March
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0139 Wednesday, 25 March 2009 [Editor's Note: I think we have had enough of the merits or lack thereof regarding Our Town.] [1] From: Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 23 Mar 2009 20:12:19 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 20.0129 Middle School Drama [2] From: Louis Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 24 Mar 2009 13:59:37 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Please tell us Ms. Brenner is joshing [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 23 Mar 2009 20:12:19 -0400 Subject: 20.0129 Middle School Drama Comment: Re: SHK 20.0129 Middle School Drama >Evidently I am without the requisite "histrionic sensibility" >that would allow me to appreciate "Our Town," a play >about two families whose chief concerns are preparing >breakfast for their children, getting them off to school, >their children's struggle with schoolwork, the local >organist's drinking problem...... one might toss in any >matter whatever -- the weather, property taxes, >fashionable dress, etc. -- an endless recitation of >further trivia, without losing one iota of whatever >dramatic force is contained in the nonsense already >present in this argument of this play. When I was a young and arrogant know-it-all I thought "Our Town" was a dull play about exactly the kind of dull people I'd fled my home town (pop. 1732) to get away from. Then I was cast as the mother in "The Happy Journey" and in the course of rehearsing it I had something like a mystical experience. I felt such love and pity in and for that family, for the folks in my boring home town, for every mortal too busy or blind to pause and experience that love and pity. I then read all Wilder's works: novels, essays, plays -- he was far more of a know-it-all than I, or anyone I'm ever likely to know. The "something like a mystical experience" that takes off from the ordinary and returns to the ordinary with fresh eyes is an alternative pattern to drama's heroic conflicts, but it is, I think, why Aristotle considered drama a subset of poetry. from T.S. Eliot's "Little Gidding" We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. Through the unknown, remembered gate When the last of earth left to discover Is that which was the beginning; At the source of the longest river The voice of the hidden waterfall And the children in the apple-tree Not known, because not looked for But heard, half heard, in the stillness Between the two waves of the sea. Quick now, here, now, always -- A condition of complete simplicity (Costing not less than everything)e shall not cease from exploration [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 24 Mar 2009 13:59:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Please tell us Ms. Brenner is joshing Lynn Brenner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > > Well, Mr. Swilley can certainly give a plot synopsis. > > [Thanks. ] > >I wonder what he makes of 'The Cherry Orchard' and >'Long Day's Journey Into Night', two plays in which >arguably even less happens than in 'Our Town'. The psychological aspects of Cherry Orchard and more importantly its presentation of the old effete world of the Ravenskys in hopeless contest with the new, vibrant (but destructive of human values) world of Lopahkin take this play skies above the homey drivel of Our Town. And Long Day's Journey's gradual exposure of sickness and scenes of lacerating familial hate keep us on the edge of our seats with eye-widening recognition of our broken human nature. There is not the remotest comparison to be made of this with the plain-vanilla of Our Town's soap-opera. (But wait! There is a new production of "Our Town" just opened in NY; an actor friend of mine tells me that the play is presented as *satire*. This do I long to see, for I think it possible that such an interpretation might rescue it. I am promised a luncheon with the director shortly and intend to question him on his satirical "take" of the play. I'll let you know what I learn.) His diatribe strongly implies that his acute boredom (and 'embarrassment' -- why embarrassment?) I would expect any *thinking* audience to be embarrassed to witness actors attempting to make emotional capital of such questionably "critical" issues as getting breakfast, doing schoolwork, etc. are a universal audience reaction to the play. Yet he must know that's not the case. Perhaps what bothers him is that he's the only one squirming. 