Reply
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Genghis Khan? Why not? : Drama is a living medium (OFF TOPIC)


Choisya wrote:
I also hope that you will continue to discuss Macbeth and cite text wherever and whenever you feel it is necessary.

Oh, no. I am just beginning to understand how freeing it is to not have to worry about the text, not even have to think about it. Anything goes. There is nothing so outlandish that it can't be expressed and appreciated here. Macbeth as a Muslim imam who welcomed death because it meant he could get to his virgins in heaven? Why not?? Was Lady Macbeth not the fourth witch, but one of the three witches who conjured up that whole scene on the hearth so she could get Macbeth to commit the murder and make here Queen? Why not? When you don't have to worry about justifying any idea with any connection to the text, it's really quite fun to see how totally outlandish one can be in one's thinking.

I may never go back to actually reading these plays again. Why bother? Total freedom is such a 60s thing!
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Genghis Khan? Why not? :

[ Edited ]

Everyman wrote:

Choisya wrote:
I also hope that you will continue to discuss Macbeth and cite text wherever and whenever you feel it is necessary.




Oh, no. I am just beginning to understand how freeing it is to not have to worry about the text, not even have to think about it. Anything goes. There is nothing so outlandish that it can't be expressed and appreciated here. Macbeth as a Muslim imam who welcomed death because it meant he could get to his virgins in heaven? Why not?? Was Lady Macbeth not the fourth witch, but one of the three witches who conjured up that whole scene on the hearth so she could get Macbeth to commit the murder and make here Queen? Why not? When you don't have to worry about justifying any idea with any connection to the text, it's really quite fun to see how totally outlandish one can be in one's thinking.

I may never go back to actually reading these plays again. Why bother? Total freedom is such a 60s thing!

Message Edited by Choisya on 03-19-200707:07 PM

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Genghis Khan? Why not?

[ Edited ]

Choisya wrote:
But we're getting nowhere, and just boring everybody else, so let's just quit now.


I agree and I hope that everyone has avoided reading these Off Topic exchanges. I also hope that you will continue to discuss Macbeth and cite text wherever and whenever you feel it is necessary.




Everyman wrote:
Your defense of Cheryl's statement is vigorous, but unconvincing.

But we're getting nowhere, and just boring everybody else, so let's just quit now.

Message Edited by Choisya on 03-17-200702:03 PM



Message Edited by Choisya on 03-19-200707:06 PM

Scribe
Laurel
Posts: 5,747
Registered: ‎10-29-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Genghis Khan? Why not? : Drama is a living medium (OFF TOPIC)

of course she wasn't. I haven't been reading much of this exchange, however, because I didn't want to imprint the keyboard on my forehead.



Choisya wrote:
If others have been reading this exchange I would be interested in their response to what Cheryl wrote and whether they also think she was advocating a text-free-free-for-all (which I certainly don't).




Choisya wrote:
But we're getting nowhere, and just boring everybody else, so let's just quit now.


I agree and I hope that everyone has avoided reading these Off Topic exchanges. I also hope that you will continue to discuss Macbeth and cite text wherever and whenever you feel it is necessary.




Everyman wrote:
Your defense of Cheryl's statement is vigorous, but unconvincing.

But we're getting nowhere, and just boring everybody else, so let's just quit now.

Message Edited by Choisya on 03-17-200702:03 PM







"Truth must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for fiction is the creation of the human mind, and therefore is congenial to it." ~~G.K. Chesterton
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Genghis Khan? Why not? : Drama is a living medium (OFF TOPIC)



Laurel wrote:
of course she wasn't. I haven't been reading much of this exchange, however,...

Not having read much of the exchange but having views on it anyhow is just like not reading much of the text and having views on it anyhow.
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Scribe
Laurel
Posts: 5,747
Registered: ‎10-29-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Genghis Khan? Why not? : Drama is a living medium (OFF TOPIC)



Everyman wrote:


Laurel wrote:
of course she wasn't. I haven't been reading much of this exchange, however,...

Not having read much of the exchange but having views on it anyhow is just like not reading much of the text and having views on it anyhow.




I read what Cheryl wrote, and I agree with her. I don't know whether I agree with your interpretation of what she wrote, but that was not the question.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
"Truth must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for fiction is the creation of the human mind, and therefore is congenial to it." ~~G.K. Chesterton
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Genghis Khan? Why not? : Drama is a living medium (OFF TOPIC)

Laurel - you are so funny. Thanks for lightening things up.:smileyhappy:




Laurel wrote:


Everyman wrote:


Laurel wrote:
of course she wasn't. I haven't been reading much of this exchange, however,...

Not having read much of the exchange but having views on it anyhow is just like not reading much of the text and having views on it anyhow.




