OT (Off-Topic) Chatroom: "The Boar's Head Tavern"

[Everyman]

Bolognaking wrote:  I leave the musicals to others; it's not my favourite genre.

Do you count Gilbert and Sullivan as musicals?   I worked for a number of years in a school which put on a major productoin of one G&S every year, and worked closely with the musical director on the production.  I absolutely adore G&S, was brought up on him (a very close family friend was in a community G&S company and played all the comedic, patter-song parts marvelously, so we went to several productions a year all during my growing up). 

I don't like many of the modern musicals, I find them more noise than music, but I do like many of the older musicals such as Brigadoon, Finian's Rainbow, Music Man, and others of that ilk.  But not nearly as much as G&S!

[RTA]

Have any of the other Shakespeare readers on this board noticed how quickly some people can jump at criticizing others for how they read and interpret Shakespeare?  But, then, sometimes those same people—those who so enjoy criticizing others’ readings—rarely ever, themselves, engage conversation about the text, itself.  They might make some general statements, here and there, but they rarely go back to the text to demonstrate much of anything, and the bulk of their energy seems reserved for criticizing what others might see in the text.  It’s almost as though, for all their professed love of Shakespeare, they’re content to limit their admiration to criticizing, judging and ridiculing others, rather than actually offering their own thoughts about his work.  As though, all one needs do, to be a true admirer of Shakespeare, is say that everyone else doesn’t respect the Bard or his work. 

In my experience, the admirers and lovers of Shakespeare actually have something substantial to say about his work, and not just about others’ interpretations of his work.  In fact, the true lovers of Shakespeare that I know spend more time talking about the plays than about how disrespectful they think others are with them.  They tend to demonstrate their love of and respect for the work by actually talking about it.

In fact, I’ve begun to notice that it’s those who only want to parade their love of Shakespeare that talk more around the plays, than about them—sort of like pharisaical Shakespeareans.  Anyone else ever notice that?  It is, after all, easier to criticize from a safe distance, without ever actually engaging the conversation and contributing one’s own ideas to the discussion.  I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said: “Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain, and most fools do.” 

Anyway, I just want to say that I’m grateful to the members of the B&N Shakespeare Board for discussing the actual text, a discussion which, as often as it’s shouted down by all the criticism, can sometimes be rare. 

[ConnieAnnKirk]

---

RTA wrote, in part:
Anyway, I just want to say that I’m grateful to the members of the B&N Shakespeare Board for discussing the actual text, a discussion which, as often as it’s shouted down by all the criticism, can sometimes be rare. 

---

Textual discussion is great, RTA.  Lots of folks come here for that, even if they don't post.  Keep it up!  

~ConnieK

Message Edited by ConnieK on 09-21-2008 09:02 PM

[Everyman]

I'm sure that everybody here is posting what they can to the best of their ability and as their time and resources permit. 

You are certainly setting an admirably high standard for posting,and it's a delight to read your posts, but I would hate for any posters who don't have the time or ability to post with that level of sophistication and that level of detail  to feel that their posts weren't welcomed because they limited their posts to more general comments.  Nor should they be made to feel they aren't true admirers of Shakespeare because they don't share your high level of analytical ability. 

---

RTA wrote:

Have any of the other Shakespeare readers on this board noticed how quickly some people can jump at criticizing others for how they read and interpret Shakespeare?  But, then, sometimes those same people—those who so enjoy criticizing others’ readings—rarely ever, themselves, engage conversation about the text, itself.  They might make some general statements, here and there, but they rarely go back to the text to demonstrate much of anything, and the bulk of their energy seems reserved for criticizing what others might see in the text.  It’s almost as though, for all their professed love of Shakespeare, they’re content to limit their admiration to criticizing, judging and ridiculing others, rather than actually offering their own thoughts about his work.  As though, all one needs do, to be a true admirer of Shakespeare, is say that everyone else doesn’t respect the Bard or his work. 

