2007

Is AOL your service provider: If so. PLEASE READ!

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0423  Saturday, 30 June 2007

From: 		Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Saturday, June 30, 2007
Subject: 	Is AOL your service provider: If so. PLEASE READ!

Dear SHAKSPEReans,

My service provider - AT&T Commercial - continues to receive complaints 
that AOL subscribers are receiving "unsolicited commercial email (spam)" 
from the SHAKSPER server 12.101.12.90:

 >Warning!
 >
 >Hardy M. Cook
 >
 >A host (12.101.12.90) within your IP block may be
 >infected with a trojan, virus, or worm; or you may have a
 >malicious user on your network.  The host in question,
 >(12.101.12.90), is sending unsolicited commercial email (spam).
 >
 >If 12.101.12.90 is your firewall/gateway/NAT then it is
 >likely that the offending email is originating from your
 >internal network.
 >
 >Please ensure all of the following actions have or will be
 >completed in order to properly secure your network:
 >
 > . . . If AT&T continues to receive complaints regarding
 >12.101.12.90 we may take further action, including a
 >possible suspension of service. . . .

The complaint in this particular case was in response to an AOL 
subscriber's receiving a regular, listserv mailing from SHAKSPER (i.e., 
yesterday's first post regarding the updating of the World Shakespeare 
Bibliography):

 >Data received in complaint:
 > . . .
 >Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:52:18 -0400
 >Reply-To: x
 >Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference <x>
 >From: "Hardy M. Cook" <x>
 >Subject: SHK 18.0417 World Shakespeare Bibliography Online Updated
 >To: <Undisclosed Recipients>
 > . . .

As soon as I received this Warning Messages, as I had done in the past, 
I wrote to AT&T Network Security <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>, who responded:

 >It appears that AOL is still either automatically flagging
 >your newsletter as spam or an AOL subscriber on your list is
 >flagging it manually. We have noted our account and will be
 >ignoring this entry only, however, you may wish to purge or
 >reverify all AOL addresses on your list to prevent this from
 >reoccurring. Feel free to reply to this email if you have
 >any further questions.
 >
 >AT&T Internet Investigations and Security Services -
 >Network Security

Over the years, Eric has exchanged messages with the security folks at 
AOL, who are difficult to contact and to follow though with. In the 
past, AOL has returned us to "whitelist" status after being 
"blacklisting" us.

However, in this instance, it is not clear if AOL itself is 
automatically flagging all SHAKSPER messages or if an AOL member to 
SHAKSPER advertently or inadvertently has manually flagged SHAKSPER as a 
SPAM distributor.

Please, if you are receiving SHAKSPER at an AOL account, check to make 
sure that you have not flagged SHAKSPER or 12.101.12.90. In the 
meantime, I will explore what is involved in having to REverify the 
accounts of AOL subscribers.

Thank you,
Hardy M. Cook
Editor

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Degree in Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0422  Friday, 29 June 2007

[1] 	From: 	Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 28 Jun 2007 00:54:51 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0416 Degree in Shakespeare

[2] 	From: 	Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Wednesday, 27 Jun 2007 23:14:44 -0700
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0416 Degree in Shakespeare

[3] 	From: 	Kathy Dent <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 28 Jun 2007 12:12:03 +0100
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 18.0416 Degree in Shakespeare

[4] 	From: 	Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 28 Jun 2007 11:53:05 -0500
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 18.0416 Degree in Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 28 Jun 2007 00:54:51 -0400
Subject: 18.0416 Degree in Shakespeare
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0416 Degree in Shakespeare

 >Who will take on Brian?  How much effort would it take? Would it
 >be worth it?  Will Brian be a happy, balanced and mature person
 >without that effort?

