July
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0422 Sunday, 20 July 2008 [1] From: Ward Elliott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 Jul 2008 22:50:30 -0700 Subt: RE: SHK 19.0415 Golden Ear Final Report [2] From: Janet Costa <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 19 Jul 2008 17:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Subt: Re: SHK 19.0415 Golden Ear Final Report [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ward Elliott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 Jul 2008 22:50:30 -0700 Subject: 19.0415 Golden Ear Final Report Comment: RE: SHK 19.0415 Golden Ear Final Report >>Since then, we have given a Round Two test to the highest scorers on >>Round 1, confirming many of them as consistent high scorers and >>permitting a second screening for those who did well on both rounds. >>This double screening raised the Final Elite Panel's collective accuracy >>to a remarkable nine out of ten -- almost as accurate as computers are >>on longer passages, and far more accurate than any computer test we >>know of on the very short, sonnet-length passages we tested. > >That IS truly amazing. And of course, there was a monitor present while each >of these talented individuals was responding to the passages to ensure that >no one was using a search engine to identify them, wasn't there? > >Jim Carroll I've sent Hardy the long version of our final report addressing this point. The short of it is that bringing everyone into a room under supervision is no more practical for a worldwide SHAKSPER panel than Mr. Carroll's recommendations last year that we should have used longer, more distinctively Shakespearean passages. We found no evidence at all of intentional cheating on the part of our SHAKSPER takers, and much evidence against it. For example, the results of the first and second wave of SHAKSPER takers, where we supplied the answers after the test and cheating by immediately retaking the test would not have been hard, were virtually identical to those of our hardcopy Claremont pilot studies, and also to those of Round 2, where they could not retake the test and cheating would have been much more difficult than Round 1. Does Mr. Carroll think SHAKSPER members are more crooked than they appear? If so, we await his evidence. Last year his problem seemed to be that our test underestimated the respondents' intuitive powers; now he seems to be worried that we may have overestimated them -- surprisingly, because he of all people should embrace our Final Elite Panel's impression that the Funeral Elegy passage sounded like Shakespeare. As always, he, or anyone else, is welcome to make up and administer another test more to his liking. We would be interested in how his results would compare with ours. Yours, Ward Elliott [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Janet Costa <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 19 Jul 2008 17:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 19.0415 Golden Ear Final Report Comment: Re: SHK 19.0415 Golden Ear Final Report Jim Carroll wrote: >Since then, we have given a Round Two test to the highest scorers on >Round 1, confirming many of them as consistent high scorers and >permitting a second screening for those who did well on both rounds. >This double screening raised the Final Elite Panel's collective >accuracy to a remarkable nine out of ten -- almost as accurate as >computers are on longer passages, and far more accurate than any >computer test we know of on the very short, sonnet-length passages >we tested. > >That IS truly amazing. And of course, there was a monitor present >while each of these talented individuals was responding to the passages >to ensure that no one was using a search engine to identify them, >wasn't there? Can someone give me the phonetic spelling for a "Bronx cheer???" Janet _______________________________________________________________ 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 19.0420 Sunday, 20 July 2008 From: Jack Heller z,This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 20 Jul 2008 14:01:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Stratford (Ontario) 2008 Would any listmembers be willing to comment on the current season at the Stratford Festival in Ontario. I will be seeing several plays in the next month. Jack 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 19.0421 Sunday, 20 July 2008 [1] From: John E. Perry <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 Jul 2008 21:57:00 -0400 Subt: Re: SHK 19.0412 SHAKSPER Roundtable: Shakespeare's Intentions [2] From: Judy Prince <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 19 Jul 2008 00:10:08 -0500 Subt: Re: SHK 19.0412 SHAKSPER Roundtable: Shakespeare's Intentions [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John E. Perry <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 Jul 2008 21:57:00 -0400 Subject: 19.0412 SHAKSPER Roundtable: Shakespeare's Intentions Comment: Re: SHK 19.0412 SHAKSPER Roundtable: Shakespeare's Intentions As a humanities non-professional, I hope I'm not out of order making some comments that I believe are along the lines of my professional scientific/engineering experience? >I think the greatest difficulty facing the Roundtable