SHAKSPER 2000: Re: Seeking Enlightenment

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 01/25/00 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0159  Tuesday, 25 January 2000.

[1]     From:   Norman J. Myers <nmyers@bgnet.bgsu.edu>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Jan 2000 11:13:12 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0146 Re: Seeking Enlightenment

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Jan 2000 09:04:33 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0146 Re: Seeking Enlightenment

[3]     From:   Simon Malloch <sjvenn@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
        Date:   Tuesday, 25 Jan 2000 01:17:34 +0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0146 Re: Seeking Enlightenment

[4]     From:   Larry Weiss <pgw@idt.net>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Jan 2000 13:06:06 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0146 Re: Seeking Enlightenment

[5]     From:   Jefferson Cronin <falstaff@netpci.com>
        Date:   Tuesday, 25 Jan 2000 07:57:10 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0146 Re: Seeking Enlightenment

[6]     From:   Carol Barton <Cbartonb@aol.com>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Jan 2000 23:07:57 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0146 Re: Seeking Enlightenment


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Norman J. Myers <nmyers@bgnet.bgsu.edu>
Date:           Monday, 24 Jan 2000 11:13:12 -0500
Subject: 11.0146 Re: Seeking Enlightenment
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0146 Re: Seeking Enlightenment

>> What exactly is the benefit of knowing about pornographic versions of
>> Shakespeare's works? or that a current Penthouse centerfold identifies
>> herself with Juliet?

Well, I don't really know, but I suspect the same guy who penned that
immortal line:

"O, Romeo, that she were, O that she were
An open-arse, thou a pop'rin pear!"

might find such "knowledge" amusing.

Norman J. Myers, Professor Emeritus
Theatre Department
Bowling Green State University

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date:           Monday, 24 Jan 2000 09:04:33 -0800
Subject: 11.0146 Re: Seeking Enlightenment
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0146 Re: Seeking Enlightenment

Gabriel Egan writes, courageously:

>The benefit is a comforting masculinist reassurance that despite 30
>years of feminism, abuse victims can still be coerced into degrading
>poses to gratify the infantile sexual power fantasies of adult men.

Would a gay production of MND be better?  What about pornography that
aims at a female audience?

>A tenuous link with Shakespeare and contemporary culture gives this
>wank-material an intellectual gloss.

Alternatively, it might comfortingly reduce intellectual material to
wank-material, making it a lot less challenging.  It strikes me that
reducing the world to wank-material seems to be a basic goal of
advertising.  Been in a magazine store recently?

Cheers,
Seán.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Simon Malloch <sjvenn@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
Date:           Tuesday, 25 Jan 2000 01:17:34 +0800
Subject: 11.0146 Re: Seeking Enlightenment
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0146 Re: Seeking Enlightenment

Of course there is little of lasting worth to be gained from knowing
about pornographic versions of Shakespeare's plays (Shakesporn, maybe?)
or from knowing that a poster of Shakespeare hangs in a classroom on the
set of Dawson's Creek.  It certainly won't illuminate Shakespeare, but
perhaps he should stay out of it?  The only thing gained is that it
provides some with a justification for studying and promoting the study
of popular culture at university level.  Popular manifestations,
especially what seem to be such gratuitous examples as those in
pornography,  are probably playing on such interest,  hoping to see a
few tapes purchased for the research libraries at the local university
or college.  And this list is good, free advertising too.

Jack Heller is surely right about whether we need to know that a
Penthouse centrefold identifies with Juliet.  It is quite offensive to
think that we - or, more especially, the readers of Penthouse - are
really interested or that such information is of academic interest.
When it takes her fancy, my twelve year-old cousin identifies herself
with Juliet  - does anyone want to jot that down too?

Paul Rhodes suggests that pornography is being 'promoted'.  Well,
although, with due respect,  I have little time for Richard Burt's or
anyone else's daily, weekly or monthly 'culture corner',  I would hardly
call his for the most part brief and unadorned listings of Shakespeare's
appearances in popular culture 'promotion' - and it would be stretching
it a bit to suggest that he is 'promoting' porn by giving the details on
the Playboy MND. (Though I do not agree with the web-page being cited,
since under-age members might have been tempted to follow the link).

