February
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0282 Friday, 11 February 2005 From: Christopher Baker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 10 Feb 2005 15:27:44 -0500 Subject: 16.0261 Measure for Measure Production Comment: Re: SHK 16.0261 Measure for Measure Production Harold Bloom has written that, in his opinion, Lucio, the most "rancid" (his word) character in the play is also the most important. Perhaps this production took Bloom to heart (or some other part of the anatomy). Chris Baker _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.0281 Friday, 11 February 2005 From: William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 10 Feb 2005 14:10:32 -0500 Subject: 16.0268 Date of King John Comment: Re: SHK 16.0268 Date of King John Michael Egan writes: >There are other features of John F1 suggesting an >unperformed/unfinished text (i.e., it is not 'complete' as Grumman >claims). For instance, at III.ii.59-68 the King tells Hubert to kill >Arthur, but when the assassin comes to do it he carries instructions >only to blind the prince (IV.i.37-42). The discrepancy is never >explained (it seems to have been a careless carry- over from TR--another >detail confirming that play's priority). Isn't it likely that if KJ were >ever staged the actors would have pointed out the problem to >Shakespeare, who would then have made the correction? I think the answer to the last question is no. For example, who is taller Rosalind or Celia in AYL? In 1.2 La Beau says that Celia is "the taller" (172). This is usually emended by editors after Malone to "smaller," because Rosalind later claims that she is "more than common tall" (1.3.115). Wells and Taylor, A Textual Companion, suggest that the ms from which F was set was a prompt-book or a literary transcript. Why did we have to wait for Malone to suggest the emendation of "smaller" for "taller"? Michael also writes: "We may note also that the play's action and some of its characters, e.g. the Bastard, are clearly experimental--interesting but not quite successful." I first saw this script acted in the early 1960s in Edinburgh. At the time I was thrilled with the show, and I still am. So for me (and perhaps me alone?) KJ is a successful play. And I love the Bastard! 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 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 16.0280 Friday, 11 February 2005 From: John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 10 Feb 2005 16:30:28 -0500 Subject: 16.0248 Printing Conventions for -ed Ending Comment: Re: SHK 16.0248 Printing Conventions for -ed Ending I suppose that "-'d" looks rather Augustan, nowadays, and of course an experienced Shakespearean (even an amateur like me) can usually get all the "-eds" right at first sight. But not everyone has the trick. I'm preparing an amateur acting text of "Double Falshood" right now, and have been dealing a good deal with "-ed", "-'d", and "-
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0279 Friday, 11 February 2005 From: Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 10 Feb 2005 13:33:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: 16.0261 Measure for Measure Production Comment: Re: SHK 16.0261 Measure for Measure Production I haven't seen the Chicago production, but my experiences seeing Measure for Measure performed have not been good. I'm thinking about seeing the play at Stratford, ON this coming season, but I wonder whether the play can be successfully performed. Has anyone seen a Measure that left a positive impression? Heller _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.0278 Friday, 11 February 2005 From: Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 10 Feb 2005 18:33:33 -0000 Subject: 16.0270 Shakespeare's Bottom Pinched Comment: Re: SHK 16.0270 Shakespeare's Bottom Pinched >A preview of this ad was screened on the BBC Four media review program, .. which is bobby dandy if you have digital. Otherwise forget it, and wish for the moon. Or Titania. <g> RH. _______________________________________________________________ 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.