• Next message: Ken Steele: "New Renaissance List (104)"
• Previous message: Ken Steele: "Expensive Collections"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 68. Tuesday, 2 Oct 1990.
 
 
(1) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 90 22:32:07 EDT (150 lines)
      From: [Tom Clayton <TSC@UMNACVX>]
      Subject: [Single-Volume Shakespeares]
 
(2) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 16:07:44 EDT (16 lines)
      From: Jonah Sinowitz <sinowitz@pilot.njin.net>
      Subject: Re: SHK 1.0067 Expensive Collections
 
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 90 22:32:07 EDT
From: [Tom Clayton <TSC@UMNACVX>]
Subject: [Single-Volume Shakespeares]
 
    Hardy Cook's communication (SHK 1.0066 Single-Volume
Shakespeares (77)) prompts me to wonder publically when it is
appropriate to respond privately to an individual (as directly to
him), when to air one's views over the network (as here, for a
third time but I hope not often or soon if ever again), and when
to hold one's peace, an option with the merits that it costs no
effort, clutters no airwaves, and ruffles no feathers (of those
perched on the party line, especially).
 
                                1
 
    In the case of the ideological implications of editions,
there are basically two questions: (1) editions as editions for
reading and use, and (2) editions as the embodiment of overt,
covert, or unconscious ideological projects--a question that
interests me "academically"; that is, not very often, not very
much, and not theoretically, since it usually involves merely the
propagation of foregone ideological conclusions. And the usual
answer to such a backward show of indifference as mine to Matters
of such Contemporary Magnitude and Moment--that "ALL is ideology
and those who deny that are the most ideological(ly self-
deceived) of all"--seems to me tantamount to "there is nothing
save opinion, and opinion be damned." I leave such discourse to
those who profess it and/or enjoy it otherwise. I do not neces-
sarily invite others to come and do likewise, but I certainly
welcome the company of those who do.
 
    The question which edition to use can be sensibly and prag-
matically entertained, and answered in various sensible and prag-
matic ways, favoring now individual editions, now collected
works, now both, none of these perfect, any more than the teacher
of any is likely to be perfect, except by relatively simple
criteria like political (or editorial) "correctness." Some edi-
tions, teachers, teachings, and miscellaneous projects may be
more politically "correct" than others, but that, again, is a
question for those for whom the question of political correctness
is prior to all others. In such cases, I am often reminded of Dr.
Johnson's observation about "the cant of those who judge by prin-
ciples rather than perceptions." A dangerous person, Dr. Johnson,
because he is ever thought-provoking and readily understood by
any literate undergraduate.
 
    Editionswise (or foolish), I have sometimes used collected
works, which CAN cost little if any more than a certain number of
individual-play paperbacks, depending upon the edition; but I
more often use individual editions, mainly because they are
likely to be carried about more freely, read more regularly and
readily, marked up more because the paper is thicker and there is
relatively more margin (and I think marking up a good thing, not
a bad), and generally used in a way and to an extent that col-
lected editions very seldom are, in our mobile culture. I use
different individual editions for different kinds of course (in
one course, this term, New Arden, New Cambridge, and Oxford-
individual by turns, for purposes of--incidental--comparison). It
is good for most students to have a collected works, and I can
sympathize with my own Alexandrian teachers who thought that
every student should have a collected Shakespeare on the shelf--
because it just might come down, now and again, and there are not
many books better taken down, even if "Shakespeare" (as he is
fashionably depreciated by quotation marks, at present) were
merely the creature of imperialist cultural mythography that any
literate reader can see he is not.
 
    One of the more sensible as well as short comparative evalua-
tions of Shakespeare texts that still has value, partly because
it extrapolates, is "the Shakespeare section" by Karl Haffenref-
fer in F. W. Bateson and Harrison T. Meserole's *Guide to English
and American Literature,* 3rd ed. (London and New York: Longman,
1976): 78-85. These few pages will merely exercise boa
deconstructors and others for whom all assertion is grist for the
discourse mill, but for the few otherwise-minded remaining (and
fewer still forthcoming), they have their value.
 
