May
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1169 Tuesday, 22 May 2001 [1] From: Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 08:31:06 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero [2] From: Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 14:52:01 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero [3] From: Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 15:13:56 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero [4] From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 19 May 2001 08:25:12 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero [5] From: Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 May 2001 01:32:27 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 12.1132 Re: Tragic Hero [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 08:31:06 -0700 Subject: 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero Comment: Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero In all Ms. Hughes (probably unintentional) smoke screens about right and left brain thinking, "and and" thinking, and the rest, I was diverted from the point: a mistake is still a mistake, and lack of evidence is still lack of evidence. Smoke screens created by a naive understanding of brain research may blind me for a day or two, but that doesn't change the basic fact that a mistake is still a mistake and lack of evidence is still a lack of evidence. I and others will continue to read posts on this list hoping to be exposed to great new ideas, or at least ideas new to us. When we see a mistake, or if an off the wall ascertain is made without evidence, we'll continue to question that. If Ms. Hughes does not like to be questioned in this way, I'm sure she can figure a couple of ways to avoid it. Mike Jensen [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 14:52:01 -0400 Subject: 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero Comment: Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero F. Amit refers to <<1.The articles and cash that Jessica will take with her in her flight (with an expelled Marrano) from V>> Sorry... Lorenzo is not an expelled Marrano. He is a member in good standing of the Christian community. I can find no textual evidence to suggest otherwise. While I know Amit is passionately committed to her interpretation of MoV, I think we have had sufficient scholarship presented on this list refuting her interpretation that perhaps it's time to stop having to see it over and over? PLEASE????? Mari Bonomi [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 15:13:56 -0400 Subject: 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero Comment: Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero S. Hughes continues not to "get" it: She writes: <<I never said (or never intended to say) that holistic thinking should be substituted for critical thinking, >> However, holistic thinking is PART of critical thinking... it is she who is doing either/or, not I. She continues, <<. I don't thing that ideas based on incomplete information can be considered valid. >> In that case, nothing Hughes has said is valid, for she does not have complete information. In fact, nothing any of us says on SHAKSPER is valid, for none of us-- not being a divinity-- has complete information. What matters is the quality of "information" on which we base our ideas... and the range of information that we gather first. Any time we get a theory in our heads and refuse to admit to the testing lab any information which does not seem already to support our theory, we are ill-informed and our ideas are indeed not valid. That kind of incompleteness is created by blind adherence to one's personal hobby horses. I'm open (as are most of our compatriots of SHAKSPER) to a lot of different kinds of information on Shakespeare's life, works, companions, culture, etc. I am *not* open to out-of-context, twisted and misused "facts" clinging like barnacles (to keep to my metaphor) to a theory. Were there cases in the law courts about usury, about young men cleaned out by unscrupulous folk? I'm sure there were then; there are today; there have been an unending stream of such cases between these two moments in time. Have we had placed before us a SPECIFIC incident in Shakespeare's times that immediately precedes and perhaps continues during the time he seems to have written MoV? Not yet. Have we been given evidence that Shakepeare himself was connected with such a case? Not yet. I think the idea that MoV is a subversive condemnation of Puritan hypocrisy to be an interesting one worth pursuing... I do not think Hughes has provided much light in that pursuit. With one thing Hughes said I heartily concur: THANK YOU HARDY!!!!! Mari Bonomi [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 19 May 2001 08:25:12 -0700 Subject: 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero Comment: Re: SHK 12.1153 Re: Tragic Hero Stephanie Hughes writes: >If we did not know that Arthur Miller wrote "The Crucible" during the >period that Senator McCarthy was destroying the lives of writers, we >would perhaps be content to draw the line at the obvious source in >history, the witch trials of Salem. I would not be satisfied with that, >and I'm not satisfied with the kind of continual questioning of the >meaning of the caskets, whether Shakespeare was anti-Semitic, whether >the play was based on the Lopez trial, etc., that go round and round and >have done for centuries, not knowing for sure when the play was written >or the background to its writing. "The Crucible" was written about the >Salem witch trials of long ago AND about the treatment of the artistic >community by the government at the time the play was written. I don't think that anyone would disagree with this. There's a world of difference, however, between drawing the parallel in general terms and trying to tie (say) John Proctor's concern with his name to Marilyn Monroe's use of a Hollywood pseudonym, or to argue that the play was actually ghosted by Lee Harvey Oswald. The parallel is only interesting, in fact, insofar as it suggests a return to broader issues. If people are still watching the play in a hundred years (I think that they will) it certainly won't be to find out what covert meanings could only possibly be known to an audience from the 1960s. Philosophy generally trumps history, and it certainly trumps the sort of search for happenstantial minutiae that you seem to want to indulge in. Cheers, Se
