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
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
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
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
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
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
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