SHAKSPER | Current Postings

Lean & Hungry Theater “The Tempest” LIVE March 4

shaksper@shaksper.net (Hardy Cook) — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:56:00 +0000

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.077 Monday, 27 February 2012

From: Paul Barry <paul_g_barry@yahoo.com>

Date: February 22, 2012 5:40:56 PM EST

Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: Live Tempest

Wow! Another sci-fi TEMPEST, the very thing we've been waiting for.

Cruppers

shaksper@shaksper.net (Hardy Cook) — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:47:11 +0000

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.078 Monday, 27 February 2012

From: Tom Reedy <tomreedy@verizon.net>

Date: February 24, 2012 2:58:37 PM EST

Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: Cruppers

Harry Berger Jr <hberger@ucsc.edu> wrote,

>During his stringent and persuasive review of the 1964 Hamlet

>at Elsinore Charles Weinstein complains about “a crupperful of

>bad performances.” That’s an interesting figure, but it puzzles

>me: how do you fill a crupper?

Perhaps he mistyped the wrong vowel?

Tom Reedy

Cruppers

shaksper@shaksper.net (Hardy Cook) — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:22:45 +0000

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.076 Wednesday, 22 February 2012

From: Charles Weinstein <proteus6847@msn.com>

Date: February 21, 2012 6:01:32 PM EST

Subject: RE: SHAKSPER: Crupper

“Crupper” may also refer to the horse’s rump.

[Editor’s Note: The above reminds me of what my father used to say about sportscaster Howard Cosell: Howard Cosell proves that there are more horses’ cruppers than there are horses. –Hardy]

Foul Foul Papers Papers

shaksper@shaksper.net (Hardy Cook) — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:15:07 +0000

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.075 Wednesday, 22 February 2012

From: Gerald E. Downs <JerryDowns@aol.com>

Date: February 22, 2012 12:07:38 AM EST

Subject: Foul Foul Papers Papers

I’ve been reading up on 2H6. The mishandled ‘bad quarto’ complication is only part of the textual problem; the ‘bad folio’ is passed over in standard ways I’ve noticed again, which may bear discussion. Editor Ronald Knowles alludes to F’s usual explanation:

“Paul Werstine has re-examined the development from Pollard to Greg to McKerrow of the concept of printed texts as deriving from foul papers and finds that it has next to no foundation in empirical evidence. Furthermore, there is evidence to show that the distinctions usually made between foul papers and promptbooks are frequently unsustainable . . . . The implications of Werstine’s full argument, which he refrains from spelling out, are that if we can no longer feel assured of foul papers behind a printed text, but instead have to posit a transcript of some description, then the reliance on detail of the printed text as likely to derive directly from the author can no longer have so firm a theoretical basis. In the light of Werstine’s scrutiny we have to acknowledge that there can be no certainty in discriminating among possible various agents whose interventions may stand between authorial manuscripts and the printed texts of Q and F” (Arden 3, 141).

Acknowledging uncertainty (or getting mad) only goes so far. “Transcripts of some description” don’t fall far from the foul papers tree. Knowles notes that the ms. “behind the Folio is Shakespeare’s, or derives from Shakespeare’s papers,” but unless its problems are explained the uncertainty remains for Ronald Knowles.

Some editors acknowledge problems only in passing. For example, Richard Knowles, editor of the forthcoming Variorum Lear, tips his hand in “Shakespeare and Shorthand Once Again,” PBSA 104 (2010): 141–80, to demonstrate the indispensability of foul papers; “The old notion that the company kept the author’s ‘foul papers’ . . . has now come to be generally doubted for lack of any evidence . . .” (159).

Yet (in the same paragraph) it is “possible to explain . . . acquisition of Shakespeare’s finished rough draft—now increasingly believed to be the copy for Q1 [King Lear—from the scribe who prepared from it the fair copy . . . .” But ‘finished rough draft’ still means ‘foul papers’; and there is still no evidence—however ‘increasingly believed,’ or however ‘possible’ the narrative of a dishonest scribe.

Speaking of beliefs, I keep an unofficial log of Blayney Citings (Thar he goes!) on Lear. A late one is Brian Vickers, SQ 62, 2011: “For instance, we now know that the 1608 quarto was not pirated, that its inaccuracies are due not to a shorthand report but to a messy authorial manuscript [by another word, ‘foul papers’] . . . . Blayney shows . . .” (130). But Blayney never argued the foul papers/Lear question: how can ‘we now know’ if Blayney is our reason for knowing? The printing problems Vickers cites as leading somehow to proving his statement haven’t been described by Blayney, as far as I know. Richard Knowles appears to stake his ‘foul papers’ claim on Doran’s 1935 assumption, which she later dropped.