'Our Town' has always been a great hit with audiences, who unfailingly understand and are moved by its point: Life is brief and miraculous, even -- indeed, especially -- in the mundane realities that we take for granted. [I have long ago lost hope that popularity with the public constitutes a mark of value of anything. The clunky, kewpie-doll Rolex watch has been sold to a public as the ultimate beauty - and they have bought it. Just so have they mindlessly celebrated musicals like "Cats" and " Chorus Line", the latter with its ugly assumption that the private lives of actors and actresses should be stripped and exposed if their professional talents are to be judged. That audiences of this grotesquerie do not rise as one and hoot and beat the dickens out of the "director" who indulges in such mean interrogations is the measure of our loss of values and perspectives.] Moreover, it is a quintessential piece of theatre, requiring no scenery, costumes, or props to create a recognizable world that envelopes its audience. [Well, good for it! And more plays should be presented so, so that we can concentrate on real issues the plays present. We have forgotten Aristotle's observation that Spectacle is the least important of all the aspects of drama. ] It has no bad roles. [Au contraire. It has no important ones.] Far from needing to be 'rescued' by a great director, it's virtually actor-and-director-proof. [Evidently. That is why we are where we are with most productions of this work.] And a play about the brevity of life gains a measure of poignancy when it is performed by 12 and 13 year-olds for an audience of their parents and grandparents. [Remarks about the brevity of life and the failure of all of us to notice its particulars occur only at the very end of the play - when the audience been burdened with two acts of recitation of life's most boring events that are hardly worthy of anyone's observation or remembrance. ] What more could one want for a middle school drama department? [At least a little more, certainly. Even middle-schoolers should not be persuaded that the events in Our Town should be remembered. We insult their intelligence to do so.] Lynn Brenner [L. Swilley] _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0138 Wednesday, 25 March 2009 [1] From: Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 24 Mar 2009 08:52:51 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 20.0131 50 Best American Plays [2] From: R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 23 Mar 2009 17:16:08 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 20.0131 50 Best American Plays [3] From: Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 24 Mar 2009 21:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 20.0131 50 Best American Plays [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 24 Mar 2009 08:52:51 -0500 Subject: 20.0131 50 Best American Plays Comment: RE: SHK 20.0131 50 Best American Plays Bob Grumman retorts, "I don't think the fact that there are mothers and fathers and sons and daughters and brothers and sisters in Shakespeare's plays makes them family plays." Really? All of the history plays depend entirely for their plots on family relationships: rivalries, hatreds, loyalties and loves. There wouldn't be any story without the family. Most of the tragedies and many of the comedies also depend heavily on those relationships Perhaps he means only bourgeois families are bad (that is, boring). "But I'm not up to carefully showing the difference between a play like the Glass Menagerie and Hamlet as family plays. One hint: count the number of characters in each. I would add that the fact that Tempest and As You Like It both have brothers against each other has just about nothing to do with family." As to counting the number of characters, I will say nothing except that if he thinks that's significant, he's welcome to it. But brothers fighting brothers -- how can that have nothing to do with family? What does he mean by "family" if it excludes the conflict of brothers? "If I had time and the energy, I'd present a study of the question with an analysis of the fifty best British plays and fifty best American plays, in my opinion, and say what makes the British ones better than the American ones. Haven't the time or energy, so can only express my opinions here." Oh, please. Britain has a dramatic history of at least six centuries, the United States of about one. Moreover, Britain gave birth to an extraordinary period of intense dramatic activity that rivals the greatness of Athens, but remains an anomaly. It might be a more apt comparison to leave out all drama written in English between 1580 and 1620 and then compare any half century of British drama to that of America between 1920 and 1970. I'm not saying that Britain wouldn't win (whatever that concept means) but that it would be a much more instructive comparison. On the other hand, if he really despises all of the large number of excellent American plays that have been posted on this thread, then any comparisons would be odorous and there's an end. don [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 23 Mar 2009 17:16:08 -0500 Subject: 20.0131 50 Best American Plays Comment: Re: SHK 20.0131 50 Best American Plays I have not seen it on stage, but Night of the Iguana is still very enjoyable in its movie version. