November
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0475 Monday, 26 November 2012
From: David Frankel <
Date: November 24, 2012 10:43:42 PM EST
Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: Blood?
I’m definitely no expert on Elizabethan stage blood (I’m not sure, for example, what a “sheep’s gather” is), but I wonder if “3 viols of blood” might leave the word “stage” understood. In greeting ready for my spring production of Hamlet, my designer and I have talked about the need for blood. Both of us know we’re talking about stage blood, so there’s no need to state. So, I’m not sure that the use of the word (even connected to sheep’s gather—is that a container for the blood?) means that the animal’s blood was used. It might, but I suspect not.
C. David Frankel
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0474 Monday, 26 November 2012
From: Bud Thompson <
Date: November 24, 2012 8:00:50 PM EST
Subject: You Can’t Read My Handwritings
I must be quite out of touch . . . but I didn’t know students are not being taught to read and write cursive. Many can’t read their parents writing. Will these students ever decide to study the life and notes of a writer if they have to learn to read handwriting first?
I will be offering myself in the “Antiques” section on eBay as soon as I learn to register with PayPal.
Louis W. Thompson
Some States Buck The Trend and Preserve Penmanship
Christina Hoag, Associated Press
Is cursive a waste of time? California schools don’t think so.
November 24. 2012 -
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The pen may not be as mighty as the keyboard these days, but California and a handful of states are not giving up on handwriting entirely.
Bucking a growing trend of eliminating cursive from elementary school curriculums or making it optional, California is among the states keeping longhand as a third-grade staple.
The state’s posture on penmanship is not likely to undercut its place at the leading edge of technology, but it has teachers and students divided over the value of learning flowing script and looping signatures in an age of touchpads and mobile devices.
Some see it as a waste of time, an anachronism in a digitized society where even signatures are electronic, but others see it as necessary so kids can hone fine motor skills, reinforce literacy and develop their own unique stamp of identity.
The debate comes as 45 states move toward adopting national curriculum guidelines in 2014 for English and math that don’t include cursive handwriting, but require proficiency in computer keyboarding by the time pupils exit elementary school.
Several states, including California, Georgia and Massachusetts, have added a cursive requirement to the national standards, while most others, such as Indiana, Illinois and Hawaii have left it as optional for school districts. Some states, like Utah, are still studying the issue.
Whether it’s required or not, cursive is fast becoming a lost art as schools increasingly replace pen and paper with classroom computers and instruction is increasingly geared to academic subjects that are tested on standardized exams. Even the standardized tests are on track to be administered via computer within three years.
Experts say manuscript, or printing, may be sufficient when it comes to handwriting in the future.
“Do you really need to learn two different scripts?” said Steve Graham, education professor at Arizona State University who has studied handwriting instruction. “There will be plenty of kids who don’t learn cursive. The more important skill now is typing.”
Cursive still has many proponents who say it benefits youngsters’ brains, coordination and motor skills, as well as connects them to the past, whether to handwritten historical documents like the Constitution or to their parents’ and grandparents’ letters.
Longhand is also a symbol of personality, even more so in an era of uniform emails and texting, they say.
“I think it’s part of your identity and part of your self-esteem,” said Eldra Avery, who teaches language and composition at San Luis Obispo High School. “There’s something really special and personal about a cursive letter.”
Avery also has a practical reason for pushing cursive — speed. She makes her 11th grade students relearn longhand simply so they’ll be able to complete their advancement placement exams. Most students print.
“They have to write three essays in two hours. They need that speed,” she said. “Most of them learned cursive in second grade and forgot about it. Their penmanship is deplorable.”
For many elementary school teachers, having children spend hours copying flowing letters just isn’t practical in an era of high-stakes standardized testing.
[ . . . ]
It also depends on the teacher. Many younger teachers aren’t prepared to teach cursive or manuscript, said Kathleen S. Wright, national handwriting product manager for Zaner-Bloser Publishing, which develops instructional tools.
To remedy that, the company has developed a computer program that shows kids how to form letters.
[ . . . ]
For kids, the only practical purpose for learning cursive is to sign their names.
“They should teach it just for that purpose,” said student Baerg. “Everybody wants a cool signature with all the fancy loops.”