    Whatever the edition, where it is wrong, and one knows it is,
one corrects. (To the gratification of every ego, this happens
all the time: we all know SOMETHING that genuinely matters which
no one else knows, one of the proper satisfactions of responsible
teaching, modestly deployed.) Where one disagrees with one aspect
or another of any part of an edition that is not a case of right
or wrong in matters of fact or historical probability, one
explains the grounds of disagreement--not necessarily at
excruciating length. Disagreement is part of scholarship and part
of life (but of course not of ideology, where happily there is
only one correct answer, even if it varies from quarter to
quarter, and year to year). To my way of thinking, it is more
interesting in relation to particular cases than to the theoreti-
cal or ideological sub- or superstructures that interpretations
proceed from or imply as operational whether consciously
entertained or not. In other words, an interest in literary or
dramatic works qua works, writings, scripts tends to entail the
practice of literary and dramatic criticism. The entailments of
ideology and theory come from elsewhere and have their own
destinations.
 
                                2
 
    A few quotations from Mr. Cook's e-letter will show some
assured "sites of contestation," if he and I, or others so dif-
ferently minded, were to enter the same field.
 
    1. "I would . . . prefer that my students *want* to have
copies of all the plays for themselves RATHER THAN owning them
because I compelled them to purchase a one-volume collection."
Where is it that one can one COMPEL students to purchase ANY-
THING? Not anywhere I have taught or studied. More to the point,
by what logic is a text that is REQUIRED, by the same token NOT
WANTED? In my experience, students are often very pleased to own
books they would never have thought of acquiring had those books
not been "required." (They can be read on Reserve in the library,
after all.)
 
    2. "If I now want to approach the plays as dynamic scripts,
does not requiring a one-volume edition tend to enshrine them as
something else?" ANSWER: NO. In any case, the "tendency" of any
edition can be "exposed"--or noted--by the teacher.
 
    3. "I am very conscious of the politics of bardolatry"--which
I would take to mean: "I have been told and come to agree that
there is such a thing as 'the politics of bardolatry,' and there-
fore 'I am very conscious of 'it.'" This is the position of the
true (dis)believer; skeptics and empirics tend to think other-
wise, and that probably includes the majority of dramatists.
 
    4. The Globe "edition was meant to be taken to the far
reaches of the empire." This is a sweeping interpretative asser-
tion, not a statement of "fact" by any stretch of the reasonable
imagination, and not a fact even with the reading of the
iconography of the title page. "The Globe of the title was not
that 'wooden O' in which the plays were performed -- it was 'this
solid globe' itself [as 'great' in *the Tempest*?] . On the title
page, one finds a globe surrounded by hands clasping, upon whose
arms is written 'One touch of nature makes the whole world kin.'"
This is an emblem of international affinity before it is one of
conquest, surely, or must the "real" meaning be covert because
the one desired is not overt? The one-world ideal has been vari-
ously desiderated and expressed over the centuries, and is still
sought by the best as well as the worst, and not every such
"design" is a case of "Heute England, morgen die Welt."
 
    I would even venture to suggest that Shakespeare's works have
brought more together by shared enthusiasm (leading to mutual
understanding) than by imperialism and colonization. In my EXPE-
RIENCE, that is a fact.
 
                                        Best wishes, Tom
 
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------25----
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 16:07:44 EDT
From: Jonah Sinowitz <sinowitz@pilot.njin.net>
Subject: 1.0067 Expensive Collections
Comment: Re: SHK 1.0067 Expensive Collections
 
Question:
 
        I am a student at Rutgers University. I have been using the
Riverside for quite a while and the binding is starting to break. I
have decided that I must take it to a book binder or... buy a new book.
Will getting the book bound solve my problems ??? I am attached to it -
but I know another one ($45 at Rutgers) is well worth the investment.
 
???,
Jonah
 
sinowitz@pilot.njin.net

• Next message: Ken Steele: "New Renaissance List (104)"
• Previous message: Ken Steele: "Expensive Collections"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]