2008

Books to Buy

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0055  Wednesday, 30 January 2008

[1]	From:	David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Monday, 28 Jan 2008 15:26:58 -0500
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0052 Books to Buy

[2]	From:	Kirk McElhearn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Monday, 28 Jan 2008 21:45:10 +0100
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0052 Books to Buy

[3]	From:	Ron Severdia <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Monday, 28 Jan 2008 13:05:22 -0800
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0052 Books to Buy

[4]	From:	Lynn Brenner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Monday, 28 Jan 2008 16:48:55 EST
	Subj:	Re: copyright

[5]	From:	Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Monday, 28 Jan 2008 16:58:11 -0800
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0052 Books to Buy

[6]	From:	Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Tuesday, 29 Jan 2008 10:36:46 -0000
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0052 Books to Buy


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Monday, 28 Jan 2008 15:26:58 -0500
Subject: 19.0052 Books to Buy
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0052 Books to Buy

I'm very happy to hear that Joe Egert has paid for a download of my 
Eight Hamlets. Thanks Joe, and I hope you enjoy it!

I somehow doubt that Gabriel Egan begrudges me my pittance, but if he 
wants to offer my book for free, I wouldn't mind. I expect the book to 
make some serious money, but the way things are in this world, and this 
profession, it seems unlikely to happen until after I'm dead. At least I 
can take some pleasure in contemplating that long tail.

Best wishes,
David Bishop

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Kirk McElhearn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Monday, 28 Jan 2008 21:45:10 +0100
Subject: 19.0052 Books to Buy
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0052 Books to Buy

 >I take it, then, that Gabriel Egan neither accepts royalties
 >himself, nor feels that anyone else has the right to be paid
 >for their labour in this kind. I'm rather with Sam Johnson's
 >oft-quoted dictum that 'no man but a blockhead ever wrote,
 >except for money'.

The Bradley book is in the public domain, and available from Gutenberg:

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/16966

Kirk

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Ron Severdia <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Monday, 28 Jan 2008 13:05:22 -0800
Subject: 19.0052 Books to Buy
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0052 Books to Buy

 >Larry Weiss said:

 >Giving away or selling pirated copies of her works does
 >have that effect.

This is a common misnomer and an oft-used blanket statement about a 
copyright "protecting" an author. While Bradley's work is in the public 
domain (and therefore should be accessible by anyone free of charge) 
this doesn't necessarily mean that someone can't charge for binding a 
copy (or digitally, for that matter) and selling it to anyone who will 
pay for it. That's the beauty of public domain and freedom of 
information. And contrary to popular belief, pirating a book can even be 
beneficial to the proceeds (not to mention the spreading of the ideas 
contained therein). A prime example is Coelho's The Alchemist, where the 
author himself is a proponent:

http://piratecoelho.wordpress.com/

http://torrentfreak.com/alchemist-author-pirates-own-books-080124/

http://en.sevenload.com/videos/bIjFXZD/DLD08-Day1-Creating-universes

Maybe Dr. Wells could try something new?

Ron Severdia
PlayShakespeare.com

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Lynn Brenner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Monday, 28 Jan 2008 16:48:55 EST
Subject:	Re: copyright

My heartfelt thanks to Messrs. Weiss, Lindley, and Egert for so 
eloquently expressing the view of someone who writes for a living!

And I need hardly add, a view that William Shakespeare would 
unquestionably have shared.

Lynn Brenner

[5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Monday, 28 Jan 2008 16:58:11 -0800
Subject: 19.0052 Books to Buy
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0052 Books to Buy

Larry Weiss says, in response to Gabriel Egan:

It is an axiom of Marxism (a world view which I suspect Gabriel finds 
attractive and which has achieved such signal success in actual 
practice) that all property . . .

Infuriating. Regardless of what he thinks of any opinion expressed by 
anybody in this forum, I think Larry Weiss should be ashamed of himself 
for stooping to red-baiting on SHAKSPER.

Bob Projansky

[6]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Tuesday, 29 Jan 2008 10:36:46 -0000
Subject: 19.0052 Books to Buy
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0052 Books to Buy

Larry Weiss asks:

 >Would Gabriel treat a living author the same way? Would
 >he, for example, make a PDF file of Stanley
 >Wells's "Shakespeare & Co.," which bears a 2006
 >copyright in Stanley's name, and make it available
 >on Gabriel's website to be downloaded by anyone
 >who wants to read the book but prefers not to pay for it?