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 24 Mar 2009 21:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 20.0131 50 Best American Plays Comment: Re: SHK 20.0131 50 Best American Plays Although Bob is of course entitled to his opinion, I have to be concerned with the speciousness of some of his argumentation. Could I ask how many plays Bob has read in manuscript, let alone American plays? Is he really contending that the best American plays are unproduced? That he has read enough of those manuscripts to 'judge' the 50 Best American plays ever conceived, drafted, written, and/or produced? I also find it hard to accept -- in fact, I reject outright -- the simplistic claim that the mythical 50 best plays that we are arguing for here can be catagorized into "British" and "American". This sounds like imperialism, a-hem, elitism to me. One may, of course, prefer a certain sympathy of approach that tends to troll through the work of one country's playwrights, but I find it very alarming -- and sternly disagree -- with the opinion that playwrights of American origin produce inherently inferior work. I find the past century of writing by American playwrights to be very liberating and democratic in its views particularly the work of Lorraine Hansberry, August Wilson, Larry Kramer and Tony Kushner. Besides the point, we are discussing the 50 Best American plays. Qualified. Despite Charles Weinstein's typically dismissive and easily dismissed comments, and Bob's attempt to do the same despite his lack "of time and energy" (I really do sympathize), others are attempting to do so. Carpet statements about the category's worthiness are not substantive. I don't think that the claim that Shakespeare's plays are highly concerned with family can be so easily dismissed. It's not about the quantity, but the verbal and plot quality. Lear is about two families at one significant level. "Legitmacy" and "baseness" are not just noble qualities but familial ones as well. Hamlet is also a play very much concerned with the proper interaction -- and remembrance -- of family. Twelfth Night begins with the separation of two families, and ends with the comic and ultimately moving reunion of brother and sister. Let us not forget Comedy of Errors, the play to me that seems most indicative about the nature of the identity of family relationships. And Romeo and Juliet is certainly dominated by the plague of the two houses that dooms all who associate themselves with, and break the bounds of, those familial ties. Even Macbeth, by Act 3 I argue, is as much about the absence of a continued family line as it is about ambition, murder, and insanity. Nevertheless, there are some scorching American plays, and some completely overrated ones. I would assert, in my mind, the following as some pretty solid candidates for the greats: A Streetcar Named Desire A Long Day's Journey Into Night Death of A Salesman A Raisin in the Sun (I would argue for these four as the supreme achievements of American drama -- in my opinion. Shattering when done right on stage). The Glass Menagerie Cat On A Hit Tin Roof The Iceman Cometh The Crucible Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Glengarry Glen Ross The Normal Heart And although, I would personally argue with some of its deficiencies, I don't think that Angels in America can be left off of a list of 50. Brian Willis _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0137 Wednesday, 25 March 2009 From: J. Lawrence Guntner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 25 Mar 2009 21:20:20 +0100 Subject: An Announcement The special issue of Multicultural Shakespeare: Translation, Appropriation and Performance, Vol. 4 (19) entitled "Shakespeare and Europe: History - Performance - Memory," a selection of papers given in the performance seminar of the SHinE conference on "History and Memory" held in Cracow 2005, is out of print but is now available online at the University of Lodz Press website http://multicultural.online.uni.lodz.pl/index.php/content.article.19 The essays, which cover various phases of Shakespeare performance in Europe in the 20th century, form a companion piece to Shakespeare in Europe: History and Memory. Ed. Marta Gibiska, Agnieszka Romanowska (Cracow: Jagellonian University Press, 2008). _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0136 Wednesday, 25 March 2009 From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 Subject: Update on Patricia Parker's Dispute with Arden Shakespeare In January, Cengage Learning quietly sold The Arden Shakespeare to the Methuen Drama division of Bloomsbury Publishing. I and others had hoped that this sale might be an opportunity for Methuen to reinstate Patricia Parker under the proposal John Drakakis made in August 2008 and that was discussed on the Richard Halpern site, beginning in September. After several months of silence, I received a note from a SHAKSPER subscriber and decided to see what I could find out about the situation. Anyone who wrote to Methuen about the matter received a form letter from Margaret Bartley, who for many years