Hiatus

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 27.183  Wednesday, 11 May 2016

 

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

Date:         Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Subject:     Hiatus 

 

Dear Subscribers,

 

I am going to be out of commission for the next few days. When I am able I will get back to editing the SHAKSPER submissions.

 

Hardy

 

 

 

Please RESEND Recent Submissions

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 27.182  Tuesday, 10 May 2016

 

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

Date:         Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Subject:     Please RESEND Recent Submissions

 

Dear Subscribers,

 

My deepest apologies! Somehow I managed erase or misplace all of the submissions that arrived since Saturday May 7, 2016.

 

Please RESEND them to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and I will get them out promptly.

 

Hardy

 

 

 

Vickers One King Lear

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 27.181  Saturday, 7 May 2016

 

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

Date:         May 6, 2016 at 1:24:36 AM EDT

Subject:    Re: Vickers One Lear

 

Sir Brian Vickers cites an eyeskip crux occurring from the bottom of Q1’s F1v to the top of F2r (2.4.210–215):

 

A  No rather I abiure all roofes, and chuse (Q1)

B  To wage against the enmitie of the Ayre,

C  To be a Comrade with the Woolfe and owle,

D  Necessities sharpe pinch, returne with her,

 

“Theobald restored sense to this incoherent utterance by transposing [B&C], so that ‘Necessities . . .’ links up with ‘the enmitie of the Ayre.’ . . . Blayney points out that because ‘the transposed lines both begin with ‘To’ . . . it would have been extremely easy for the compositor to omit one of them by eyeskip.’ If he had omitted line C, and the omission had been noticed during proofing, restoring it to its proper place would have resulted in this page having an extra line, with the necessity of altering the catchword. The compositor belatedly set line C and inserted into his text, but ‘forgot . . . that line B belonged between the two new lines that he transferred straight from his composing stick into that gap.’ He then overcame the oversight by inserting an additional line in the next page” (33, from Blayney, 215).

 

Incoherent utterances come in all sizes. Eyeskip is always easy: you don’t even know you’ve done it and you’re done earlier, unless you correct your mistake—which isn’t always easy. But Blayney is right that some instances occur more readily. Q1 copy would read:

 

A  No rather I abiure all roofes, and chuse

C  To be a Comrade with the Woolfe and [h]owle,

B  To wage against the enmitie of the Ayre,

D  Necessities sharpe pinch, returne with her,

 

After setting A, although the compositor knew his next line began with ‘to’, his eye(s) fell on B and Line C was omitted. (B’s unlikely ouster would have similar results.) Such errors are found by foul proofing against copy. Although C was not restored to inner F in “its proper place,” it was added to a full F1v. Had D stayed there too, the catchword on the right margin [‘Why’] wouldn’t itself be altered but moved down to line 40—two lines below the text of F2r38 (the neighboring page). Blayney plausibly supposes D was moved to F2r so the ‘new’ catchword, ‘Necessities’, at F1v39 would look marginally nicer abutting F2r39.

 

The “two new lines” were Blayney’s restoration of C and a “direction line,” comprising “quads and the new catchword,” (‘Necessities’.) The “gap” was where D and the old direction line had been. OK so far, until the world-class eyeskipper blew the restoration by putting B above C.

 

The miscorrection occurred during foul proofing; Q1, Q2, and F transpose lines B and C. It’s highly unlikely that a “company playbook” repeated the error: F copy derived from Q1, or it was ignored. (Bordox spellings: chuse, ayre).

 

Gerald E. Downs

 

 

 

Shakespeare Podcasts

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 27.180  Saturday, 7 May 2016

 

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

Date:         May 5, 2016 at 11:57:03 AM EDT

Subject:    SHAKSPER: Shakespeare Podcasts

 

I have to say that was appalled by the amateurish quality of these podcasts. At first I suspected postmodern irony (e.g. We are theorists, we don’t do practical things), but I could detect no signs apart from the playout music - and Evelyn Gajowski’s telephone, of course. (There are several variations on the classic ‘bathroom’ acoustic.) Podcasting has a long history, and high standards. (And that’s from amateurs - professionals have no excuse.) Those of us in the UK can listen to “Podcasting - The first Ten Years” on the BBC Radio iPlayer (bizarrely, not available as a podcast) and also to a more recent BBC series “In Pod We Trust” (now only available as a podcast...)

 

Some practical suggestions:

  1. Record with much better sound quality. Yes, the mp3 format is a low-quality and lossy one, but that makes it all the more essential that the source recording is of the highest possible quality. Get some professional assistance, if only from your undergraduates... If you really are stuck with international communication using a Skype-type system, why not get each side of the conversation recorded separately on a high-quality system and then edit them together? (The line from Guildford to Cambridge seemed to be the worst!) Are studios with high-quality communications really not available? Or do they just belong to other departments? (e.g. Performing Arts, Music, Communications technology.)
  2. Edit the recordings. Remove all those ums, ers and y’knows - and the silences (silence can be removed automatically). There is plenty of sound editing software out there. It is really painful to hear two not-totally-articulate people discussing rhetoric.
  3. Try editing the content. Is it necessary to podcast the conversation without editing for repetition or irrelevance? And I know that spontaneity is highly prized, but while improvisation can give great dramatic performance, it does not lead to great dramatic writing. (The best improvisers rehearse!) Why not record the conversation, transcribe the results and then re-write to say what you really want to say? Then ‘perform’ from the script? (One that has a rhetorical structure!)

Try editing the content. Is it necessary to podcast the conversation without editing for repetition or irrelevance? And I know that spontaneity is highly prized, but while improvisation can give great dramatic performance, it does not lead to great dramatic writing. (The best improvisers rehearse!) Why not record the conversation, transcribe the results and then re-write to say what you really want to say? Then ‘perform’ from the script? (One that has a rhetorical structure!)

Call me an old-fashioned elitist, but I don’t subscribe to the view that if something is not worth doing (e.g. Theory), then it’s worth doing badly.

 

John Briggs

 

 

 

Vickers One King Lear

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 27.179  Thursday, 5 May 2016

 

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

Date:         May 5, 2016 at 10:14:22 AM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: One Lear

 

Just a bit more on foul-proofing (and revises):

 

My understanding (derived from Gaskell) is that ‘foul-proofing’ is a separate exercise, done before presswork (and distinct from it), using semi-waste paper (e.g. already printed on one side, and/or of much poorer quality.) Proofs and revises from this process would be automatically discarded on completion of that stage, and would not survive.

John Briggs

 

 

 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.