Richard Knowles “focuses on the crucial advances made by three modern scholars:

[Greg, Doran, & Blayney]” (“Evolution of the Texts of Lear” SS ‘02, 125) and states, “No one today seriously doubts that the [F text] is derived closely, if not immediately from the company’s playbook” (130). He adds: “That a scribal copy of the playbook was prepared for the printers of F1 Lear is . . . a warranted assertability [Hewey, Louie, Dewey-Speak for the truth]” (142). However, Blayney (himself) believes “the adaptation was made by someone other than Shakespeare from the printed Q1 rather than from a playhouse manuscript of any kind.” Sounds (to me) like serious doubt from a crucial modern scholar. If a playboook behind Lear is uncertain; if foul-paper Q1 copy is uncertain; how is a scribal copy of that playbook certain? Maybe the warrant oughta be arrested.

The Lear editor has argued against Shakespeare’s revision (from a Q-like text to an F-like text) for many years; presumably his edition will do likewise. And yet he supports the main prop of ‘revisionist’ argument—foul-paper Q1 copy—for which convincing argument has never been offered. The convincing argument is against foul-paper copy in any case. Nevertheless, Shakespeare scholarship teems with the assumption.

That’s good analytical reason to switch from play to play; we can learn from scattered evidence, but not from assumption. For instance, I lately read Richard Hosley’s SQ 5, ‘54, “Corrupting Influence of the Bad Quarto on . . . R&J,” which accepts Q2 foul-paper copy; straight from Shakespeare, as it were. Thus at 2.2.182ff, Hosley sees Q2 as substantially correct (that is, not corrupt):

Ro. I would I were thy bird.

Iu. Sweete so would I,

Yet I should kill thee with much cherishing:

Good night, good night. 186

Parting is such sweete sorrow,

That I shall say good night, till it be morrow.

Iu. Sleep dwel vpon thine eyes, peace in thy breast.

Ro. Would I were sleepe and peace so sweet to rest

Hosley follows Q3 emendation in giving Romeo line 186. I seldom retain familiarity with such passages, but it seemed clear to me that Q2 is wrong in the lining of 186 and with Juliet getting the first line of Romeo’s couplet, and Q3/F is wrong with the Romeo prefix at 186. Hosley’s next page, despite his opinion, shows Q1 and modern editions have it right (I checked Arden2), as anyone can see. Now Q1, an assertibilitifiable bad quarto, often spoils Q2 by the printer’s use of it to supplement ms. copy; but on occasion it can be used to correct Q2, as in this case.

By assuming foul-paper copy, Hosley trumps the textually better reading to insist that Shakespeare wrote as Q2 (including a speech heading that was omitted). Rather than to be led on by these unlikelihoods, I think it more productive to recognize that Q2 copy was itself corrupt; then one may guess at how it happened. Unquestioning acceptance of foul papers simply ends investigation of Q2 copy. Not a good idea.

On 2H6, Ronald Knowles notes F features seemingly indicating foul papers: “textual scholars past and present differ absolutely on some of the same evidence—like F’s ‘Enter Beuis and Iohn Holland’ at 4.2 . . . . Arguing against Dover Wilson, Greg thought that these could not possibly be authorial, while Wells and Taylor find no objection to attributing these . . . to Shakespeare. In retrospect, it is difficult to see how Greg could be so confident” (139-140).

Well, how could Wells be so confident? Werstine observes that manuscripts have no authorial mention of actor’s names. John Holland gets three entries from a theatrical reviser in John of Bordeaux, the manuscript I contend is transcribed from shorthand. That seems at least suggestive and it’s not imaginary.

Gerald E. Downs

Lean & Hungry Theater “The Tempest” LIVE March 4

shaksper@shaksper.net (Hardy Cook) — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:03:29 +0000

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.074 Wednesday, 22 February 2012

From: WAMU 88.5 <membership@wamu.org>

Date: Tuesday, 21 Feb 2012 15:58:10 -0600 (CST)

Subject: Lean & Hungry Theater “The Tempest” LIVE March 4

On Sunday, March 4, WAMU 88.5 and Washington, D.C.’s only radio drama company, Lean & Hungry Theater, will present a special live-to-air broadcast of Shakespeare’s The Tempest, at the state-of-the-art Wilson High School Auditorium in northwest D.C. Be a part of the audience as actors at stationary microphones transform Shakespeare’s work into a radio broadcast that listeners of any age will enjoy.