In my experience, the admirers and lovers of Shakespeare actually have something substantial to say about his work, and not just about others’ interpretations of his work.  In fact, the true lovers of Shakespeare that I know spend more time talking about the plays than about how disrespectful they think others are with them.  They tend to demonstrate their love of and respect for the work by actually talking about it.

In fact, I’ve begun to notice that it’s those who only want to parade their love of Shakespeare that talk more around the plays, than about them—sort of like pharisaical Shakespeareans.  Anyone else ever notice that?  It is, after all, easier to criticize from a safe distance, without ever actually engaging the conversation and contributing one’s own ideas to the discussion.  I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said: “Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain, and most fools do.” 

Anyway, I just want to say that I’m grateful to the members of the B&N Shakespeare Board for discussing the actual text, a discussion which, as often as it’s shouted down by all the criticism, can sometimes be rare. 

---

[RTA]

---

Everyman wrote:

I'm sure that everybody here is posting what they can to the best of their ability and as their time and resources permit. 

You are certainly setting an admirably high standard for posting,and it's a delight to read your posts, but I would hate for any posters who don't have the time or ability to post with that level of sophistication and that level of detail  to feel that their posts weren't welcomed because they limited their posts to more general comments.  Nor should they be made to feel they aren't true admirers of Shakespeare because they don't share your high level of analytical ability. 

---

Gee, Everyman, I don’t really see how you could interpret what I wrote as a criticism on people who actually discuss the play, whether by direct citation or generally.  Nor was my gratitude for textual discussion meant to imply only discussion that directly references the text—though I do admit that is my personal weakness.  Rather, I mean to show my gratitude to those that offer all their varied perspectives that contribute to discussion on the play—including history, linguistics, biography, stage/film adaptations—all of which I think can stimulate discussion.  Thankfully there are those who actually enjoy exploring the work in all its many facets, and don’t reserve the bulk of their energy for judging and ridiculing varied interpretations.

BTW, I don’t fancy myself as setting an “admirably high standard” with regard to the quality of my posts.  The fact that this was my first reading of J.C., I imagine, made most my posts fairly obvious, if not inept.  I do hope, however, that I contribute to expanding the possibility for communication, rather than quashing those possibilities with authoritative judgments on others’ interpretations.  That is my dearest desire, actually, in participating here.

Message Edited by RTA on 09-22-2008 12:25 AM

Message Edited by RTA on 09-22-2008 12:29 AM

[ConnieAnnKirk]

All interpretations of topics related to Shakespeare are welcome and appreciated!  We have more people who visit the club who just read and never post, you know.  When folks post, they are giving us the gift of their time, thoughts, and words.  We value the gift of every member who shares with us!

RTA--I'm enjoying your thoughtful posts as well. And I like the way Everyman plays 'devil's advocate' on occasion to get us all thinking and challenging our assumptions.  Everyone has something to contribute, no matter how in-depth his/her analysis.  I'm glad to have you all here!  :-)

~ConnieK

[Everyman]

Gee, Everyman, I don’t really see how you could interpret what I wrote as a criticism on people who actually discuss the play, whether by direct citation or generally. 

Well, I do agree that parts of the discussions on Shakespeare's religion and on.preemptive strikes strayed quite far afield from the actual play.  But I don't mind giving posters a bit of leeway in areas that are peripherally related to Shakespeare or general issues he raises. 

Did you have any comments on my recent posts about Cassius or Portia?  Those were directly about the play, but haven't been picked up on yet. It would seem from your post that you would encourage discussions on posts like those that are directly related to the play, but I see that you haven't had a chance to address either yet.