has overseen the Arden series as publisher, first at Thomson Learning, then the Cengage, and now at A & C Black. In this form letter, she writes, "We [Methuen Drama] have been made aware of the dispute between Patricia Parker on the one side and Cengage Learning and the Arden General Editors on the other. . . . At this early stage in our [presumably Methuen Drama's] acquisition of this list, it is nevertheless clear to Methuen Drama that the publishing relationship between Patricia Parker and her previous publisher and the General Editors of Arden had irretrievably broken down." Yesterday, I wrote to John Drakakis who had made the proposal that Prof. Andrew Gurr be appointed as co-editor to see the substantially completed edition through to its conclusion. <Quotation> I recently received an email from a SHAKSPER subscriber concerning Cengage Learning's sale of the Arden Shakespeare to Methuen Drama, an imprint of A&C Black Publishers, Ltd., which is a subsidiary of Bloomsbury Publishing PLC; the email inquired if Methuen might now be willing to reinstate Patricia Parker as editor of A Midsummer Night's Dream: "I wondered if they [Methuen] might be more willing to reinstate Patricia Parker as the editor of A Midsummer Night's Dream, about which there has been so much concern. Maybe it would be helpful if some of us asked them?" Before I posted this query, I wanted to find out additional information. The announcement <http://www.ardenshakespeare.com/methuen_drama.aspx>directs queries to Suzi Williamson, but anyone who writes asking about Pat Parker's possible reinstatement receives a form letter from Margaret Bartley, the Arden Publisher: >My colleague Suzi Williamson has passed your >email on to me as the Publisher for the Arden >Shakespeare. Perhaps I may simply include below >the letter we have sent to anyone contacting A&C >Black with regard to Professor Parker's edition: > >Methuen Drama, an imprint of A&C Black Publishers Ltd, >purchased the Arden Shakespeare list from > >Methuen Drama is one of Europe's largest performing arts >publishers, with a long-term commitment to >the publication of contemporary plays as well as student >and scholarly editions, both under its own >imprint, and under the name of New Mermaids. >We have been made aware of the dispute between >Patricia Parker on the one side and Cengage Learning >and the Arden General Editors on the other. > >We are not in a position to comment further at present >on the rights and wrongs of the case nor, given that >this is a long-standing contractual dispute concerning >an author with a previous publisher, is it appropriate. > >At this early stage in our acquisition of this list, it is >nevertheless clear to Methuen Drama that the publishing >relationship between Patricia Parker and her previous >publisher and the General Editors of Arden had irretrievably >broken down. We think that it is in neither the interests of >the Arden Shakespeare list, nor of Professor Parker, to >continue this discussion further. At the website set up by Richard Halpern to solicit signatures on a petition to reinstate Pat Parker, a discussion took place in the Discuss the Petition section regarding your suggestion that Prof. Andrew Gurr be brought in as a co-editor to oversee the edition. This discussion began on September 15, 2008, when you wrote, "I copy below the relevant section of the letter that I sent to Cengage on 22 August": >Certainly there is now sufficient uncontested information >in the public domain to warrant the immediate and >unconditional reinstatement of Professor Parker. > >I think that in the interests of the reputation of Arden, >there is no alternative to this course of action. I would >very strongly advise against the appointment of a co-editor >at this late stage, since this would simply impede the process >of completion, and would raise further (dare I say sinister) >questions about Arden's general editorial procedures. The >best way forward for all concerned, I suggest, would be >to bring in an independent, experienced, internationally >recognised Shakespearean textual and theatrical scholar >such as Professor Andrew Gurr, to oversee this edition. I >understand that Professor Gurr has seen substantial amounts >of Professor Parker's ongoing work on this edition over the >last few years, which is, I imagine, the reason why she >has been invited to deliver a keynote lecture at a >forthcoming Globe conference to be held in his honour. >This course of action would, I believe, be welcomed >by the scholarly community generally, and would also >have the effect of restoring confidence in the Arden >project that has been seriously damaged by this whole affair. > >I trust that you will regard my concern in this matter as >being in the best interests of the Arden 3 Series. It is of >vital importance that proper collegial relations be >re-established as a matter of urgency, since if the >situation is allowed to continue unchecked, then the >opportunity to redeem what