badger ordure before visiting the place.  Or
 >maybe use a ripe stilton as an underarm roll-on.

 >It's a Disneyfication of Shakespeare ...

No it isn't.  It's a brave and magical attempt to recreate the 
Shakespearean stage.  It is one of the great things about London.

Peter Bridgman

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Ted Nellen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 11:14:25 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 18.0042 Globe-ness
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0042 Globe-ness

I have missed this fun thread. Upon a recent visit to London, I went to 
the Globe replica and was on a most enlightening tour, given by a young 
man who has been involved with this project from the beginning. In fact 
I was studying in Stratford the summer they began the sonar readings of 
the original Globe. So returning recently to see the Globe was a full 
circle.  I was very impressed with the whole place and much of the 
explanation about it. For one, they have the only thatched roof in 
London and it took an American to make this happen. Fire ordnances 
prevent a thatched roof, but not on the new Globe. There are fire 
sprinklers in it to prevent major disaster, but it could burn down. 
Second, the explanation of why only 1500 instead of 3000 people made 
perfect sense and is very civilized. Thirdly, the floor was experimented 
with and eventually ended up as cement for logical and sensible reasons. 
Other than those tweaks, the place is as close to real as we could get. 
Then again there is no one who could contend this anyway, so discussion 
of it is moot. As for me, I was thrilled to be there and to see how 
closely the new Globe lives up to my expectations from my own research. 
The Swan is delightful, but the new Globe is fantastic.

Ted Nellen

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Will Sharpe <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 17:59:17 +0000
Subject: 18.0039 Globe-ness
Comment: 	RE: SHK 18.0039 Globe-ness

I wholeheartedly support Gabriel Egan's retort to Carol Barton's 
scattergun attempt at cultural criticism. When she says:

 >. . . if you're going to bother to recreate the bloody
 >thing . . . why not do it as accurately as you can?

Gabriel Egan's response:

 >If that means destroying a Georgian terrace to put up a replica
 >of what was previously on the site, >almost everyone involved
 >in the scholarship of old buildings-indeed almost everyone at
 >all-would rightly oppose the plan.

is exactly right. If Barton is suggesting that 'doing it properly' means 
putting it where it was, or leveling Southwark and returning it to a 
largely rural outskirt of London in order to recreate the original 
environment, then Gabriel Egan's comment can be seen as fair and 
entirely without sarcasm. If, however, 'doing it properly' insinuates 
that the current reconstruction is inaccurate, that must mean that 
either Barton has a theory about the physical structure of the original 
Globe which I would implore her to share for the sake of the furtherance 
of our scholarly understanding, or it simply means (as I think Egan is 
suggesting) that she assumes it must all be phoney as there's nothing 
special under the sun.

 >It was funny, to see the number of bewildered people wandering
 >around Southwark, looking for wattle and daub where only red
 >brick was visible to the pedestrian eye.

Perhaps this might be a neat segue into the upcoming discussion on 
'presentism': we can attempt to reconstruct a historical building on 
more or less the same site that it originally stood, but we can't get 
rid of the 18th/19th/20th-century buildings that, for one reason or 
another, are there now. But does it mean that because direct communion 
with the past is unavailable to us we should give up our interests in 
researching it altogether?

Whatever you want to say about the Globe, it is an exciting attempt (and 
I stress the word 'attempt' as the Globe, as far as I'm aware, doesn't 
purport itself to be a perfect reconstruction), executed with truly fine 
craftsmanship, to bring to life something that has received enormous 
amounts of interest from all sorts of people (and, God forbid, some 
entertainment and enjoyment for its visitors). If they could just get a 
few decent shows on the boards and arrange for Heathrow airport to close 
down during performances I'd be a bit happier about going there, but 
that's scarcely important and is an entirely different debate altogether.

Will Sharpe

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Ruth Ross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 17:16:24 -0500
Subject: 18.0039 Globe-ness
Comment: 	RE: SHK 18.0039 Globe-ness

Addressing Carol Barton's charge that the new Globe is not historically 
accurate, I recall that the current stage configuration is different 
from the design in the original replica. The columns holding up the 
"heavens" canopy are different (thicker, I think) and there have been 
some other modifications to make the stage more historically accurate. 
As the archaeologists discover more about the original Globe Theatre, I 
assume they will make modifications in the reproduction. I find that 
refreshing.

