PDA

View Full Version : Shakespearean Winter '09



Scheherazade
09-04-2008, 07:14 PM
Please vote for the Shakespeare play in winter of '09.

All plays are available online on our site:

http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/

Please vote for the play you would like to read by November 30th.

papayahed
09-04-2008, 08:57 PM
How about Antony and Cleopatra??

hadi00
11-06-2008, 08:52 PM
Any thing u want, I will just be glad to try it ..

Janine
11-06-2008, 09:01 PM
I voted for "Richard III", because it is one of my favorite plays. It is like a good thriller and things are always happening in the intricate plot; it is an exciting play, in my mind, not just a dull history, but one with a lot of twists and turns. It fascinates me as does the character of the sinister, power-hungry, Richard.

Virgil
11-06-2008, 09:09 PM
Is it that time again? I've just begun reading the first act of Merry Wives. I'll have to think about it for now.

lugdunum
11-08-2008, 10:56 AM
Is it that time again? I've just begun reading the first act of Merry Wives. I'll have to think about it for now.

Same here ;)

Janine
11-21-2008, 10:25 PM
Yeah, Richard III is winning...well, so far. I tell you all, that is one wild ride. I love this play so much. It is very exciting and so much like a good thriller. I don't think anyone will fall asleep during this discussion.

Yeah, maybe it is too soon, Virgil and lugdunum, we are still plodding along with MWOW. Maybe Scher could postpone this one a bit. When is the winter discussion due to begin?

Virgil
11-21-2008, 10:30 PM
I voted for Richard the second. In my opinion a finer play than Richard III.

Yes I still need to read MWOW. If Richard II doesn't win I will finish MWOW. I've just been way too busy.

JBI
11-21-2008, 10:31 PM
I voted for the second - the second doesn't seem to get enough discussion time, whereas it is almost, if not as good as the third.

Virgil
11-21-2008, 10:34 PM
I voted for the second - the second doesn't seem to get enough discussion time, whereas it is almost, if not as good as the third.

Yay!! :banana:

Janine
11-21-2008, 11:05 PM
Oh hell, I should have kept my big mouth shut!

lugdunum
11-22-2008, 10:16 AM
oh no!!! a tie.... makes it even more difficult to decide....:confused:

Janine
11-22-2008, 02:10 PM
Can I sway you lugdunum? hahaaha....did you vote yet?....I am pinning my hopes on Richard III.

Here are my three personal reasons: I have read it several times and therefore, I might actually be up to date with the discussion on this one. Also, I have heard the video recording of the play several times and it gets better everytime. Third, I studied it on another video; very informative. It is a play that continues to fascinate me.

But more importantly and to my defense of the play, I have read both plays and they both are very good, but I think that Richard III will keep the interest of the forum members longer; I can't help, but think back to our last discussion of MWOW; 7 people voted for it and about 3 or 4 stuck around, if that many; I know I too have been at fault; I really found the play difficult to understand and someone else (I know this unnamed person is capable of reading deep literature/very intelligent) wrote a post, saying they felt confused by MWOW, first act; later I noticed they dropped out. So many on this forum seem to get discouraged the first act of the play if it does not grab your attention right off. Many of the forum members seem to prefer pyscholgical thrillers, over history and in my opinion Richard III is both, a good history and a great thriller, and it is not a difficult play to understand, starting with the first line. A play that starts with these lines has to draw someone right in:

Now is the winter of our discontent.
Made glorious summer by this sun of York...

This line can be easily explained, and sets the whole tone of the play, taken from Richard's disgruntled point of view.


I voted for Richard the second. In my opinion a finer play than Richard III.

Ok, Virgil,...we are at odds again;)...what else is new lately...:lol:.. this may be true, as far as being 'finer', but I think the majority here would prefer Richard III more so because, for some reason I have noticed that many members perfer twisted characters and the unusual to the normal. Richard II is the nobler play perhaps, but Richard III is the more psychological one in my opinion; perhaps why it is so often discussed. I read the the histories back a few years ago, this being my goal, and I understand where you are coming from on this one; but if you recall, when we tried to discuss King John, which starts them off (if I am correct) no one showed up much for the discussion. In my opinion the play King John is the dullest of the histories.

Anyway, to me, Richard III is the most dramatic and dynamic of the the histories, besides Henry V, which will remain my all-time favorite of the histories.

Luckily, I have been getting some good help on text for TMWOW from lugdunum. Had to add this because I wanted to thank you again. I am still muddling through that one and will not give up on it, even though I am way far behind...

wessexgirl
11-22-2008, 03:55 PM
I'm sorry to say I haven't had time to read The Merry Wives of Windsor, but I think if you go for either Richards, you're onto a winner. I love R111, it's one of my all-time favourites, it's brilliant. But I love R11 too, and studied it for my degree, whereas R111 is just one I loved off my own bat, so to speak. They're both excellent, and I would love to read along with either. Which to choose?


I love HV too Janine, I've just watched the Branagh version on tv today, it's sooooo good.

Janine
11-22-2008, 04:52 PM
I'm sorry to say I haven't had time to read The Merry Wives of Windsor, but I think if you go for either Richards, you're onto a winner. I love R111, it's one of my all-time favourites, it's brilliant. But I love R11 too, and studied it for my degree, whereas R111 is just one I loved off my own bat, so to speak. They're both excellent, and I would love to read along with either. Which to choose?


I love HV too Janine, I've just watched the Branagh version on tv today, it's sooooo good.

Hi Wessexgirl, It is true that both plays are good ones. I like them both. I just thought that - bottomline - more people would stay with Richard III because it is suspenseful. I will discuss either one, although I only read Richard II once and will have to review the actual text.

Branagh's best film ever is Henry V - to me, it is a perfect film. He excelled in his first production, in my opinion; it is brilliant. I have seen it so many times now and never tire of that film. I liked the way he tied in Henry's early role in Richard II by flashback, in this way giving us some insight into the background of King Hal as a young man. Also, the way he showed us Falstaff is just great, another flashback device that works so well. I still feel like crying when Hal has to give the order to have Bartoff hung. To me that is a pivatol moment in the play. I own the film and I love it! There are some stunning scenes in the film, ones that just take my breath away - the moment the tear roles down Henry's cheek, and he lowers his head, after his lone silouquey in the nightcamp and following his prayer about building the chantry to Richard's memory; another is when Henry enters the chamber with the torches lighted on each side of him, he being in silouette and flowing robe, the way the doorway is awash with light....a thrilling moment. The soundtrack also is just perfect. I think it was Patrick Doyle's very first - amazing? Doyle appears in all of Branagh's films, did you know that. He plays bit parts mostly and sometimes sings or plays an instrument.

xman
11-23-2008, 12:25 AM
Well I voted for Antony & Cleopatra, but would like to participate in anything really.

