November
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2341 Wednesday, 27 November 2002 From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Subject: Editor
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2340 Monday, 25 November 2002 From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, November 25, 2002 Subject: Self-Moderation Dear SHAKSPEReans, I may just be me, but a number of posts of the past week seem more addressed to individuals than to the list itself. Please send responses to individuals directly to the individual concerned and responses to the list to the list. Thanks, Hardy _______________________________________________________________ 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://www.shaksper.net> 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 13.2339 Monday, 25 November 2002 From: Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 24 Nov 2002 16:51:42 -0000 Subject: of Opinion (from SHK 13.2224 Re: Taming of the Shrew Comment: The Right of Opinion (from SHK 13.2224 Re: Taming of the Shrew Film) Bob Rosen's response to my post missed the point badly. "There are very intelligent folks who can't run a computer." he says. I was talking about taste or rather 'opinion'. There is no accounting for opinion whereas the reason why someone knows nothing about computers is they have learned nothing about computers. You cannot learn to like something. However, you may change your mind about something through an extended exposure to it - and then again you might not. He further says "To say Mozart's music is 'spiritless, clever-clever, computer-esque, soulless, two dimensional, repetitive and tuneless' is an act of intellectual vandalism. That's like setting fire to a great library because you hate books." Again missing the point. I wasn't declaring my intention to destroy Mozart by fire, I merely said I thought his music was rubbish. He goes on, "It's enough to say that you don't dig Mozart personally for reasons you keep to yourself, thereby permitting others to decide about Mozart for themselves without being influenced by a partisan opinion." This sort of suggested censorship of someone else's opinion would sit well in any totalitarian state. I find the crass, parroted view that "Mozart is a genius, etc." offensive and irritating. And no, I won't keep my Mozart views to myself - unless you do, Bob. Finally, and most patronisingly, "When you have the time, please take in a good performance of Don Giovanni. You might reconsider your initial estimation of Wolfgang Amadeus. Give genius a chance." I heard it - and hated it. SAM SMALL http://www.passioninpieces.co.uk _______________________________________________________________ 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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> 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 13.2338 Monday, 25 November 2002 [1] From: Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 22 Nov 2002 14:20:45 -0000 Subj: SHK 13.2328 "Speaking Shakespeare" - American Beauty / Romance [2] From: Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 24 Nov 2002 15:53:45 -0000 Subj: Re: SHK 13.2328 Re: "Speaking Shakespeare" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 22 Nov 2002 14:20:45 -0000 Subject: "Speaking Shakespeare" - American Beauty / Romance Comment: SHK 13.2328 "Speaking Shakespeare" - American Beauty / Romance I agree with Al Magary that American Beauty was not "daring or original". I also agree that it was "clich
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2337 Monday, 25 November 2002 From: R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 22 Nov 2002 07:41:39 -0600 Subject: 13.2327 Re: Anything Goes Comment: Re: SHK 13.2327 Re: Anything Goes >Not even so much as "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis" influenced >"Scooby-Doo", in my opinion. But surely "influence" is a dangerously >multivalent word? One need not be a Bloomite to recognize that >Shakespeare is a major ingredient of the cultural soup we all stew in, >even the outright illiterates. I too hope that C. Weinstein remains among us. FYI, in the first season of Dobie Gillis, Warren Beattie played the rich kid (Chatsworth Osborne III), and Tuesday Weld played the siren (muse) and her character's name was Thalia Menninger. Max Shulman was having a conversation with someone other than my fourteen year old psyche. He landed a haymaker with Maynard G. Krebs (from which I never recovered). All the best, R.A. CantrellThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. _______________________________________________________________ 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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> 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.