POLL: How many anti-Strats have actually read Shakespeare?
Melanie Sands
Melanie
art
> ...at least one whole play?
>
> Melanie
The vast majority of anti-Strats are old enough to have been required
to read at least one whole Shakespeare play in high school.
Of course
1) We were all Strats back then and
2) Strats always claim that the plays are meant to be watched not
read.
Art Neuendorffer
mylear
Watching a play is better than reading a play, unless of course one
has a specific interest in literature. But even better is to watch a
play accompanied by incidental music. My favorite being MND
accompanied by the music of Mendelssohn. JH
lackpurity
MM:
You don't speak for this Strat. What arrogance!
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
Watching a play is good, but learning Shakespeare's mystic teachings
really requires careful reading. We might miss something important by
just watching, but we can read repeatedly. This is why Heminge,
Cundell, and Burbage advised to approach the FF RELIGIOUSLY.
Michael Martin
nordicskiv2
<a60b6d62-9741-4acc...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
art <acne...@gmail.com>
(aka Cuixot) wrote:
> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ...at least one whole play?
> >
> > Melanie
> The vast majority of anti-Strats are old enough to have been required
> to read at least one whole Shakespeare play in high school.
That's odd -- many of them write as though they could not possibly
be old enough to have advanced to high school. But to have been
*required* to read at least one whole Shakespeare play is emphatically
*not* the same thing as to have *read* one, although I realize that
it's as close as you are eVER likely to come, Art.
> Of course
>
> 1) We were all Strats back then and
Before dementia set in?
> 2) Strats always claim that the plays are meant to be watched not
> read.
And that's your excuse for not having read any, Art?
> Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
<76c9bfde-481b-4585...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Melanie Sands <Melani...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...at least one whole play?
One can draw at least some inferences concerning the reading habits
-- or rather, the non-reading habits -- of some anti-Stratfordians
from their h.l.a.s. posts. For example, Mr. Streitz can scarcely have
read any two of _Hamlet_, _A Midsummer Night's Dream_, _Love's Labor's
Lost_, _Timon of Athens_, _Pericles Prince of Tyre_, _Troilus and
Cressida_, etc., as he asserted that only one of Shakespeare's plays
is set in a foreign country other than Italy. (Of course, to cover
all contingencies, one must entertain the possibility that Mr. Streitz
believes Elsinore, Athens, Navarre, etc. to be either in England or in
Italy. This sort of error is quite common among anti-Stratfordians,
who have at various times opined that Caxton was a contemporary of
Shakespeare, that Virgil predated Herodotus, that Sobran's _Alias
Shakespeare_ is a novel, etc. -- the last gaffe is the most
understandable, since Sobran's book, like all the anti-Stratfordian
volumes that I have encountered, most closely resembles a work of
fiction.)
> Melanie
art
>> The vast majority of anti-Strats are old enough to have been
>> required to read at least one whole Shakespeare play in high school.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> That's odd -- many of them write as though they could not possibly
> be old enough to have advanced to high school. But to have been
> *required* to read at least one whole Shakespeare play
> is emphatically *not* the same thing as to have *read* one,
For me it was.
We also had to memorize a passage from the work:
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a *Colos-SUS* , and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
Brutus and Caesar: what should be in that 'Caesar'?
Why should that name be sounded more than yours?
Write them together, yours is as fair a name;
Sound them, it doth become the mouth as well;
Weigh them, it is as heavy; conjure with 'em,
Brutus will start a spirit as soon as Caesar.
Now, in the names of all the gods at once,
Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed,
That he is grown so great? Age, thou art shamed!
Rome, thou hast lost the breed of noble bloods!
When went there by an age, since the great flood,
But it was famed with more than with one man?
When could they say till now, that talk'd of Rome,
That her wide walls encompass'd but one man?
Now is it Rome indeed and room enough,
When there is in it but one only man.
O, you and I have heard our fathers say,
There was a Brutus once that would have brook'd
The eternal devil to keep his state in Rome
As easily as a king.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>> Of course
>
>> 1) We were all Strats back then and
>
> Before dementia set in?
Way back when I was gullible & stupid.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>> 2) Strats always claim that the plays
>> are meant to be watched not read.
>
> And that's your excuse for not having read any, Art?
I seldom read a play from start to finish;
nEVERtheless, I've read quite a bit.
