Re: Would like to discuss "Shakespear in Love"
Shakespere indede rote at a tyme when there were no speling rools. But...a standardized version of his name, as it appeared in the published 1623 version, is what we use now.
My correction of the spelling was less of an attack (dear God, at my age I'm above that, I hope), than of a heads-up to a student who might run afoul of a teacher such as I was: a stickler who at least turned out capable writers and readers, some of whom have gone on to become published.
But to Stoppard, he's indeed a very clever playwright (often thought of in England as perhaps too "clever-clever"), and his great gift is with wordplay and the sheer joy of listening to characters going back and forth with each other. He's always fun to watch (and listen to), and "Shakespeare in Love" is a delightful film. (The material was by another writer; Stoppard did a rewrite.)
Shakespere indede rote at a tyme when there were no speling rools. But...a standardized version of his name, as it appeared in the published 1623 version, is what we use now.
My correction of the spelling was less of an attack (dear God, at my age I'm above that, I hope), than of a heads-up to a student who might run afoul of a teacher such as I was: a stickler who at least turned out capable writers and readers, some of whom have gone on to become published.
But to Stoppard, he's indeed a very clever playwright (often thought of in England as perhaps too "clever-clever"), and his great gift is with wordplay and the sheer joy of listening to characters going back and forth with each other. He's always fun to watch (and listen to), and "Shakespeare in Love" is a delightful film. (The material was by another writer; Stoppard did a rewrite.)
Comment