![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 1993: Re: "Versions" of Shakespeare
From: Hardy M. Cook (hmcook@boe00.minc.umd.edu) Date: 11/14/93
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 788. Sunday, 14 November 1993. From: Steve Urkowitz <SURCC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> Date: Sat,urday 13 Nov 93 09:57:45 EST Subject: 4.0746 Re: "Versions" of Shakespeare Comment: Re: SHK 4.0746 Re: "Versions" of Shakespeare John Mucci doesn't quite get the raw data of the quarto/Folio differences if he thinks that "too too solid flesh" or "too too sullied flesh" (which is really "sallied flesh" in the document-but who cares about evidence anyway since we can trust the editors, that's why we buy their overpriced texts) is a typical example of a textual alternative. We don't have what I think John Mucci's Grand Central Station model implies. There aren't forty steel tracks laid down by a steel driving John Henry along which many different engines and trains tootle. The documents we have reveal the fluidity of their creation, and they reveal the hit-and-miss quality of what got written down as possible record of those liquid changes. The documents are deliciously evocative and untrustworthy. Just as the promptbook of the Twelfth Night I'm working on right now fails to incorporate the heart-stopping changes that actors generated in last night's performance. We've been talking about Gertrude and what she knows and how audiences respond to her. Q1 gives us one version where she protests her innocense and announces her firm alliance with Hamlet against Claudius. Q2 generates a more ambiguous creature; we can't easily decide what she knows. And F gives us a moment, just before Ophelia enters mad, where uniquely in this version Gertrude stands alone onstage considering her spotted soul. Come on, Shaksper, sneck up (whatever that means). Steve Urkowitz SURCC@CUNYVM
|
|
|||||