I read what Cheryl wrote, and I agree with her. I don't know whether I agree with your interpretation of what she wrote, but that was not the question.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Genghis Khan? Why not?

[ Edited ]
LOL Laurel. :smileyhappy:



Laurel wrote:
of course she wasn't. I haven't been reading much of this exchange, however, because I didn't want to imprint the keyboard on my forehead.



Choisya wrote:
If others have been reading this exchange I would be interested in their response to what Cheryl wrote and whether they also think she was advocating a text-free-free-for-all (which I certainly don't).




Choisya wrote:
But we're getting nowhere, and just boring everybody else, so let's just quit now.


I agree and I hope that everyone has avoided reading these Off Topic exchanges. I also hope that you will continue to discuss Macbeth and cite text wherever and whenever you feel it is necessary.




Everyman wrote:
Your defense of Cheryl's statement is vigorous, but unconvincing.

But we're getting nowhere, and just boring everybody else, so let's just quit now.

Message Edited by Choisya on 03-17-200702:03 PM









Message Edited by Choisya on 03-19-200707:04 PM

Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Genghis Khan? Why not?



Choisya wrote:
If others have been reading this exchange I would be interested in their response to what Cheryl wrote and whether they also think she was advocating a text-free-free-for-all (which I certainly don't).





I think the ladies here are a bit more benevolent, free flowing while the gentlemen are more conservative, trusting rules and adhering to firm structure....that is nothing new...maybe it is a matter of gender. :smileyvery-happy:

I think Cheryl said 'let everyone think freely' about the text while the gentlemen suggested more limited view.

Much ado about nothing.

ziki
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Genghis Khan? Why not? : Drama is a living medium



Choisya wrote:
As one of Cheryl's specialised areas of study and teaching is Shakespeare ...


Which is precisely why I am so disappointed to find that she feels that comments which have no connection at all to the text are just as welcome here as those which do. I am sure that in her classes she would not tolerate that sort of comment for an instant. I recognize that this is not a class and that a somewhat looser standard of discussion is appropriate here, and am certainly not suggesting any censorship of postings. But to welcome posts that don't even try to relate to the text as equally valid with points that are derived from at least some appeal to the text is to abandon any semblance of intellectual integrity. Given Cheryl's knowledge and, presumably, appreciation of Shakespeare I am both astonished and disappointed that this is how she has chosen to position this forum.

But it makes clear why she was so harsh to Stratford as to drive him away for having the audacity to actually cite the text. It's a mistake I won't make in future, since I don't want to receive the same very unkind, to put it mildly, treatment he did. I will understand that intellectual rigor is neither appropriate nor welcome here, and will be sure not to make the error of attempting it in future.
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Genghis Khan? Why not? :

[ Edited ]
But it makes clear why she was so harsh to Stratford as to drive him away for having the audacity to actually cite the text.


Cheryl did not chide Stratford for citing the text. Nor has anyone else said that the text could not/should not be cited. (Text was, in fact being cited but interpretations differed.) She asked him to 'back off' and to stop using words like 'must' and 'can't' about other readers' posts because they weren't part of the 'friendly conversation' these boards are meant to promote. Cheryl also wrote 'Within the boundaries of civil discourse, all voices are welcome in this conversation', presumably because some uncivil/unkind words had been written about other posters.

I doubt that Stratford has been 'driven away' - he often does not respond for a few days, I expect he is a busy person. A 'purist' approach can equally drive people away and I assume that Cheryl's concern is to keep as wide a group of people in the discussion as she can. Noone is suggesting that either you or Stratford cannot continue to keep purely and simply to the text, just that there are other voices with other approaches here - intelligent voices which are also being respectful, also applying intellectual rigour and which also have integrity.




Everyman wrote:


Choisya wrote:
As one of Cheryl's specialised areas of study and teaching is Shakespeare ...


Which is precisely why I am so disappointed to find that she feels that comments which have no connection at all to the text are just as welcome here as those which do. I am sure that in her classes she would not tolerate that sort of comment for an instant. I recognize that this is not a class and that a somewhat looser standard of discussion is appropriate here, and am certainly not suggesting any censorship of postings. But to welcome posts that don't even try to relate to the text as equally valid with points that are derived from at least some appeal to the text is to abandon any semblance of intellectual integrity. Given Cheryl's knowledge and, presumably, appreciation of Shakespeare I am both astonished and disappointed that this is how she has chosen to position this forum.

But it makes clear why she was so harsh to Stratford as to drive him away for having the audacity to actually cite the text. It's a mistake I won't make in future, since I don't want to receive the same very unkind, to put it mildly, treatment he did. I will understand that intellectual rigor is neither appropriate nor welcome here, and will be sure not to make the error of attempting it in future.