X

wessexgirl
11-23-2008, 08:43 AM
Hi Wessexgirl, It is true that both plays are good ones. I like them both. I just thought that - bottomline - more people would stay with Richard III because it is suspenseful. I will discuss either one, although I only read Richard II once and will have to review the actual text.

Branagh's best film ever is Henry V - to me, it is a perfect film. He excelled in his first production, in my opinion; it is brilliant. I have seen it so many times now and never tire of that film. I liked the way he tied in Henry's early role in Richard II by flashback, in this way giving us some insight into the background of King Hal as a young man. Also, the way he showed us Falstaff is just great, another flashback device that works so well. I still feel like crying when Hal has to give the order to have Bartoff hung. To me that is a pivatol moment in the play. I own the film and I love it! There are some stunning scenes in the film, ones that just take my breath away - the moment the tear roles down Henry's cheek, and he lowers his head, after his lone silouquey in the nightcamp and following his prayer about building the chantry to Richard's memory; another is when Henry enters the chamber with the torches lighted on each side of him, he being in silouette and flowing robe, the way the doorway is awash with light....a thrilling moment. The soundtrack also is just perfect. I think it was Patrick Doyle's very first - amazing? Doyle appears in all of Branagh's films, did you know that. He plays bit parts mostly and sometimes sings or plays an instrument.

It is a stunning film, but I thought the flashback was to Henry the 1V, with Falstaff, with the echoes of marriage vows, but he's cutting him out of his life. "I do, I will" before the later heartbreaking line of "I know thee not old man". I've seen these performed at Stratford a few times with different actors and they are absolutely brilliant. I saw Alan Howard years ago (when I was at school) as Prince Hal, and more recently, but still more than a decade ago, Michael Maloney was the Prince. He's one of my favourite actors, and interestingly, he's often in Ken's (if I may be so bold as to call him Ken :lol:) films, and played the Dauphin in Henry V. Falstaff was played by the late, great Robert Stephens, who played Pistol in the film, (or was he Poins?). He swallowed a raw egg concoction on stage every night I think, as a sort of hangover cure! Yeuk. The scene where Bardolph is hung is very moving. I think you need to see Henry 1V parts 1 and 2 to really see the growth of Prince Hal to Henry V. It is a wonderful transformation, and must be a gift for any actor to be cast for all 3. We also meet those other characters previously, and as I said in another thread, the death scene of Falstaff as narrated by Mistress Quickly, is very touching, after we've come through the previous plays with him.

I want to go and watch them all again now :D!

Janine
11-23-2008, 02:27 PM
It is a stunning film, but I thought the flashback was to Henry the 1V, with Falstaff, with the echoes of marriage vows, but he's cutting him out of his life. "I do, I will" before the later heartbreaking line of "I know thee not old man". I've seen these performed at Stratford a few times with different actors and they are absolutely brilliant. I saw Alan Howard years ago (when I was at school) as Prince Hal, and more recently, but still more than a decade ago, Michael Maloney was the Prince. He's one of my favourite actors, and interestingly, he's often in Ken's (if I may be so bold as to call him Ken :lol:) films, and played the Dauphin in Henry V. Falstaff was played by the late, great Robert Stephens, who played Pistol in the film, (or was he Poins?). He swallowed a raw egg concoction on stage every night I think, as a sort of hangover cure! Yeuk. The scene where Bardolph is hung is very moving. I think you need to see Henry 1V parts 1 and 2 to really see the growth of Prince Hal to Henry V. It is a wonderful transformation, and must be a gift for any actor to be cast for all 3. We also meet those other characters previously, and as I said in another thread, the death scene of Falstaff as narrated by Mistress Quickly, is very touching, after we've come through the previous plays with him.

I want to go and watch them all again now :D!

wessexgirl, I think we are hijacking this thread; so at anyrate, I will try to post a message in your profile page, if I may. I think we have a lot in common here and of course, you can call him Ken anytime at all!;) I own almost all his films, so I refer to him as Ken, too. :lol: I have read all the history plays, so I do know the full background of Prince Hal, that is what made the film so great to me and more poignant in certain scenes. I will take the rest of my response to you page. Be there soon.

RG57
11-30-2008, 03:31 PM
I noticed that there are now three in the first spot, I fancy either of the Richard's to read this winter.

Janine
11-30-2008, 05:59 PM
Still a tie...hummm....

Scheherazade
11-30-2008, 07:53 PM
Going once...

Sus001
11-30-2008, 08:01 PM
Am I too late?
My vote is for the Taming of the Shrew. I love the twist and transformation.

Scheherazade
11-30-2008, 08:05 PM
You are not too late but you need to have at least 50 posts before you can vote.

If you visit the Games section, that can be achieved in one hour! :)

Janine
11-30-2008, 09:28 PM
But we did discuss "The Taming of the Shrew" about a year or so ago; don't you remember?

Janine
12-01-2008, 09:27 PM
When will the voting end...tonight?

Virgil
12-01-2008, 09:36 PM
:lol: Richard the second snuck in. I wonder who got that going. :D

Janine
12-01-2008, 10:05 PM
:lol: Richard the second snuck in. I wonder who got that going. :D

I don't know but after watching these excerpts with Derek Jacobi playing Richard, I wish to be the winner. If so I am definitely in. It should be great to discuss. It is a great play, I just forgot how great. :thumbs_up

motherhubbard
12-01-2008, 10:52 PM
I just placed a hold on Richard the Second. I'd like to be able to follow along with everyone.

Janine
12-01-2008, 10:58 PM
I just placed a hold on Richard the Second. I'd like to be able to follow along with everyone.

Hi Motherhubbard, glad to hear it. I have become a convert now after watching some performance footage - wow! It is a good play - should prove interesting in discussion.

Did you vote yet, MH?

motherhubbard
12-01-2008, 11:15 PM
Well, Janine- I didn't vote. I never contribute very much to the conversation and I hate to vote and then be a blob. If someone who will really contribute would rather read something else I would hate to be the blob that squashed what they wanted to read.

Janine
12-01-2008, 11:45 PM
Well, Janine- I didn't vote. I never contribute very much to the conversation and I hate to vote and then be a blob. If someone who will really contribute would rather read something else I would hate to be the blob that squashed what they wanted to read.

