The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0455.  Saturday, 12 April 1997.

[1]     From:   David Evett <R0870%This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 11 Apr 1997 15:39 ET
        Subj:   SHK 8.0438  Re: Folger Ham.; Var

[2]     From:   Kila Burton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 11 Apr 1997 09:31:57 -0400
        Subj:   Pericles - Gower

[3]     From:   Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 11 Apr 1997 07:32:39 -0500
        Subj:   Thanks


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <R0870%This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 11 Apr 1997 15:39 ET
Subject: Re: Folger Ham.; Var
Comment:        SHK 8.0438  Re: Folger Ham.; Var

Robert Marks' use of the Fool's unacknowledged disappearance from the
text as an argument for his identification of the Fool with Cordelia
ignores the fact that this disappearance is not unique.  Two other
Shakespearean servants who have demonstrated extraordinary fidelity to
their masters, in forms contrary to their own self-interest, likewise
disappear without further notice once the service has been rendered.
Pisanio in *Cym* is presumably still on stage at the end of the play,
but despite his material contributions to Innogen's escape from the
plots of the Queen, Cloten, and Iachimo, once his purely expository
duties in Act 5 are finished he speaks no more, and is never formally
thanked or rewarded.  Adam in *AYL* is even more relevant; having left
his home of 80 years and turned over his retirement savings to Orlando,
then followed the youngster into the wild woods to the point of
exhaustion, he's dropped without a word.  On the evidence, we are not
obliged to suppose that the Fool is not, in fact, still around: it could
be quite striking and moving for him to come running on at the very end,
having finally caught up, to confront the tragic loading of the stage,
especially if cast young.

Servilely,
David Evett

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kila Burton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 11 Apr 1997 09:31:57 -0400
Subject:        Pericles - Gower

I've been involved in 3 productions of Pericles, twice as director, and
in all three Gower was on stage for most of the play, either as observer
only, or as an active mover of the action.

In one production, Gower was a blind seer, narrating the story and
offering insight.  In this same production, I did also take on the role
of the Bawd, as well, or rather, Gower became the Bawd, but you don't
have that option.  However, that point was the only time Gower left the
stage, and only to don the Bawd's costume-the costume was removed before
the eyes of the audience.

In a second production, composed of 4th & 5th graders.  Gower was
divided between three people, who in concert, created all the physical
circumstances.  In this production, Gower didn't simply tell the story
as it played out, but wrote and even seeming to re-write as time went
on.

Kila Burton
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 11 Apr 1997 07:32:39 -0500
Subject:        Thanks

Thanks to everyone who provided help with my suicide query.

Frank

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.