SHAKSPER 2000: Is Rubinstein Reliable?

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 04/17/00 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0827  Monday, 17 April 2000.

From:           Allan Blackman <momus@juno.com>
Date:           Sunday, 16 Apr 2000 19:40:13 -0400
Subject:        Is Rubinstein Reliable?

I have raised this issue before, but no one chose to respond to it.
Maybe it was overlooked because the focus of the thread was pornography
and censorship.  Or maybe I didn't put the issue clearly enough.  Or
possibly no one is interested.  Anyway, let me put it as explicitly as I
can:

1) In reading Shakespeare, I have been struck by the degree to which
annotators ignore sexual content.

2) If Rubinstein's work on sexual puns is accepted as reliable, then a
radical reinterpretation of Shakespeare is surely called for; yet I find
no mention of her work by the annotators and commentators.

3) My inclination is to attribute this neglect to prudishness and to an
unwillingness to admit that (often deviant) sexual & scatological
behavior was of prime concern to everyone's literary hero.

4) As an amateur, I look for guidance from the professionals who
comprise this list.  Is Rubinstein's work reliable?  If it isn't, should
I throw it in the trash? If it is reliable, why hasn't it gotten more
attention?  If it has gotten some attention, could someone suggest
critical reviews?

Allan Blackman


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