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0473 Monday, 26 November 2012
From: Hardy M. Cook <
Date: Monday, November 26, 2012
Subject: David Bevington’s As You Like It, Broadview Press/Internet Shakespeare Editions Collaboration
I just received my copy of the first publication in the Broadview Press/Internet Shakespeare Editions collaboration: David Bevington’s edition of As You Like It.
The edition is available at many sellers, including Amazon.
The Broadview Press web site information can be found here: http://www.broadviewpress.com/product.php?productid=1086&cat=50&page=1
The following is the publisher’s description:
Both a witty satire of literary cliché and a tender meditation on the varieties of love, As You Like It continues to be one of Shakespeare’s most beloved and widely performed comedies. In the introduction to this new edition, David Bevington traces the complex relationships between the characters in the play, and explores the history of its criticism from Samuel Johnson to the twenty-first century.
As part of the newly launched Broadview Press / Internet Shakespeare Editions series, this edition features a variety of interleaved materials—from facsimile pages, diagrams, and musical scores to illustrations and extended discussions of myth and folklore—that provide a context for the social and cultural allusions in the play. Appendices offer excerpts from Shakespeare’s key sources and influences, including Thomas Lodge’s Rosalind and Ben Jonson’s Every Man in His Humor.
A collaboration between Broadview Press and the Internet Shakespeare Editions project at the University of Victoria, the editions developed for this series have been comprehensively annotated and draw on the authoritative texts newly edited for the ISE. This innovative series allows readers to access extensive and reliable online resources linked to the print edition.
As You Like It
A Broadview Internet Shakespeare Edition
Written by: William Shakespeare
Edited by: David Bevington
Publication Date: July 13, 2012
238pp
Paperback
ISBN: 9781554810529 / 1554810523
CDN & US $12.95
The print edition is intended for the college classroom and should be viewed in coordination with The Internet Shakespeare Editions, which can be found here:
The ISE’s site contains a wealth of supplementary materials, including facsimiles and performances: http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Foyer/plays/AYL.html
Editor’s introduction
- As You Like It: Introduction
- As You Like It: Critical Reception
- As You Like It: Performance History
- As You Like It: Textual Introduction
- As You Like It: Chronology
- As You Like It: Bibliography
Texts of this edition
- As You Like It: List of Characters
- As You Like It (Modern)
- As You Like It (Folio 1, 1623)
Supplementary and related materials
- Everyman In His Humor (Modern), Ben Jonson
- Galathea (Modern), John Lyly
- Rosalind: Euphues' Golden Legacy, Thomas Lodge
- Euphues (A Selection), John Lyly
- The Tale of Gamelyn, Anonymous
- Robin Hood and the Beggar, Anonymous
- The Marriage Service, Thomas Cranmer
- Myths in As You Like It, David Bevington
Statistics about the text
Explore the character scrolls as used by Shakespeare's actors, find out which actors appear in each scene, and more.
