ya gotta love a man who wants to cut sodding shaksper off at the ... um ... knees!
i agree with all you're saying here . . . and no, again, i insist that i am not being sodding bloody ironic. i REALLY MEAN IT, DAMN IT!
lemme go now and finish my play about shaksper the woman.
have a nice day, dear roger, and do keep responding to these sodding blokes of whom i'm one bcuz we get pretty bloody tired of reading the usual boring crap which you thank goodness do not write.
bloody sodding chirs,
judy
> From: Roger Day <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 2005/12/14 Wed AM 08:25:32 EST
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Poem/Play (was Re: Pinter on Blair et al.)
>
> On 12/14/05, David Bircumshaw <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Interesting post, Roger. I love 'people are amnesia machines'
>
> Not mine, unfortunately. But I'm willing to pass it off as my own as I
> can't remember who wrote it in the first place.
>
> > Of course Shakespeare is an artifact and compounded of sludge. Flat
> > characterisations? You bet - he's full of stage villains and stage fools -
> > anyone looking for psychological depth is looking in the wrong place. The
> > proto-nationalism if applied to modern times is dodgy, although to be fair
> > by the standards of his times he's rather humane, just say as Dickens was.
> > But the language can be thrilling (it can also be prolix, bom
>
> I find those national stereotypes oh so funny. You may find the
> language thrilling. I don't. You can accuse me of having bad taste. I
> have bad taste.
>
> > >In my Republic Of England, S would be of as little import as the next
> > writer. He would have to earn his crust along with the rest of the
> > dead and live poets and playwrights. At least there would not be this
> > huge inbuilt life-support mechanism that looks to me akin to keeping
> > the dead alive and/or necrophilia in certain cases.<
> >
> > Yes and no. I see your point but can't help thinking that there is
> > something, albeit unwittingly, of the savour of frre-market aesthetics in
> > that.
>
> Subsidised theatre should not come attached with strings about what is
> put on. Of course there have to be parameters guiding what can be put
> on. However I must admit giving people the freedom to put on whatever
> they want is an interesting prospect, and certainly leaving
> Shakespeare to sink or swim in the canon and the street is a delicious
> prospect. Oh sod it, lets go freemarket! After all what's the
> opposite? A stalinist theatre in that we should only watch approved
> theatre, Shakespeare 24 hours a day in several major theatres...oh,
> hang on...
>
> And now, if we hadn't enough, we have a private theatre which, AFAIK,
> only runs Ss plays. This is madness. This an england of heritage
> theatre nostalgia. This is sleep-walking into the future!
>
> Actually, I have little idea about what comes next. My Republic Of
> England is currently only a romantic idea. It has yet to come to full
> fruition. In the first instance, I'm interested in what might come out
> if we cut away one of the legs of English culture.
>
> And don't forget my sword reaches long into literature as well,
> cutting out Ss plays from the curriculum of schools and universities
> as well, cut out those research grants, give them to research into
> current poets and dramatists! Shakespeare is dust!
>
> Roger
>
> --
> http://www.badstep.net/
> http://www.cb1poetry.org.uk/
>
|