[LUTE] Re: Spain 2, Italy 1 in extratime
On 2015-05-08 11:48 AM, Robert Clair wrote: You could, if you like, argue that Shakespeare was a better writer than Ms. Mantel and Mike Poulton (who did the RSC adaptation) but is there any fundamental difference in what they are doing? Hi Bob, I think you're correct that Shakespeare adapted history to appeal to his audience, late 16th century London. He also had to be pretty careful in the later histories, as quite a few people would still be alive, or at least close descendants. After all, Henry VIII's daughter was on the throne, so he probably had to be very cautious in that one! Much safer to set your plays long ago in a distant galaxy, or, in Shakespeare's case, upstate New York (Ithaca, Syracuse, etc.) Geoff -- Geoff Gaherty Foxmead Observatory Coldwater, Ontario, Canada http://www.gaherty.ca http://starrynightskyevents.blogspot.com/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Spain 2, Italy 1 in extratime
Which brings up a question for Ron: Does your antipathy to historical fiction extend to the Shakespeare history plays? You could, if you like, argue that Shakespeare was a better writer than Ms. Mantel and Mike Poulton (who did the RSC adaptation) but is there any fundamental difference in what they are doing? Good question, although I can't imagine that my personal taste in reading material is of interest to anyone. Shakespeare, in the history plays, was writing for the stage more than for the reader, and was subject to a certain amount of censorship in theme and political content. But I suppose the myth of the Virgin Queen (much o'er done by Spenser), and the theme that the nobility was always right in the end, was something akin to today's visual depictions of ubiquitous imagery that panders to consumerism through product placement, etc. I do find that historical fiction I have attempted to read is of variable quality. The Captain Alatriste novels by Arturo Perez-Reverte are readable, but he seems to have found a formula and the later ones are a bit lacking in that page-turner vibe. My favorite writer of fact and fiction is Umberto Eco, but I even found his Baudolino, a bit tiresome. He redeemed himself with The Prague Cemetery though. The main problem I have with reading historical fiction is in the dialogue, which seldom rings true and nearly always reeks of modern idioms. It's difficult to strike a balance between convincing voices and dialogue written in language that the typical reader will grasp to some extent. Then, there is the representation of historical fact, which must be expunged of mundane realism and varnished for appeal and the publisher's bottom line. Have I just described the Warren Report? As I said earlier, Donna read the books and found them diverting. At the time, I was reading through the stacks of source material Ed Doughtie sent us before he passed away, and couldn't be bothered with new stuff. In his retirement, Ed indulged in historical fiction himself, by the way[1] https://musicalmysteries.wordpress.com/ In the end, I have to agree with Henry James on the subject: You may multiply the little facts that can be got from pictures documents, relics prints, as much as you like the real thing is almost impossible to do, in its essence the whole effect is as nought. . . You have to think with your modern apparatus a man, a woman, or rather fifty whose own thinking was intensely-otherwise conditioned, you have to simplify back by an amazing tour de force even then its all humbug. Henry James (1843 1916), from a letter to Sarah Orne Jewett, 1901. RA -- References Visible links 1. https://musicalmysteries.wordpress.com/ Hidden links: 3. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Portrait_of_Henry_James_1913.jpg To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Spain 2, Italy 1 in extratime
Some rather sweeping generalizations here. Iâm currently reading Wolf Hall. My knowledge of Tudor England is not what it could be so the book often sends me Googling. I every case Iâve encountered so far it seems that Ms. Mantel has done her research. As for adaptations - while I havenât seen it Iâm given to understand that The Tudors was done as a bit of a bodice ripper. The BBC production of Wolf Hall is most definitely not. Aside from âAh, Robinâ played on lute over the opening, the music falls in two categories: Any music that is mise en scene - that the characters on screen would have heard - is real 16th C music. (There is a shawm band.) There is also a modern background score of which the best I can say is that it it unobtrusive. Beyond music, the BBC has gone to a staggering amount of work to get the visuals correct. Check out some of the material here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gfy02 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gfy02 Iâve also just seen the excellent Royal Shakespeare Company production. (Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies - 3 hours each on the same day with a break for dinner.) Which brings up a question for Ron: Does your antipathy to historical fiction extend to the Shakespeare history plays? You could, if you like, argue that Shakespeare was a better writer than Ms. Mantel and Mike Poulton (who did the RSC adaptation) but is there any fundamental difference in what they are doing? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Spain 2, Italy 1 in extratime