You are too thoughtful, Motherhubbard, we all vote and then many times people don't show up anyway; I have been quilty of that, too; although I have posted something in the last twoS discussions, but then they seemed to come to a halt or go into limbo - I am still hoping to get back to MWOW; I know that Virgil said he did also; we just got sidetracked a bit. There is no pressure here. You can post a little or a lot, depending on what you can do; maybe just make a few comments now and then. You are not a blob! :lol: You have just as much right to vote as anyone here, but don't let me sway you. However you do have the right, so maybe consider it?

Virgil
12-01-2008, 11:57 PM
I have been reading Merry Wives of Windsor and will start posting on it tomorrow. ;)

Jozanny
12-02-2008, 12:37 AM
I still prefer a problem or difficult play like Measure For Measure, which was Shakespeare's way of being dissatified with comedy and farce. These days I am more interested in the plays that get less attention, like King John, Titus, or even Troilus, which is also *difficult.*

I think it would be nice if Lit Net invited a Shakespearean to do a voluntary discussion now and again--no slight intended to the mods. It would just be nice to have access to lecturers, or even classical actors, to inject a little vigor and do something interesting. Maybe someone retired.

Petrarch's Love
12-02-2008, 03:00 AM
I'm nearing the end of a pretty busy quarter, and may have a little time for online Shakespeare discussion over part of the holidays and early January. Looks like Richard II may be next up? That would be great, since I just taught that one this term and have my recent lecture prep. handy.

Virg. seems to be indicating that the Merry Wives discussion is still up too? If so, maybe I'll pop in sometime soon when I'm not in danger of falling asleep at the keyboard. :as-sleep:

Janine
12-02-2008, 03:55 AM
I'm nearing the end of a pretty busy quarter, and may have a little time for online Shakespeare discussion over part of the holidays and early January. Looks like Richard II may be next up? That would be great, since I just taught that one this term and have my recent lecture prep. handy.

Petrarch, that would be like fate then if it is 'Richard II'; first I was pushing for Richard III, but now I think we would all enjoy the one that looks like the winner. I do recall reading the play (read all the histories) a few years back and liking it very much. I think I recall some of it and tonight on Youtube, I came across the production with Derek Jacobi for the BBC, and it is wonderful. You know it has to be great, with Jacobi playing Richard.;)


Virg. seems to be indicating that the Merry Wives discussion is still up too? If so, maybe I'll pop in sometime soon when I'm not in danger of falling asleep at the keyboard. :as-sleep:

Well, like other things, some discussions have been slowed up, or I prefer to think they are in a temporary state of 'limbo'. I tried to revive the Lawrence Short Story discussion thread tonight and I will work next on posting something in the MWOW. Virgil and I keep saying we will resume, but then another week goes by. I guess we all have to make a concerted effort to get back to that one comedy play. The play is really quite funny and witty, observing what I read so far. I feel guilty and sorry that I did not keep up with it. I admit that I got distracted and felt a little overwhelmed, as well. I will be finishing up a book soon and then I will fully concentrate on the play, before I begin another novel; I hate to give up on anything. It would be so great if you could stop by to comment on it; you always have such insightful things to say. I love reading your commentary.

Virgil
12-02-2008, 07:46 AM
I have been reading Merry Wives and finding it very enjoyable. I will definitely post something tonight when I get home from work.

Janine
12-02-2008, 05:02 PM
I have been reading Merry Wives and finding it very enjoyable. I will definitely post something tonight when I get home from work.

:thumbs_upOh good, then I can comment on what you say and it won't be as taxing to start from scratch, again.:( I will try and read more today. How far did you get?
Also, Petrarch said she most likely will comment. Can't wait to hear what you two have to say about the play.

RG57
12-02-2008, 08:41 PM
If the poll is correct it looks like Richard II, I read the opening lines this evening and look forward to reading the rest.

Janine
12-02-2008, 10:11 PM
RG57, good to have you onboard for the discussion group. The play is a good one; I read it a number of years back. I see you are new, so welcome to the forum, as well. Love your little bird avatar - kind of goes with my quote, by D.H.Lawrence, but let's hope the poor little birdie does not freeze up and die....maybe my first quote would be more appropriate, what do you think?

When will the official discussion begin?

RG57
12-03-2008, 08:14 PM
Yes Janine I think he likes the first one better. It's an English Robin, apparantly that is partly how my mother gave me my name! And strangely when I read the opening to Richard II, I read "Brought Henry Hereford thy bold son", Hereford is the city of my birth, though born a commener of that city and not (sadly) a Noble.

Janine
12-03-2008, 09:47 PM
Yes Janine I think he likes the first one better. It's an English Robin, apparantly that is partly how my mother gave me my name! And strangely when I read the opening to Richard II, I read "Brought Henry Hereford thy bold son", Hereford is the city of my birth, though born a commener of that city and not (sadly) a Noble.

RG57, I don't blame him. I like the first one best, too. How perfect, that he is an English Robin - Lawrence would definitely approve. I then take it you are named Robin; you don't have to say, if you wish to remain anonymous.
That is a coincidence about Hereford. Isn't the city also mentioned in a line from "My Fair Lady", the musical? Actually, I always laugh when I hear the name 'Gloucester' mentioned in the Shakespeare history plays. I live in the US, but our small town is named Gloucester. I guess, I was destined to study Shakespeare.;) Many of the streets in our town are also named after English lords, strange because my town is notoriously Irish Catholic and also was originally settled by the Dutch...so how did they come up with the English names for the streets? These are some of them - Monmouth, Sussex, Somerset, Essex, etc....very strange. I think we even have a Henry Avenue, too....that must be for one of the King Henrys...haha. Maybe someone was reading Shakespeare when the streets were named.;):lol:

oblivion252
12-04-2008, 03:02 PM
Excellent, Richard II does look interesting!

RG57
12-04-2008, 05:56 PM
Janine, you have guessed correctly yes it is Robin, I have no worries about my first name, I belong to a couple of other forums and usually use Robin in way or another. Strange, you should mention Gloucester, that is the county where my father was born, my mother in Worcestershire, so between us we cover the three counties. My favourite place on earth is the Worcester Beacon on top of the Malvern Hills, a range of hills that go across Herefordshire and Worcestershire. Whenever I see any of our place names in other countries I still get amazed, like Gloucster in your area, I don't know if you get the TV programme Morse in the States, but one episode mentioned Hereford, my eyes lit up and was surprised that they were going to go Hereford in Australia.

Where we live now a lot of the streets are named after Viking Kings and Earls, we move to Orkney 18 years ago!

