2007

Upstart Crow

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0446  Wednesday, 4 July 2007

From: 		Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 3 Jul 2007 13:50:10 -0500
Subject: 18.0435 Upstart Crow
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0435 Upstart Crow

Elliott Stone said: "The upshot of all this is that since almost all we 
know of Robert Greene comes from these two "fake" autobiographies then 
it must put into doubt the facts of all we know or claim to know about 
Greene. Who was the author of these two works and why did he/she choose 
to have them published under the name of Robert Greene?"

Sorry, Elliott, but no one has *proven* anything about *Greenes 
Groatsworth of Wit.* Some interesting, not implausible hypotheses which 
I don't agree with have been advanced, that's all.  Stylometrics is 
still far from a science whatever its advocates say.  Names on 
title-pages and the testimony of witnesses must still be taken into account.

--Bob G.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Classical Comics

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0445  Wednesday, 4 July 2007

[1] 	From: 	Mark Bruce <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 03 Jul 2007 11:18:37 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0432 Classical Comics

[2] 	From: 	John E. Perry <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 03 Jul 2007 13:26:27 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0432 Classical Comics

[3] 	From: 	John V. Knapp <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 3 Jul 2007 15:11:08 -0500 (CDT)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0432 Classical Comics


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Mark Bruce <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 03 Jul 2007 11:18:37 -0500
Subject: 18.0432 Classical Comics
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0432 Classical Comics

Hello All:

Just to chime in on this topic:

Certainly comics vary widely in quality, but for anyone who has doubts 
about the _potential_ of the graphic novel as a medium for fine literary 
and visual art, allow me to recommend Art Spiegelman's _Maus_ (vols 1 
and 2). It was without doubt the piece that convinced me of the 
viability of and possibilities within the genre. I've used it in 
introductory literature courses to very good effect.

Now if we could only convince Spiegelman to do _Merchant of Venice_...

Best,
Mark Bruce
Bethel University, St. Paul, MN

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John E. Perry <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 03 Jul 2007 13:26:27 -0400
Subject: 18.0432 Classical Comics
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0432 Classical Comics

 >John V. Knapp <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 >
 >>>>...No matter the so-called literary content of comic
 >>>>books, they are still entertainments, cool-aid instead of vin du
 >>>>pays for those whose interest in prose or poetry doesn't go much
 >>>>further than dialog bubbles of four to 8 words per bubble.  All of
 >>>>this attention to dialog bubbles would be merely a guilty pleasure
 >>>>for some IF it were not for the fact that the MLA is now
 >>>>(apparently) paying serious attention to this material and- what
 >>>>really is disturbing-that some university literature departments
 >>>>are increasingly substituting one or two graphic novels for real
 >>>>novels or dramas.

Well, I grew up as a bookworm in a home with no presence at all of any 
of the classics except Classics Illustrated (a comic book) and Lamb's 
Tales from Shakespeare.  When I got to high school and was required to 
study Julius Caesar and Romeo and Juliet, I recognized them with 
pleasure, while classmates were moaning about this hard, boring stuff 
that no one could understand.

While I now have little patience with either Lamb or Classical Comics 
(yes, I downloaded and read the samples), I will not participate in the 
sneering-I honor both as my introduction to the whole world of Literature.

Are the guilty(?) departments substituting or supplementing comics with 
the real thing?  I can certainly support supplementing, given the 
shameful state of present-day education.

John Perry

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John V. Knapp <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 3 Jul 2007 15:11:08 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: 18.0432 Classical Comics
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0432 Classical Comics

Larry, John, Mari, Jeremy, Dan, Nancy --

Ouch!  I understand your arguments and to a point, can see their 
validity.  However, as someone who (he hopes) helps educate graduate 
students in LITERATURE, I find that none of your arguments hits the 
central point I tried to make.  With only so many hours in the day, 
every one a student spends "reading" (or viewing) a comic 
book-sanctioned now by the MLA and people thinking as you apparently 
do-whatever its own merits as a separate medium might be, is an hour 
taken away from reading (or viewing) AND understanding, for example, 
Shakespeare.  We have a difficult enough time as it is socializing our 
graduate students into developing expertise in literary studies;  spend 
CLASS time (my major point) on comic books and the teacher/professor 
loses time on teaching more difficult matter requiring considerable 
literary craft and dedicated attention.