[RTA]

---

ConnieK wrote:

And I like the way Everyman plays 'devil's advocate' on occasion to get us all thinking and challenging our assumptions.  Everyone has something to contribute, no matter how in-depth his/her analysis.  I'm glad to have you all here!  :-)

~ConnieK

---

Connie, to be perfectly honest, I think there is a clear difference between (1) playing devil’s advocate, by challenging varied readings of the text, and (2) judging people as not respecting the text or the original author (or worse, doing violence to the original author) for appreciating diverse interpretations.  I think the first opens lines of communication, I think the second quashes discussion.  And I’ve found, since you’ve mentioned the member specifically, Everyman spends a disproportionate amount of time on the latter as opposed to the former.  For all his claims that he is the only one on the legitimacy thread that respects Shakespeare’s work, he tends to write very little about it.  Or probably, more cautiously, he writes vastly more about how others disrespect the text than he actually contributes to the textual discussion.  I think that’s disappointing.  I think it demonstrates how such a judgmental approach to Shakespeare can limit dialogue about the actual texts.  And I don’t mind spending a little time conscientiously resisting such approaches by noting the tendencies.

[RTA]

Everyman wrote: Well, I do agree that parts of the discussions on Shakespeare's religion and on.preemptive strikes strayed quite far afield from the actual play.

I don’t agree with that at all.  First, the conversation in the Contemporary Relevance thread was predominantly about preventive strikes (ahem, not preemptive strikes), and it was addressed directly at a contemporary parallel from the text—kind of the point of the thread.  And I found the religion information very useful, as I wasn’t aware of some of it before those contributions. 

I want to be sure you’re aware that my observation above wasn’t about all the members, here, who are actually contributing in such vital and varied ways to the discussion.  My comment is directed at the tendency I see from you on this board, and from others (not on this board) in previous discussions, to spend an inordinate amount of time criticizing interpretations you find to be invalid, rather than offering your own, what I imagine you would consider to be valid, interpretation.  I think if you spent the bulk of your energy talking about what is significant to you in the work, rather than judging others as disrespecting the work for not interpreting it the same as you, we’d all benefit from the contributions.  Up until now, I don't think the board, for the most part, has had the significant benefit of your readings; perhaps that will change, however.

But, rather than fall into the same trap, myself, I'll leave this post to stand as the end of my comment on the matter, and turn my attention back to the text.  I just wanted to make the observation to see if others noticed the tendency.  But, I don't intend to address the issue any further.

Everyman wrote: Did you have any comments on my recent posts about Cassius or Portia? 

Not really, I didn’t find either of them compelling enough to comment on.  The observations about Cassius—outside the comparisons between him and Brutus as to who is “more important,” which absolutely doesn’t interest me—seems fairly obvious to me.  Cassius is manipulative, he is responsible for setting much of the action in motion, I agree.  Do you want me to write that I agree with that reading?  I can, if that’s what you are looking for.  (I even took that further on a separate thread, demonstrating how I think Cassius changes in the text, in a way that I don’t see Brutus changing.)  But, otherwise, I don’t tend to comment on what I find to be obvious readings, when all I can contribute is an “I agree.” 

In fact, I’m finding that I’m having the same issues with my posts.  All my observations are, evidently, so obvious that they’re not really creating much room for discussion.  I’m working at trying to draw some more complex observations that might open up discussion.

As to Portia, I directly rebut, without meaning to, what you wrote about her, in my post that precedes yours.  I demonstrate in that post what I think Portia’s subtle role contributes to the relationship between Cassius and Brutus and the difference between how Brutus (and even Cassius) fills his public and private roles.  If you want me to post the same, again, in response to your post, I can.  But I think that’s probably a waste of effort.  If you want to respond, specifically, to what I offer with regard to Portia’s significance, I’d be glad to engage that discussion.  But you never really responded to what I’ve already offered to be, at least a bit of, how I see Portia’s significance.  Until then, I’ll leave my prior post as an adequate response to your follow-up, even though my original post wasn't written with the intention of addressing the specific point you wish to make in your post.