Jozanny
12-06-2008, 01:52 AM
I downloaded a Richard II e-text so that I do not have to lug old Riverside off the shelf. I will start reading it over the weekend, though I am unclear as to when the discussion starts.

I've read it before, but never studied it with previous instructors, nor seen a production.

wessexgirl
12-06-2008, 07:03 AM
I will try to join in with this read, I love R11. There are some standout speeches in it, really great quotes and beautiful language. I seem to remember a lot of imagery about gardens and nature, if I recall correctly. Hi Robin, I'm from quite near your neck of the woods, in Birmingham, (well it's the Midlands anyway, and I can get to Worcester and the Malverns quite easily :D). I've already shown Janine a clip of Birmingham, but your area is lovelier, beautiful countryside and not a big urban sprawl. I have visited Elgar's birthplace in Malvern, but I don't do hills, I'm scared of heights :lol:! Anyway, welcome, R11 is, I think, a very underrated play.

Janine
12-06-2008, 03:15 PM
Quote by Jozanny

I downloaded a Richard II e-text so that I do not have to lug old Riverside off the shelf. I will start reading it over the weekend, though I am unclear as to when the discussion starts.

I've read it before, but never studied it with previous instructors, nor seen a production.

That is great. I have the same problem - one heavy book. Where did you find the text? I think also, it may be available on this site. I would really love to listen to the play on CD, or MP3 file, because I read it a few years back and audio-recordings always give me a little more insight and perspective. I will see if I can find it anywhere.
Jozanny, I think we all are a bit unclear on when this discussion will begin. I had thought it would begin in January and was hoping it would also, but I don't know if that is true. Don't quote me on that. Just waiting for it to be officially announced myself.

You will enjoy the play; I actually enjoyed all the history plays very much; which surprised me at the time; but then again I do like history, and stories at least based on true events...I also love stories about the monarchs.


RG57 Janine, you have guessed correctly yes it is Robin, I have no worries about my first name, I belong to a couple of other forums and usually use Robin in way or another. Strange, you should mention Gloucester, that is the county where my father was born, my mother in Worcestershire, so between us we cover the three counties. My favourite place on earth is the Worcester Beacon on top of the Malvern Hills, a range of hills that go across Herefordshire and Worcestershire. Whenever I see any of our place names in other countries I still get amazed, like Gloucster in your area, I don't know if you get the TV programme Morse in the States, but one episode mentioned Hereford, my eyes lit up and was surprised that they were going to go Hereford in Australia.

Robin, nice to know you. I am such a good guesser - haha -just kidding, it was a dead give-away! Yep, Gloucester and it is so oldd it where your father was born. I have often wondered about the place in England of the same name. Now Worchestershire also rings a sort of bell with me. I collect your English antique dishes - the printed ironstone transferware and other English china. You can see in my one album in my profile page. I think the word rings a bell because of Worchester fine china - I love the stuff, although I own very little of it, since it is so pricey. I actually do have a plate I suspect is handpainted and from the factory and painted by a certain artist with some prestige. The thing is I saw one so similar in the Philadelphia Art Museum and felt I might have a true treasure. The plate is stored and I must locate it. Hey, maybe I am rich and don't know it yet? haha...

I don't think we get that show here, but we might. I don't watch much TV and don't have any cable upstairs. Funny right now I am finishing up a book and the setting is western Australia. Perth and Wadoo(?) is mentioned a lot; do you know those places? I don't recall Hereford being mentioned. I also read another Lawrence book set there - "Kangaroo". I found both books to be so interesting in the descriptions of the countryside and the bush.


Where we live now a lot of the streets are named after Viking Kings and Earls, we move to Orkney 18 years ago!

How funny. We have the English names for streets and you have the Viking names for streets.


I will try to join in with this read, I love R11. There are some standout speeches in it, really great quotes and beautiful language. I seem to remember a lot of imagery about gardens and nature, if I recall correctly. Hi Robin, I'm from quite near your neck of the woods, in Birmingham, (well it's the Midlands anyway, and I can get to Worcester and the Malverns quite easily :D). I've already shown Janine a clip of Birmingham, but your area is lovelier, beautiful countryside and not a big urban sprawl. I have visited Elgar's birthplace in Malvern, but I don't do hills, I'm scared of heights :lol:! Anyway, welcome, R11 is, I think, a very underrated play.

wessexgirl, I hope you can participate. If it is in January I will be fine but Dec is difficult with all the activities leading up to the holidays. I really want to do this play since I too think it under-rated and a fine one. I also know that there are some very great speeches from it. But my alltime favorite speech is from Henry V - starts off with "Upon the King...." when Henry wanders through his camp at night and ruminates on what it is to be a king. I get goosebumps everytime I read that one or hear it recited.

Wow, the Midlands...I have to go there someday. D.H.Lawrence was originally from the Midlands. I have to go and see his parent's grave and his birthplace, even though his bones or ashes are not really there. I saw the tombstone and it lists him, but his ashes are buried in New Mexico. Have to go to his rance there someday, too.

Robin, it is the hilly areas I would really love to see. Many of Hardy's adaptations seem to take place in those exquisite areas. I bet it is pretty where you live.

Jozanny
12-06-2008, 04:22 PM
Janine, I am using the wikisource version, because I can read the entire play offline, and I don't like Gutenberg's font, and they don't always have an html edition, but feel free to follow your own preferences :)

Here is the url:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Tragedy_of_King_Richard_the_Second

Janine
12-06-2008, 04:25 PM
Janine, I am using the wikisource version, because I can read the entire play offline, and I don't like Gutenberg's font, and they don't always have an html edition, but feel free to follow your own preferences :)

Here is the url:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Tragedy_of_King_Richard_the_Second

Thanks, Jozanny, I like that font too and will copy this version. It will be easier on the eyes to read.

kasie
12-07-2008, 08:56 AM
Can't help feeling this reply should be in a different thread (Where do you come from, or something like that!) - I was born in Worcester (England) and know the counties around there, Gloucester, Hereford and Warwickshire well. We were a bus ride away from the Malverns and one of our favourite days out was a trip to the Beacon - not frighteningly high, Robin, but fantastic views over the surrounding countryside. Then we moved to Coventry which was a bus ride away from Stratford, so I was able to go to the theatre for matinees. Before I was born, my mother worked in the Royal Porcelain Works in Worcester so we had quite a bit of the china in the house when I was growing up - employees could buy 'seconds' at give-away prices so we had all unpainted bone china as our everyday ware!

The reference to Hereford in My Fair Lady is the speech-training exercise - In Hertford, Hereford and Hampshire, hurricanes hardly ever happen - to help Eliza sound the haitches that she dropped in her native Cockney!

