January
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0047 Monday, 22 January 2007 From: Graham Bradshaw <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 20 Jan 2007 06:55:21 +0900 Subject: 18.0043 A Question Comment: Re: SHK 18.0043 A Question >John D. Cox writes: "Those who are suspicious of this enterprise >can help the discussion by acknowledging presentism's first point: >that we indeed cannot entirely shed our own identity when trying to >understand the past." >Scot Zarela replies: "Why should this be acknowledged? Has it ever >been seriously disputed? Who, exactly, has held that we (or anyone >else for that matter) can entirely shed our own identity --- whether >when trying to understand the past, or at any other time? Entirely? >Surely whatever claim presentism aims to correct is itself more >modest and more worth serious consideration than this suggests." Oh, the whirligigs of time! Cox's comment and Zarela's rejoinder reminded me of a passage in Herbert Butterfield's "The Whig Interpretation of History" (1931): "The whig interpretation of history is not merely the property of whigs and it is much more subtle than mental bias; it lies in a trick of organisation, an unexamined habit of mind that any historian may fall into... It is the result of the practice of abstracting things from their historical context and judging them apart from their context-- estimating them and organising the historical story by a system of direct reference to the present." To think of "presentists" as whiggish seems waggish, but, as Butterfield also pointed out, "Whiggism" in its broader sense "describes the attitude by which men of the Renaissance seem to have approached the Middle Ages" and "the attitude of the 18th century to many a period of the past" and is not tied to any particular political perspective. Graham Bradshaw _______________________________________________________________ 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 18.0046 Monday, 22 January 2007 From: Alisha Huber <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 20 Jan 2007 09:04:34 -0500 Subject: Querying Academic Journals Dear everyone, I'm a long-time lurker, occasional poster. I've come upon a problem that I thought the membership could advise me on. In preparing various sections of my masters' thesis for potential publication in academic journals, I discovered that I have _no idea whatever_ how to write a query letter for such a journal. Can anyone give me a few pointers on style, content, and etiquette? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, Alisha Huber MLitt (American Shakespeare Center) _______________________________________________________________ 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 18.0045 Friday, 19 January 2007 [1] From: Peter Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 12:00:55 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth [2] From: Norman D. Hinton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 11:50:50 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth [3] From: Sarah Neville <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 14:51:22 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth [4] From: Rolland Banker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 17:50:37 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 18.0029 Wordless Macbeth [5] From: Douglas Galbi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 19 Jan 2007 12:57:50 -0500 Subj: Wordless Macbeth [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 12:00:55 -0500 Subject: 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth Comment: Re: SHK 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth While SHAKSPERians are busy mocking wordless productions, please consider the following two cases: (1) the hundreds of silent films of Shakespeare made, shown, discussed and enjoyed (and mostly lost for ever) (2) the long tradition, especially in England, of Shakespeare on radio. We can, if we choose, laugh at silent Shakespeare films but many of us spend time, as scholars and as teachers with our students, trying to understand what these films set out to achieve and how the cultural contexts of their reception might best be considered. I don't think we are wasting our time by doing so. And, as to radio/audio Shakespeare (which have given me many of the finest experiences of Shakespeare in my life), I find wordless Shakespeare no more ridiculous than invisible Shakespeare. Peter Holland [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman D. Hinton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 11:50:50 -0600 Subject: 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth Comment: Re: SHK 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth I guess coming next are "Beethoven without the Music", and "Monet in the Dark", eh ? [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Neville <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 14:51:22 -0400 Subject: 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth Comment: Re: SHK 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth Just a (perhaps not so) innocent question of the dismissers of the "Wordless Macbeth": when a deaf person goes to see a (worded) Shakespeare play, are they also not seeing "Shakespeare"? Sarah Neville [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rolland Banker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 17:50:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: 18.0029 Wordless Macbeth Comment: Re: SHK 18.0029 Wordless Macbeth T. Hawkes asks, >Douglas Galbi claims that a 'wordless' production of Macbeth >'profoundly explores Shakespearean art'. How? I'll tell you how, Mr. Hawkes; and why must I always play the role of the world-weary autodidactic bardolator for the lettered-sort? Anyhow, here is the splendored aesthetic answer in all its glory(now you hear it, now you don't): (This space reserved for something profound--silence perhaps?) Cheers and all the best, Rolland Banker [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Galbi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 19 Jan 2007 12:57:50 -0500 Subject: Wordless Macbeth Mari Bonomi wrote: [quote] >*Can* we divorce the play from its language and still call it the play >Shakespeare *wrote*? > >That is not to say that one cannot celebrate Shakespeare by creating >one's own interpretations of his stories... it is merely to say that >calling such interpretations "Shakespeare" is to me a significant >misnomer. I love Tchaikovsky's "Romeo and Juliet Overture/Fantasy." >I've used it as a teaching tool, asking students to listen to it and >tell me the story that the music is telling (this is a good way to use >any programmatic work). But it is *not* the play by Shakespeare that I >taught 2-5 times a year for close to 40 years. Both are rich works of >art, but they are not the *same* work of art. [end quote] Several other posters to this list expressed similarly sentiments, modulated of course through differences in personality and experience. I tried to indicate in the full review (see http://purplemotes.net/2007/01/15/synetic/ ) that what counts as authoritative communication (spoken?, written?, visual image?, physical gesture?) was of great concern to Shakespeare and his time. So too was a concern about oneness and idolatry. Not taking for granted particular positions on these issues is profoundly important for appreciating Shakespeare's art. Fidelity to Shakespeare's work is an aesthetic judgment. For example, a person who reads