is, ironically, >the electronic medium. There is a growing body of research to show that >literacy behaviours differ significantly when readers engage with screen >text versus traditional print media, some researchers even suggesting >that reading cognition is itself evolving (see, for example, Coiro, di >Sessa; there is also a recent article in _The Atlantic_ by Nicholas >Carr, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?") Not having read the article to which Professor DiPietro refers, I will only comment that in my experience, those of my colleagues who use Google stupidly also use other professional resources stupidly. Blaming Google, or more generally the Internet, makes me suspicious of motives and techniques. >The nature of the electronic medium might therefore be >counter-productive to the kind of reflective critical encounter the >Roundtable seeks to encourage. In short, I suspect many on the list are >not reading longer digests, or not reading them fully, nor are they >forming independent critical responses to them, and not merely for want >of interest in the topic. As one of the -- guilty? --, I dug much more deeply into the Roundtables than I do into the regular discourse. This isn't to say that I read every bit of them. But I got much more than proportionally more benefit from the Roundtables from the reading I did. As a participant in many scientific conferences and seminars (hoping they are similar to humanities conferences and seminars), I would like to summarize my impressions of Professor diPietro's analysis and suggestions, perhaps more explicitly than his contribution: All the conferences I attended were characterized by prepared papers, with no provision for dialog except for brief question-and-answer periods after the presentation. These periods were frequently more interesting and valuable than the presentation. What could have been more productive were the panel discussions, but they were characterized by panel members prepared for only one aspect of the discussion, and too often got bogged down in egocentric sniping. The regular SHAKSPER discussions have many of the benefits and faults of the conference panel discussions, but the more thoughtful participants make it highly worthwhile -- at least to us non-professionals. The Roundtables, on the other hand, have been marvelous. Except for a few early missteps, I think the most powerful benefit has been that most participants really knew what they were commenting on, took time to think over both the material they were commenting on and their comments, and many of them referenced their sources (for me, at least, this simply lent a veneer of attentiveness, since I did not follow up by checking them out). Professor DiPietro's suggestions for improvement look good to me. I hope they are implemented and work as he foresees. To me, who have neither the time nor the inclination to study in depth such matters as presentism or the question of authorial intent, the Roundtables have been highly educational and truly fascinating. I'm looking forward eagerly to the next one. John Perry [Editor's Note: Let me interrupt here to solicit suggestions for Roundtable #3. What would you, John, and other non-Shakespearean members of the list like to study in depth in the Roundtable format? And what would those of you who are Shakespearean academics care to explore from amongst the issues of interest in discipline? Further, who among the members would care to guest moderate a new Roundtable? Or would anyone like to suggest a possible guest moderator from our ranks or perhaps someone who is not at the moment a SHAKSPER member but who might be persuaded to take on the task and to follow in the steps of our admirable Hugh Grady and Cary DiPietro? I will respect any requests for privacy regarding the suggestions. And once again, my congratulations and sincerest thanks to Cary DiPietro for a job well done. -Hardy] [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judy Prince <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 19 Jul 2008 00:10:08 -0500 Subject: 19.0412 SHAKSPER Roundtable: Shakespeare's Intentions Comment: Re: SHK 19.0412 SHAKSPER Roundtable: Shakespeare's Intentions I agree with several of your points, Cary, and am eager, as is Hardy, to see some of your recommendations carried out: 1) Threads or Roundtables which invite a diverse mix of academics, near-academics, and non-academics, as well as actors, directors, playwrights, set-designers, and others in the theatrical communities; 2) A steady open-ness to open-ness -- inviting culture, race, and gender-diverse participants; 3) The offering of readings/resources in an ongoing, topic-specific way, rather than as an initial "assignment" as background; and, finally, 4) An editorial/advisory enthusiasm for encouraging writing styles that are more immediate, less abstract; more colloquial, less formal. Writing that engages readers, particularly in heavily-researched areas such as SHAKSPER studies, is more difficult to write than writing that often obscures meanings ("foggy" writing). We all can manage clearer writing. Allow me a brief instructive joke: An applicant for a position as executive secretary replies to the interviewer who's asked if she can take dictation in shorthand as well