has quickly become a very >critical situation will have been lost. I am circulating >this letter to all those directly involved in Arden, >since I understand that this particular case has >generated very considerable anxiety amongst >scholars actively involving in completing Arden projects. You concluded, "I reprint this extract here in the fervent hope that it will help to bring to a speedy conclusion a matter that many of us regard as being very serious indeed." Many eminent Shakespearean scholars and textual editors expressed support of your proposal: Paul Yachnin, Michael Neill, John Cox, Juliet Dusinberre, Leah S. Marcus, David Bevington, Peter Holland, Charles Edelman, Robert S. Miola, Michael Warren, Andrew Murphy, Harry Berger, Jr., Margreta de Grazia, Helen Ostovich, Terence Hawkes, Steven Mullaney, Martin Orkin, John Joughin, Dennis Kennedy, and Peter Hulme. Since you are an Arden editor yourself and the proposer of the suggestion that Andrew Gurr be appointed as co-editor to oversee the Parker edition of _A Midsummer Night's Dream_, I am writing to ask you if you can share with me (or with the SHAKSPER subscribers) the current state of your suggestion? </Quotation> Today, I received a reply from John Drakakis. He begins by informing me that he had "just returned from Europe, where the Patricia Parker issue is still very much alive, and is causing considerable concern among scholars." He then goes on to say the following, <Quotation> Indeed, I have received an email from an eminent Renaissance scholar recently expressing outrage at the decision to terminate Professor Parker's contract. The proposal that I made in a letter of 22 August, 2008 has never been formally put to Professor Gurr, and he has said in writing that were it to be put to him then he would be willing to act in the capacity I outlined. I firmly believe that this is the only way forward if the Arden general editors wish to remove the taint from their collective reputation. Professor Parker's edition is the most eagerly awaited of all Arden editions, and I am very disappointed that Methuen have not taken the opportunity on acquiring the Arden Series to cat in the proper manner. </Quotation> Prof. Drakakis also included a copy of an email he sent to Margaret Bartley on January 13, 2009: <Quotation> I still have one nagging concern, which is that the Patricia Parker Midsummer Night's Dream issue has not, and will not, go away until a proper solution is found. In the light of your recent announcement I can now see why Cengage were eager to give the impression that the issue was closed, and I can see that you had no alternative but to comply. But at present there is still in existence a website that contains a very large number of influential signatories whose opinions you should take seriously in the new atmosphere that this sale has created. I am sure that I am not alone in continuing to be concerned that the threat of a world-wide boycott of Arden Shakespeare volumes still hangs over us. You and I both know that that threat is real, and that it will jeopardise our collective scholarly work as well as the future of Arden. The Halpern website is a more than ample testimony to the strength of feeling that this issue has created, and in my view there are two things that will result in its being removed. At the end of last year, both you and Cengage (and in the light of various documents that I have seen, I am still very reluctant to believe that you and they are the same) indicated that there were no plans to re-assign A Midsummer Night's Dream. Whatever the motive for that strategy, it was the right move, and this seems an appropriate moment to reflect on the acknowledged 10-years' work that Professor Parker has already undertaken, and to think about re-instatement. If, as you say, the series is nearing completion, then the guarantee that the series will be completed in a timely fashion would surely be to reinstate Professor Parker in the full knowledge that an edition of A Midsummer Night's Dream will be forthcoming within the current schedule. A particular proposal has been on the table since August 22 that has attracted widespread support, and may yet, in the light of Professor Gurr's own response to a letter from Jill Jones of Cengage at the end of last year, provide the basis for further discussion. The sale to Bloomsbury provides a unique opportunity to initiate a break with the events of the last 6 months in relation to A Midsummer Night's Dream and it is one that should not, in my view, be allowed to pass by. I would be very unhappy- and again, I don't think that I am alone in this- if a situation that can now be resolved amicably in a very positive atmosphere should be allowed to deteriorate into recrimination, and claim and counter-claim, all conducted in a far more public forum than has been the case so far. This is a moment to reflect on the events of the last 6 months, and to do whatever is necessary to lift the threat of serious damage