Sadly, Brian may well prove to be happy, regardless of whether he is 
balanced and mature.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 27 Jun 2007 23:14:44 -0700
Subject: 18.0416 Degree in Shakespeare
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0416 Degree in Shakespeare

Sam Small asked--rhetorically?--about a young character in what is 
called reality TV, "...what is the future for Brian?  He clearly is very 
irritated--even aggressive when even overhearing talk of art and 
literature.  Who will take on Brian?  How much effort would it take? 
Would it be worth it?  Will Brian be a happy, balanced and mature person 
without that effort?"

If Brian's 19 years of living and dozen years of elementary schooling 
haven't acquainted him even with Romeo and Juliet as perennial stars of 
pop culture, I doubt he is worth any further educational efforts.  Brian 
has obviously shut out all experience he doesn't know or like, and is 
past the age where he might by accident have some tiny epiphany about 
the great world outside of himself.  Best to let a clod like him slip, 
frictionless, through the remainder of his life.  He won't be that 
unhappy or, in this economy, unproductive in his abysmal stupidity and 
permanent immaturity.  Troubled humanitarians like Sam Small would be 
better rewarded, and the world would be marginally improved, by shedding 
any liberal guilt about people like Brian and instead expending 
resources on people who desire a little saving effort.

This elitist opinion aside (shocking stuff, I say, from a kneejerk lib 
Dem in San Francisco), I'd like to hear some devil's advocacy on whether 
Shakespeare--in any amount, in any style--is fundamental.

Al Magary

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Kathy Dent <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 28 Jun 2007 12:12:03 +0100
Subject: 18.0416 Degree in Shakespeare
Comment: 	RE: SHK 18.0416 Degree in Shakespeare

Sam Small writes:

 >I ask this list what is the future for Brian?  He clearly is very
 >irritated - even aggressive when even overhearing talk of art
 >and literature.   Who will take on Brian?  How much effort
 >would it take? Would it be worth it?  Will Brian be a happy,
 >balanced and mature person without that effort?
 >
 >Troubled.
 >
 >SAM SMALL

Dear Troubled Sam Small,

Get real.  MOST people aren't interested in Shakespeare.  End of.

(I must admit to having been awestruck that Brian has negotiated his way 
through the British education system without even hearing of the 
existence of Shakespeare!  It shows a single-minded determination to 
learn NOTHING that might impede his progression towards being a yoof 
role model.  His future is secure: express crass opinions, get money and 
become a celebrity by the shortest possible route.)

Kathy Dent

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 28 Jun 2007 11:53:05 -0500
Subject: 18.0416 Degree in Shakespeare
Comment: 	RE: SHK 18.0416 Degree in Shakespeare

Reading Shakespeare (or any great literature) should make one a better 
person, but doesn't necessarily do so.

You could make a comparison to going to church (here standing for any 
organized religious ritual or instruction). It should cause you to walk 
more humbly before the Lord and love your neighbor more than you would 
otherwise. I would call this better.

It may instead, however, teach you hate, violence, self-glorification 
and hypocrisy. I would call this worse.

It also may teach you nothing at all, as you literally or figuratively 
doze through the lessons.

Reading literature (by which I mean fiction, drama or poetry of some 
depth or insight) can and should make you more aware of your fellow 
humans, their hopes, fears, successes and failures, acts of generosity 
and of selfishness, spite and cruelty, deeds of courage and cowardice: 
the whole nine yards. It should make you more sympathetic toward them, 
and more humbled by your own follies, cruelties, and failures. Of 
course, it doesn't always.

One of the ways that you define yourself and your attitude toward 
literature (and, for some of us, your reasons for teaching it) is by the 
degree to which you think that there is some lasting and absolute value 
in experiencing what other people experience, so that you can be both 
inside another person and outside that person thinking about what you're 
experiencing.

All literature works that way to the degree that you are able experience 
it. The agony of Samson is different from the agony of Jake Barnes, but 
the suffering of both men is very real, at least to me.