Facsimiles
- First Folio (1623) from State Library of New South Wales
- First Folio (1623) from Brandeis University Library
- Second Folio (1632) from State Library of New South Wales
- Third Folio (1664) from State Library of New South Wales
- Fourth Folio (1685) from State Library of New South Wales
Performances
- As You Like It (2012, Atlanta Shakespeare Company, USA)
- Philaster, or Love Lies a-Bleeding (2012, American Shakespeare Center, USA)
- As You Like It (2011, Shakespeare Festival im Globe Neuss, Germany)
- As You Like It (2011, Muse of Fire Theatre Company, USA)
- Ahogy Tetszik Wie Es Euch Gefallt (2010, Shakespeare Festival im Globe Neuss, Germany)
- As You Like It (2010, American Shakespeare Center, USA)
- As You Like It (2009, Blue Bridge Repertory Theatre, Canada)
- As You Like It (2008, St. Lawrence Shakespeare Festival, Canada)
- As You Like It (2008, The Bell Shakespeare Company, Australia)
- As You Like It (2008, Oxford Triptych Theatre, UK)
- As You Like It (2007, Oregon Shakespeare Festival, USA)
- As You Like It (2007, British Shakespeare Company, International)
- As You Like It (2007, Shakespeare by the Sea - Sydney, Australia)
- Revelers Showcase (2007, St. Lawrence Shakespeare Festival, Canada)
- As You Like It (2006, Pennsylvania Shakespeare Festival, USA)
- As You Like It (2006, Shakespeare Santa Cruz, USA)
- As You Like It (2006, Kenneth Branagh, International)
- As You Like It (2006, Colorado Shakespeare Festival, USA)
- Wie es euch gefällt (2006, Shakespeare Festival im Globe Neuss, Germany)
- As You Like It (2005, Bard on the Beach, Canada)
- 116 more performances…
Performance materials
- audio artifacts (5 artifacts)
- costume design artifacts (1 collection, 1 artifact)
- flyer artifacts (4 artifacts)
- graphic artifacts (1 artifact)
- illustration artifacts (3 artifacts)
- magazine artifacts (7 collections)
- newsletter artifacts (2 collections)
- page artifacts (1 artifact)
- pamphlet artifacts (10 collections, 7 artifacts)
- photograph artifacts (17 artifacts)
- playbill artifacts (2 artifacts)
- postcard artifacts (3 collections, 1 artifact)
- poster artifacts (11 artifacts)
- press clipping artifacts (2 artifacts)
- press release artifacts (5 collections, 2 artifacts)
- production notes artifacts (1 collection, 1 artifact)
- production still artifacts (206 artifacts)
- program artifacts (32 collections)
- prompt book artifacts (1 collection)
- review artifacts (10 collections, 34 artifacts)
- script artifacts (1 artifact)
[Editor’s Note: I am both a member of the Editorial Board and an editor of the Internet Shakespeare Editions. –Hardy M. Cook]
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0472 Monday, 26 November 2012
From: Gabriel Egan <
Date: November 26, 2012 9:44:33 AM EST
Subject: Shakespeare and Japan
“Shakespeare and Japan” at De Montfort University (Leicester, England) on Tuesday 26 February, 2013
This one-day event offers scholars an opportunity to contribute to the international journal Shakespeare’s special issue on Shakespeare and Japan, edited by Professor Dominic Shellard.
Papers are invited on all aspects of Shakespeare and Japan, ranging from performances, film adaptations, and translations to accounts of the plays’ critical reception in Japan.
Abstracts (100-200 words) should be sent to:
Professor Deborah Cartmell
and
Professor Gabriel Egan
by 6 December 2012
Gabriel Egan
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0471 Saturday, 24 November 2012
[1] From: Harry Berger Jr <
Date: November 23, 2012 4:24:51 PM EST
Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: Play Length
[2] From: Steve Urkowitz <
Date: November 23, 2012 11:15:19 PM EST
Subject: Play Length, A Speculative Excursion
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Berger Jr <
Date: November 23, 2012 4:24:51 PM EST
Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: Play Length
“Shakespeare wanted his works to be read and not just seen.”
Who knows and who cares?
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Urkowitz <
Date: November 23, 2012 11:15:19 PM EST
Subject: Play Length, A Speculative Excursion
I want to thank all who have been continuing this discussion. It’s fun, and seems to be getting better and better. Hoorah for civil discourse! That said, now I can go back to gleeful mud-wrestling.
My disagreements with various people spring from our quite incompatible formulations of what might have been considered as normal operating procedures in Shakespeare’s theatres. How do we imagine what may have been going on there, and what facts, factoids, or fabrications do we want to weave into our stories? Today’s episode begins with the ways Shakespeare-at-work is conceived by Stephen Orgel, Andrew Gurr, Lukas Erne, and Alfred Hart (each of whom I address in my SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN article) and Dom Saliano and Steve Roth (dancing here in SHAKSPER).
They project an image of Shakespeare scribbling away to create scripts as long as he thinks fit, but then the players take the too-long versions and cut them down to fit into two-hour presentations. Now, I’ve worked on cutting scripts. It takes time. Paper, back then, was costly, too. But we’re supposed to imagine that Shakespeare couldn’t control himself when working on those history plays and tragedies that built themselves to over 3000 lines. Okay?
