The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0826 Wednesday, 19 December 2007
[1] From: Abigail Quart <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 16 Dec 2007 13:00:09 -0500
Subj: RE: SHK 18.0838 Understudies
[2] From: William Godshalk <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 16 Dec 2007 15:02:17 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0838 Understudies
[3] From: John Drakakis <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 17 Dec 2007 09:27:46 -0000
Subj: RE: SHK 18.0838 Understudies
[4] From: Steve Urkowitz <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 17 Dec 2007 12:17:38 -0500
Subj: "Reconstructing" Understudies
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Abigail Quart <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 16 Dec 2007 13:00:09 -0500
Subject: 18.0838 Understudies
Comment: RE: SHK 18.0838 Understudies
>Instead, say Kiernander and Neill, it were better to have
>the actors recite their parts in turn and take down this aural event as
>writing.
Did any other playwrights on this list start laughing at the above? I'm
glad that Alan B. Farmer and Zachary Lesser have academically debunked
the other assertions of Kiernander and Neill but the above is just a
howl. Get an accurate text from the actors' recitation??? Let me guess,
these fine scholars are not playwrights who have ever attempted to
listen to a taped performance of their own work. I have. It only took a
moment to begin moaning, "That's not my script. That's not my script."
I have seen actors in a reading with the script in front of their faces
completely redo a line. Once they get onstage...there is nothing to stop
them from editing, replacing, dropping, or rewriting a line. NOTHING.
Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, I would bet money they are
completely unaware of doing it. Isn't there a famous Broadway story of a
note on a backstage bulletin board: "Rehearsal tomorrow to remove the
improvements."
Something else about the idiocy of transcribing a performance: what kind
of shorthand did they have back then? Because if the actors were
required to stop and start...losing the rhythm blows memory. And if a
shorthand were used, that brings its own reconstruction errors into play.
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: William Godshalk <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 16 Dec 2007 15:02:17 -0500
Subject: 18.0838 Understudies
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0838 Understudies
Gabriel Egan writes regarding memorial reconstruction: "Assuming one
'part' per character (rather than one per actor), what Bill imagines
would involve sequential transcription from dozens of rolls held open
simultaneously, which isn't easily done."
I assume that Gabriel begins with a reference to doubling, in which one
actor has more than one "part." But I was not imagining a kind of book
wheel loaded with "parts" and a scribe working his way through them to
recreate a complete play script. No, I was imagining an actor or actors
reciting "their parts in turn" while a scribe takes "down this aural
event" in writing.
One of the facts that undergird the theory of memorial reconstruction is
that certain "parts" in a supposedly pirated text are closer in wording
to an "authoritative" text than are other parts. Reconstructionists
attribute this phenomenon to certain rogue actors reconstructing the
play script with the help of a scribe. Thus the parts played by these
actors are closer to the authorized text, while other parts of the
script -- when the rogue actors are not on stage -- are less faithful to
the script that has been judged authoritative.
My point was a very small one. If the rogue actors retained their
written parts, their rolls, one would expect their parts in the
reconstructed script to be memorially reconstructed almost perfectly,
not just with greater fidelity. They could simply read their parts to
the scribe.
Bill
[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Drakakis <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 17 Dec 2007 09:27:46 -0000
Subject: 18.0838 Understudies
Comment: RE: SHK 18.0838 Understudies
As I recall, Blayney has taken apart Farmer and Lesser.
But also, what happens when we think about actors doubling parts?
Cheers,
John Drakakis
[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Urkowitz <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 17 Dec 2007 12:17:38 -0500
Subject: "Reconstructing" Understudies
Okay, there is a lot of mist and disagreement about the marketplace for
printed plays and the hypothetical sources of manuscripts underlying
them. As I mentioned earlier, the most recent work of Grace Ioppolo and
Tiffany Stern and Simon Palfrey brings new light on the rehearsal
practices and the generation and replication of manuscripts which were
the bases of those productions and editions we're interested in. But,
and here's the big "but" I've been butting in with for years, the
differences between the radically-different multiple texts of
Shakespeare's plays are really, really interesting. And they are not at
all like anything remembered / mis-remembered / or dismembered by
actors. Instead, they are delicious examples of really good playwriting
being worked on by really good playwrights. Here's a f'rinstance. When
Polonius hears from his daughter about Hamlet's response to her
returning his love-tokens, he feels there are only two quite dismal
outcomes:
Come, goe we to the King,
This must be knowne, which beeing kept close, might move
More griefe to hide, then hate to utter love.
Come. _Exeunt._
At the equivalent moment in the earlier-printed version, the equivalent
character says:
Lets to the King, this madnesse may prove,
Though wilde a while, yet more true to thy love. _Exeunt._
In other words, things may work out after all. This kinder, gentler
poppa has many other kinder or at least less ferocious ways of
presenting himself to his daughter elsewhere in the 1603 printing of the
play.
My objection to the clouds of "memorial reconstruction" arguments is
that they ascribe the differences in the texts to these anonymous agents
who I find to be really inventive playwrights. Rather than saying that
pirates ruint Shakespeare's great stuff, I'd rather say, "Look at how
the Corambis-Polonius character tries to be kind to his daughter in Q1
but is grimly negative and thoughtless about her feelings in Q2." This
manipulation of the theatrical moment looks like what playwrights do.
Fredson Bowers sneered at my analyses of the HAMLET texts. John Jowett
and Richard Proudfoot have dismissed my discussions of parallel passages
as unworthy, not even meriting refutation. But their rejection of my
arguments confirm my observation that a lot of Shakespearean textual
study is carried out by folks who just don't register that there are
important _artistic_ differences between the early printed versions. And
I fear that they miss the same kinds of things happening in
single-version plays as well. So, in the holiday spirit, I again invite
all to unwrap those quarto and folio packages, try acting them out, see
why and how one text works differently than another, ring their bells,
blow their whistles, and dance in the new year.
Ever,
Steve Urquartowitz
Closer to the North Pole
In Portland, Maine
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