The trouble with all these lists about when and in what Shakespeare
appears is that they seem to me for the most part to be nigh on useless,
except for indulging passing fancies.  For there is no attempt at
developing some sort of standard means by which the 'appearances' are
references or catalogued or listed.  Many of the references seem vague.
And who is going to comb the SHAKSPER archive in centuries to come,
looking for such 'appearances', especially when the subject headings are
not consistent and the content not specific. (the best I have seen
whilst browsing back is the post of the 11/01 where Burt goes into some
detail).  But maybe I do not know the search capabilities of the archive
well enough?  And how useful are these references when people miss the
tv shows or they miss the magazines or they do not even get the
show/magazine/movie (remember this is an international list). How is any
of this going to be useful or rather properly useable in academic
research? Or do some people just get a warm, fuzzy feeling to know that
Bill has 'struck again.'

I tend to think, Hardy, that you are on difficult ground here; it may be
best to let the cultural critics indulge their fancies, but perhaps with
some restrictions - for example, pornography references are fine, but no
detailed descriptions and no images and no web-page links (in case
underage members decide to follow them up).

Simon Malloch.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <pgw@idt.net>
Date:           Monday, 24 Jan 2000 13:06:06 -0500
Subject: 11.0146 Re: Seeking Enlightenment
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0146 Re: Seeking Enlightenment

Gabriel Egan responded to Jack Heller's rhetorical question

>>What exactly is the benefit of knowing about pornographic
>>versions of Shakespeare's works? or that a current
>>Penthouse centerfold identifies herself with Juliet?

by saying

>The benefit is a comforting masculinist [sic] reassurance that despite 30
>years of feminism, abuse victims can still be coerced into degrading
>poses to gratify the infantile sexual power fantasies of adult men. A
>tenuous link with Shakespeare and contemporary culture gives this
>wank-material an intellectual gloss.

Maybe, but it seems to me that reporting on pornographic performances of
the plays is not much different in kind than lengthy critiques of
Patrick Stewart's "negative" Othello or other modern revisions.  It is
of interest to those who are curious about the uses to which WS's works
are now being put.  To my mind, as they seem to be actual performances,
they are more interesting than the spate of snippets we are getting
these days about some character in a sitcom referring to her boyfriend
as "a Romeo."

When Uncle Junior described himself as "sitting like Patience on a
monument" in a "Sopranos" episode last season, he told us nothing about
WS or Twelfth Night, but, if the writer was doing his job properly, he
was telling us something about his character.  Likewise, the speculation
that the female actors in pornographic performances of Shakespeare are
all "abuse victims" tells us a lot more about Mr. Egan than about them.
BTW, are the performances in question really "pornographic" or are they
just nude?

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jefferson Cronin <falstaff@netpci.com>
Date:           Tuesday, 25 Jan 2000 07:57:10 +1000
Subject: 11.0146 Re: Seeking Enlightenment
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0146 Re: Seeking Enlightenment

I think references to Shakespeare in popular and contemporary culture
are useful regardless of one's personal feeling about the reference.
These uses of Shakespeare speak to the depth of his work's influence in
our world.  Perhaps as individual examples they mean little, are trivial
or are even offensive.   Cumulatively they present a pattern which can
be valuable, especially as one attempts to open the plays and poetry to
students who have difficulty in understanding the modern relevance of
work from "old, dead white dudes".

Scooby Doo, Star Trek,  doo-wop songs, advertising, Playboy or porn-it
all adds-up, even if (like me) you've never seen Scooby Doo or
checked-out "Romeo and Dudeliet".

This pattern may be only a small aid, but it may also be the point which
opens the door.  If it is the key to the door, isn't it worthy?

Just a humble purveyor of work form "old, dead white dudes",

Jefferson Cronin
University of Maryland
Guam

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carol Barton <Cbartonb@aol.com>
Date:           Monday, 24 Jan 2000 23:07:57 EST
Subject: 11.0146 Re: Seeking Enlightenment
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0146 Re: Seeking Enlightenment

Dr. Cook has wisely thrown the question of censorship of posts relating
to pornographic versions of Shakespeare (by subject, not content) to the
membership, and I would agree with the opinions thus far expressed that
it helps from a populist perspective to "know what's out there."

That being the case, and appropriately to the period, let me make the
via media recommendation that we permit mention of uses of Shakespeare
in Playboy or Hustler or Vanessa does Viola, without the gory details
("the centerfold features X in a stylized portrayal of Hermia," not a
vivid description of how pseudo-Hermia is or is not attired, positioned,
etc., etc.).  Those who are interested in that sort of thing can always
contact the poster offlist, and those of us who don't want to be treated
to a steady smutfest can proceed no further.  Fair enough?

Best to all,
Carol Barton


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