Set in the distant future in the Naples Galaxy, Lean & Hungry’s The Tempest is a sci-fi adaptation of Shakespeare’s classic play. Prospero and his daughter, Miranda, live on a small planet, where their spaceship crash landed after Prospero was ousted from his dukedom by his brother. With only Miranda, the hideous alien Caliban, and a sentient computer program named Ariel for company, Prospero seizes the opportunity for revenge by creating a cosmic tempest that forces Antonio and the Queen, along with the queen’s son Ferdinand, to crash land when they fly close to Prospero’s planet. Using his mastery of technology, Prospero sends everyone into a mad, hilarious dance until he brings them all together for the final confrontation.

Audience members are invited to participate in the post-production discussion moderated by WAMU 88.5’s Kojo Nnamdi.

The Tempest
Presented by WAMU 88.5 & Lean & Hungry Theater

Sunday, March 4, 2012

6-7 p.m.
Location: Wilson High School Auditorium

3950 Chesapeake Street NW

Washington, DC 20016

Please arrive for seating no later than 5:50 p.m.
Tickets are $25 and are available for purchase online.
For more information, email wamuevents@wamu.org.

WAMU 88.5 FM

American University Radio

4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20016

Antonio

shaksper@shaksper.net (Hardy Cook) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:22:20 +0000

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.073 Monday, 20 February 2012

From: Paul Barry <paul_g_barry@yahoo.com>

Date: February 19, 2012 2:08:49 PM EST

Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: MV; Plummer; Coriolanus

Good reviews of HAMLET and CORIOLANUS, but another bad rap for Antonio.

Paul

A Prince

shaksper@shaksper.net (Hardy Cook) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:07:07 +0000

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.072 Monday, 20 February 2012

From: Harry Berger Jr <hberger@ucsc.edu>

Date: February 19, 2012 1:14:19 PM EST

Subject: My kingdom for a crupper

During his stringent and persuasive review of the 1964 Hamlet at Elsinore Charles Weinstein complains about “a crupperful of bad performances.” That’s an interesting figure, but it puzzles me: how do you fill a crupper?

Prison Shakespeare

shaksper@shaksper.net (Hardy Cook) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:01:38 +0000

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.071 Monday, 20 February 2012

From: Colette Gordon <colette.gordon@uct.ac.za>

Date: February 20, 2012 6:05:15 AM EST

Subject: Prison Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0352

Jack Heller < jack.heller62@gmail.com>

December 15, 2011

Re: Radio Show

Dear Jack,

I know that NPR covered work with Hamlet done by the ITMSA (Independent Theatre Movement of South Africa) Shakespeare Literacy Project. I believe that this is the only SA prison project so covered and think a Romeo and Juliet would be unlikely in any South African prison or youth detention centre.

I’m working with the ITMSA on extending its work with Shakespeare in prisons. We're seeking similar projects in Africa and elsewhere, so I'll keep you posted. In the meantime, http://theprisonartscoalition.com/ and especially prisontheatreconsortium.blogspot.com/ are good resources.

Best,

Colette Gordon

Lecturer

Department of English

University of Cape Town

CFP: This Rough Magic

shaksper@shaksper.net (Hardy Cook) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:48:16 +0000

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.070 Monday, 20 February 2012

From: Michael Boecherer <boechem@sunysuffolk.edu>

Date: February 19, 2012 1:37:13 PM EST

Subject: CFP: This Rough Magic

This Rough Magic (www.thisroughmagic.org) is a journal dedicated to the art of teaching Medieval and Renaissance Literature. We are seeking academic, teachable articles that focus on, but are not limited to, the following categories:

•Authorship

•Genre Issues

•Narrative Structure

•Poetry

•Drama

•Epic

•Nation/Empire/Class

•Economics

•History

•Religion

•Superstition

•Philosophy and Rhetoric

•Race/Ethnicity

•Multi-Culturalism

•Gender

•Sexuality

•Art

We also seek short essays that encourage faculty to try overlooked, non-traditional texts inside the classroom and book reviews. For more information, please visit our website www.thisroughmagic.org or contact Michael Boecherer (boechem@sunysuffolk.edu). Faculty and Graduate Students are encouraged to submit.

This Rough Magic is affiliated with the following academic institutions:

•Bridgewater State University

•The Catholic University of America

•Newman University

•State University of New York - Stony Brook

•Suffolk County Community College

Michael Boecherer

Department of English

Suffolk County Community College - Riverhead Campus

Telephone: 631-548-2587

www.thisroughmagic.org

Shakespearean Productions

shaksper@shaksper.net (Hardy Cook) — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:12:47 +0000

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.069 Sunday, 19 February 2012

From: Hardy M. Cook <editor@shaksper.net>

Date: Sunday, February 19, 2012

Subject: Shakespearean Productions

A few days ago, I wrote,

>I have alluded to my preferences regarding production values and matters

>of class and to theater spaces, but I would like to mention here involves

>what I see as issues related to language and acting styles.