Your English street names are more likely to be county names than aristocratic names, Janine - most titles are attached to a place (Lord X of Xton) but whereas the placename has survived, often the title has fallen into disuse - there hasn't been a Duke of Monmouth since the seventeenth century, for example, since the last one tried (unsuccessfully) to seize the throne. And Viking names in Orkney - is that because Orkney was once part of a Norse kingdom?

To get back to the proper theme - I'll be glad to read Richard II in the New Year. I saw it earlier in the year as part of The Histories sequence at Stratford and I saw it many years ago there with (I think) David Warner and Ian Richardson.

Janine
12-07-2008, 06:01 PM
Can't help feeling this reply should be in a different thread (Where do you come from, or something like that!) - I was born in Worcester (England) and know the counties around there, Gloucester, Hereford and Warwickshire well. We were a bus ride away from the Malverns and one of our favourite days out was a trip to the Beacon - not frighteningly high, Robin, but fantastic views over the surrounding countryside. Then we moved to Coventry which was a bus ride away from Stratford, so I was able to go to the theatre for matinees. Before I was born, my mother worked in the Royal Porcelain Works in Worcester so we had quite a bit of the china in the house when I was growing up - employees could buy 'seconds' at give-away prices so we had all unpainted bone china as our everyday ware![quote]

Hi kasie,
You need to visit RG57 and wessexgirl's profile pages - we need to form a club - the England or UK Appreciation club....seriously, we could do so in the 'social club' section...it would be quite interesting, since I am always saving photos from that region - castles, cemetaries, estates, author's birthsites, the moors, etc... all kinds of things. This information above, that you now provided, I find so interesting - thanks so much. I love to hear of these places. I like how you explained our street names (below) - that does throw a different light on the subject.

Now I must know more about the Royal Porcelain Works in Worcester...how grand to get sample or 'seconds' pieces and blanks....that is so cool. You must view my photo file of my transferware collection in my profile page. I will soon have to remove it, because I want to post more of my grand-daughter and then of Christmas. I will keep it up this week, but then it may be gone.

[QUOTE]The reference to Hereford in My Fair Lady is the speech-training exercise - In Hertford, Hereford and Hampshire, hurricanes hardly ever happen - to help Eliza sound the haitches that she dropped in her native Cockney!

Yep, that is exactly what I had in-mind! I always laughed at that scene - great movie, too!


Your English street names are more likely to be county names than aristocratic names, Janine - most titles are attached to a place (Lord X of Xton) but whereas the placename has survived, often the title has fallen into disuse - there hasn't been a Duke of Monmouth since the seventeenth century, for example, since the last one tried (unsuccessfully) to seize the throne. And Viking names in Orkney - is that because Orkney was once part of a Norse kingdom?

This is so interesting to me...thanks...:)


To get back to the proper theme - I'll be glad to read Richard II in the New Year. I saw it earlier in the year as part of The Histories sequence at Stratford and I saw it many years ago there with (I think) David Warner and Ian Richardson.

Well, as far as the proper theme is concerned, it seems we are all in a bit of 'limbo' here. I still don't know when the actual discussion thread will be started or what it will be called. I would suppose the discussion would offically start next month but I could be wrong.

Glad you will be joining the discussion. Must have been great with Ian Richardson - think I saw that advertized on Amazon. I saw some clips, from a version starring Derek Jacobi, and it looked to be quite fine. They can be viewed on Youtube...I plan to watch them again myself. Wish I owned the DVD.

mayneverhave
12-09-2008, 01:11 AM
Looks like my horse won (or is winning). I studied Richard II this term, actually. Why did I vote for it then? My Shakespeare class is pretty stagnant in terms of discussion, and I'm tired of talking with my professors. As in all things, I must turn to the internet...

I've seen the Derek Jacobi performance as well - it's available on Theatre in Video. Not a bad performance.

Janine
12-09-2008, 02:22 AM
Looks like my horse won (or is winning). I studied Richard II this term, actually. Why did I vote for it then? My Shakespeare class is pretty stagnant in terms of discussion, and I'm tired of talking with my professors. As in all things, I must turn to the internet...

I've seen the Derek Jacobi performance as well - it's available on Theatre in Video. Not a bad performance.

mayneverhave, funny you said that about your horse, because in "Richard III" the famous line is "My horse, my horse, a kingdom for my horse." - think I quoted that correctly, but I am not good at quoting so correct me if I used the wrong words...it might be 'a horse'....I just know it is the demise of Richard. I think afterwards they refer to him as a 'dog'....needless to say no one cried at his death...

I would like to buy that DVD with Jacobi. I admire his acting greatly. I have his "Hamlet" on DVD and it is quite intense and a fine performance.

mayneverhave
12-09-2008, 02:51 PM
I would like to buy that DVD with Jacobi. I admire his acting greatly. I have his "Hamlet" on DVD and it is quite intense and a fine performance.

Ah, you must mean his performance as Hamlet, as opposed to his role as Claudius in Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet.

He's a fine actor, fantastic speaking voice.

Janine
12-09-2008, 08:06 PM
Ah, you must mean his performance as Hamlet, as opposed to his role as Claudius in Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet.

He's a fine actor, fantastic speaking voice.

Yes, Jacobi's "Hamlet" way prior to Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet; Jacobi is super young in it. I think it was done by the RSC or BBC. It is a fine production, but I prefer Branagh's production, since the sets are sparse in the Jacobi version, and dark. However, think the acting is superlative, but I do prefer one scene in Kenneth's Hamlet - the mirrored "To Be or Not to Be" speech - that is perfection. I own about 5 different Hamlet's on DVD's and tapes. I like them all, but watch the Branagh one the most. As Branagh explained this once during an interview, the film he made is merely his 'Hamlet"; everyone has a little different perception and concept of Hamlet, and that is the way it should be. I for one, embrass the 'variety' of the various productions of 'Hamlet'. They all have something great to offer. Jacobi was incredible in Branagh's 'Hamlet' as Claudius.

I wish I owned Jacobi's fine performance as 'I Claudius'. I happened to see several segments of that film on Youtube - extraordinary! I need to buy that DVD. I like Jacobi immensely. You can see him on Youtube also directing a young Ken Branagh in his first stage performance of 'Hamlet.'...those videos are so interesting - watching the process...Think they are called "Discovering Hamlet".

Quark
12-10-2008, 04:16 PM
I remember Richard II being a surprisingly good read. It's not one usually read, but I thought it had some great moments.

When does the discussion start?

Janine
12-10-2008, 05:45 PM
I remember Richard II being a surprisingly good read. It's not one usually read, but I thought it had some great moments.

