She loses me when she claims that UKL considers Shakespeare as uniquely sacrosanct and that women cannot be Prospero-like authority figures. UKL said nothing of the sort. She believes in the integrity of all authors, and her point about a woman as Prospero was not that it was a bad story or an impossible story, but that changing the sex makes it a different story and therefore fundamentally no longer Shakespeare's.
(Better, I'd say, to change more, drop Shakespeare's text except for allusions, and make it a new, revisionist story inspired by Shakespeare's. That's not treating Shakespeare as sacrosanct, and it achieves its new insights without mucking with actual Shakespeare.)
Let's dispense with the disingenuity of pretending there's no difference between a) minor editing, b) the interpretations necessary for any stage production, and c) fundamental changes in the conception of the play, and with the unspoken presumption that if it's been done before, we have to approve of it now.
If it is entirely personal, then there should be no cause for A.A. to be denouncing UKL's personal judgment. She can disagree over whether the change fundamentally affects the play without the heavy implications that she's Right and UKL is Wrong, that UKL is somehow anti-woman, or that UKL's previously boundless intellect is now deficient. (sheesh!)
As it happens, I personally disagree with UKL too. I don't think it affects the play that much, and insofar as it does, I kind of like the fresh view. But I listen respectfully to what UKL has to say, and I accept that the reason for my opinion may be that my sensitivity to gender politics is considerably duller than hers. UKL has taught me lots and lots on just those kinds of subjects over the years.
Whether deleting scenes fundamentally affects the play depends not only on your personal definition of "fundamental," but on which scenes are being deleted, and why you're deleting them (because that relates to many other decisions on staging
( ... )
I have spent decades reading and studying Le Guin, I have published several essays about her and I constantly hold her up as an example of a writer and a thinker to anyone who will listen.
In this particular article, I discussed something very specific: Le Guin's magic in Earthsea, in connection with her larger views of magic.
So the capitalizations are entirely yours, calimac -- as is the concept that unless someone is deified it means we consider them deficient.
(Better, I'd say, to change more, drop Shakespeare's text except for allusions, and make it a new, revisionist story inspired by Shakespeare's. That's not treating Shakespeare as sacrosanct, and it achieves its new insights without mucking with actual Shakespeare.)
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
As it happens, I personally disagree with UKL too. I don't think it affects the play that much, and insofar as it does, I kind of like the fresh view. But I listen respectfully to what UKL has to say, and I accept that the reason for my opinion may be that my sensitivity to gender politics is considerably duller than hers. UKL has taught me lots and lots on just those kinds of subjects over the years.
Whether deleting scenes fundamentally affects the play depends not only on your personal definition of "fundamental," but on which scenes are being deleted, and why you're deleting them (because that relates to many other decisions on staging ( ... )
Reply
In this particular article, I discussed something very specific: Le Guin's magic in Earthsea, in connection with her larger views of magic.
So the capitalizations are entirely yours, calimac -- as is the concept that unless someone is deified it means we consider them deficient.
Athena, aka Helivoy
Reply
And many of those muckers-with have produced ghastly results.
Sturgeon's Law applies to mucking about as well as to original works.
Reply
Leave a comment