as longhand: "Yes, but it takes longer." Now let me enter an issue that may be more important to this list than some of us are aware. A growing number of us researchers, SHAKSPER-lovers, theatre practitioners, and writers do not have access to JSTOR and other sites, nor do we have the funds necessary to buy books sufficient to the often exciting demands of our research. Some of us are retired academics and some of us have never had a faculty affiliation, but we have much to offer, and we seek much, or we would not continue with SHAKSPER. My appreciation for your enlightened enthusiasm and your recommendations. All the best, Judy Prince _______________________________________________________________ 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 19.0419 Sunday, 20 July 2008 From: Phyllis Gorfain <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 19 Jul 2008 16:46:04 -0400 Subject: Question: Appropriate Quotation A colleague in politics sent me this inquiry. Can anyone help with an appropriate quotation? Thanks! "Is there a quote that captures the idea of speaking kind words while thrusting in the knife -- that is, empty rhetoric combined with aggression? Perhaps from one of the political plays?" Phyllis Gorfain Oberlin College _______________________________________________________________ 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 19.0418 Sunday, 20 July 2008 From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, July 20, 2008 Subject: Who is Hamlet (Statement Not Question) FROM: The Independent Online http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/film-and-tv/features/who-is-hamlet-playing-the-time-lord-is-perfect-preparation-for-david-tennants-new-role-870518.html Who is Hamlet: Playing the Time Lord is perfect preparation for David Tennant's new role By Matthew Sweet Sunday, 20 July 2008 Paris, 1979. Doctor Who, in his goggle-eyed, scarf-wrapped fourth incarnation, is passing the time of day with the Countess Scarlioni. The countess is a glamorous art thief married to a charming man who, beneath his thin latex carapace, is actually a shivering mass of swamp-green alien linguine. The countess doesn't know this, but she is aware of what lurks in her husband's secret bookcase - the first draft of Hamlet. The Doctor knows the manuscript is genuine because he recognises the handwriting - not Shakespeare's, but his own. "He sprained his wrist writing sonnets," he explains, launching into the play's most famous speech. But when he reaches the bit about taking arms against a sea of troubles, the Doctor looses a great splutter of disgust. "I told him that was a mixed metaphor," he exclaims. "And he would insist!" Tom Baker will never play the Dane. On Thursday, however, one of his successors will be on the stage of the Courtyard Theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon, urging his too too solid flesh to melt. Two weekends ago, 10m people watched David Tennant bust a billion Daleks and tow the stolen planet Earth back to its rightful place in the universe. Now the actor is studying for no less hazardous a mission: to scrape the mould from the rotten state of Denmark. Some don't approve. When Tennant's casting was announced, Jonathan Miller issued a public snort about the "celebrity casting" of "that man from Doctor Who". Unlike any actor who has preceded him in the role of the Doctor or the Prince of Denmark, David Tennant is both an accomplished Shakespearean (he has often turned out for the RSC) and a complete and utter Doctor Who fanboy fruitcake. Some of his forebears had a passing interest in Gallifreyan matters before they entered the Tardis. Some had dabbled with the Dane: Patrick Troughton was Player King to Olivier's Hamlet, Colin Baker was Laertes to Martin Jarvis's Hamlet, Christopher Eccleston was a creditable Hamlet for the West Yorkshire Playhouse in 2002. None, however, had what Tennant has - a long-term commitment to Shakespeare coupled with a spooky command of the arcana of Doctor Who. Should you ever meet him, do put this to the test and ask Tennant whether he recognises a genealogical relationship between the Cybermen, the Voord and the Fishmen of Kandalinga. You'll get a view. You'd only get a polite smile from Peter Davison. So what might Tennant take from his experience of playing the Doctor that might help him in Elsinore? [ . . . ] The Stratford production's swift sell-out suggests that the audience is anticipating a rare kind of cultural twofer: Shakespeare's most celebrated hero, performed by the actor who now gives life to television's most celebrated hero. And in the case of both parts, it's hard to be unaware that you are watching only the latest of a long line of interpreters. New Doctors must overwhelm or accommodate the shades of William Hartnell and Tom Baker just as new Hamlets must compete with the ghosts of Olivier, Gielgud and David Warner. Tennant has already performed one successful act of exorcism. He seems destined to complete a second. Unless, of course, he is suddenly floored by that mixed metaphor waiting for him in his most famous speech. Hamlet is at the Courtyard Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon, from Thursday (0844 800 1110, www.rsc.org.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.