When does the discussion start?

Hey Quark, You are really making a real comeback and getting around this place today...;) You probably think I am following you.:lol:

"Richard II" is a pretty good read; even though I did vote for "Richard III"; to me that one is like a thriller.

I have been asking the same exact question and just don't know where everyone had run off to. Maybe, they already started a new thread. If so, I would have thought they would have placed a link in this voting thread. I will look around today. Hope that you can participate in this discussion. It should be a good one.

Quark
12-10-2008, 06:42 PM
You probably think I am following you.:lol:

There are worse people to be followed by.


"Richard II" is a pretty good read; even though I did vote for "Richard III"; to me that one is like a thriller.

True, but I like the idea of reading one of the lesser-read plays. It means that many of the people posting will be coming to the play for the first time, and first-impressions always make good posts.


I have been asking the same exact question and just don't know where everyone had run off to. Maybe, they already started a new thread.

I think it just fizzled uneventfully. I warned them about that play. I did. No one listened to me, though.

RG57
12-10-2008, 08:23 PM
Well, no matter when the actual start is, I shall be getting into it this weekend.

mayneverhave
12-11-2008, 12:33 AM
Aside from John of Gaunt, the first couple acts are slightly boring - specifically the formal combat scene in Act 1.

Once the usurpation begins, however, things pick up, but perhaps I'll save my thoughts for the actual discussion thread.

Janine
12-11-2008, 01:52 AM
There are worse people to be followed by.

Well, glad you see it that way...:lol: Wait, does that mean 'I am the lesser of other evils'? :(


True, but I like the idea of reading one of the lesser-read plays. It means that many of the people posting will be coming to the play for the first time, and first-impressions always make good posts.

Yes, but I read both and thought this one less exciting, and that normally, the group needs something exciting to hold their attention. Already mayneverhave said that "the first couple acts are boring"...this was my thoughs on first reading that play but then it does pick up. I just hope the participants in this discussion stick with it, unlike the last play we attempted. With Richard III I was fascinated from the first words. But Richard II is a good play, a fine play. We just have to stick with it.


I think it just fizzled uneventfully. I warned them about that play. I did. No one listened to me, though.

Actually, I was comparing the two Richard plays not the MWOW with this Richard play. It did fizzle out, but we are all still saying we might revive it; I know, that is a long shot; especially since this one will begin soon....then the other will fade into oblivion perhaps.....

RG57
12-12-2008, 07:21 PM
Being as I have not read RII, I went to the library and borrowed the audio play before getting down to serious reading. This too is on my list of 'to do's' tomorrow!

Quark
12-12-2008, 07:32 PM
Aside from John of Gaunt, the first couple acts are slightly boring - specifically the formal combat scene in Act 1.

Yes, but I read both and thought this one less exciting, and that normally, the group needs something exciting to hold their attention.

Then I guess we'll have to make the conversation extra exciting.

Janine
12-12-2008, 09:38 PM
Then I guess we'll have to make the conversation extra exciting.

:lol:Yeah, really, someone better make it extra exciting or we will all fall asleep this time of year.:yawnb: It is a good play, but takes sometime to get into. I liked all the history plays.

Quark
12-12-2008, 09:57 PM
:lol:Yeah, really, someone better make it extra exciting or we will all fall asleep this time of year.:yawnb: It is a good play, but takes sometime to get into.

I am a little surpised these lesser-known plays keep winning. I suppose we're all tired of the classics.

Janine
12-12-2008, 10:31 PM
I am a little surpised these lesser-known plays keep winning. I suppose we're all tired of the classics.

Not me! I never tire of the classic. I could see "Hamlet" performed or read it dozens, and dozens of times. I keep always pondering and wondering, about Lord Hamlet. Same with "Richard III" and "Othello"....they are all so amazing to me, I don't care how often they were discussed in the past or present, I would discuss them, there is always something more; besides I don't even recall that they ever did discuss these plays on here; maybe someone did years back, before I joined.

Hey, Quark, I like the alteration to your avatar - perfect 'Quark' for the season. That really make me laugh, first time I realised those were fir branches around the edge....haha....very clever indeed! :lol: Leave it to you!

Virgil
12-12-2008, 10:31 PM
I am a little surpised these lesser-known plays keep winning. I suppose we're all tired of the classics.

Richard II is not a lesser known play. It's a great play. If it's truly lesser known, it's incredibly under rated.

Janine
12-12-2008, 10:47 PM
Richard II is not a lesser known play. It's a great play. If it's truly lesser known, it's incredibly under rated.

I never disputed it being a great play but I do think it may be 'under-rated' as you say.

Virgil,....so funny....I think we mentioned you name and wa la!... you appeared, just like magic.

Do you know when this play will be officially starting or when it will be announced? Not anxious, just curious. Will it start in January?
The next few weeks are impossible for me - I have all the decorating to do.:(

mayneverhave
12-12-2008, 10:58 PM
Richard II is not a lesser known play. It's a great play. If it's truly lesser known, it's incredibly under rated.

It might be slightly overshowed by its predecessor 1 Henry IV - which, admittedly is a superior play.

It is, however a great play.

Jozanny
12-12-2008, 11:09 PM
The voting ended on 12/1, so the discussion begins in January? Scher? (Calling Scher...)

Virgil
12-12-2008, 11:19 PM
Jozy and others who ave asked. The Shakespeare discussion group was to change with every season, so that we were to do four plays per year. i think Scher made a mistake when she listed the vote ending date on Dec 1st. I thnk she meant Dec 21st. That's why she hasnt closed this vote down.

Mayneverhave - Yes both Henry IV plays are excellent and perhaps better than Richard II.

Janine
12-13-2008, 02:10 AM
Oops was editing and posted twice by accident.

Janine
12-13-2008, 02:12 AM
Jozy and others who have asked. The Shakespeare discussion group was to change with every season, so that we were to do four plays per year. I think Scher made a mistake when she listed the vote ending date on Dec 1st. I think she meant Dec 21st. That's why she hasn't closed this vote down.

Oh that explains it then. Maybe she did mean the voting to end later.


Mayneverhave - Yes both Henry IV plays are excellent and perhaps better than Richard II.

I liked all the Henry plays...maybe "Henry VI" was got a bit dull...at least, my favorites were "Henry IV" part 1 and 2.... and then "Henry V." I have a favorite speech in the last one. Personally, I think, if you read the main history plays in order, the whole story makes more sense....they are almost like sequels, don't you think?...at least from "Richard II", then the Henry's through to "Richard III" - they all lead up and involve the two houses - the Yorks and the Lancasters and the War of the Roses.

mayneverhave
12-13-2008, 05:13 AM
at least from "Richard II", then the Henry's through to "Richard III" - they all lead up and involve the two houses - the Yorks and the Lancasters and the War of the Roses.