Several respondents wrote as though I had advocated such a thing, while 
a careful reading of my posts will show I did not. Just to be clear: no, 
I wouldn't deliberately undermine someone else's monograph sales by 
distributing large numbers of copies for free. (I might go beyond the 
permitted limited distribution for the purposes of teaching and 
research, and think we should all push those limits as hard as we can.)

The only outright law-breaking I advocated was picking the digital locks 
on the new digitizations of the Henslowe-Alleyn papers. One would have 
to think the Digital Millennium Copyright Act a piece of reasoned and 
sensible legislation to find fault with my position there.

 >I would be willing to wager that Gabriel
 >would feel much abused if he were hired
 >to teach a class of undergraduates
 >and, after doing so, was denied his salary
 >on the ground that he had delivered the
 >same lectures the previous year, so he
 >had already been paid for them.

The ownership of teaching materials is an interesting aspect to this 
topic, so I'll strain Hardy's indulgence with an anecdote that I think 
is germane. In my first few months as Education Lecturer at the replica 
Globe in south London an Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) audit was 
done by external lawyers.  (These lawyers' time was a 'gift' from their 
law firm, but a cynic would see this as a Trojan horse: the audit found 
that 'Why yes, you DO have a range of IPR problems, and our firm can 
help you solve them'.) It was suggested to me by the lawyers that all 
the materials (lectures, articles, books) I generated while employed by 
the Globe would, because I was its employee, belong to the Globe. I 
pointed out that if this were true, it must by the same token be true 
that all the lectures I wrote at my previous institution belonged to 
that institution and could not in fairness be given to students at the 
Globe. Hence I would need a few months relief from lecturing to write a 
fresh set of lectures for the Globe. At this point my employer asked the 
lawyers not to pursue this point.

The ownership of ideas generated by people who work for educational 
institutions is a vexed and unresolved question. Universities rightly 
think it iniquitous that they pay academics to generate knowledge that 
is then given (virtually for free) to publishers and thereafter sold 
back at great cost to the university library. In the digital economy I 
have been sketching in these posts, universities themselves would retain 
in their Institutional Repositories the knowledge their staff generated. 
It is no surprise that publishers are very worried indeed about 
Institutional Repositories.

 >There is no principled difference between that and
 >publishing unauthorized copies of a book containing
 >the same lectures.

I haven't proposed such a thing. I'd like academics to think beyond the 
book as a medium, despite the pressure to confine oneself to that 
medium. The main pressure arises from the means by which professional 
advancement is regulated.

 >It is an axiom of Marxism (a world view which
 >I suspect Gabriel finds attractive . . .

What gave me away?

 >. . .  all property is the fruit of labour.

Actually, the claim of Marx (and his predecessors) is that all 'value' 
(not 'property') is generated by labour. In Marxism, 'property' is a 
notion arising in particular circumstances of production and varies 
remarkably across times and places. (One might see the story of Cain and 
Abel as the proto-typical conflict between the arable farmer, for whom 
land is property, and the pastoralist for whom that notion is absurd. 
For a simpler illustration of the same point, I ask students to imagine 
the privatization of the atmosphere and consider whether they could ever 
accept the idea that the air can be owned.)

 >. . .  intellectual property, which is a
 >direct capitalization of labour.

Surely SHAKSPER, the exertion of so much intellectual labour by so many 
people for 18 years, disproves this assertion. Where's the capitalization?

 >To infringe a writer's copyright is to deprive him
 >of compensation for the sweat of his brow;
 >it is theft of his labour.

I advocated breaking the digital locks that are proposed for the 
Henslowe-Alleyn papers digitization. Those doing the digitization of the 
papers will claim that although the primary materials are not their 
intellectual property, they are imbuing these materials with fresh 
copyrightable value by digitizing them. This absurd argument is the 
reason that libraries feel entitled to put on their microfilm images the 
words 'Not for reproduction' even when the image is of a 400-year old 
book. Spurious authority used to be given to this claim by the sheer 
cost of making microfilms: it just felt like those who had invested so 
much in the copying machines ought thereby to acquire some rights.  Now 
that copying technology is very cheap, those who once claimed such 
spurious rights (acquired by copying) have had to perform an 
embarrassing volte-face and insist that merely copying something doesn't 
make it yours.

David Lindley writes:

 >I take it, then, that Gabriel Egan neither
 >accepts royalties himself, nor feels that
 >anyone else has the right to be paid for
 >their labour in this kind.