that still hangs over the Arden Shakespeare project. I would urge you to think carefully and to resist any temptation to sustain the damaging managerialist ethos so characteristic of Cengage. In doing so I have no doubt that you would receive the overwhelming support of the Shakespeare community, and I feel certain that many of the threats of boycott of the Arden Shakespeare would disappear overnight. The alternative is too horrific to contemplate at any time, but especially at the beginning of a new year. </Quotation> I too hope that Prof. Parker is reinstated to the Arden Shakespeare project, so its good name can be returned, bruised but not broken. _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0135 Wednesday, 25 March 2009 From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 Subject: Recommended Eating Places in Washington, DC What follows is a highly selected list of some of my favorite eating places in Washington, D.C. I moved to the Washington area in 1965 to begin my freshman year at the University of Maryland. After three degrees, except for a brief hiatus, I have been a local resident ever since. During these more than forty years, I have tasted my way as the area grew to become a place for great ethnic dining. I grew up in Baltimore during the 1950s. Adventurous eating, at least for my family (father from Brooklyn and mother from South Carolina), was going to get carry out from one of the handful of Chinese restaurants and dining on Egg Foo Young and Chop Suey. When I arrived in D.C., in addition to being served beer, I had my first taste of Greek food and other cuisines. I experienced nothing like a Greek restaurant in Baltimore, not to mention one that had belly dancers on weekends, even though my kid sister had a friend whose grandmother came for either Grease or Oil. I shall never forget my first taste of fiery Szechuan dishes and hot and sour soup and later Thai and Burmese. And Indian and Ethiopian. I raised my daughters to devour cultures, being only partially disappointed when their taste buds matured beyond the blander dishes to embrace the spicier and more complex (after all that would means less for me and more for them as we shared almost everything at my table. Perhaps the most exotic dining experience in the 1970s was when my late wife and I were introduced to Sushi by a visiting Japanese scientist who was working at the FDA with Kathy and who employed me, the then out-of-work, former graduate student, to help her with her English. I tutored her and in return I had the most profound cross-cultural exchanges of my life. Sitting cross-legged and shoeless in that sparely furnished apartment in SW and sipping green tea, I became committed to multiculturalism decades before it was fashionable. During those years, on very special occasions, we splurged and dined at those remarkably expensive French restaurants. And wine! I shall not even recount those adventures when decent grands crus were affordable to struggling married couples, Leoville-Las-Cases, Haut-Brion, Mouton-Rothschild, Margaux, and on and on. And the dinner sponsored by our Les Amis du Vin chapter that included eight different wines, including a young but memorable 1970 Chateau Latour and ending with a delightful Yquem. But those are memories of things past. Back to the matter at hand. The SAA is being held in the Renaissance Washington in Penn Quarter, the new dining capital of the Capitol City. Penn Quarter is home to the Shakespeare Theatre as well as some of my favorite dining places in the city. The Shakespeare Theatre is one of Washington's great treasures, but it is a far second behind Chief Jose Andres. I am an unabashed Jose Andres groupie. This man has an amazing imagination for food and drink. Jose Andres trained under Ferran Adria at the El Bulli in Catalonia, Spain. After a failed attempt at opening a restaurant in Manhattan, he moved to DC fifteen years ago and opened Jaleo, which now has several branches in the area and which was later joined by Cafe Atlantico, Zaytinya, Oyamel, and Mini Bar. I have eaten countless times at all but Mini Bar, the reasons for which should become evident as you read further. My first love and the place I dine at dozens and dozens of times a year is Jaleo. Jaleo 480 7th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Tel (202) 628-7949 http://www.jaleo.com/ Traditional Spanish tapas as conceived by Jose Andres. In addition, to his restaurants, Jose Andes has hosted two Spanish cooking television shows, first in Spain and now on PBS. He is also the author of two award winning cookbooks (Tapas: A Taste of Spain in America and Made in Spain: Spanish Dishes for the American Kitchen). Zaytinya 701 9th Street NW (Corner of 9th & G Streets) Washington DC 20004 (202) 638 0800This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. http://www.zaytinya.com/ Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East cuisine, serving Mezze (meze, maza, mezethes) small plates of classical