To turn back to the sole begetter of this list, one of his characters 
that I have struggled with for decades is Falstaff. On the one hand, his 
quick wit and his total irresponsibility are so refreshing that it is 
hard not to love him. On the other hand, he is a liar, a cheat, a thief, 
a con-man, a braggart and a coward. You can learn a lot about yourself 
from mulling over why you think one side of Falstaff is more important 
than the other, and so also with Hamlet, Shylock, Macbeth, and, to one 
degree or another, all the rest.

Your students (if you are cursed / blessed with such objects) will have 
their own set of responses which you can, with pluck and luck, get them 
to explore. This will teach them things not only about the work in 
question, but about the nature of literature, humanity generally, and 
themselves.

That, I think, is the point.

Cheers,
don

p.s. Pray for give the pontificating sound of this post. It's something 
I've thought about off and on for a long time and take rather seriously. 
  I hope it isn't too dreadfully pompous.


_______________________________________________________________
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.

It's Academic

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0420  Friday, 29 June 2007

From: 		Hannibal Hamlin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 28 Jun 2007 11:42:54 -0400
Subject: 18.0411 It's Academic
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0411 It's Academic

A very interesting topic.  Of course, part of the dilemma that we face 
(here and elsewhere) is that the popular sense of "academic" has 
degenerated into something like "useless" or "irrelevant."  This is 
probably part of the broader anti-intellectual strain of modern, 
especially American, culture.  On the other hand, it's also a sense for 
which academics are themselves partly to blame, many having deliberately 
cut themselves off from the general public during the high theory days 
of the late twentieth century.  (Of course, there is a heavy irony here, 
since what many academics THOUGHT they were doing was precisely the 
opposite -- re-engaging with the public sphere.)  But this is to 
oversimplify -- some.

I have taught at both the high school and university levels, so I have 
some sense of the similarities and differences between them.  High 
school teachers probably have some impatience with a certain amount of 
the discussion going on among university scholars.  Anyone who has 
taught Shakespeare to a grade 10 class of students who would rather be 
doing almost anything else will probably feel that a good deal of what 
is published in scholarly journals is of little use to them.  On the 
other hand, this may also be true for many of us who teach college 
students.  But scholarly discourse is shaped by factors more important 
than pedagogical utility.  One great feature of the university is its 
preservation and support of "useless" study, the pursuit of knowledge 
for its own sake.  The discussion of presentism might be an example. 
(Though we're back to the irony -- those interested in presentism are 
surely motivated by a desire to be as useful, as relevant as possible. 
Ah well.)

To take a different approach, however, the fact that scholarship is not 
governed by utility or practicality doesn't mean it lacks rigor.  The 
general public is fascinated by all sorts of topics that academics have 
no time for, because they fail to pass basic tests of scholarship (a 
perfect example is the Great Taboo on this list -- the authorship 
question -- a subject scholars find irritating and idiotic).

All this simply is to say that I agree with Hardy's principles.  If this 
list is to be more than simply a chat room, it needs to aim at an 
"academic" -- positive sense -- level of discussion.  Otherwise it risks 
becoming "academic" in that other sense.  All should feel welcome to 
join in, but the matters under discussion will not always be of interest 
(or use) to everyone.  And that will be true of university professors as 
well as high school teachers.

Hannibal
Associate Professor of English
The Ohio State 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.

How long to write a play?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0421  Friday, 29 June 2007

[1] 	From: 	Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 28 Jun 2007 00:52:18 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0415 How long to write a play?

[2] 	From: 	Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Wednesday, 27 Jun 2007 23:29:50 -0700
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0415 How long to write a play?

[3] 	From: 	Louis W. Thompson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 28 Jun 2007 16:48:05 EDT
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0415 How long to write a play?

[4] 	From: 	Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 29 Jun 2007 10:26:23 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0415 How long to write a play?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 28 Jun 2007 00:52:18 -0400
Subject: 18.0415 How long to write a play?
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0415 How long to write a play?

 > I just put my copy of Hall (Scolar, 1970) on the scale and it weighs
 >over 10 pounds. It's in black-letter type. Be honest. The last time you
 >read Hall, how long did it take?

