--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mrfishey2001" > <mrfishey2001@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > > <mailander111@> wrote: > > > > "Well, Turq, maybe I shouldn't have been so polite about her gross > > misreading of Hamlet as a "family drama." Family drama is a modern > > TV genre, and far from Shakespeare, but it does say a lot about > > Judy to have interpreted it that way. The critic always sees > > himself." > > > > --------- > > > > Shakespeare is not given to family drama? My God madam, you > > can't be serious. It's the entire canon. > > Well, he did do some plays that were more > historical than family-oriented, although > families were certainly involved. > > (The notion that family drama only became > popular with television is rather charming in > its cluelessness, though!) > > I think Angela has realized where I'm going > to go when I address her overall interpretation > and is attempting a preemptive strike because > she knows it's a powerful argument.
----------------- History, family and power were inseparable in the Elizabethan Period. So yes, it would be difficult to write about one without implicating the others. I believe this person actually instructed at the university level is this correct? Frightening!! -------------------
