SHAKSPER 1999: Re: Age of Awareness

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 11/22/99 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2046  Monday, 22 November 1999.

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
        Date:   Friday, 19 Nov 1999 10:14:02 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.2026 Re: Age of Awareness

[2]     From:   Meg Powers Livingston <livingst@ucla.edu>
        Date:   Friday, 19 Nov 1999 21:46:37 -0800
        Subj:   Re: Age of Awareness

[3]     From:   Reg Grouse <regrouse@netspace.net.au>
        Date:   Monday, 22 Nov 1999 11:53:21 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.2026 Re: Age of Awareness


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date:           Friday, 19 Nov 1999 10:14:02 -0800
Subject: 10.2026 Re: Age of Awareness
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.2026 Re: Age of Awareness

Terence claims that Geralyn,

>effectively abandons meaning and offers mere 'sound patterns' as an
>acceptable substitute for it. Dangerous romantic nonsense. This is to
>reduce Shakespeare to the level of Dylan Thomas. Fie!

Actually, Geralyn draws attention to the words, which are the foundation
of meaning.  And the proposal doesn't suggest never learning what the
words mean, but learning them interactively, by trying out guesses.
Nor, we might add, has sound nothing to do with meaning.

I'm glad you brought this up, because it made me look at Geralyn's
proposal a little more closely.  It reminds me, a bit, of getting actors
"off book" before working through the rehearsal and interpretation
process.  It's that much easier to interpret something you can carry
around in your brain than something that's on the page.  I seem to
recall that certain medieval theologians had volumnious memories, but it
didn't stand in the way of a rigorous interpretive process.  Memoria may
be closer to inventio then we tend to think, and memory is aided by
sound.

Cheers,
Seán.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Meg Powers Livingston <livingst@ucla.edu>
Date:           Friday, 19 Nov 1999 21:46:37 -0800
Subject:        Re: Age of Awareness

Terence Hawkes wrote, "Geralyn Horton, Playwright's proposal . . .
effectively abandons meaning and offers mere 'sound patterns' as an
acceptable substitute for it. Dangerous romantic nonsense. This is to
reduce Shakespeare to the level of Dylan Thomas. Fie!"

To defend the position presented by Ms. Horton, I was exposed to
Shakespeare, as read by my parents and as presented on PBS in various
BBC productions, from a very young age-at least as far back as I can
remember and probably since birth.  I started reading him on my own when
I was about seven.  As a result, Shakespeare's language never seemed
foreign or intimidating to me when I encountered the plays in school; it
was simply another "dialect" of English, and the archaic words were
simply new vocabulary for me to look up.  I never took the language for
granted as merely pretty sounds, but the early exposure gave me a
familiarity with the syntactic patterns that was practically hard-wired
into my brain-which is exactly why language experts say all school
children should be exposed to foreign languages as early as possible,
rather than waiting until high school when brain development has all but
stopped.

And getting away from the issue of brain development in early childhood,
isn't the point of dramatic verse to combine meaningful language with
rhythmic and sound patterns that reinforce the meaning and are pleasing
to hear?  Privileging meaning over sound does as much disservice to
Shakespeare's art as the reverse position.

As a newly-minted Ph.D., I quake at the thought of disagreeing with any
opinion voiced by the venerable Mr. Hawkes, but I think his desire to
deliver a good quip does some injustice to Ms. Horton's position.

Yours, in great trepidation as to Mr. Hawkes' reply,
Meg

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Reg Grouse <regrouse@netspace.net.au>
Date:           Monday, 22 Nov 1999 11:53:21 +1000
Subject: 10.2026 Re: Age of Awareness
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.2026 Re: Age of Awareness

>effectively abandons meaning and offers mere 'sound patterns' as an
>acceptable substitute for it. Dangerous romantic nonsense. This is to
>reduce Shakespeare to the level of Dylan Thomas. Fie!
>
>Terence Hawkes

But Terence, is it not the multiple levels of appreciation available in
Shakespeare that has given his works universal popularity for so long a
time?

It is often the seductive beauty of his verse that first attracts us;
that musical, abstract quality which needs no intellectual but only an
emotional response. It is later study which shows us the other levels of
appreciation; the philosophy, the psychology, the politics, the
characterisation which display that remarkable sensitivity to the human
condition which is so often remarked upon.

I was first introduced to Shakespeare by a radio play of Julius Ceasar
when I was about ten years old. I was spellbound. Each afternoon after
school I searched on my Wireless (that is what a radio was called in
those days) for another play like it. I have been passionate about
Shakespeare ever since.  I am convinced that it was the overpowering
emotive words that stirred my initial interest.

In spite of my interest now in all facets of Shakespeare's art. I still
prefer to read passages of his works than to read criticisms of those
works. I sympathise with Robert Schumann who, when asked what the piece
he had just played meant, played it again.

Reg Grouse.


about SHAKSPER | current postings | submitted papers | browse SHAKSPER | search SHAKSPER
  
Copyright © 2002, Hardy M. Cook, design by Eric Luhrs. All rights reserved.