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1168 Tuesday, 22 May 2001 [1] From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 11:19:25 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 12.1158 Re: Time in Hamlet [2] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 13:05:44 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 12.1158 Re: Time in Hamlet [3] From: Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 13:41:42 -0400 Subj: Re: Time in Hamlet [4] From: Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 May 2001 01:31:12 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 12.1128 Re: Time in Hamlet [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 11:19:25 -0400 Subject: 12.1158 Re: Time in Hamlet Comment: Re: SHK 12.1158 Re: Time in Hamlet >'Who is Hamlet's REAL father?' has always been one of the crucial >Shakespearean questions. The dawning realisation that it's Claudius >gives the final gathering up of the bodies -particularly when >Fortinbras's words are spoken properly- its most disturbing dimension. writes Terence Hawkes. When Terence is willing to countenance "reality" within a fiction, I become quite alarmed. Obviously, fictional characters do not have real fathers; they have fictional fathers. And who precisely is Hamlet's fictional father? And how can you tell for sure since fictional characters are begotten without recourse to intercourse? And -- most important -- how should Fortinbras's words be spoken -- and which words are we to speak properly? I prepare myself for an attack of levity. Yours, Bill Godshalk [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 13:05:44 -0400 Subject: 12.1158 Re: Time in Hamlet Comment: Re: SHK 12.1158 Re: Time in Hamlet >If I understand this correctly, you're saying that an attempt to fix >Hamlet's age is essentially tautological? If that's correct, I would >like to disagree. It's not exactly correct. A director needs to fix Hamlet's age in advance in order to cast an appropriate actor (unless the job has been done pro tanto in a star driven production) as well as to make other dramaturgical choices. But, for the audience Hamlet's age has already been fixed as the age the actor appears to be. To be sure, there is a history of idiosyncratic casting against type, and my point does not work when non-traditional choices are made; but when the production is intended to present the story as written, Hamlet will be perceived by the audience to be about as old as the actor is or is made up to appear. This threatens to segue into the thread about color-blind casting. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 13:41:42 -0400 Subject: Re: Time in Hamlet Steve Roth writes: "I believe [my] theory is both supported by and demonstrative of (Clifford will like this, I think) the creative release that men feel upon their father's deaths. So I find the play's dual "coming of age" themes (Hamlet's and the modern world's) echoed in the coming of age that men experience when their fathers are no longer looking over their shoulders. This paragraph is perhaps psychobabble, but I find it compelling." So do I. Park Honan argues that Shakespeare only felt free to pursue some of his investments after his father's death. That's a practical example, of course, but it follows the same psychological dynamic. I might add that those of us who have lost fathers also often notice that there is a "double reaction" that soon sets in: on the one hand, the sense of freedom that Roth and Honan note; and, on the other hand, the subsequent realization that this "freedom" leads, ineluctably, to our acting more and more like the father we thought we had freed ourselves of! Hamlet's oft-noted "coarseness" as the play draws to its end seems to merge him with his dead father. In fact, after Hamlet has been poisoned, he is a walking, talking dead man, much like the Ghost that he met in 1.5. On the matter of Hamlet's age, the iconoclastic Leah Marcus notes in _Unediting the Renaissance_ (New York & London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 147, that in Q1 "[Hamlet] is a young man of about twenty. . . ." She theorizes that Burbage, as he aged, may have found it harder and harder to play the role, so, around 1601-03, Shakespeare wrote Q2, in which the prince is 30 years old. On the other hand, Q1 might be later than Q2 and an acting version of the play meant for one of the fine, young apprentice actors -- say, the boy who plays Rosalind in _As You Like It_. However you slice it, Hamlet's age continues to be a problem -- and the real answer to the question may be gone forever in the lost interstices hidden in the dark backward and abysm of time. --Ed Taft [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 May 2001 01:31:12 -0400 Subject: 12.1128 Re: Time in Hamlet Comment: Re: SHK 12.1128 Re: Time in Hamlet First I would like apologize for leaving posts on and off list unanswered and to inform the handful of list members who knew my father from Brooklyn College, Columbia and C.W. Post that he passed away early Monday morning from cancer. He was cremated, and his immediate family will be scattering his ashes around the Columbia library as per his wishes next week. I nevertheless could not postpone my oral exam on Wednesday (passed) which I have been studying for the past year, so it has been an emotionally difficult week. For what it's worth, having been raised atheist, the son of a Shakespearean scholar, I find that my recourse in times of personal tragedy is to Shakespearean texts. When my father finally slipped into coma and died the next day, I thought immediately of Brutus learning of the death of Portia and the stoic philosophy his reaction seems to illustrate. And his cremation puts me in mind of the Phoenix and the Turtle at whose urn I can only sigh a prayer and go on. Mike Jensen writes: > Clifford, I'm stunned. Are you really supporting authorial intent? I think it's impossible not to speculate about what an author was thinking when he chose one set of words over