and contemporary Greek, Turkish, and Lebanese cuisine all as filtered through the amazingly creative mind of Jose Andres. As with Jaleo, the wine list is remarkable. When I drank, some of the most pleasing wines I ever tasted were at Jaleo, some of the most remarkable from Zaytinya. I regularly read in the Post that this or that visiting chief was seen dining at Zaytinya. Cafe Atlantico 405 8th Street NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 393-0812 http://www.cafeatlantico.com/ Nuevo Latino-style cuisine from Central and South America as reconstructed by Jose Andres. Cafe Atlantico is further well-known for its cocktails (as is Oyamel). Cocktails were not to my taste, but I will never forget some of the drinks I had here, try anything made with lime foam. Many area natives are regulars at Saturday brunch, but the Sunday Latino Dim Sum is NOT to be missed. Oyamel 401 7th Street NW. Washington, DC 20004 (202) 628-1005 http://www.oyamel.com/ Oyamel has relocated to Penn Quarter from its original location in Crystal City. I liked the Crystal City location which I found to be a warm space with soothing orange walls and a towering ceiling that simply did not catch on). Oyamel serves antojitos, traditional Mexican snacks or small plates. Drawing on pre-Hispanic, colonial and modern traditions, Oyamel's menu reflects rich culinary heritage combined with current urban fare of Mexico City (from the FAQ at website). Oyamel is the only place I have ever had grasshopper tacos, and it boasts a selection of tequilas unsurpassed outside of Mexico. Rasika (Modern Indian-Pakistani) 633 D Street NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 637-1222 www.rasikarestaurant.com I thought that I should include at least one Penn Quarter restaurant that is not owned by Jose Andres. Although my preference is for traditional Southern Indian vegetarian dishes, Rasika is a darling of the area food critics. Ethiopian Restaurants: For the adventurous who wish to dine outside of Penn Quarter, DC contains more Ethiopian Restaurants in every corner of the city and suburbs. Adams Morgan (the former ethnic restaurant center before Penn Quarter) Meskerem Restaurant 2434 18th St NW Washington, DC 20009 (202) 462-4100 http://www.meskeremonline.com/ Little Ethiopia (9th and U Streets NW) Etete Restaurant 1942 9th St NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 232-7600 www.eteterestaurant.com There are several interesting Ethiopian restaurants in Silver Spring for anyone planning a trip to the AFI Theater to take in a film. Contact me for further information. FINALLY (Drum-roll, please!) Mini-Bar 405 8th Street NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 393-0812 Perhaps the most sought-after restaurant seating in Washington, DC, ca be found at Jose Andres' Minibar, a six-seat restaurant located on the second floor of Cafe Atlantico, 405 8th Street NW. The following is all from the website: The innovative tasting menu features 25-30 of Jose and his culinary team's most imaginative creations. This is food that owes as much to art and science as it does to gastronomy, food that is as much about the brain and eye as it is about the tongue and stomach, food that forces the diner to rethink food and its presentation. How far in advance can I book minibar? Reservations for minibar are taken a month in advance. That is to say, if you want a seat for the 15th of March, you would need to start calling on February 15. Please be advised that the demand for minibar by jose andres is very high and seats are often booked up the day they are opened for reservation. How do I make a reservation. To reserve, please call Cafe Atlantico and minibar at (202) 393-0812. The reservation phone lines open at 10 am. Reservations are accepted on a first come, first serve basis. Please be advised that the demand for minibar by jose andres is very high and seats are often booked up the day they are opened for reservation, often within the first fifteen minutes. For the greatest chance of success, we recommend calling as close to 10 am as possible. If you are unable to get through, or the date or time you are attempting to reserve is no longer available, we do keep a wait list and often are able to fill seats from off that list. What are the hours for minibar? minibar is only open Tuesday through Saturday. Sorry! We are closed Sunday and Monday. What are the seatings for minibar? We offer two seatings per night, one at 6 pm and one at 8:30 pm. How many people at each seating? A total of six diners per seating. There are more than six of us that want to eat at minibar together. Can't you just add another chair? Sorry. Space is rather limited and minibar can only accommodate six guests at a time. How much is minibar? Does the price include wine? The price for minibar is $120 per person. Wine, tax and tip are not included. Enjoy!! _______________________________________________________________ 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.