>As one might imagine, I see Shakespeare’s language as being foremost in

>productions. I like it clear, fast-paced generally, and understandable to me

>and to the actors delivering it. Language is my foremost production value

>and influences the choice of space in which it is delivered.

>Today, I would like to mention the relationship between language and acting.

>I prefer presentational acting to representational acting for Shakespeare. For

>this reason, I feel that actors should eschew the method for performing

>Shakespeare.

This morning I read the following commentary on Spacey’s Richard III at BAM in the New York Times.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/theater-talkback-kevin-spacey-ham/

*******************************

February 16, 2012

Theater Talkback: Kevin Spacey, Ham

By Charles Isherwood

. . . let’s all admit that there are times when we crave something comfortingly, even flagrantly unhealthy, like a big ham sandwich.

The same holds true, in my view, for theatergoing, and in particular the aesthetics of acting. When it comes to performing onstage, subtlety and delicacy are to be prized far higher than showy displays of obvious emotion. To cite an exemplar of this most respectable kind of acting, I’d guide you right now to “The Road to Mecca.” Rosemary Harris is irradiating the American Airlines Theater with a performance that draws you into the troubled heart of her character with such natural grace that it is easy to forget that she is giving a performance at all.

But there are also occasions when I succumb to the pleasures of a performer serving up more ham than you’d ever find between slices of bread at the Carnegie Deli. A current case in point would have to be Kevin Spacey’s audience-devouring turn as the title character in “Richard III,” at the Brooklyn Academy of Music’s Harvey Theater as part of the Bridge Project. In contrast to previous productions from the company, a venture led by Sam Mendes that combines American and British casts in classical (mostly Shakespearean) productions, this is indubitably a star-driven vehicle, and for not one moment during the production’s daunting three-and-a-half-hour running time are you likely to forget it. (I concur with my colleague Ben Brantley in his observation that with a couple of exceptions, “basically the ensemble is only scenery for Mr. Spacey to gnaw upon.”)

Mr. Spacey delights in particular in turning his character’s monologues into intimate colloquies with the audience, in which Richard invites us to partake willingly of the unseemly pleasure Richard takes in executing his own evil designs. And, boy are we eager to sign up. Despite the humpback and the draggy leg, Mr. Spacey all but capers through the role with a kind of glee that’s infectious.

Flashing out comic asides and even indulging in that greatest of actorial no-no’s, upstaging another actor with a look or a gesture, he had the audience I watched the show with feasting on the performance as if it were a big bowl of macaroni and cheese sprinkled with truffle oil. Standing ovations at the Brooklyn Academy of Music all too often strike me as self-congratulatory displays of the audience’s discerning taste at supporting the latest in fancy-pants European theater. But in this case the leap up was clearly inspired by a lusty appreciation for Mr. Spacey’s daredevil performance, which includes a stagy bit of business at the end that was like the last scoop of that gooey macaroni and cheese.

Does Mr. Spacey’s take on the character illuminate the character’s twisted psychology in any new ways? Not really. His Richard comes across as a snarling dog foaming at the mouth in some scenes, a silken seducer in others, a bratty child deprived of his Halloween candy in others, but there is never a point at which the character’s dark deeds are felt to be grounded in truly plausible human feeling. When the late-coming confessions of haunted remorse arrive, Mr. Spacey delivers them with due deference, but it’s the prancing evildoer we really find convincing, and irresistible.

So while there is nary an understated note struck in the performance, those three-plus hours flew by mighty quickly. I can’t say I entirely respected Mr. Spacey’s endlessly ingratiating performance, but I definitely enjoyed it, as you enjoy indulging in something that you know is bad for you but cannot resist. For once Lady Anne’s quick turnabout from bilious hate to pondering a wedding dress seemed if not rational, then at least faintly believable. Mr. Spacey’s Richard really does resemble the kind of guy a woman knows she shouldn’t go near — but somehow she ends up hopping on the back of the motorcycle anyway.

Mr. Spacey’s Richard has leapt to the top of my list of shameless performances I have no shame in admitting I enjoyed, but I’d be curious to hear about yours. Surely there’s a guilty-pleasure star turn in the past that you’ve secretly (or not) delighted in, even as you’ve sorrowfully concurred with the critics that it’s outlandishly over-the-top?

*******************************

I am wondering if others would care to comment upon Shakespearean acting, the Spacey Richard III, or the number 42?

Also, we have had many conversations about production recently, is there anyone who would like to take the conversations into a different realm?

Best wishes,

Hardy

PS: Yesterday, I renewed my subscription for the next season at the Shakespeare Theater.