Re: More References in Mass Culture

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2104  Tuesday, 30 November 1999.

From:           Stuart Hampton-Reeves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 29 Nov 1999 21:29:45 -0000
Subject: 10.2088 More References in Mass Culture
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.2088 More References in Mass Culture

Here's a good one.

An episode of The Simpsons broadcast in the UK had a scene in which
Homer and Lisa go to see Krusty the clown play King Lear. I don't have
any episode details but here is a transcript:

(Krusty as King Lear, sitting on a throne. Servant enters)

Servant: Lord, your daughters Goneril, Regan and Cordelia.

Krusty: What is this, merry old England or petty-coat junction?

(boos from the audience)

Krusty: Hey, lighten up, it's a comedy!

Servant: (whispers in Krusty's ear) No, it's not.

(Krusty groans and buries his head in his hands)


Krusty: (looking through script of King Lear) Whoa, this material
stinks!  I'm going to have to punch it up on the fly. Oh, got one. How
do you make the King leer? Put the queen in a bikini!!

(boos and jeers from the audience)

Krusty: Here's another one! Knock, knock, who's there? Juliet. Juliet
who? Juliet who ate so much pasta, Romeo doesn't want her anymore!

(more boos from the audience)

Krusty: Whoa, tough crowd. They're booing Shakespeare!

(Next day's headlines: KRUSTY: Worse King Lear in 400 years)

Stuart Hampton-Reeves
University of Central Lancashire

BBC Shakespeare Series

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2103  Tuesday, 30 November 1999.

From:           Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 29 Nov 1999 15:35:38 -0500
Subject:        BBC Shakespeare Series

Good news on the BBC Shakespeare front!  We have finally gotten through
to the right people at the BBC, and it looks like there is a Canadian
distributor who has the rights for the BBC Shakespeare series for home
distribution (i.e. cheaper than the $100 most of you are paying now,
which includes public performance rights), but they don't think there is
enough of a demand to merit producing them.  Rest assured that we are
setting them straight about that.  It might take a while longer, but it
looks like we will finally be making some headway early in the new year,
and I will be sure to keep you posted.

Please don't e-mail me with requests just yet.  I will be sure to post
an announcement when we get closer to finalizing this arrangement, and
we will start pre-booking and taking requests at that time.

Poor Yorick - CD & Video Emporium
Stratford (Ontario)

Re: Age of Awareness

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2101  Tuesday, 30 November 1999.

From:           Anthony Burton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 29 Nov 1999 12:21:20 -0800
Subject: 10.2093 Re: Age of Awareness
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.2093 Re: Age of Awareness

This thread has evolved in a deeply important direction, taking wing in
its recent Hawkes-Grouse continuation on the matter of the distinction
between "intellectual" and "emotional" responses to text, music, poetry,
and the like.  I fear this distinction presents a false, or at least
seriously ambiguous, dichotomy.  "Intellectual" can refer to experiences
of comprehension that first reach our consciousness in our mental life,
and also (among other possibilities) to empty abstractions generated by
letting our mental faculties run so to speak on autopilot, reshuffling
what we already know in another form.  "Emotional" can refer to
experiences of comprehension that never rise to the intellectual
level-perhaps it might help to call them "intuitive"-and are what I
believe Pascal had in mind with his "The heart has its reasons, of which
reason knows nothing", or else (also among other possibilities) to
subjective passionate feelings that blind rather than enlighten, that
stand in the way of comprehension and the growth of wisdom.

In this formulation, the first definitions of "intellectual" and
"emotional" in each instance are equally respectable modes of
comprehension, and learning to place one's self in the world.  Each can
lead to an insight, an "aha!" that changes the way one confronts the
world and leads one's own life.  The second choices lead only to the
entrenchment of existing biases, predilections, and habits of thought
and behavior without any corresponding growth; they confine and mummify
what genius seeks to open up and enliven, and when turned to the study
of genius or great creativity, defeat the very phenomenon they examine.

Shakespeare, in my opinion, is a rare master of simultaneously
addressing both possibilities by engaging comprehension of the first
kind  through a variety of devices, including the musical quality of
verse mentioned by Grouse.

This is perhaps overwordy, but it seems important that serious and
appreciative readers like Grouse and Hawkes should not feel they are in
irretrievable disagreement simply because they employ different
faculties of comprehension for entering into Shakespeare's vast and
compassionate understanding of how we fit into the world.

anthony burton

Re: Burgundy and France

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2102  Tuesday, 30 November 1999.

From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 29 Nov 1999 08:57:01 -0800
Subject: Re: Burgundy and France
Comment:        SHK 10.2083 Re: Burgundy and France

I have been Godshalked.

> Apparently Mike wants us to discuss Wellsian editorial theory and
> practice in general rather than in particular.  If so, Mike, where would
> you like to begin?  With the Falstaff/Oldcastle controversy?  Of course,
> this would bring us right back to name changing.

> Yours, Bill Godshalk

Bill, I would not be so arrogant.  Well, not about this.  Professor
Wells, like all editors, is doing his best given the texts and his
understanding of them.  He has made it clear he is attempting to produce
the Q Shakespeare intended to write.  Assuming he is thinking the same
way after 15 years, his book gives us an opportunity to understand his
thought process as he solves these editorial problems.

I don't think the discussion has been in the least general.  I sent my
post because the discussion was so much about Wells editorial approach,
as applied to a specific problem.  This fact was unacknowledged and
possibly not understood by everyone, but must be true.  It also seemed
clear that in some cases (probably not you), some list members wrote
without understanding Wells' method.  I felt that some of the posts
(again, not your's, I found your's persuasive) showed ignorance of what
Professor Wells is doing.

So, no, I do not call for putting Wells under scrutiny on this list,
though list members have the right to do so, hopefully with informed
opinions.  But why just scrutinize Stanley Wells?  Why not drag in
Bowers, etc., etc., and etc.?  Go back to Malone and Johnson if you

Mike Jensen

Re: Unkindest Cut

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2100  Tuesday, 30 November 1999.

From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 29 Nov 1999 11:17:22 -0800
Subject: Re: Unkindest Cut
Comment:        SHK 10.2090 Re: Unkindest Cut

> I wonder if any list members have had similar experiences with this kind
> of "most unkindest cut of all" - and would like to share them.

> Jadwiga Krupski

How about a comic book version of Hamlet, published under the Classics
Illustrated imprint, by First Comics a decade or more ago.  Cut was the
discussion between Laertes and Claudius about putting the poison in the
wine.  Yet the poison was later there and did its work.  "How did it get
there?" any reasonable reader might wonder.

Mike Jensen

Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.