Royalties are not payment for labour, as indeed their etymology betrays: 
the notion derives from royal prerogatives and land-use rights. 
Surprisingly, the OED's first example is as late as 1857. For the sake 
of achieving agreement, I'd happily leave out of the argument that I'm 
making for Open Access all those writers for whom royalty payments are a 
substantial proportion of their income and confine myself to those 
writers who are primarily employed by the state as educators and 
researchers.

I can't see why David thinks that the ideas I have advocated require me 
to forgo the very small royalties I currently receive: I have not spoken 
against the paying of royalties. That said, I would happily forgo all of 
mine as the price for being able to get Open Access to all the research 
materials that are currently in private ownership despite being funded 
by public money.

Joe Egert wrote:

 >I recently downloaded David Bishop's
 >new EIGHT HAMLETS for the exorbitant price of one dollar (the paper
 >version was priced much higher). Having read Eagan, I'm now inclined to
 >demand a full refund of this unconscionable
 >exaction. Perhaps Gabriel might download
 >the full text onto his site and offer it free to
 >the rest of us. I'm sure David won't object.

I'm afraid I don't understand Joe's point and cannot respond.

Gabriel Egan

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Littered Under Mercury

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0054  Wednesday, 30 January 2008

[1]	From:	Martine Van Elk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Tuesday, 29 Jan 2008 10:32:03 -0800
	Subt:	Re: littered under Mercury

[2]	From:	Stephanie Kydd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Tuesday, 29 Jan 2008 13:10:58 -0800 (PST)
	Subt:	SHK 19.0049 Littered Under Mercury

[3]	From:	John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Tuesday, 29 Jan 2008 23:13:17 -0500
	Subt:	Re: SHK 19.0049 Littered Under Mercury


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Martine Van Elk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Tuesday, 29 Jan 2008 10:32:03 -0800
Subject:	Re: littered under Mercury

Hi Steve,

Autolycus says: "My father named me Autolycus, who being, as I am, 
littered under Mercury, was likewise a snapper-up of unconsidered 
trifles" (4.3.24-26). The pronoun "who" refers to Autolycus, the 
mythological figure. Autolycus, the character in the play, is a regular 
human being, but also "littered under" Mercury. Where the mythological 
Autolycus was actually fathered by Mercury, the figure Autolycus in the 
play was born under the star of Mercury--both described as "littered 
under." The character in the play is not literally saying his father is 
Mercury, but talking astrology. The Norton Shakespeare says in a 
footnote for littered under: "Fathered by Mercury; born when the planet 
Mercury was in the ascendant."

Hope this helps,
Martine van Elk

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Stephanie Kydd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Tuesday, 29 Jan 2008 13:10:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Littered Under Mercury
Comment:	SHK 19.0049 Littered Under Mercury

In F1, these lines from WT run as follows:

   My Trafficke is sheetes: when the Kite builds, looke to
   lesser Linnen. My Father nam'd me Autolicus, who be-
   ing (as I am) lytter'd vnder Mercurie, was likewise a
   snapper-vp of vnconsidered trifles:

In the F1 text, "as I am" is clearly parenthetical; "was likewise" 
refers to Autolicus' father. The line seems pretty straigtforward: both 
Autolicus and his father were "lytter'd vnder Mercurie." The suggestive 
sexual context (Trafficke, sheetes, Kite, Linnen, snapper-vp, trifles) 
suggests that "Mercurie" has nothing to do with the god or the 
astrological sign and everything to do with "Mercurie" as a treatment 
for venereal disease.

   - Stephanie Kydd

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Tuesday, 29 Jan 2008 23:13:17 -0500
Subject: 19.0049 Littered Under Mercury
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0049 Littered Under Mercury

Stephen Merriam Foley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 >I am wondering about the lines in A Winter's Tale 4.2 when
 >Autolycus reproduces his naming. "My father called me Autolycus"
 >This seems clear enough, if suspiciously indirect, and parallel
 >to the naming of the false Autolycus (Some call him Autolycus).
 >But then the next pronoun is "someone who was" which should
 >be Autolycus himself (nearest noun) but who is clearly (tense of
 >verb "was") the father and not the son. So "littered under Mercury"
 >presents a puzzle. Since the father IS Mercury. Autolycus and his
 >half-brother twin were the result of two inseminations, one by
 >Hermes and one by Apollo. So what I am wondering is how
 >Mercury is littered under Mercury. Where have I gone wrong?