To be sure, Hall is slow going; which might be why there is much more 
Holinshed that Hall in the plays.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 27 Jun 2007 23:29:50 -0700
Subject: 18.0415 How long to write a play?
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0415 How long to write a play?

Bill Godschalk wrote:

 >I just put my copy of Hall (Scolar, 1970) on the scale and it weighs over
 >10 pounds. It's in black-letter type. Be honest. The last time you read
 >Hall, how long did it take?

No one but me even admitted they'd read Hall the last time this question 
was asked several years ago by R.A. Cantrell, and I doubt the number of 
readers has gone up much.  Hall is 800,000 words--10 times the length of 
the so-called standard book that I am sure everyone has read.  Hall is 
poorly printed blackletter in facsimile, yes, but legible to the modern 
eye as closely printed in early 19th century typeface in Ellis' edition. 
  So the quick calculation for most people is--let me see, as I count my 
fingers and all my toes--800,000 times zero.

Cheers,
Al Magary

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Louis W. Thompson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 28 Jun 2007 16:48:05 EDT
Subject: 18.0415 How long to write a play?
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0415 How long to write a play?

Working full time on the project?

I suspect WS began work on the next play while staging the previous. 
When he got on deadline, he worked with laser intensity.

It is the old front burner - back burner analogy ....if they had burners 
back then.

Does anyone write a literary work without jotting down ideas first?

Louis W. Thompson

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 29 Jun 2007 10:26:23 -0500
Subject: 18.0415 How long to write a play?
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0415 How long to write a play?

 >The question of how many sources Shakespeare actually used has
 >become of interest to me of late. I have an estimate that he only
 >needed 19 books and 10 plays. And of further interest, 7 of the
 >books he got from his schooldays buddy, Richard Field. I'd
 >appreciate the list's comments on this.
 >
 >Colin Cox

One brief question: in how many of the plays he used as sources might he 
have acted?

--Bob G.

 >But I just put my copy of Hall (Scolar, 1970) on the
 >scale and it weighs over 10 pounds. It's in black-letter
 >type. Be honest. The last time you read Hall, how long
 >did it take?
 >
 >Bill

But Shakespeare didn't have to read the whole thing to write a given 
history.  I would imagine he'd just read, or reread, what Hall had to 
say about a few of the events he was writing about in a given history. 
He may once have read the whole thing in leisure hours, or never more 
than dipped into it here and there.

--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 18.0419  Friday, 29 June 2007

From: 		Dan Venning <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 27 Jun 2007 22:13:28 -0400
Subject: 18.0413 Classical Comics
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0413 Classical Comics

Graphic novels and comic strips have become quite literary in the last 
decade or so--by literary, here, I mean conscious of and referencing 
classics in literature.

Graphic novels and comic books are themselves often written like film 
scripts; for an example, here are a few pages from a 1997 script for the 
kids' comic THE TICK: 
http://homepage.mac.com/dmcduffie/site/Tick_vs._Auld_Lang_Syne_Sc.html.

My colleague at the Graduate Center (we're in the Theatre Department) 
recently presented a paper on the theatricality of a particular graphic 
novel--I haven't yet read her paper, but it won a major graduate student 
prize.

Neil Gaiman in particular has made a lot of use of Shakespeare and 
Renaissance history and literature in his works. His epic SANDMAN (a 
complete series in 10 graphic novels, the main themes are dreaming and 
storytelling), one of the best comics ever, in my opinion, has several 
sections on Shakespeare and on Renaissance history and characters. At 
one point, we see W.S. and the first performance of A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S 
DREAM, and the final episode closing the comic is W.S. paying a special 
debt to the Sandman.

SANDMAN was written for DC Comics, but recently Gaiman published a novel 
with Marvel called 1602, in which he imagines the central Marvel 
superheroes (X-men, Daredevil, Spidey, etc.) in the year 1602, in 
England. I haven't fully read this one, but browsing it was fascinating.

Dan Venning

_______________________________________________________________
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.