December
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2874 Thursday, 20 December 2001 [1] From: Jim Slager <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 19 Dec 2001 14:26:49 -0800 Subj: Re: Grade Inflation [2] From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 19 Dec 2001 17:36:16 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 12.2854 (R) Re: Grade Inflation [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Slager <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 19 Dec 2001 14:26:49 -0800 Subject: Re: Grade Inflation It's funny. Of over twenty "explanations for grade inflation" I can't find a single one that makes sense. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 19 Dec 2001 17:36:16 -0500 Subject: 12.2854 (R) Re: Grade Inflation Comment: Re: SHK 12.2854 (R) Re: Grade Inflation I was an undergraduate in the late 1950s, and the gentleman's C -- as it was called in those benighted times -- was already well established in legend and in fact. It was extremely difficult to flunk out, although some managed it by refusing to study or go to class or obey any of the rules. Yes, students did have rules of conduct in the 50s, and got demerits for not obeying those rules. Parents were paying good money to have their children educated -- and they expected that their children would graduate -- if only with Cs. Of course, I admit that my experience was limited to one small college -- where J. D. Salingar and I were educated along with John Updike's ma (obviously not at the same time). Yours, Bill Godshalk _______________________________________________________________ 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> DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no responsibility for them.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2873 Thursday, 20 December 2001 From: Markus Marti <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 19 Dec 2001 22:44:25 +0100 Subject: 12.2858 (R) "Not Another Teen Movie" and Shakespeare Comment: Re: SHK 12.2858 (R) "Not Another Teen Movie" and Shakespeare Dear Richard, What is culture? > a burst of flatulence ... a young woman's intestinal distress... Is literary production not part of Cultural Production, is "Culture" (with a capital "C") not the (sublime) fart of the bard, so to say? > As the teacher winds [sic!] up his speech, he invokes Shakespeare, > Moli
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2872 Thursday, 20 December 2001 From: Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 19 Dec 2001 21:40:08 -0000 Subject: 12.2863 Iago's Evil Comment: Re: SHK 12.2863 Iago's Evil Sophie's interesting contribution prodded me to write a thought I wanted to pass on the group anyway. After seeing the film "Dead Poets Society" (for the first time) brought to mind the nature of the "dark forces of antagonism" re-identified by Robert McKee in his terrific book "Story". He quotes that this aspect of story-writing fails prospective writers most often. In the aforementioned film the "dark forces", which are absolutely imperative in any story, are two dimensional conservatism in the shape of a grumpy headmaster and a slightly idiotic, overactive, pedantic parent. This is one of the reasons why "Dead Poets Society" is not great art and why "Othello" is. To know evil, its origins and its logic is a dark and terrifying path to take for any writer, but to do the job properly is quite necessary. The writer must become that awful character to know fully the world in which he resides. The writer must know the "evil one" as well as all the laudatory motives of the protagonist. It seems that Shakespeare was not afraid of this terrible walk in the dark. He jumped fully into this murky pit so that the audience has almost first hand knowledge of the brain of a madman. Iago is a good example of this. So is Aaron, Richard III and perhaps several others. If we are writers we must dig down for the times when we have hated without reason; when reason cannot stop the vision of the destruction of our foe. If we are honest we have felt this dreadful emotion, if only fleetingly. In Shakespeare this caustic emotion overwhelms the evil character who feels happy to justify his actions in any way he feels. Iago hated Othello. The reason, so Shakespeare seems to be saying, is unimportant. It could be the passing by of promotion; thwarted homosexual advances; colour prejudice - or a dozen others. What Shakespeare says clearly, however, is that the consequence of the maintenance of the hatred leads to destruction for all. SAM SMALL _______________________________________________________________ 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> DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no responsibility for them.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2871 Thursday, 20 December 2001 [1] From: Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 19 Dec 2001 15:59:43 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 12.2864 Re: Scotland [2] From: David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 19 Dec 2001 21:15:42 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 12.2864 Re: Scotland [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 19 Dec 2001 15:59:43 -0500 Subject: 12.2864 Re: Scotland Comment: Re: SHK 12.2864 Re: Scotland > << In both cases, the fact that the succession reverts to election seems > a lost chance for a more peaceful dispensation, which will in the long > run be established forever, we might hope, under a king like James. >> > > Wasn't James himself an elected monarch? Elizabeth had been pressed > repeatedly to make that election and eventually did so - everyone was > told - on her deathbed. Election was an essential part of Elizabethan > politics. How else could she have remained the 'virgin queen'? What's > really terrifying about 'Macbeth' is Macduff's willingness to overlook > Malcolm's supposed sins in that essential but frequently cut scene in > the English court. Malcolm had a right through both succession and > election, and fortunately he was only playing with Macduff! Maybe the > message of the play - if there is one - is that it's not who they are > but what they're like that's important. >Ros King James had the strongest claim to succession by descent of Henry VII. In any case, there's a big difference between a warrior elite voting to elevate one of their own and the monarch electing her own successor. Moreover, if Malcolm's character is the point of the play, it is also the point of almost all the source histories that vary in many points but include this episode. It's usually glossed as Malcolm's wise caution. Clifford [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 19 Dec 2001 21:15:42 -0500 Subject: 12.2864 Re: Scotland Comment: Re: SHK 12.2864 Re: Scotland Ros King writes that James was an elected king, which is true if you consider an election with one voter an election. One could argue that he was elected because of his "rights of memory". (Elizabeth perhaps intended to restore primogeniture.) This use of "election" may be standard usage, but I think the word is generally taken, in Hamlet and Macbeth, to refer to an election by the nobles. Maybe Hamlet's "dying voice" is just such a one-man election though. In any case, my point was that I think we're supposed to take the move from election to inheritance as a good move for a Shakespearean king to make. It will tend to create a more peaceful world, without wars over succession, though of course plenty of other things can still go wrong. Claudius makes this move for selfish reasons, but he's outwardly acting like a good king. Duncan, I think, is actually acting like a good king. However, he doesn't realize, at least clearly enough, what should be obvious. Macbeth expects to be named the heir because of his heroic deeds, and he resents Duncan's naming Malcolm instead. Here's another theme in Macbeth: Duncan is good, but has the naivety that too often accompanies goodness. He can't see "the mind's construction in the face", so he's killed by a traitor with a false face. That's why Malcolm, before he becomes king, has to demonstrate his ability to lie to Macduff, to test whether he's telling the truth. Best wishes, David Bishop _______________________________________________________________ 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> DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no responsibility for them.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2870 Thursday, 20 December 2001 From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 19 Dec 2001 15:37:01 -0500 Subject: 12.2851 (R) Re: Subtext Comment: Re: SHK 12.2851 (R) Re: Subtext Se