2013

Pale Fire and OSS

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0053  Thursday, 7 February 2013

 

From:        Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         February 7, 2013 10:02:58 AM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Pale Fire

 

I confess that when I first read the much-maligned jargon-piece, I was rather repelled. It seemed to me hopelessly pompous, pretentious and postured. But when it generated a bit of heat, pro and con, I went back to it so that I might possibly add my own wise, or at least reliable, comments on it. I discovered that there were no concepts that I couldn’t work out the meaning of, and that I could, with some effort, figure out what the author was getting at. And when I tried to translate the ideas into more common English, I found that it was difficult to use fewer words, and that the words used were as Latinate (or Hellenistic) as those eschewed, merely of more ancient coinage.

 

This, I decided, is the problem with all jargons, the specialized languages of sub-cultures – cops, physicians, English professors, football coaches, ballet dancers, whatever. The jargon words have both a positive and a negative result: they include and they exclude. They provide greater precision of meaning to those who, belonging to the group, know immediately what is meant. They also provide a kind of clubbiness that all of us enjoy (except, perhaps, for a few true misanthropes).

 

This clubbiness is the problem for outsiders, though. What makes an insider feel warm and accepted makes an outsider feel rejected, inferior and unimportant. The club members, including ourselves, simply don’t care about the excluded when we are relaxing in the club. The outsiders don’t know what we’ve gone through to earn this badge, this MD, this PhD, the dangers we’ve faced, or the time we’ve spent reading and memorizing, or the hours doing plies in front of a mirror when our legs ached and our feet were blistered.

 

In academics, jargon exists mainly to provide specificity; it is a technical language that your readers will immediately understand and thus will move quickly to your point. It is useful – to the insiders. The problem is that fashions change, new clubs arrive, new jargons supplant old ones. Structuralism pushes New Criticism aside, only to be supplanted by Deconstruction, which in turn is overthrown by New Historicism. You either join the club and learn the new lingo, or find yourself marginalized. And you are annoyed when the articles in your favorite journals are written in an unfamiliar vocabulary that requires hard work to understand. This is work which you don’t want to do, and it insults you that you should be expected to do it with all your learning and experience.

 

Of course, jargon is also useful to be exactly what I said before – pompous, pretentious and postured – to show off like a child in a crowd of adults, and to build your self-worth by damaging that of others. That certainly is worthy of scorn. But we need to understand (as well as we can) just how it functions in a particular case. Is it being used technically? Or childishly? Or maliciously?

 

In the case in question, I think we can eliminate the last of the three. Nor do I see strong evidence of the second. I conclude (tentatively) that it is merely an effort at technical precision, and the only question is whether it is done well or badly. Some voted Yea, some Nay. Personally, I didn’t like it, but I don’t (evidently) belong to that club so wot the hell, archie, wot the hell.

 

Apologies for so long a post. Got away from me a bit.

 

Cheers,

don

 

P.S. Cheers also for the information from OSS (ominous acronym) that the most searched word is “love.” Speaking on behalf of all the hopeless romantics, rank sentimentalists, and cockeyed optimists out there (the few, the proud), I find that encouraging, hopeful, perhaps reassuring, when so much effort is put into digging out and pushing to the front everything rank, confusing, insane and hateful in the Works.

 

[Editor’s Note: No more of Pale Fire thread. –Hardy]

 

Arden3 Sir Thomas More

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0052  Thursday, 7 February 2013

 

From:        Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         February 7, 2013 2:06:57 PM EST

Subject:     Arden3 STM

 

Tom Reedy notes my comment on D’s replacement of ‘wars’ with ‘hurly.’

 

>> whose discipline is ryot., why euen yor [warres] -hurly-

>> cannot pceed but by obedienc . . .

>> 

>> Arden3 follows OED to define hurly as “commotion, uproar, 

>> turmoil.” Does that proceed by obedience? Not around my 

>> house. 

 

> Gerald, have you read much Shakespeare?

 

Read much, or much into? More than most, I suppose; it’s ‘quality vs. quantity,’ don’t you think? Yet we shouldn’t beg the question; whether this is Shakespeare hasn’t been decided.

 

> Back up a few words and parse the phrase “whose discipline is ryot”.

 

OK. Presuming we accept van Dam’s placement of ‘in, in to your obedience’ and his metrical redaction, the lines read (If you believe they’re Shakespeare’s, add them to your total; you may pass someone up):

 

    . . . To kneele to be forgyven

Is safer warrs, then euer you can make              235

Whose discipline is ry’t. Why, e’n your [warres] hurly

Cannot proceed but by obedi-enc.                      237

In, in to your obedi-enc! What rebell,                  237a

As mutynies ar incident, by‘s name

Can still the rout? Who will obay a traytor?

 

You rebels, in your estimation, are making war. Shrieve More suggests you’ll be safer to repent because your way of going about it (discipline) is a riot. Now to mention it, even war needs obedience for “Mission accomplished!” But rioters won’t obey traitorous, unauthorized leaders. Better to say you’re sorry. In, into the paddy wagons.

 

As Tom demonstrates, a scribe might understand More to exhort the rabble to riot obediently. That’s the Mubarek/Morsi mojo. Parsing along, ‘Why, even’ introduces a rhetorical example of mayhem done right. It’s not equivalent to the scornful ‘whose discipline is riot.’ More is teaching the rioters their place, not how to run a rout. He came red light & siren to a hurly in progress. It didn’t proceed by obedience, it stopped. As it gets on a riot may be led, or not; but like a bedbug it gets there just the same. I take it that any event proceeds until it stops. By D’s use of ‘hurly’ the mob requires a leader; but in this scene it did without, as Lincoln attests, until More stepped in.