You all now HAVE the discipline or expertise, crafted after years of 
labor (I assume).  Hence, if you want to indulge in a guilty pleasure, 
go for it; I enjoy some of the *Star Trek* episodes, for example.  But 
don't waste a novice literary scholar/critics' relatively smallish 
amount of time by detouring to a comic book when he/she should be 
focused on Hamlet or Dostoyevski or Joyce's *Ulysses.* Most of you have 
had 10 to 30 YEARS developing your EXPERTISE after graduate school; your 
graduate student may have, at most, 60 to 72 MONTHS to develop his/hers 
well enough just to join your ranks. If a student wants to relax w/a 
comic book, or a Jack Daniels, or even a soap opera at the end of a hard 
day in class, that's his/her choice.  But for heaven's sake, don't bring 
in a comic book, or a bottle, or a video of a soap into class and call 
that literary education!!

BTW, I HAVE read Gaiman, etc., and find them interesting.  However, 
viewing *Maus I* will do little for my understanding of how to LEARN how 
to read, for example, Kafka.

John V. Knapp
Professor, Dept. of English;
Northern Illinois University

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Not included in this edition...sedition it is,

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0442  Wednesday, 4 July 2007

From: 		Elliott Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 3 Jul 2007 17:03:37 -0500
Subject: 18.0418 Not included in this edition...sedition it is, 
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0418 Not included in this edition...sedition it is, 
indeed!

I wish that someone had told me that "A Lover's Complaint" was being 
jettisoned from the Shakespeare Canon before I plowed through "Critical 
Essays on Shakespeare's A Lover's Complaint Suffering Ecstasy" edited by 
Shirley Sharon-Zisser (pp202).

Thanks a lot for the recommendation "Shakespeare Quarterly"!

I must say, however, that Chapter 4 "Unfinished Business: A Lover's 
Complaint and Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet and The Rape of Lucrece by John 
Roe certainly eclipsed a lot of stuff that appears in other places on 
this sad short poem. I am, for example, one of those people that have 
always found more in Hamlet "than the action can cope with". It may be 
that some of the hints, as Roe argues in this essay can be found in "A 
Lover's Complaint". However, I would like to suggest to Mr. Bates ( re: 
p 116) that if he would agree that "the wretched letter" written by 
Hamlet to Ophelia and read to her by Polonius is actually a forgery 
written by that very wretched old man then he might end up with a 
different and perhaps a better view of the Prince's character.

Best,
Elliott H. Stone

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Request for Private Response

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0444  Wednesday, 4 July 2007

From: 		Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Subject: 	Request for Private Response

Could someone in private (i.e., not for publication on SHAKSPER) inform 
me why Oxfordians are so disturbed by the possibility of Lover's 
Complaint being removed from the canon?


_______________________________________________________________
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.

British Shakespeare Association Conference

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0441  Wednesday, 4 July 2007

From: 		Sid Lubow <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 4 Jul 2007 11:52:20 EDT
Subject: 	Re: British Shakespeare Association Conference

I hope that Jonathan Bate will discuss, either on Shaksper or at the 
upcoming Conference why he did not include A Lover's Complaint, or The 
Passionate Pilgrim in his latest creation, William Shakespeare COMPLETE 
WORKS, beyond the reason that ALC has been "strongly challenged."   The 
Bard in Heaven and Charles Darwin beside him, are very interested where 
and when the authority to remove the poems was bestowed upon him from 
the University of Warwick or the Royal Shakespeare Company to do that 
unscholarly thing.

Shakespeare, wrote, in sonnets and 8.10 and 110.12,

      "A liquid prifoner pent in walls of glaffe..."

      "A God in loue, to whom I am confin'd."

For their information, and Bate knows Narcissus very well, since he 
recognized him in the Bard's very first sonnet and in sonnet 8, 
according to his book, Shakespeare and Ovid. But, he did not put it all 
together in that last line, that narcissistically, the "foolish" 
teen-ager, had played God, that the Bard was, allegorically, telling us 
that "Man created God in his own Image."

The Bard had created his masterpieces in the 1609 Quarto, telling the 
religious and political leaders of his time, the British Church, and his 
rulers, and the Pope, and Spain, and Philip, and his colonies, that they 
too, were playing the devil.

       But then I sigh, and, with a piece of scripture,
      Tell them,-that God bids us do good for evil:
      And thus I clothe my naked villainy
      With old odd ends, stol'n forth of holy writ,
      And seem a saint when most I play the devil.
           Richard III, I, ii, 333

                          In religion
      What damned error, but some sober brow
      Will bless it, and approve it with a text,
      Hiding the grossness with fair ornament?
      And seemed to, sum his count, with,
      "A plague o' both your houses."
          Merchant of Venice, III, ii, 77

A very brave thing to say when hateful men are playing the devil, 
creating Gods and colonies.

Who will stand up for those "made tung-tide by authoritie."   S. 66.9

Respectfully,
Sid Lubow

_______________________________________________________________
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.