another. The question is whether we can ever get beyond speculation, and whether the internal ruminations of the sole author are positioned in our analyses of textual relics as the be-all and end-all of textual meaning. Ed Taft writes that Hamlet: >...has the mind of an adult and the emotions of an > adolescent boy. It's also interesting to note that this was a somewhat cliche form of compliment for an adolescent, while we would take it as a character flaw in an adult, so even if we agree as to the disjunction, its significance still depends on Hamlet's "true" age. >Hamlet's first soliloquy, with all of its >attendant problems, occurs BEFORE he meets the Ghost. And it could have been just as easily rendered the other way round. In this order, it supports the ambiguity as to Hamlet's sanity. Had he been a happy go lucky amorous prince until the interview with the ghost, we would be much more secure in seeing his antic behavior as the pure dramatics he claims, but we know that his prophetic soul and so particular depression has been working on his imagination at least since the also ambiguously dated death . Furthermore, the order of events is not something we would easily mark as auditors of the play. It would take at least two viewings to notice it at all, and would probably only be clear to readers. Se
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1167 Tuesday, 22 May 2001 [1] From: Karen Peterson-Kranz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 07:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 12.1160 Shakespeare the Taoist [2] From: Kezia Vanmeter Sproat <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 11:06:07 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 12.1160 Shakespeare the Taoist [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Peterson-Kranz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 07:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 12.1160 Shakespeare the Taoist Comment: Re: SHK 12.1160 Shakespeare the Taoist Robert Peters asks, >I have often wondered why Shakespeare obviously >didn't care about his >plays after he had written them. We don't know enough to know whether he "obviously" didn't care, DID care, or somewhere in between. >Wasn't he proud of >his genius, wasn't >he proud of his "children"? Again, we don't know. "Genius" as used here is a term of the Romantic period, and thus anachronistic. The trope of "text as child" does appear some in Shakespeare. Some critics have argued that he WAS proud of at least some of his works (*Venus and Adonis* and *Lucrece* spring to mind). There is some evidence that he may have been proud of others, and interested in promoting them. See Katherine Duncan-Jones' biographical discussion, *Ungentle Shakespeare* (2001), as well as Gordon Williams' *Shakespeare, Sex and the Print Revolution* (1996) for further discussion of these possibilities. >Why didn't he keep his >manuscripts, why >didn't he care himself for a proper publication? Again, we don't know that he didn't. In some cases (the non-dramatic narrative poems) he did care about "proper publication." Katherine Duncan-Jones in her introductory essay in the new Arden edition of the Sonnets argues that he may have cared about their publication as well. >We >could do without a >lot of this wearisome esoteric scholarly lore about >publication, foul >papers, prompt-books, Q1s and Q2s and F1s and F2s. Such "wearisome esoteric scholarly lore" is the only way we have found so far, and possibly the only way we will ever have, to get at even partial answers to the questions Mr. Peters asks. >So was >Shakespeare actually a Taoist? I hope Mr. Peters, in asking this, means "Did Shakespeare's artistic philosophy resemble what now may be broadly labelled as 'Taoist'?" In my more innocent days I would have *assumed* this, but having recently been exposed to an ostensibly serious paper that argued that Shakespeare had access to Hindu texts relating tantric sex practices and that those tantric sex practices inform the sonnets, I will not assume, but only hope. >Was there so little >vanity in him that he >didn't care about fame? We don't know. We probably can't know with certainty. And again, "fame" is a concept with multiple meanings and cultural inflections. As is "vanity." If we care to nail down specifically late 16th-early 17th century definitions for these terms, perhaps some meaningful response might be made to this last question. Cheers, Karen Peterson [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kezia Vanmeter Sproat <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 11:06:07 EDT Subject: 12.1160 Shakespeare the Taoist Comment: Re: SHK 12.1160 Shakespeare the Taoist He didn't have to be a Taoist not to care. The greatest American poet, Emily Dickinson, didn't care either, did she? Keats apparently cared about fame, but was very young. Shakespeare did care when he wrote the sonnets, apparently. Older people care less and less. Wisdom of age. Think about it. Look around you. In our culture, fame is a disease that those who have it would be happy to lose. In any culture, it's Ozymandias-ville. Nameless and Happy _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1166 Tuesday, 22 May 2001 From: Kathleen Breen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 10:29:50 -0400 Subject: 12.1161 Re: Accommodations near the Globe Comment: Re: SHK 12.1161 Re: Accommodations near the Globe Regarding accommodations near the Globe: One possibility might be Bankside House at 24 Sumner Street, London, SE1 9JA. For more information, consult the web site: http://www.lse.ac.uk/accommodation/bankside.htm Kate Breen _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1165 Tuesday, 22 May 2001 [1] From: Janet Costa <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 06:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare [2] From: Kezia Vanmeter Sproat <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 10:54:32 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare [3] From: Laura Blankenship <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 10:42:07 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare [4] From: Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 12:06:09 