The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0207 Saturday, 2 May 2009
[1] From: Kevin De Ornellas <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 30 Apr 2009 16:27:35 +0100
Subj: RE: SHK 20.0200 Gary Taylor's Cardenio
[2] From: Arnie Perlstein <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 30 Apr 2009 13:24:46 -0400
Subj: Cardenio
[3] From: John Cox <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 30 Apr 2009 19:12:33 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 20.0200 Gary Taylor's Cardenio
[4] From: Bill Lloyd <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 1 May 2009 00:25:58 EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 20.0200 Gary Taylor's Cardenio
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kevin De Ornellas <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 30 Apr 2009 16:27:35 +0100
Subject: 20.0200 Gary Taylor's Cardenio
Comment: RE: SHK 20.0200 Gary Taylor's Cardenio
I appreciate that Hardy's conference can function as a sort of scholarly
middle man, but if I was seeking information about something Gary Taylor
did, I would simply write to him myself.
Kevin De Ornellas
University of Ulster
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Arnie Perlstein <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 30 Apr 2009 13:24:46 -0400
Subject: Cardenio
"What is the definition of a 'creative reconstruction'? Did he try to
edit out Theobald's parts? Did he use the 1612 Shelton translation of
Don Quixote? And is Taylor's version meant to tell us something about
the original Shakespeare and Fletcher Cardenio, or is it supposed to
serve a different purpose?"
I just browsed the link you provided, Stefanie, and was disappointed,
but not surprised, that among the various abstracts provided, there is
not a single word mentioned regarding Hamilton's claims that The Second
Maiden's Tragedy (TSMT) is the missing Cardenio. I have looked very
closely at Hamilton's claims, I've read TSMT, Theobald's Double
Falshood, and the Maid's Tragedy, and considered all of them in relation
to Cervantes, on the one hand, and Shakespeare and Fletcher, on the
other hand, and, all things considered, I think that Hamilton's claim is
still the most plausible one out there. I have not seen a single
convincing refutation of his claims.
Arnie
[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Cox <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 30 Apr 2009 19:12:33 -0400
Subject: 20.0200 Gary Taylor's Cardenio
Comment: Re: SHK 20.0200 Gary Taylor's Cardenio
I don't know what Gary Taylor has done, but Stephen Greenblatt rewrote
Cardenio with playwright Arthur Mee. Stephen has a very entertaining
talk about the play, including the witty line, "Mee and I . . . ."
John Cox
Hope College
[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Lloyd <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 1 May 2009 00:25:58 EDT
Subject: 20.0200 Gary Taylor's Cardenio
Comment: Re: SHK 20.0200 Gary Taylor's Cardenio
I saw a Staged Reading of Gary Taylor's Cardenio at the Shakespeare
Theatre in Washington DC on April 23 2007. I understand there were
staged readings given elsewhere around this time.
>What is the definition of a 'creative reconstruction'? Did he try to
>edit out Theobald's parts? Did he use the 1612 Shelton translation of
>Don Quixote? And is Taylor's version meant to tell us something about
>the original Shakespeare and Fletcher Cardenio, or is it supposed to
>serve a different purpose?
From Taylor's notes in the program to this Staged Reading:
"I tackled the difficult problem of... Cardenio first by studying how
Theobald and other writers adapted Renaissance plays for 18c audiences,
and then by unadapting Theobald's adaption...
Theobald [had] also adapted Shakespeare's Richard II and John Webster's
Duchess of Malfi...
the goal has been to create, from the bits and pieces that have
survived, a more Shakespearian, more Fletcherian, more complex and
Quixotic play."
So, yes he attempted to edit out Theobald's parts and he did (as he told
the audience before the reading) use Shelton's 1612 Quixote translation
to re-Quixotify his version.
For me it was a qualified success. It was interesting and enjoyable,
though the actor-readers were a bit rough, having had only one
rehearsal. The reconstructed play was a bit more farcical that I had
expected. I was thinking it would have the feel of, say, Two Noble
Kinsmen; but with the addition of Quixote himself (absent from
Theobald's adaptation) the mood created was more similar to Merry Wives
or Much Ado.
Is Taylor's version meant to tell us something, serve a purpose? I
suggest it's more meant to raise questions than "tell". We'll have to
wait for the book that will probably result from the Cardenio
Colloquium. (If only New Zealand were closer to me!) No reconstruction
can really recreate the Shakespeare/Fletcher original, but from what
I've seen Taylor's version makes useful suggestions as to what it
*might* have been like.
Bill Lloyd
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
