October
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0946 Tuesday, 6 October 1998. [1] From: Ed Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 05 Oct 1998 11:54:45 -0400 (EDT) Subj: "Bad" Shakespeare [2] From: R. Thomas Simone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 5 Oct 1998 13:43:34 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 9.0936 Re: "Bad" Shakespeare [3] From: Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 5 Oct 1998 13:54:14 -0400 Subj: SHK 9.0933 Two Questions: "Bad" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 05 Oct 1998 11:54:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "Bad" Shakespeare To Kyrstyna Kujawinska-Courtney: If I'm not mistaken, Maurice Charney (Rutgers University) led a session a few years back at the Shakespeare Association of America on "Bad Shakespeare." In fact, he may have turned it into a collection of essays by now. I was not a member of the seminar, but I heard good things about it. Sorry I don't have his e-mail address; anybody on SHK know it? --Ed Taft [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: R. Thomas Simone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 5 Oct 1998 13:43:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 9.0936 Re: "Bad" Shakespeare Comment: Re: SHK 9.0936 Re: "Bad" Shakespeare Steiner's lecture/essay against Shakespeare has been reprinted in his collection called NO PASSION SPENT (1997). Tom Simone [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 5 Oct 1998 13:54:14 -0400 Subject: Two Questions: "Bad" Comment: SHK 9.0933 Two Questions: "Bad" Try Maurice Charney (ed.) '"Bad" Shakespeare', New Jersey and London, Associated University Presses, 1988 T. Hawkes
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0945 Tuesday, 6 October 1998. [1] From: Jonathan Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 05 Oct 1998 15:51:34 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 9.0934 Re: Ed3 [2] From: James Edward Moore <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 5 Oct 1998 13:10:43 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 9.0934 Re: Ed3 [3] From: Catherine Fitzmaurice <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 5 Oct 1998 21:28:10 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Ed 111 [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 05 Oct 1998 15:51:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: 9.0934 Re: Ed3 Comment: Re: SHK 9.0934 Re: Ed3 > With just three days' notice, the Canadian theater company downloaded > the play in Old English from the University of Virginia's Web site and > translated an excerpt for production. Hwaet!, not only have we added a play to the canon, but someone in Charlottesville has been sitting on a text which proves that Shakespeare knew Old English! Truly we live in momentous times for the study of early modern drama. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Edward Moore <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 5 Oct 1998 13:10:43 EDT Subject: 9.0934 Re: Ed3 Comment: Re: SHK 9.0934 Re: Ed3 To anyone who may answer: I'm not interested at this point in the argument of authorship for Edward III. But I would very much like to be able to read the play. Does anyone know of an internet address publishing a copy of the text or an available book containing the text in my local bookstore? And where may I find the Two Noble Kinsmen as well? James [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Catherine Fitzmaurice <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 5 Oct 1998 21:28:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Ed 111 Where might one find the script of this "new" Shakespeare play? Catherine FitzmauriceThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0944 Tuesday, 6 October 1998. [1] From: Tiffany Rasovic <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 05 Oct 1998 10:40:27 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 9.0939 New Shakespeare Films by Branagh [2] From: Ian H. Doescher <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 05 Oct 1998 10:53:01 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 9.0939 New Shakespeare Films by Branagh [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tiffany Rasovic <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 05 Oct 1998 10:40:27 -0400 Subject: 9.0939 New Shakespeare Films by Branagh Comment: Re: SHK 9.0939 New Shakespeare Films by Branagh Although it is marvelous to have so many new Shakespeare plays on film, if the company really wants to make the films "fresh" perhaps they could suggest that Branagh stay behind the camera...I wonder if anyone else has tired of his predictable mugging and overblown line readings? Arguably, KB is a great director/adapter/promoter, but let's hope for some fresh blood in the leading roles. TR [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian H. Doescher <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 05 Oct 1998 10:53:01 EDT Subject: 9.0939 New Shakespeare Films by Branagh Comment: Re: SHK 9.0939 New Shakespeare Films by Branagh It's funny that "Love's Labour Lost" is actually being done-I had a chance to see Kenneth Branagh speak last year at Yale before a showing of "Much Ado." He answered some questions, including one from me asking what Shakespeare he wanted to do next and, sure enough, he said a musical version of "Love's Labours Lost." I'm excited to see the results... -Ian Doescher
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0943 Tuesday, 6 October 1998. From: Ron Dwelle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 05 Oct 1998 08:29:12 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare Derivatives The current movie _What Dreams May Come_ has a fancy web site which opens (after some electronic jism) with the quote from _Hamlet_. I didn't get far enough into it to see how much more Shakespeare was there (it's terribly slow on a normal modem): http://www.whatdreamsmay.com/
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0942 Tuesday, 6 October 1998. [1] From: Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 5 Oct 1998 09:12:45 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 9.0935 Re: Bankside Globe [2] From: Louis Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, October 5, 1998 Subj: Re: SHK 9.0935 Re: Bankside Globe [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 5 Oct 1998 09:12:45 -0400 Subject: 9.0935 Re: Bankside Globe Comment: Re: SHK 9.0935 Re: Bankside Globe William Williams's point about use of the yard at the Wanamaker Globe is right: > Second, the AYL use of the yard is not only a modern intrusion into a > historical model, it flies in the face of much of what we know of the > pre-1642 stage. Have a look at items 31 and 34 in R. A. Foakes > +Illustrations of the English Stage: 1580-1642+ London: Scolar, 1985. > In these two instances the stage has railing which looks, in 31, about > shin-, or knee-, high to me. But John Astington "The Origins of the _Roxana_ and _Messalina_ Illustrations" in Shakespeare Survey 43 (1990) pp149-169 shows that these pictures are considerably less reliable than was hitherto assumed. > I also recall seeing, but am currently > unable to find, an illustration of the > stage from the period with > pointed, curved iron spikes pointing > outward toward the audience. One of C Walter Hodges's sketches, maybe? The Fortune contract calls for the first gallery to be "fenced with strong iron pikes", so it would be reasonable to suppose that the yardlings were to be contained. The Wanamaker Globe people have considered putting such pikes (simulated in rubber) into their reconstruction. Gabriel Egan [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, October 5, 1998 Subject: 9.0935 Re: Bankside Globe Comment: Re: SHK 9.0935 Re: Bankside Globe I hope Mr. Bacon acknowledges that Cordelia's speech, treating love quantitatively and divisible ("half for you and half for my husband"), is her repetition of the error of her father in dividing the kingdom, therefore not approved by Shakespeare in the argument of this play. Love, of course, is not divisible, but grows in all directions as it is expressed in one of them. That point is repeated in the three-part recitation of the daughters' love for Lear: the first says, "I love you more than anything"; the second, "I love nothing else but you"; the third (Cordelia), should have said, "I love everything else because of my love for you." (Instead she says, "Nothing"). The Elizabethan audience, aware of these three steps in spiritual development, must have gasped at Cordelia's failure to complete the formula. Desdemona's remarks are different: she speaks of "preferred" love, which I presume allows for the fact that she does not love her father less because she now also loves her husband. Duty, responsibility to a new family makes "preferred" acceptable, without denying that the love for her father grows rather than diminishes with the love of her husband. Cordelia's estimate of love as divisible is wrong-headed (she is too much her father's daughter!); Desdemona's, correct - both in the context of their respective plays. L. Swilley