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare [5] From: Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 12:41:47 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare [6] From: Eva Dikow <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 23:00:27 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare [7] From: Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 May 2001 10:14:43 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Janet Costa <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 06:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare Comment: Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare 'Baby Shakespeare' is indeed part of a series designed for babies, maybe partly in response to Teletubbies. The music, bright colors, and format have been designed to cue a baby's attention to the rhythms in various composers, and the Shakespeare one emphasises the beats of Shakespeare's poetry. Its overall impact is not to turn Baby into an editor or theatre buff, just to stimulate those all important senses. I might suggest an accompanying toy for a baby's bath: a Shakespeare duck can be found at www.celebriducks.com. They also have one of Elizabeth I. Resistence is futile..... [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kezia Vanmeter Sproat <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 10:54:32 EDT Subject: 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare Comment: Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare Buyers need first to read the work of David Elkind, "The Hurried Child." Kezia Vanmeter Sproat [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Blankenship <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 10:42:07 -0500 Subject: 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare Comment: Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare I have not seen any of the videos, but have seen them debunked in various parenting magazines and on NPR. I have babies, and have read the real thing to them instead. My five-year-old has heard The Tempest and was once subjected to Gawain and the Green Knight. My two-year-old hasn't heard Shakespeare yet, but has been through two readings of Paradise Lost--once in utero and once around 3 months. Frankly, I think these experiences will have more effect on their intelligence than the videos you mentioned. Not to mention their natural inclinations. Laura Blankenship [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 12:06:09 -0400 Subject: 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare Comment: Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare I bought it, and it is a disappointment from a critical perspective. Just the 'I know a bank where the wild thyme . . ." speech form MND. Rest is not Shakespeare. The title is misleading, in other words. Our son likes it (he's 18 months), though he likes Baby Mozart better. [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 12:41:47 -0400 Subject: 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare Comment: Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare >What in the >world IS this? If anyone knows, please share. We finally cracked open a copy to satisfy our own curiosity. Basically, the videos offer up a surreal visual pastiche, with overlapping text and vocabulary building. The opening of Baby Shakespeare shows a sock puppet dragon, named bard, but with a reading of Ogden Nash's Custard the Dragon heard overtop, giving the impression that the dragon might actually be named Custard. Then a group of children sing the ABC song, followed by the introduction of the word "train", a few poems and classical music accompany a "music video" of toys in action. The next word is "flower", which is reinforced by Bard the dragon sneezing up the word (my mother is concerned my little nephew might grow up thinking the word for sneeze is flower), then a brief quotation from Midsummer Night's Dream - the only actual Shakespeare in the video. Apparently, "Shakespeare" is taken euphemistically to mean "poetry". All in all, the tape is an oblique, disjointed array of images and sounds, kind of like the Teletubbies on ecstasy. No story line, no linear progression of thought. Weird. Tanya Gough Poor Yorick Shakespeare Multimedia www.bardcentral.com [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eva Dikow <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 May 2001 23:00:27 +0200 Subject: 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare Comment: Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare I am not sure whether this is about the same thing but about a year ago I read a couple of articles in German magazines which said that there were a lot of going-ons in America as to how to upspeed babies' capacities and intellectual development. I suppose the 'Baby Shakespeare' might be something along this line and I read it as a further development in the sad development of "we need *educationel* television for children younger than those who watch Sesamy Street" which also brought us the Teletubbies... In the articles I read they talked about teaching children to read at the age of three or even earlier. Who knows, in a couple of years we might be confronted with legions of toddlers telling us "Nothing will come of nothing: I want more porridge"... Even if I don't think very highly of a development which draws always more and always younger children for more and more time in front of the television I must say that Shakespeare seems to be somewhat of an improvement after the Teletubbies ;-) Eva Dikow [7]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 May 2001 10:14:43 -0400 Subject: 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare Comment: Re: SHK 12.1156 Baby Shakespeare A quick followup on the Baby Shakespeare video: apparently my 14 month old nephew loves the tape to bits, and my mother claims it's a wonderful introduction to classical music and themes. I still think the lack of linear thinking is a bit disturbing, but perhaps that's a grownup bugaboo, brought on by an unfortunate incident with the teletubbies a few years back. Tanya Gough Poor Yorick Shakespeare Multimedia Catalogue www.bardcentral.com _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>