Macbeth carefully might notice some lines that seem to be not like Shakespeare, e.g. Act 4, Scene 1, ll. 39-43. My judgment is that Synetic Theater's production of Macbeth is, with perhaps some human failings, truly faithful to Shakespeare's Macbeth. Douglas Galbi _______________________________________________________________ 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 18.0044 Friday, 19 January 2007 [1] From: Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 16:56:42 -0000 Subj: Re: SHK 18.0039 Globe-ness [2] From: Ted Nellen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 11:14:25 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 18.0042 Globe-ness [3] From: Will Sharpe <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 17:59:17 +0000 Subj: RE: SHK 18.0039 Globe-ness [4] From: Ruth Ross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 17:16:24 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 18.0039 Globe-ness [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 16:56:42 -0000 Subject: 18.0039 Globe-ness Comment: Re: SHK 18.0039 Globe-ness John Drakakis writes ... >And another thing...the Globe won't burn (like the original)! >There are no orange sellers, prostitutes, or pickpockets! >And everybody washes before they go to the theatre! I dunno. I've seen the odd prozzie there. And some of us take great pains to besmear and besmirch our >breeches with badger ordure before visiting the place. Or >maybe use a ripe stilton as an underarm roll-on. >It's a Disneyfication of Shakespeare ... No it isn't. It's a brave and magical attempt to recreate the Shakespearean stage. It is one of the great things about London. Peter Bridgman [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ted Nellen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 11:14:25 -0600 (CST) Subject: 18.0042 Globe-ness Comment: Re: SHK 18.0042 Globe-ness I have missed this fun thread. Upon a recent visit to London, I went to the Globe replica and was on a most enlightening tour, given by a young man who has been involved with this project from the beginning. In fact I was studying in Stratford the summer they began the sonar readings of the original Globe. So returning recently to see the Globe was a full circle. I was very impressed with the whole place and much of the explanation about it. For one, they have the only thatched roof in London and it took an American to make this happen. Fire ordnances prevent a thatched roof, but not on the new Globe. There are fire sprinklers in it to prevent major disaster, but it could burn down. Second, the explanation of why only 1500 instead of 3000 people made perfect sense and is very civilized. Thirdly, the floor was experimented with and eventually ended up as cement for logical and sensible reasons. Other than those tweaks, the place is as close to real as we could get. Then again there is no one who could contend this anyway, so discussion of it is moot. As for me, I was thrilled to be there and to see how closely the new Globe lives up to my expectations from my own research. The Swan is delightful, but the new Globe is fantastic. Ted Nellen [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Sharpe <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 17:59:17 +0000 Subject: 18.0039 Globe-ness Comment: RE: SHK 18.0039 Globe-ness I wholeheartedly support Gabriel Egan's retort to Carol Barton's scattergun attempt at cultural criticism. When she says: >. . . if you're going to bother to recreate the bloody >thing . . . why not do it as accurately as you can? Gabriel Egan's response: >If that means destroying a Georgian terrace to put up a replica >of what was previously on the site, >almost everyone involved >in the scholarship of old buildings-indeed almost everyone at >all-would rightly oppose the plan. is exactly right. If Barton is suggesting that 'doing it properly' means putting it where it was, or leveling Southwark and returning it to a largely rural outskirt of London in order to recreate the original environment, then Gabriel Egan's comment can be seen as fair and entirely without sarcasm. If, however, 'doing it properly' insinuates that the current reconstruction is inaccurate, that must mean that either Barton has a theory about the physical structure of the original Globe which I would implore her to share for the sake of the furtherance of our scholarly understanding, or it simply means (as I think Egan is suggesting) that she assumes it must all be phoney as there's nothing special under the sun. >It was funny, to see the number of bewildered people wandering >around Southwark, looking for wattle and daub where only red >brick was visible to the pedestrian eye. Perhaps this might be a neat segue into the upcoming discussion on 'presentism': we can attempt to reconstruct a historical building on more or less the same site that it originally stood, but we can't get rid of the 18th/19th/20th-century buildings that, for one reason or another, are there now. But does it mean that because direct communion with the past is unavailable to us we should give up our interests in researching it altogether? Whatever you want to say about the Globe, it is an exciting attempt (and I stress the word 'attempt' as the Globe, as far as I'm aware, doesn't purport itself to be a perfect reconstruction), executed with truly fine craftsmanship, to bring to life something that has received enormous amounts of interest from all sorts of people (and, God forbid, some entertainment and enjoyment for its visitors). If they could just get a few decent shows on the boards and arrange for Heathrow airport to close down during performances I'd be a bit happier about going there, but that's scarcely important and is an entirely different debate altogether. Will Sharpe [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ruth Ross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 17:16:24 -0500 Subject: 18.0039 Globe-ness Comment: RE: SHK 18.0039 Globe-ness Addressing Carol Barton's charge that the new Globe is not historically accurate, I recall that the current stage configuration is different from the design in the original replica. The columns holding up the "heavens" canopy are different (thicker, I think) and there have been some other modifications to make the stage more historically accurate. As the archaeologists discover more about the original Globe Theatre, I assume they will make modifications in the reproduction. I find that refreshing. Ruth Ross _______________________________________________________________ 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 18.0043 Friday, 19 January 2007 From: Scot Zarela <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 12:48:38 -0500 Subject: 18.0038 A question about 'presentism' Comment: Re: SHK 18.0038 A question about 'presentism' John D. Cox writes: "Those who are suspicious of this enterprise can help the discussion by acknowledging presentism's first point: that we indeed cannot entirely shed our own identity when trying to understand the past." Why should this be acknowledged? Has it ever been seriously disputed? Who, exactly, has held that we (or anyone else for that matter) can entirely shed our own identity --- whether when trying to understand the past, or at any other time? Entirely? Surely whatever claim presentism aims to correct is itself more modest and more worth serious consideration than this suggests. - Scot Zarela _______________________________________________________________ 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.