Message Edited by Choisya on 03-19-200707:12 PM

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Genghis Khan? Why not? : Respect is not a one-way street.

Cheryl also wrote "it's perfectly acceptable for anyone who comes to the club to express opinions--no matter how outlandish--about the topics offered here, without the slightest obligation to ensure that his or her views are "factually supported by the text.""

Posters here should feel free to say whatever they want to without any concern for whether the text supports their view or not. If you prefer that way of putting it to my "throwing away the text" you can prefer it. It amounts to exactly the same thing.
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Genghis Khan? Why not?

[ Edited ]
To me it stands to reason that a Moderator of any book/text here should seek to encourage posters to feel 'free to say whatever they want to' about anything. Indeed I would have thought that any American would think that was in line with the First Amendment defending free speech. If someone wants to express an opinion without referring to the text, any text, they should be free to do so, providing they are not being offensive to anyone. If they want to use the text, they should be equally free. The quality of the post or its relevance etc in relation to what is being discussed, whether it be Macbeth or no, can then be judged by the readers here. There have been many people over the years who have made wise contributions to these boards without the benefit of text, scholarly reading or 'intellectual rigour'. Long that may continue and long may Moderators like Cheryl promote it.





Everyman wrote:
Cheryl also wrote "it's perfectly acceptable for anyone who comes to the club to express opinions--no matter how outlandish--about the topics offered here, without the slightest obligation to ensure that his or her views are "factually supported by the text.""

Posters here should feel free to say whatever they want to without any concern for whether the text supports their view or not. If you prefer that way of putting it to my "throwing away the text" you can prefer it. It amounts to exactly the same thing.

Message Edited by Choisya on 03-19-200707:03 PM

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Genghis Khan? Why not? : Respect is not a one-way street.



Choisya wrote:
To me it stands to reason that a Moderator of any book/text here should seek to encourage posters to feel 'free to say whatever they want to' about anything.


Ah well. Out with the book, in with the chit-chat.

Up to about six months ago, I was personally convinced by the then prevailing scientific consensus that global warming was largely man-made and that it represented a significant threat to life as we know it on the planet. But recently some of the "facts" on which the global warming thesis have been based have been proved to be exaggerated or totally false, and a fair amount of contrary data has developed. Plus, the politicalization of the subject has led, as it so often does, to more light than heat and some concern about why political pressure is being brought to manage a scientific question. Just recently in our state, a highly qualfied scientist who publicly made available data which conflicted with the man-made global warming thesis was fired from his position in the office of the state climatologist, who is an active supporter of man-made global warming. When there is a cover-up, I always wonder why people feel a need to cover things up.

So now I'm less sure what to think. It's clear enough that the earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles in the past; I don't think anybody disputes that. Is what we are seeing now partly or totally natural? Interesting questions face us!
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Frequent Contributor
cheryl_shell
Posts: 156
Registered: ‎12-08-2006
0 Kudos

I love a good debate!

Dear Friends,

I have nothing to add to the foregoing scintillating discussion except to say that I'm glad it's taking place! And thanks to all--both those who question my motives and those who champion them! (Even those of you who are not posting.)

While this debate is not pertinent to the "witches" topic, it is certainly pertinent to Shakespeare studies, and to debates that have been raging for decades on the necessity to be "true" to the text (I put that word in quotes because the definition of "true-ness" is one of the things being debated).

In the last play's list of message threads, there was one started by Everyman on whether or not productions that stray far from the original text should be considered Shakespearean. Perhaps it's a good time to re-open that discussion! Care to do that for us again, Everyman?

And maybe there we can also talk about the issue of adaptations of Shakespeare plays. How much do such works contribute to the world's understanding and love of Shakespeare?
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: I love a good debate!



cheryl_shell wrote:
In the last play's list of message threads, there was one started by Everyman on whether or not productions that stray far from the original text should be considered Shakespearean. Perhaps it's a good time to re-open that discussion!

I'm not sure I have the heart to go through it again. "Stray" is perhaps a mild term for what I'm concerned about; having fairies in MND ride bicycles around the stage is more than just straying from the original text, as I see it. But I really have nothing more to say.

If people think that putting on a production of Macbeth set in 19th Appalachia with the role of Macbeth being a manager of a coal mine who wants to advance to the corporate top and Duncan as his boss, and the battle scenes being fights between the striking miners and scabs, is simply being creative about putting on Shakespeare and is inherently true to his vision and his writing, I admit that there's probably nothing I can say that will dissuade them from that view.
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: I love a good debate!