Certainly. The dominant (and exquisite) verse of Richard II seguays nicely into the prose of Falstaff in Henry IV.

Jozanny
12-13-2008, 05:32 AM
I liked all the Henry plays...maybe "Henry VI" was got a bit dull...at least, my favorites were "Henry IV" part 1 and 2.... and then "Henry V." I have a favorite speech in the last one. Personally, I think, if you read the main history plays in order, the whole story makes more sense....they are almost like sequels, don't you think?...at least from "Richard II", then the Henry's through to "Richard III" - they all lead up and involve the two houses - the Yorks and the Lancasters and the War of the Roses.

Janine:

It has been quite some time since I've been a cable television subscriber, and I don't think I ever will be again, because after management is done renovating my unit, I am going DSL and what not and will open a Netflix account, so who needs cable if I can live off movies? Right? But when I did pay those cable fees, I was glued to Bravo, back in the 90's when they still showed a ton of foreign art films, and they used to run an old BBC production, in black and white, called The Wars of The Roses, and I believe it was an English mash of all the histories, with Ian (he did the android in the first Alien movie, I know his full name but I'm blocked...) playing Richard III, but not strictly faithful to the plays in the entire. If one wants to see Shakespeare as an abstract art mini-series though, it works.:p

Schokokeks
12-13-2008, 03:37 PM
Richard II is not a lesser known play. It's a great play. If it's truly lesser known, it's incredibly under rated.

I agree :nod:. I read it for a class on "Kingship in the Renaissance", where it was taken to illustrate legitimate (?) regicide (along with Marlowe's Edward the Second).
I also remember something about an anonymous play called The First Part of Richard II, which leads up to the events of Richard II. The debate whether Shakespeare wrote that one, too, still isn't settled, if I remember correctly...

I liked Richard II a lot, it's very interesting in a psychological way. But then again, which of Willy's plays isn't..?
I would have voted for Coriolanus, though :).

Janine
12-13-2008, 03:57 PM
Janine:

It has been quite some time since I've been a cable television subscriber, and I don't think I ever will be again, because after management is done renovating my unit, I am going DSL and what not and will open a Netflix account, so who needs cable if I can live off movies? Right? But when I did pay those cable fees, I was glued to Bravo, back in the 90's when they still showed a ton of foreign art films, and they used to run an old BBC production, in black and white, called The Wars of The Roses, and I believe it was an English mash of all the histories, with Ian (he did the android in the first Alien movie, I know his full name but I'm blocked...) playing Richard III, but not strictly faithful to the plays in the entire. If one wants to see Shakespeare as an abstract art mini-series though, it works.:p

Jozanny, I hardly ever watch TV. I have my own TV upstairs and only watch DVD's on that one. For one, I hate commercials; they drive me insane; I have no patience with them and nowdays there are so many, that you wonder just how many minutes of the actual show you get to see. I do occasionally, watch some TV downstairs, but that is basically my mother's domain, so she is not too eager to give up her shows. I really don't miss TV. I did however, apply for the government coupon for the box one will need in January, if you don't have cable installed. Downstairs we have the basic cable; upstairs not installed. I heard with the box one can get a very clear picture; of course, you need a good set of indoor antenae and they have improved them since the old rabbit ears. This I may invest in. I admit I do like things on BBS and a few other stations. With the box, you can even get a few other stations, you could not get before. The box with the coupon may only cost about $20...so it is worth it. DSL is great. My friend got the package for computer and for TV - Fios. I have DSL for my computer but not my TV. I really like it and I have the basic plan. It is quite fast.

I loved that station Bravo! That BBC production, in black and white, called 'The Wars of The Roses', sounded pretty good. Was it Ian McKellen? Is this the film:

http://www.amazon.com/Richard-III-Ian-McKellen/dp/0792844041/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1229197899&sr=8-1

Althought this looks updated and he is playing "Richard III"; maybe he reprised the role and they made it modern..

Well, they never are strictly faithful to the plays in the entire.

"If one wants to see Shakespeare as an abstract art mini-series though, it works"...well, most times that works for me. Everyone has a different concept of Shakespeare's plays and characters so I find the variations in productions actually fascinating. I ready accept most of them and see them as a separate art form.

Janine
12-13-2008, 04:04 PM
I agree :nod:. I read it for a class on "Kingship in the Renaissance", where it was taken to illustrate legitimate (?) regicide (along with Marlowe's Edward the Second).
I also remember something about an anonymous play called The First Part of Richard II, which leads up to the events of Richard II. The debate whether Shakespeare wrote that one, too, still isn't settled, if I remember correctly...

Hi Schokokeks, haven't seen you around lately. Interesting what you say here about the Richard play and there being a part 1; now when you said this "The debate whether Shakespeare wrote that one, too, still isn't settled" - do you mean just the first part of all of the play - Richard II included?


I liked Richard II a lot, it's very interesting in a psychological way. But then again, which of Willy's plays isn't..?

I agree with your last line - exactly - which is not psychological and great?


I would have voted for Coriolanus, though :). You know, I have this desire to read that play - was it really good? I know that Kenneth Branagh played that one onstage in London, so that piqued my interest in it. It looks to be incredible and very dramatic.

Schokokeks
12-13-2008, 04:19 PM
Hi Schokokeks, haven't seen you around lately.
Hi Janine! Yes, I've been away for some time, but now I'm back again :).


Interesting what you say here about the Richard play and there being a part 1; now when you said this "The debate whether Shakespeare wrote that one, too, still isn't settled" - do you mean just the first part of all of the play - Richard II included?
I meant that - while it is certain that Shakespeare wrote the whole of Richard II - it is still not clear whether he might not also be the author of another play called The First Part of Richard II, which according to wikipedia exists only as one manuscript and is anonymous.
I hope I'm making sense :D.


You know, I have this desire to read [Coriolanus] - was it really good?
I haven't read it yet, but, being a happy student of Classics :), I'm immensly interested in Shakespeare's ancient Rome as part of the reception of antiquity in the Renaissance. I absolutely loved both Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra, but so far never got around to reading or watching Coriolanus.