Ah, someone who's been taken in by the Wolf Hall production. No, there's no difference (except Shakespeare was GREAT) between Wolf Hall Shakespeare -- Mantel has done indeed much research, but Wolf Hall is no more worthy of history than Shakespeare (though Shakespeare is great which I'm afraid Wolf Hall is not!)...very little difference in various doings between Shakespeare Wolf Hall...though Shakespeare, well, is great. Wolf Hall is not. Mildly amusing. A rather good response it is to the history, but NOT of the quality of Shakespeare... Timothy Swain On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Robert Clair [1]rcl...@elroberto.com wrote: Some rather sweeping generalizations here. I'm currently reading Wolf Hall. My knowledge of Tudor England is not what it could be so the book often sends me Googling. I every case I've encountered so far it seems that Ms. Mantel has done her research. As for adaptations - while I haven't seen it I'm given to understand that The Tudors was done as a bit of a bodice ripper. The BBCA production of Wolf Hall is most definitely not. Aside from Ah, Robin played on lute over the opening, the music falls in two categories: Any music that is mise en scene - that the characters on screen would have heard - is real 16th C music. (There is a shawm band.)A There is also a modern background score of which the best I can say is that it it unobtrusive. Beyond music, the BBC has gone to a staggering amount of work to get the visuals correct. Check out some of the material here: [2]http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gfy02 [3]http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gfy02 I've also just seen the excellent Royal Shakespeare Company production. (Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies - 3 hours each on the same day with a break for dinner.) Which brings up a question for Ron: Does your antipathy to historical fiction extend to the Shakespeare history plays? You could, if you like, argue that Shakespeare was a better writer than Ms. Mantel and Mike Poulton (who did the RSC adaptation) but is there any fundamental difference in what they are doing? -- To get on or off this list see list information at [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:rcl...@elroberto.com 2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gfy02 3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gfy02 4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Spain 2, Italy 1 in extratime
Much safer to set your plays long ago in a distant galaxy, or, in Shakespeare's case, upstate New York (Ithaca, Syracuse, etc.) Geoff, in my experience, the setting of modern Ithaca is indeed in a different galaxy peopled by an unusual race that dwell in ivory towers, in substance, not quite what they appear, and in proportion, too mean for the multitude of sizable egos. Shakespeare couldn't sell a play there that would fill seats. RA -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Spain 2, Italy 1 in extratime
On May 7, 2015, at 7:45 AM, Ron Andrico praelu...@hotmail.com wrote: I have to say that trivial details like historical facts are often purged from any story based on historical drama in favor of popular appeal during the process of adapting for the screen. And why not, when the audience wouldn’t know the difference, and even smartalecky critics can't distinguish between history and fantasy? Four years ago, his annoyance with The Tudors fresh in his mind, Ron gave us a link to a review of Camelot, the Starz (at least that’s who aired it in these parts) series, by Sarah Dempster in The Guardian, who intoned: Two months after The Tudors staggered off on its 16th century pantomime cow, along clumps Camelot to remind us of the enduring appeal of the appallingly rendered historical epic.” Critics are as entitled to make fools of themselves, but I wonder why some editor didn't elbow her in the ribs and tell her that Camelot is no more “history than Lord of the Rings is. And no, I haven’t seen her review of Game of Thrones (which, BTW, while set in a nonexistent world, nonetheless features some authentic-looking-and-sounding Renaissance-period instruments, particularly in scenes just before a king meets a violent end.) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Spain 2, Italy 1 in extratime
I don’t think anyone in the media, or the general public, knows the difference between fact and fiction. The thing is, though, they never did. Very shortly after the Big Bang, when I was a child, I remember seeing “King Richard and the Crusaders. You have to be pretty old to recognize these names, but how about Rex Harrison in blackface as Saladin and George Sanders as King Richard the Lionheart? LOL! They pretty much made it up as they went along, just as they do today. And how much historical truth was there to any of the “historical” Robin Hoods? And as for “real” history, I can think of three different accounts of the execution of Savonarola: hung by the neck over a bonfire, strangled first then burned, and just plain burned. And all three from books with footnotes! As for a sense of history,” how about Moulin Rouge for a period piece? Here’s another urban legend concerning the vihuela: I heard back in the day that Alonzo Mudarra would have played his Fantasia in the style of Ludovico the harpist using a campanela technique, as opposed to the way he wrote the piece down, because he didn’t want anybody else to discover how he managed the harp-like effect. Oh well, why labor to appreciate Machaut when you’ve got the Medieval Babes, right? David R On May 7, 2015, at 7:41 PM, howard posner howardpos...@ca.rr.com wrote: On May 7, 2015, at 7:45 AM, Ron Andrico praelu...@hotmail.com wrote: I have to say that trivial details like historical facts are often purged from any story based on historical drama in favor of popular appeal during the process of adapting for the screen. And why not, when the audience wouldn’t know the difference, and even smartalecky critics can't distinguish between history and fantasy? Four years ago, his annoyance with The Tudors fresh in his mind, Ron gave us a link to a review of Camelot, the Starz (at least that’s who aired it in these parts) series, by Sarah Dempster in The Guardian, who intoned: Two months after The Tudors staggered off on its 16th century pantomime cow, along clumps Camelot to remind us of the enduring appeal of the appallingly rendered historical epic.” Critics are as entitled to make fools of themselves, but I wonder why some editor didn't elbow her in the ribs and tell her that Camelot is no more “history than Lord of the Rings is. And no, I haven’t seen her review of Game of Thrones (which, BTW, while set in a nonexistent world, nonetheless features some authentic-looking-and-sounding Renaissance-period instruments, particularly in scenes just before a king meets a violent end.) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
