Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0169. Wednesday, 2 March 1994. (1) From: Steven Urkowitz <SURCC@CUNYVM> Date: Tuesday, 01 Mar 94 20:50:57 EST Subj: Re: SHK 5.0168 Q1 of *Hamlet* (2) From: Nicholas Ranson <R1NR@AKRONVM> Date: Wednesday, 02 Mar 94 07:01:28 EST Subj: Re: SHK 5.0168 Q1 of *Hamlet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Urkowitz <SURCC@CUNYVM> Date: Tuesday, 01 Mar 94 20:50:57 EST Subject: 5.0168 Q1 of *Hamlet* Comment: Re: SHK 5.0168 Q1 of *Hamlet* Though competent actors and competent playwrights only rarely produce rubbish, even extremely competent and professional critics have been known to spout and print and defend all sorts of refuse that after a year, or a generation, or a century eventually gets recognized and usually forgotten. The smart and hardworking folks who brought us memorial reconstruction and tales of pirates in the playhouse were, alas, blowing smoke. By design or by accident, they all all all without exception from Sir Walter Greg down to the latest innovators in the gang misrepresented their data, hid or ignored or didn't notice contradictory evidence, and built card houses suspended upon gossamer visions. I encourage the SHAKSPER members to examine Patrick's work on RICHARD III, and then I ask that you look at an essay of mine that painstakingly teases out the sweet nothings that are wrapped in Patrick's tangles of imagined derivations: "Reconsidering the Relationship of Q and F Richard III," ENGLISH LITERARY RENAISSANCE 16 (1986), 442-66. In it I take a while to demonstrate just how D.L.Patrick and Antony Hammond read texts and declare passages un-Shakespearean according to bizarre, extremely personal, and theatrically maladroit literary values. One of the odd aspects of Shakespearean textual studies is how essays that challenge the fundamental paradigms of editing get marginalized unto invisibility. Arguments such as my "Reconsidering . . ." piece and others I've done, adding up to a lot of pages of detailed grinding away at evidence,get dismissed cavalierly in a sentence or a subordinated clause. "We are not convinced . . ." Hey, Tony! Why not, the next time you propound that a line, a speech, a theatrical entry or exit, or a scene is "rubbish," why not try reading it out loud, or with some actors? I did. It's a lot of fun. Go ahead. F'rinstance, Tony, ask Patrick Stewart about how terrible Q1 HAMLET is. When we worked over parallel passages from Q1, Q2 and F with Jean-Luc and five trekking ACTER actors who had been playing the play, their jaws dropped open with surprise and DELIGHT over the treasures of theatricality labelled so stupidly and swept out of sight as rubbish. "Eeegh, feh! that's just another of those enthusiastic amateurs. What do they know. They convince only themselves . . ." Phuiy. Uh oh. This irritability is only appropriate to discussions of universals. Sorry, out there. The editorial/textual types are snarling. Get the kiddies inside; this may turn ugly. Urk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nicholas Ranson <R1NR@AKRONVM> Date: Wednesday, 02 Mar 94 07:01:28 EST Subject: 5.0168 Q1 of *Hamlet* Comment: Re: SHK 5.0168 Q1 of *Hamlet* I think it is somewhere in Peter Hall's Diaries (1983), but I seem to recall that Hall narrates that Ralph Richardson had periods when he lost the thread and reverted to delivering lines that were Shakespearean but from other plays. And I think Hall advised the other members of the cast to wait until he recovered and then go on as usual, because the audience generally wouldn't even recognize that he had jumped the points. [I've tried to find the anecdote quickly in my copy, but I can't locate it] My point: Anthony H is right that there are more ways to handle a memory loss than relying on a prompter; improvisation is one, and apparently a silent switch to another, perhaps situationally similar part, is a second way. Cheers.