Dom Saliano suggests that the playwright’s “shadows (who were fearful of offending groundlings who were challenged by anything more than “dumb shows and noise”) would have presented on stage . . . far less than what was printed.”
Dom’s “shadows,” the actors, weren’t vague zombies, though. They were the same guys who Shakespeare climbed on stage with every day. Day after day, for decades. Collaborative enterprises don’t really go for years and years if one guy on the team is pulling it in directions that discomfort everyone else.
Further, I have to repeat my earlier observations that the differences between the longer and shorter versions of Shakespeare’s plays cannot be accounted for by cutting to achieve brevity. Want to see abbreviating? The fascinating Padua Promptbooks which were edited by G Blaskemore Evans and are discussed (and reproduced in part) by Stephen Orgel in his “Acting Scripts/ Performing Texts” in THE AUTHENTIC SHAKESPEARE (2002), show clearly what Early Modern cutting looks like, and it ain’t no-way like what shows up when you hold Q1 against Q2 Romeo and Juliet. Please look at my yummy essay, “Five Women Eleven Ways” in W Habicht, et al., IMAGES OF SHAKESPEARE (1988), 292-304 to see how those ladies in five different plays change through richly imagined and intricately configured re-writings of character, dialogue, and stage action. If you limit your analysis of the changes to include only line counts, then you are missing the soul of the enterprise.
Steve Roth raises several important aspects of the crucial question of Shakespeare’s attitude towards his literary legacy (outside of but joined at the hip to our discussion of play length). And here we may be on the Extrapolis Express, chugging blithely out onto the Bridge of the Unknown spanning the Gulf of the Unknowable. Erne and others are confident that Shakespeare wrote his too-long scripts as literature to be appreciated by and passed down for discerning readers. Okay. So our Will is a little impractical, and he and the company had to perform extra labor to do that cutting. Sure. So the long versions would still be printed. Right.
So then why-oh-why, oh pray tell me why did this luftmensch-impractical author with literary aspirations actually fail to get half of all his plays into print?
It’s not as if he didn’t have experience AND easy contacts with printers. Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece demonstrate that he could generate literature with the best of them out there. This is the same guy who could negotiate with the Heraldry office for a coat of arms, who made big bucks as one of the sharers in the most successful theatrical troupe in London and as one of the owners of the Globe, and who dealt in commodities and real estate back home. (And although details are not altogether clear, he likely had the right to get his plays printed if he so desired.) After he stopped acting, he had three whole years before he died. Not one previously unpublished play appeared to nail down his literary legacy.
I don’t want to carry on a debate about whether a printed Shakespearean script is or is not literature. What is “is” but “is”? Actually, as I’ve said in this very forum, the distinction between a script and the experience of a play for an audience member is like that between a musical score and a musical performance of that score and between a recipe and the piping hot rendition of that recipe with its four-and-twenty blackbirds en croute set before the king. I cook, I direct plays, and I coach singers in how to perform their scores. The score ain’t the music, the recipe ain’t the pie, and the literary text (pace Lukas Erne) sure ain’t the play. If you want your students to love Shakespearean scripts as if they were literature, then you really MUST teach them how to cook a pie, how to sing a song, and how (by golly) how to direct a play—or at least how to read imaginatively like a director. “Who is speaking? Who is listening? Who else is on stage, maybe not listening? Who just left?”
So if meant as literary documents, why didn’t the plays get published by that literateur, Wm Shakespeare? Here’s a maybe, a what-if:
When you’re up to your ears in the production of events that are ineluctably ephemeral, the way Shakespeare was for his whole working life, maybe when you stop writing and acting you decide that the bare script is NOT what you want to leave behind. And maybe instead you go home to the country, tend your garden, and savor the memories of the packed-to-the-rafters Globe or the fancy-pants Blackfriars filled with laughter, audiences gasping, actors glowing with the magic of a great performance. And you grin. And say, “Enough.”
And then the rest of us give greater thanks to his buddies Heminges and Condell who, without his instructions, nevertheless hand down to us what Will in the pure afterglow of his Dionysian ecstasy had evidently stepped away from.
That’s a narrative I think about.
Steve Groundless Speculatowitz