For my part I think a further discussion would be pointless but I would like to know what sort of production Everyman favours because whereas he says a lot about what he doesn't like, I haven't the faintest idea what sort of productions he has seen that he did like and why. I might agree with him because even though I enjoy the more 'outlandish' productions, I also like to see the more traditional productions at the Globe from time to time.




cheryl_shell wrote:
Dear Friends,

I have nothing to add to the foregoing scintillating discussion except to say that I'm glad it's taking place! And thanks to all--both those who question my motives and those who champion them! (Even those of you who are not posting.)

While this debate is not pertinent to the "witches" topic, it is certainly pertinent to Shakespeare studies, and to debates that have been raging for decades on the necessity to be "true" to the text (I put that word in quotes because the definition of "true-ness" is one of the things being debated).

In the last play's list of message threads, there was one started by Everyman on whether or not productions that stray far from the original text should be considered Shakespearean. Perhaps it's a good time to re-open that discussion! Care to do that for us again, Everyman?

And maybe there we can also talk about the issue of adaptations of Shakespeare plays. How much do such works contribute to the world's understanding and love of Shakespeare?


Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: I love a good debate!



Choisya wrote:
I would like to know what sort of production Everyman favours because whereas he says a lot about what he doesn't like, I haven't the faintest idea what sort of productions he has seen that he did like and why.

I've said it often enough before, but I'll say it again since you clearly haven't heard me yet.

It's simple. I like productions where the focus is on the language Shakespeare wrote and the scenes he intended to present. Where the creativity is focused on how the actors present Shakespeare's words and actions. I like to see the plays done reasonably truly to the age in which they were written to be presented. Not slavishly; we don't need to research exactly what Julius Caesar wore and copy the exact fabrics he would have been clothed in, just something reasonably resembling what he would have been seen wearing. But not Julius Caesar in a zoot suit smoking cigarettes and toting a machine gun. And not bicycles or motor cars or airplanes as part of the set.

Just honest, straightforward Shakespeare with the creativity coming in the quality of the acting and staging. There is no need to tart him up. He can stand perfectly well on his own too feet.

If we want to see plays with people toting machine guns or riding around in Corvettes, then we can get modern writers to write them. If a director wants to put on a play with bicycles on the stage, get Neil Simon (is he still alive?) to write one where having bicycles on stage makes sense.

If people want to write their own new plays using the basic themes Shakespeare did but in a modern context, that's fine, as long as they write them under their own names and not pretend that they're Shakespeare. After all, Shakespeare borrowed most of his plots from other writers. But he put his own name on the plays; he didn't present them as the work of somebody else.

A great example of using the Shakespearean concepts but writing one's own work under one's own name is Leonard Bernstein did with West Side Story. That was much more creative than letting off fireworks in the middle of Titus Andronicus.

We don't do this with other artists. The novel Finn is being discussed elsewhere; it's based on Twain's character, but Jon Clinch put his own name on it; he didn't try to sell it as being by Mark Twain. Nobody that I know puts on Thornton Wilder's Our Town set in a Los Angeles barrio with the crips and the bloods feuding through the town. Nobody (unless they're intentionally parodying) takes the Mona Lisa, puts a blond wig on her and a FDR cigarette holder jauntily protruding from her lips and tries to pass it off as Da Vinci's work. Nobody takes Michaelangelo's David, dresses him in a Hawaiian shirt and puts a cell phone in his hand and tries to claim that this is Michaelangelo's work. Nobody translates War and Peace into a novel of the Civil War and claims that it was written by Tolstoy.

We don't do this to other artists. We respect their work as they presented it. I fail to understand why people feel it's okay to do this with Shakespeare.
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Frequent Contributor
book-nut
Posts: 131
Registered: ‎11-25-2006
0 Kudos

Re: I love a good debate!

The reason I come here in the first place is because I like to hear all of your different views on the books/stories. It helps me, personally, to study the story in the more open-minded way. I don't know why some of you are SO determined to turn it into a black/white "I'm right, so you have to be wrong" argument. I thought the reason we were here was to discuss and share our different views; so, for everybody's sake, why don't we all try to get along?

book-nut
Frequent Contributor
cheryl_shell
Posts: 156
Registered: ‎12-08-2006
0 Kudos

Re: I love a good debate!


book-nut wrote:
The reason I come here in the first place is because I like to hear all of your different views on the books/stories. It helps me, personally, to study the story in the more open-minded way. I don't know why some of you are SO determined to turn it into a black/white "I'm right, so you have to be wrong" argument. I thought the reason we were here was to discuss and share our different views; so, for everybody's sake, why don't we all try to get along?

book-nut




I'm with you, book-nut! And let us hear your thoughts more often!