[ConnieAnnKirk]

---

RTA wrote:

---

ConnieK wrote:

And I like the way Everyman plays 'devil's advocate' on occasion to get us all thinking and challenging our assumptions.  Everyone has something to contribute, no matter how in-depth his/her analysis.  I'm glad to have you all here!  :-)

~ConnieK

---

Connie, to be perfectly honest, I think there is a clear difference between (1) playing devil’s advocate, by challenging varied readings of the text, and (2) judging people as not respecting the text or the original author (or worse, doing violence to the original author) for appreciating diverse interpretations.  I think the first opens lines of communication, I think the second quashes discussion.  And I’ve found, since you’ve mentioned the member specifically, Everyman spends a disproportionate amount of time on the latter as opposed to the former.  For all his claims that he is the only one on the legitimacy thread that respects Shakespeare’s work, he tends to write very little about it.  Or probably, more cautiously, he writes vastly more about how others disrespect the text than he actually contributes to the textual discussion.  I think that’s disappointing.  I think it demonstrates how such a judgmental approach to Shakespeare can limit dialogue about the actual texts.  And I don’t mind spending a little time conscientiously resisting such approaches by noting the tendencies.

---

Sure; there's a difference, RTA.  But I prefer to accentuate the positive in a public forum, and most of all, stay on topic!   

~ConnieK

[debbook]

Hey Connie, I've been lurking a bit as I'm hoping to join in next month with MacBeth. Anyway, I've noticed that the posts( on this thread at least) are not all in order by date as they usually are ,some are 9/19 followed by 9/22, then 9/21, then 9/22. I didn't change the formatting on my computer and it does this with both firefox and ie.

Has anyone else noticed this? Its just been confusing me a bit ( not hard to do ) and I wondered if there is a reason for this.

[ConnieAnnKirk]

---

debbook wrote:

Hey Connie, I've been lurking a bit as I'm hoping to join in next month with MacBeth. Anyway, I've noticed that the posts( on this thread at least) are not all in order by date as they usually are ,some are 9/19 followed by 9/22, then 9/21, then 9/22. I didn't change the formatting on my computer and it does this with both firefox and ie.

Has anyone else noticed this? Its just been confusing me a bit ( not hard to do ) and I wondered if there is a reason for this.

---

Hi, debbook!  I certainly do hope you'll jump in with us during Macbeth!  We will split the focus of discussion by acts over the 5 weeks, so it will be split up much like this one.

The odd dating in a thread can be the result of moving posts from one thread to another, unfortunately. I hope it doesn't throw you off too much, but at least you can know it's not your computer!

Good to "see" you!

~ConnieK

[debbook]

Ah ha. Makes sense. I was just checking to make sure I'm not crazy(completely anyway).

---

ConnieK wrote:

---

debbook wrote:

Hey Connie, I've been lurking a bit as I'm hoping to join in next month with MacBeth. Anyway, I've noticed that the posts( on this thread at least) are not all in order by date as they usually are ,some are 9/19 followed by 9/22, then 9/21, then 9/22. I didn't change the formatting on my computer and it does this with both firefox and ie.

Has anyone else noticed this? Its just been confusing me a bit ( not hard to do ) and I wondered if there is a reason for this.

---

Hi, debbook!  I certainly do hope you'll jump in with us during Macbeth!  We will split the focus of discussion by acts over the 5 weeks, so it will be split up much like this one.

The odd dating in a thread can be the result of moving posts from one thread to another, unfortunately. I hope it doesn't throw you off too much, but at least you can know it's not your computer!

Good to "see" you!

~ConnieK

---

[ConnieAnnKirk]

---

debbook wrote:

Ah ha. Makes sense. I was just checking to make sure I'm not crazy(completely anyway).

---

No more than the rest of us, debbook!  Ya'll come back now for some "toil and trouble!" 

~ConnieK

[dulcinea3]

I noticed the out-of-order posts, too.  People were answering questions before they were asked - LOL!  The last time I came by, the most recent post was Everyman's question about Gilbert & Sullivan, and now I am seeing that post at the top of the last page, in front of a bunch of posts that had come BEFORE it the last time I looked!