I know that Kenneth Branagh played that one onstage in London, so that piqued my interest in it. Yes, Kenneth Branagh is such a genius! In fact, two of my favourite actors, Toby Stephens and Ralph Fiennes, also played Coriolanus.. There's got to be something about that play! ;)

Tallon
12-13-2008, 06:59 PM
I started reading Richard II last night. I'm very much enjoying it, i haven't read much Shakespeare since i left school and this play doesn't find me reaching for my dictionary as much as Hamlet. I don't know why i had never thought of reading one of his history's before, being a history student and all.

Also, i believe this was the tv show Jozanny was refering to:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060039/
god bless imdb.

Tallon
12-14-2008, 01:12 AM
Okay i finished slightly early :D i loved it though. Will have to re-read parts when we start discussing it.

Janine
12-14-2008, 02:46 AM
Okay i finished slightly early :D i loved it though. Will have to re-read parts when we start discussing it.

Tallon If you really loved it, you should read all the history plays - they keep getting better and better; and as I said, they are all part of the story - like sequels. I surprised myself, a few years back, reading them all...only one I didn't read was Henry VIII. There is some question as to whether Shakespeare actually wrote that one; besides I pretty much knew the story but I do plan to read it eventually. I finished with Richard III. I love all the Henry plays emensely. It was a worthwhile pursuit, believe me.

Definitely, when the discussion officially starts, we will review all the text, so we can all re-read it as we go along.

Tallon
12-14-2008, 04:08 AM
I will certainly go on and read more of his histories. Although i want to get them in book form (rather than the online copy i just read).

Whenever i read Shakespeare and then immediately read something else i always end up trying to read it in a Shakespearian rhythm, as if there are rhymes. It hurts my brain.

mayneverhave
12-14-2008, 04:57 AM
Whenever i read Shakespeare and then immediately read something else i always end up trying to read it in a Shakespearian rhythm, as if there are rhymes. It hurts my brain.

Haha, I'm worse. Whenever I read Shakespeare I have a tendency to actually start thinking in Shakespearean language. I also have to hold back saying "thou" and "hast" in normal speech. Somewhat annoying.

Quark
12-14-2008, 01:04 PM
Richard II is not a lesser known play. It's a great play. If it's truly lesser known, it's incredibly under rated.

I agree somewhat.

I was just surprised that the last three plays (MWOW, Winter's Tale, and now Richard II) beat out the "bigs"--you know, Lear, Hamlet, Richard III, etc.


I will certainly go on and read more of his histories. Although i want to get them in book form (rather than the online copy i just read).

You're reading these online? Ouch, it's hard enough muddling through the crabbed, over-punctuated, weirdly constructed language when it's clearly written on a page. I can't imagine doing this online. I suppose you have the advantage of easy quoting, though. You can just copy, instead of having to print all of it.


Haha, I'm worse. Whenever I read Shakespeare I have a tendency to actually start thinking in Shakespearean language. I also have to hold back saying "thou" and "hast" in normal speech. Somewhat annoying.

I'm already annoyed. Not really, but control the Elizabethanism, if possible.


Hey, Quark, I like the alteration to your avatar - perfect 'Quark' for the season. That really make me laugh, first time I realised those were fir branches around the edge....haha....very clever indeed! :lol: Leave it to you!

Yeah, it's my small attempt at festivity. I'm glad that you got it, though. I thought people might mistake the branches for green algae. They didn't show up too well when I shrunk them to fit.

Still, I think you beat me as far as festivity goes. You changed your whole setup. Very well done. I like the backgrounds and everything on your user page, particularly.

Janine
12-14-2008, 03:54 PM
I was just surprised that the last three plays (MWOW, Winter's Tale, and now Richard II) beat out the "bigs"--you know, Lear, Hamlet, Richard III, etc.

Haha - those never get picked, Quark, and I am dying to talk about any of the three...those are the ones I know so well by now....but I guess it is not detined to be, right?


You're reading these online? Ouch, it's hard enough muddling through the crabbed, over-punctuated, weirdly constructed language when it's clearly written on a page. I can't imagine doing this online. I suppose you have the advantage of easy quoting, though. You can just copy, instead of having to print all of it.

Quark,I know this is directed at someone else, but I actually did this on MWOW because my own Shakespeare book is sort of heavy with teeny weeny type and my eyes are bothering me presently from some medications I have to take. Now what I did find is it is easy if one takes it slowly and what I did was copy to my document program and then proceed to underline the words or phrases I needed assistence on or to look up. It as a lot easier to sort things out and then to actually quote passages from the text. Of course :( I did not get too far with this process, but it seemed like a good idea at first.



I'm already annoyed. Not really, but control the Elizabethanism, if possible. Oh you are such a joke! haha

Whoever said they do this; I do the same thing, if I read or listen to a lot of Shakespeare - I also wake up reciting the lines; not that they are at all accurate; but I wake up from dreaming saying things in Shakespearean language - it is truly strange sometimes....


Yeah, it's my small attempt at festivity. I'm glad that you got it, though. I thought people might mistake the branches for green algae. They didn't show up too well when I shrunk them to fit.

I thought it worked. I don't think it looks like algae at all. I knew what it was right away and it make me chuckle....very clever!


Still, I think you beat me as far as festivity goes. You changed your whole setup. Very well done. I like the backgrounds and everything on your user page, particularly.

Oh, thank you so much, Quark! 'The Nutcracker' Drawing is my own, but since I used it last year as a signature photo, I was going to change it before Christmas. The night I changed the page it was just handy and fit the color scheme. I may change it nearer Christmas day. Thanks again - that was a nice compliment.:)

Quark
12-15-2008, 12:27 AM
Haha - those never get picked, Quark, and I am dying to talk about any of the three...those are the ones I know so well by now....but I guess it is not detined to be, right?

You need to call on your friends to help you out during the poll. Which one did you vote on this time around?


'The Nutcracker' Drawing is my own, but since I used it last year as a signature photo, I was going to change it before Christmas.

I didn't know you drew your avatar. When did you do that? It looks great.

mayneverhave
12-15-2008, 01:30 AM
Whoever said they do this; I do the same thing, if I read or listen to a lot of Shakespeare - I also wake up reciting the lines; not that they are at all accurate; but I wake up from dreaming saying things in Shakespearean language - it is truly strange sometimes....

Hah, I said it. The worst, however, was when I read a lot of Hemingway and started eliminating adverbs from my speech.

Janine
12-15-2008, 01:35 AM
Hah, I said it. The worst, however, was when I read a lot of Hemingway and started eliminating adverbs from my speech.

mayneverhave,:lol: yeah funny how it invades you pysche....... I fully expect to be reciting Shakespeare soon enough in my sleep....now I don't know about eliminating adverbs...that one is funny, too...