It is not generally taken that Autolycus of Bohemia is the classical 
figure, literally engendered by Mercury. The connection is more 
symbolic: Mercury is, among other things, the god of thieves.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Books to Buy

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0052  Monday, 28 January 2008

[1]	From:	Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Sunday, 27 Jan 2008 02:58:24 -0500
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0046 Books to Buy

[2]	From:	David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Sunday, 27 Jan 2008 21:47:18 -0000
	Subj:	RE: SHK 19.0046 Books to Buy

[3]	From:	Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Monday, 28 Jan 2008 11:02:13 -0800 (PST)
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0046 Books to Buy


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Sunday, 27 Jan 2008 02:58:24 -0500
Subject: 19.0046 Books to Buy
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0046 Books to Buy

Gabriel Egan

 >see[s] no need for legal barriers to simple copying of words
 >so long as the meanings and attributions are not distorted
 >thereby. In giving away copies of A. C. Bradley's _Shakespearean
 >Tragedy_ on [his] website [he does] not misrepresent Bradley
 >nor take credit for what he wrote, and that's important.

No doubt, and many authors are annoyed when their words are 
misrepresented; but the sensible ones recognize that a certain amount of 
that sort of thing goes with the territory. Misstating an author's ideas 
hardly injures her in a material sense or reduces her standard of 
living. Giving away or selling pirated copies of her works does have 
that effect.

Of course, making a copy of Bradley's "Shakespearean Tragedy" available 
for free is a reasonably safe bet, as that book is almost certainly in 
the public domain. Bradley's lectures were first published in 1904 and 
Bradley died in 1935 (and is beyond caring about his words being 
misrepresented). Would Gabriel treat a living author the same way? Would 
he, for example, make a PDF file of Stanley Wells's "Shakespeare & Co.," 
which bears a 2006 copyright in Stanley's name, and make it available on 
Gabriel's website to be downloaded by anyone who wants to read the book 
but prefers not to pay for it?

I would be willing to wager that Gabriel would feel much abused if he 
were hired to teach a class of undergraduates and, after doing so, was 
denied his salary on the ground that he had delivered the same lectures 
the previous year, so he had already been paid for them. There is no 
principled difference between that and publishing unauthorized copies of 
a book containing the same lectures.

It is an axiom of Marxism (a world view which I suspect Gabriel finds 
attractive and which has achieved such signal success in actual 
practice) that all property is the fruit of labour. Whether that is true 
of land, machinery, money, etc., is a point to be mooted elsewhere; but 
that notion is uniquely true of intellectual property, which is a direct 
capitalization of labour. To infringe a writer's copyright is to deprive 
him of compensation for the sweat of his brow; it is theft of his labour.

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Sunday, 27 Jan 2008 21:47:18 -0000
Subject: 19.0046 Books to Buy
Comment:	RE: SHK 19.0046 Books to Buy

I take it, then, that Gabriel Egan neither accepts royalties himself, 
nor feels that anyone else has the right to be paid for their labour in 
this kind. I'm rather with Sam Johnson's oft-quoted dictum that 'no man 
but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money'.

David Lindley

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Monday, 28 Jan 2008 11:02:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 19.0046 Books to Buy
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0046 Books to Buy

Gabriel Egan explains:

 >I see no need for legal barriers to simple copying of words so long as
 >the meanings and attributions are not distorted thereby. In giving away
 >copies of A. C. Bradley's _Shakespearean Tragedy_ on my website I do not
 >misrepresent Bradley nor take credit for what he wrote, and that's
 >important.
 >
 >The medium by which Bradley's words are conveyed is unimportant. Our
 >copyright laws exist to support the businesses of those who have, until
 >recently, controlled the medium by which most mass dissemination took
 >place: printing on paper. Printing is no longer the best medium for mass
 >dissemination of words, and those laws are an impediment to knowledge.
 >
 >The claim that copyright law protects writers is untrue. I want to be
 >able to copy anybody's words for the purpose of reading and engaging
 >with them, and I am happy for anybody to copy my words for the same
 >purposes. The only "foul use" is misrepresentation, and the best tool to
 >prevent it is open debate.

JE: I recently downloaded David Bishop's new EIGHT HAMLETS for the 
exorbitant price of one dollar (the paper version was priced much 
higher). Having read Eagan, I'm now inclined to demand a full refund of 
this unconscionable exaction. Perhaps Gabriel might download the full 
text onto his site and offer it free to the rest of us. I'm sure David 
won't object.

Or would he?