Ruth Ross

_______________________________________________________________
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 18.0045  Friday, 19 January 2007

[1] 	From: 	Peter Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 12:00:55 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth

[2] 	From: 	Norman D. Hinton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 11:50:50 -0600
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth

[3] 	From: 	Sarah Neville <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 14:51:22 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth

[4] 	From: 	Rolland Banker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 17:50:37 -0800 (PST)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0029 Wordless Macbeth

[5] 	From: 	Douglas Galbi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 19 Jan 2007 12:57:50 -0500
	Subj: 	Wordless Macbeth


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Peter Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 12:00:55 -0500
Subject: 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth

While SHAKSPERians are busy mocking wordless productions, please 
consider the following two cases: (1) the hundreds of silent films of 
Shakespeare made, shown, discussed and enjoyed (and mostly lost for 
ever) (2) the long tradition, especially in England, of Shakespeare on 
radio. We can, if we choose, laugh at silent Shakespeare films but many 
of us spend time, as scholars and as teachers with our students, trying 
to understand what these films set out to achieve and how the cultural 
contexts of their reception might best be considered. I don't think we 
are wasting our time by doing so. And, as to radio/audio Shakespeare 
(which have given me many of the finest experiences of Shakespeare in my 
life), I find wordless Shakespeare no more ridiculous than invisible 
Shakespeare.

Peter Holland

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Norman D. Hinton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 11:50:50 -0600
Subject: 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth

I guess coming next are "Beethoven without the Music", and "Monet in the 
Dark", eh ?

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Sarah Neville <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 14:51:22 -0400
Subject: 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth

Just a (perhaps not so) innocent question of the dismissers of the 
"Wordless Macbeth": when a deaf person goes to see a (worded) 
Shakespeare play, are they also not seeing "Shakespeare"?

Sarah Neville

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Rolland Banker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 17:50:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 18.0029 Wordless Macbeth
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0029 Wordless Macbeth

T. Hawkes asks,

 >Douglas Galbi claims that a 'wordless' production of Macbeth
 >'profoundly explores Shakespearean art'. How?

I'll tell you how, Mr. Hawkes; and why must I always play the role of 
the world-weary autodidactic bardolator for the lettered-sort? Anyhow, 
here is the splendored aesthetic answer in all its glory(now you hear 
it, now you don't):

  (This space reserved for something profound--silence perhaps?)

Cheers and all the best,
Rolland Banker

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Douglas Galbi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 19 Jan 2007 12:57:50 -0500
Subject: 	Wordless Macbeth

Mari Bonomi wrote:

[quote]

 >*Can* we divorce the play from its language and still call it the play
 >Shakespeare *wrote*?
 >
 >That is not to say that one cannot celebrate Shakespeare by creating
 >one's own interpretations of his stories... it is merely to say that
 >calling such interpretations "Shakespeare" is to me a significant
 >misnomer.  I love Tchaikovsky's "Romeo and Juliet Overture/Fantasy."
 >I've used it as a teaching tool, asking students to listen to it and
 >tell me the story that the music is telling (this is a good way to use
 >any programmatic work).  But it is *not* the play by Shakespeare that I
 >taught 2-5 times a year for close to 40 years.  Both are rich works of
 >art, but they are not the *same* work of art.

[end quote]

Several other posters to this list expressed similarly sentiments, 
modulated of course through differences in personality and experience. 
I tried to indicate in the full review (see 
http://purplemotes.net/2007/01/15/synetic/ ) that what counts as 
authoritative communication (spoken?, written?, visual image?, physical 
gesture?) was of great concern to Shakespeare and his time.  So too was 
a concern about oneness and idolatry.  Not taking for granted particular 
positions on these issues is profoundly important for appreciating 
Shakespeare's art.

Fidelity to Shakespeare's work is an aesthetic judgment. For example, a 
person who reads Macbeth carefully might notice some lines that seem to 
be not like Shakespeare, e.g. Act 4, Scene 1, ll. 39-43. My judgment is 
that Synetic Theater's production of Macbeth is, with perhaps some human 
failings, truly faithful to Shakespeare's Macbeth.

Douglas Galbi

_______________________________________________________________
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.

A Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0043  Friday, 19 January 2007

From: 		Scot Zarela <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 12:48:38 -0500
Subject: 18.0038 A question about 'presentism'
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0038 A question about 'presentism'

John D. 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."

Why should this be acknowledged?  Has it ever been seriously disputed? 
Who, exactly, has held that we (or anyone else for that matter) can 
entirely shed our own identity --- whether when trying to understand the 
past, or at any other time?  Entirely?  Surely whatever claim presentism 
aims to correct is itself more modest and more worth serious 
consideration than this suggests.

- Scot Zarela

_______________________________________________________________
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.