Print

Print


You know, questions about Shakespeare turn into questions about
everything. My view is that he was the most brilliant adapter and
improviser upon given material that we have ever had, he was an actor
always in his writing, that's the one personal element that's clear
from the plays (he never mentions Warwickshire once for example) and
he makes a heavy emphasis on the fact that they are plays, let's
pretends, as it were, and not to be taken entirely to heart, that
applies as much to 'The Tempest' as 'The Merry Wives of Windsor' or 'A
Midsummer Night's Dream'.
He may or may not have been a likeable person, a lot of the surviving
evidence suggests not, but that is subject to the the distorts of
history: I me myself personally (joke!) don't know whether I'm a nice
person or not, there are a few people with mental defects who think I
am but there are others who have their doubts.
I think Roger's attacks are against a role the Shakespeare plays might
have had in the 1950s, but not now, I feel that his (Shakespeare's (!)
and Rogers's (!!) ) continued problematic presence is as valuable as
that of any of us talking monkeys in this deforested jungle we
inherit.

All the Best

Dave


-- 
David Bircumshaw
Website and A Chide's Alphabet http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/
The Animal Subsides http://www.arrowheadpress.co.uk/books/animal.html
Leicester Poetry Society: http://www.poetryleicester.co.uk