Joe Egert

_______________________________________________________________
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.

WS & GWB

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0053  Wednesday, 30 January 2008

From:		Jack Lynch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Tuesday, 29 Jan 2008 21:39:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject:	WS & GWB

Dear folks,

In a few weeks, I'll be addressing a lay audience-not at all 
scholarly-and they've asked me to talk about the political uses of 
Shakespeare.  In the academy, we're accustomed to reading "political" 
broadly, but this audience is thinking specifically about modern party 
politics-and, since it's an American audience, American references will 
inevitably dominate.

I'll be grateful if members of SHAKSPER can direct me to any 
particularly juicy examples that will play well before a non-specialist 
audience.  There's no shortage of material-LexisNexis turns up more than 
a thousand hits for "George W. Bush and Shakespeare"-so what I'm looking 
for is particularly striking examples that will work in this kind of 
setting.  It helps if the plays are familiar to modern nonacademic 
audiences.

The obvious place to start is comparisons between the current president 
and Shakespearean characters, episodes, and quotations, though 
references to recent US presidents or other high-profile politicos, any 
of the current presidential candidates, or perhaps Tony Blair would fill 
the bill.

In my quick survey of some of those LexisNexis hits, two topics come up 
again and again-both, oddly, to the same character, though they're 
deployed to different ends.  The first came in the aftermath of 11 
September 2001, when Bush's supporters likened him to the dissolute 
Prince Hal, now elevated to a newly serious Henry V.  (One commentator-a 
one-time speechwriter for Reagan and Bush I-was on NPR on 21 September 
2001, declaring "In last night's speech, we saw the President go from a 
callow Prince Hal to a mature Henry the Fourth."  Give or take, I guess.)

The second is to compare GWB to Henry V not in his impressive accession 
to political maturity, but as an invader of dubious moral authority.  As 
the New York Daily News put it in May 2003, "This year's Shakespeare in 
Central Park production is about the leader of a country who diverts the 
people's attention away from the dubious way he came to power by 
invading another country.  President George W. Bush?  No, Henry V."

They're the two leitmotifs; other examples do show up.  Nicholas Kristof 
wrote a widely quoted essay in the New York Times in September 2004; it 
goes through any number of comparisons, some obvious, some forced. 
Shakespeare would have taught Bush about the inevitability of 
intelligence failures, since Othello believes Iago's lies; "Mr. Bush 
emulates Coriolanus, a well-meaning Roman general and aristocrat whose 
war against barbarians leads to an early victory but who then proves so 
inflexible and intemperate that tragedy befalls him and his people." 
That kind of thing.

I also note without comment that LexisNexis turns up more than 300 
articles under "Hillary Clinton and Lady Macbeth."  (Cherie Blair 
doesn't fair much better.)

For this talk I'm not interested in whether the comparisons are apt, or 
whether the politics are left- or right-leaning, only in the fact that 
the comparisons are being made.

Any takers?

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Richard III Novel?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0051  Monday, 28 January 2008

[1]	From:	Greg Hanthorn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Saturday, 26 Jan 2008 20:21:08 EST
	Subj:	SHK 19.0037 Richard III Novel?

[2]	From:	Margaret Hargrave <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Sunday, 27 Jan 2008 14:34:51 +1100
	Subj:	Richard III novel?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Greg Hanthorn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Saturday, 26 Jan 2008 20:21:08 EST
Subject: Richard III Novel?
Comment:	SHK 19.0037 Richard III Novel?

Larry Weiss writes in response to the request "Richard III Novel":

 >It's not a novel, but the BBC series "House of Cards" is a clear
 >parallel, in many respects a deliberate one. There were two more sets of
 >programs in this series, the second of which has Lear parallels and the
 >final one Macbeth.

In fact, "House of Cards," "To Play the King," and "The Final Cut" (the 
three elements of the exceptional BBC Frances Urquhart series) were all 
novels first (with the same titles) written by Michael Dobbs. Paperback 
editions were published by Harper-Collins Publisher in 1995.

Greg Hanthorn
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it._

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Margaret Hargrave <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Sunday, 27 Jan 2008 14:34:51 +1100
Subject:	Richard III novel?

As a retired English teacher from Sydney, I can report that I and 
various other teachers of senior high school English, have teamed study 
of _Macbeth_ with _House of Cards_. The parallel is striking. Teaching 
material on this text combination has been published by the English 
Teachers' Association of NSW.

Michael Dobbs wrote the novel(s) from which the acclaimed TV series was 
derived.

Cheers,
Margaret Hargrave

_______________________________________________________________
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.