 

Hurly is the wrong word. It must be defended, otherwise D isn’t the author and all the other characteristics of Hand D need explaining in some fashion other than, “That’s how Shakespeare wrote; discipline (scribal error, spelling, speech headings, meter, collaboration) is riot.” Now I convinced Parsin’ Tom years ago (as I recall) that Hand D is a copy. He sees Shakespeare copying his own work, where these features survive a “second heat.” I suggest they originate in their method of transmission.

 

Gerald E. Downs

 

Copyright vs. Shakespeare

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0050  Thursday, 7 February 2013

 

From:        Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         February 7, 2013 11:37:49 AM EST

Subject:     Copyright vs. Shakespeare 

 

Copyright Vs. Shakespeare

Cartoon by Barry Deutsch

 

http://leftycartoons.com

 

Copyright vs. Shakespeare:  

 

Text from web site: image  Shakespeare versus Copyright

 

This cartoon was inspired by a Huffington Post article by Jennifer Jenkins, in which she quoted Judge Richard Posner:

 

What happens if these underlying sources are copyrighted? As Judge Richard Posner pointed out, “Romeo and Juliet itself would have infringed Arthur Brooke’s The Tragicall Historye of Romeo and Juliet… which in turn would have infringed several earlier Romeo and Juliets, all of which probably would have infringed Ovid’s story of Pyramus and Thisbe.” You get the point — without a rich public domain, much of literature would be illegal.

 

Many thanks to my friend Rachel Swirsky, who co-wrote this strip.

 

Barry Deutsch

 

Richard III’s Remains Positively Identified

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0051  Thursday, 7 February 2013

 

[1] From:        Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         February 6, 2013 7:23:22 PM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Richard III’s Remains Positively Identified 

 

[2] From:        Michael Luskin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         February 6, 2013 8:38:07 PM EST

     Subject:     Richard III and Carparks 

 

[3] From:        Ellen Moody <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         February 6, 2013 9:04:58 PM EST

     Subject:     Jane Austen’s View 

 

[4] From:        Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         February 7, 2013 1:26:19 AM EST

     Subject:     Richard III Cartoon 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         February 6, 2013 7:23:22 PM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Richard III’s Remains Positively Identified

 

Pretty sad, that the DC newscaster tried to pronounce “Leicester” three or four times, and didn’t get it right once—not to mention that they quoted (Shakespeare’s) Richard III as having said only “Now is the winter of our discontent” (which I suppose makes sense to the illiterati, but was offensive to me in its idiocy) . . .

 

The scholarship at Leicester seems impeccable. I was impressed.

 

Best to all,

Carol Barton

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Michael Luskin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         February 6, 2013 8:38:07 PM EST

Subject:     Richard III and Carparks

 

There is something about car parks.  Long ago, I spent some time in Rouen.  Joan of Arc’s place of immolation is now under a car park in the old part of town (I guess that is obvious).  

 

mbl

 

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Ellen Moody <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         February 6, 2013 9:04:58 PM EST

Subject:     Jane Austen’s View

 

Jane Austen would not have been surprised: from her History of England (dated November 1791), said to be modeled on Goldsmith’s History of England (but not clear whether she read 2 or 4 volume version). She has clearly also read Shakespeare. Notes to Cambridge edition do not mention Walpole.

 

RICHARD THE 3D 

 

The Character of this Prince has been in general very severely treated by Historians, but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a very respectable Man. It has indeed been confidently asserted that he killed his two nephews and his Wife, but it has also been declared the he did not kill his two Nephews, which I am inclined to beleive [sic] true; and if this is the case, it may also be affirmed that he did not kill his Wife, for if Perkin Warbeck was really the Duke of York, why might not Lambert Simnel be the widow of Richard. Whether innocent or guilty, he did not reign long in peace, for Henry Tudor E. of Richmond as great a Villain as ever lived, made a great fuss about getting the Crown and having killed the King at the battle of Bosworth, he succeeded to it. 

 

Austen gets a kick out of startling the reader and going against what she perceives to be a consensus view.

 

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         February 7, 2013 1:26:19 AM EST

Subject:     Richard III Cartoon

 

The SF Chronicle has an editorial cartoonist named Don Asmussen who does a strip called Bad Reporter.  Here’s his take on the discovery of R3’s bones:

 

Bad Reporter, February 7, 2013: image R3 Satiric Strip

 

Cheers,

Al Magary 

 

KiSS Conference

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0049  Thursday, 7 February 2013

 

From:        Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         February 7, 2013 7:54:19 AM EST

Subject:     KiSS Conference 

 

This is to announce the Kingston Shakespeare Seminar (KiSS).  It’s a new seminar series open to the public as well as staff and students. The seminars will be held at the Rose Theatre, in Kingston-upon-Thames, south-west London, from 5.30 to 7pm on the following dates:

 

* Thursday 7 February 2013: Dominique Goy-Blanquet (University of Picardy; current President of the Shakespeare Association of France): ‘Henry VIII and The Maid’s Wedding: Ghostly Revels’

 

* Wednesday 20 February 2013: Tobias Doring (Ludwig-Maximilian University Munich; current President of the German Shakespeare Association): ‘Shakespeare’s Afterlife: Contemporary German poetry and the problem of poetic creativity’

 

* Thursday 7 March 2013: Ewan Fernie (Shakespeare Institute, University of Birmingham): ‘Garrick and the German Enlightenment’

 

* Wednesday 20 March 2013: Coppelia Kahn (Brown University): ‘Reading the Face in “Hamlet”’

 

* Thursday 11 April 2013: David Skilton (Cardiff University): ‘The Novelist’s Voice: Shakespearean Intertext in Thackeray and Trollope’

 

Gabriel Egan

 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.