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
<fa8f0567-5b39-49f9...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
art <acne...@gmail.com>
(aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> ...at least one whole play?
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
> >> The vast majority of anti-Strats are old enough to have been
> >> required to read at least one whole Shakespeare play in high school.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > That's odd -- many of them write as though they could not possibly
> > be old enough to have advanced to high school. But to have been
> > *required* to read at least one whole Shakespeare play
> > is emphatically *not* the same thing as to have *read* one,
> For me it was.
Did you eVER read one thereafter, Art?
> We also had to memorize a passage from the work:
>
> Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
> Like a *Colos-SUS* ,
Evidently even your recollection of the passage you memorized has
deteriorated oVER time, Art.
> > Before dementia set in?
That must have been around the time when you first read Looney --
assuming that you've read even that. Only stupidity and gullibility
would have permitted you to have been taken in so thoroughly by such
nonsense.
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
> >> 2) Strats always claim that the plays
> >> are meant to be watched not read.
> > And that's your excuse for not having read any, Art?
> I seldom read a play from start to finish;
There needs no ghost come from the grave (nor indeed any illiterate
boob come from District Heights) to tell us this.
> nEVERtheless, I've read quite a bit.
Of what, Art? The only activity of which you have furnished any
evidence is mindless grepping.
> Art Neuendorffer
lackpurity
> ...at least one whole play?
>
> Melanie
MM:
Remember, Walt Whitman discussed "What Lurks Behind Shakspere's
Plays." Just reading it might not hack it. We have to read between
the lines, to get the cryptic meaning. So, even if Anti-Strats have
read all the plays, that issue might remain, that they didn't
understand what they read. This is the reason that a Mystic is needed
to explain to us what Shakspere wrote.
Michael Martin
Melanie Sands
Well, I am surprised that anybody even answered. I read out loud/
rehearsed
Two gentlemen over the past few weeks - well, you know, 15 minutes
every day - and there is stuff that keeps on cropping up in his plays,
isn't there - rings handed to one person and turning up in another's
posession, and women disguised as men being loved by another
woman, and faithless men forced to marry one woman when in
reality they are crazy about another...I mean, where have I
seen this before?
Am I getting my plays mixed up? Wouldn't it be better to
be the proud reader of just ONE play instead of reading
many and not knowing which is which?
Am I getting old and decrepit?
...Any one of you answers that with a yes, you're a goner.
Melanie
book...@yahoo.com
I read all the plays in two semesters of Shakespeare, and depended on
Cliff or Monarch Notes at test time. Early on I realized I wasn't
remembering what I should about play plots, even. Always have had a
problem with characters' names, even though Shakespeare does a great
job with character types and name tags.
Because of difficulties in coping with Shakespeare's language and
dated settings, my view is that Shakespeare study in high school
should be a liberal approach, and it's okay to grade mostly on the
basis of what can be put together doing some Internet searches in a
report on findings, plus class participation reading scenes, plus
those quizzes on memorizing speeches, along with objective-type tests
aimed at reinforcing main ideas.
In an acting approach, maybe it's all about finding the insights that
allow representing a character interestingly, creatively, getting at
the motivation of the character, the playwright? It's impressive how
an actor gets into not only acting but directing, producing, affect on
audience, and even playwriting, I think. Probably lots of interesting
approaches to take in the study of Shakespeare, and I suggest that
teachers try different ones to keep it interesting and gain
perspective. bookburn
art
>
>>>>> ...at least one whole play?
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
>>>> The vast majority of anti-Strats are old enough to have been
>>>> required to read at least one whole Shakespeare play in high school.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> That's odd -- many of them write as though they could not possibly
>>> be old enough to have advanced to high school. But to have been
>>> *required* to read at least one whole Shakespeare play
>>> is emphatically *not* the same thing as to have *read* one,
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> For me it was.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Did you eVER read one thereafter, Art?
Sure.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> We also had to memorize a passage from the work:
>
>> Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
>> Like a *Colos-SUS* ,
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Evidently even your recollection of the passage
> you memorized has deteriorated oVER time, Art.
It has only improved.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Way back when I was gullible & stupid.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> That must have been around the time when you first
> read Looney -- assuming that you've read even that.
I read Michell and then Ogburn.
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
>>>> 2) Strats always claim that the plays
>>>> are meant to be watched not read.
>>> And that's your excuse for not having read any, Art?