[ConnieAnnKirk]

---

dulcinea3 wrote, in part:

People were answering questions before they were asked - LOL! 

---

Maybe we're all either geniuses or psychic, dulcinea3!    Sorry for the inconvenience.

~ConnieK

[dulcinea3]

Hi Connie,

I noticed that you said that you were going to split Macbeth over five weeks, but according to the Announcements thread where they listed all the October selections, it runs from 10/6 - 10/31, which is only four weeks, so I'm a little confused.  I don't know when to start reading (LOL)!

[Melissa_W Moderator]

The Rover is such a great example of Restoration comedy.  My Restoration Lit professor always plays a DVD of a minimalist production, which seems sort of wrong given that the Restoration was a decadent period following the socially subdued attitude of the Protectorate.  I can't find any productions of The Rover currently available (Dr. Snyder probably has a copy from an academic source) but here's a link to a Google search that mentions a number of recent productions.

---

Bolognaking wrote:

---

RTA wrote:

Bolognaking wrote (in the Act III thread): Community Theatre.  I make my daily crust by other means. 

I mean what type of playwrights, plays, genres do you tend to produce?  Local playwrights, or established works?  Is there a trend at all?  Do you direct musicals in addition to straight plays? 

The last piece I worked on was Aphra Behn’s The Rover.  That was over two years ago...sigh.  We built a revolving turntable in order to stage all the various scenes.  Full Restoration costuming and sets.  It was a massive production.  We had received a huge contribution from a benefactor in order to produce the piece. 

---

Sorry, I misunderstood.  Primarily comedies, mostly recent, some local and some from a broader pool.  I leave the musicals to others; it's not my favourite genre.  I would love to do a more serious piece or a classic one, but it would be a hard sell convincing the board that we could actually sell tickets to such a show.  A huge contribution from a benefactor would be welcome!  (What theatre company wouldn't say that?)

Aphra Behn--I'm impressed!  I've never read or seen any of her work, but perhaps I'll look up The Rovers.  The production style doesn't sound like the way I'd approach that kind of piece; I'd be more inclined to go minimalist.

---

[RTA]

---

Everyman wrote:

Bolognaking wrote:  I leave the musicals to others; it's not my favourite genre.

Do you count Gilbert and Sullivan as musicals?   I worked for a number of years in a school which put on a major productoin of one G&S every year, and worked closely with the musical director on the production.  I absolutely adore G&S, was brought up on him (a very close family friend was in a community G&S company and played all the comedic, patter-song parts marvelously, so we went to several productions a year all during my growing up). 

I don't like many of the modern musicals, I find them more noise than music, but I do like many of the older musicals such as Brigadoon, Finian's Rainbow, Music Man, and others of that ilk.  But not nearly as much as G&S!

---

Oh yes!  G&S!  What about Lerner and Loewe, Eman?  Noise or no?  Irving Berlin?  Cole Porter? Rodgers and Hammerstein?  Stephen Sondheim?  I love pieces from all of them.  There's nothing like a good old-fashioned musical.

[RTA]

---

Bolognaking wrote:

Sorry, I misunderstood.  Primarily comedies, mostly recent, some local and some from a broader pool.  I leave the musicals to others; it's not my favourite genre.  I would love to do a more serious piece or a classic one, but it would be a hard sell convincing the board that we could actually sell tickets to such a show.  A huge contribution from a benefactor would be welcome!  (What theatre company wouldn't say that?)

---

So, noticing your signature, have you directed any of Stoppard's work?  I think he's very difficult to pull off well.  But, when done well, it's usually nearing on genius. 

I know what you mean about ticket sales, unfortunately, dictating production choices.  I guess it's one of the necessary evils of the business.  But, then again, isn't the whole point of theater to perform in front of an audience?  So I guess I shouldn't say evil, necessarily.