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> I seldom read a play from start to finish;
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> There needs no ghost come from the grave (nor indeed any
> illiterate boob come from District Heights) to tell us this.
Not anymore.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> nEVERtheless, I've read quite a bit.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Of what, Art?
Wikipedia mostly.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> The only activity of which you have furnished
> any evidence is mindless grepping.
A talent I well could have used
back during the SAT essay test.
Art Neuendorffer
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Not arrogance, Michael--ignorance. No anti-Strat, to put it in the
absolutists kind of terms Art likes, knows anything about Strats. For
instance, anti-Strats always say that Strats believe Shakespeare's
only concern was making money--when, of course, we believe that making
money was only one of his many concerns.
--Bob.
nordicskiv2
<77f65b59-e98e-4f52...@o23g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
art <acne...@gmail.com>
(aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>>> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> ...at least one whole play?
> >>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>>> The vast majority of anti-Strats are old enough to have been
> >>>> required to read at least one whole Shakespeare play in high school.
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> That's odd -- many of them write as though they could not possibly
> >>> be old enough to have advanced to high school. But to have been
> >>> *required* to read at least one whole Shakespeare play
> >>> is emphatically *not* the same thing as to have *read* one,
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> For me it was.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Did you eVER read one thereafter, Art?
> Sure.
Which one?
[...]
> >>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >
> >>>> Of course
> >
> >>>> 1) We were all Strats back then and
> >>> Before dementia set in?
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> Way back when I was gullible & stupid.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > That must have been around the time when you first
> > read Looney -- assuming that you've read even that.
> I read Michell and then Ogburn.
From the borderline crackpot to the full-fledged crank? Well, at
least it's a progression of sorts; either book would require a healthy
dose of gullibility and/or stupidity, but I perceive that you had both
attributes coVERed. But if you found Michell's book so congenial, let
me encourage you to dip further into his _oeuvre_, Art:
_The New View over Atlantis_.
_The Flying Saucer Vision_.
_ New Light on the Ancient Mystery of Glastonbury_.
Etc. You might also like this appreciation from _The Guardian_:
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/may/06/john-michell-obituary>
Here are a couple of amusing excerpts:
"Republished in 1983 as The New View Over Atlantis, the book
is crammed with bewildering calculations about the 'sacred
geometry' of the Great Pyramid. Alfred Watkins's The Old
Straight Track had come up with the concept of ley lines in
1925. John took it much further, believing that these alignments
of traditional sites were a kind of feng shui of the landscape.
They made up a sort of Druids' transport system, he said,
which harnessed a mysterious power that whisked large rocks
across the countryside."
"The actor and author Heathcote Williams was amused, while
watching the moon landings with John, to be told that ley
lines existed there too, leading presumably to a lunar
Glastonbury. Williams was even more intrigued when he
witnessed John attempting to perform an exorcism on a
disturbed acquaintance by trapping the 'evil spirit' in
a matchbox and burning it."
Perhaps h.l.a.s. should perform an Oxorcism on you, Art? But I'm
curious about one point -- where on earth did you find COBOL
translations of Michell's and Ogburn's books?
> >>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >
> >>>> 2) Strats always claim that the plays
> >>>> are meant to be watched not read.
> >>> And that's your excuse for not having read any, Art?
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> I seldom read a play from start to finish;
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > There needs no ghost come from the grave (nor indeed any
> > illiterate boob come from District Heights) to tell us this.
> Not anymore.
What do you mean, "not anymore"? There has neVER been any need of
any ghost (or any illiterate boob) to inform h.l.a.s. habitués that
you seldom read a play from start to finish; indeed, you seldom read
*anything* from start to finish.
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> nEVERtheless, I've read quite a bit.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Of what, Art?
> Wikipedia mostly.
Here's an idea that should keep you occupied, Art -- you could
translate the existing Wikipedia articles into language that others as
dense as your Clueless Cretin persona can read; you could call it
"Thickipedia."
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > The only activity of which you have furnished
> > any evidence is mindless grepping.
> A talent I well could have used
> back during the SAT essay test.
It wouldn't have helped, Art -- grepped text would be readily
recognized as plagiarized (or, as you and Elizabeth would have it,
"plagerized [sic]"). But you obviously signed up for the wrong exam,
Art -- you should have taken the TOEFL.
> Art Neuendorffer