FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W252609388> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W252609388 startingPage "242" @default.
• W252609388 abstract "Children of the Queen's Revels: A Jacobean Theatre Repertory, by Lucy Munro. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pp. 267 + xiii. Cloth $96.00. Reviewer: Mary Bly I just finished re-reading every bit of scholarship about theater companies that my graduate assistant could rootle out of the stacks, due diligence for a book chapter surveying our critical past. My conclusion after this reading orgy is that many a scholarly snit has arisen from attempts to distinguish between and adult companies. One can even see these theories as trying to justify the distinction as a scholarly topic. For example, Harold Hillebrand's idea that actors turned their into bombast, later elaborated by R. A. Foakes (who envisioned boys consciously ranting in oversize parts), offered a clear justification for the division between and adult plays: are different because they were acted for laughs.1 Ejner J. Jensen thoroughly deflated Hillebrand's theory with an intelUgent article back in 1968, but scholars still reflexively reestablish the boys' acting credentials. It's as if engaging in that old battle justifes the importance of distinguishing between and adult companies. Alfred Harbage's 1952 theory of the rival traditions similarly has had a shelf life far beyond what its flawed, albeit thoughtful, ideas warranted. His distinction between private and public theater authences offered an organizing principle that substantiated the label boy company plays - their elite authences demanded different fare. Yet now that actors and their authences are accepted to have been more similar than not to their adult counterparts, how do we define the significance of companies? Why should their be considered as a group - or how should that grouping be justified? In another article, this one from 1975, Jensen astutely asks whether company should even be considered together. The plays, he says, seem like the products of an anti-academic conspiracy intent on frustrating our tendencies to discover order and coherence and unity in the literary works of a single period.2 What should we be teaching our students about the relevance of the distinction? One of the biggest shifts in early modem theatrical scholarship as a whole in the last thirty years has been toward examining theater repertories as separate units, whose important referents are management, location, actors, and collaborative playwrights, a move away from considering a single playwright as key to understanding a given text. Roslyn Knutson's 1991 The Repertory of Shakespeare's Company takes the bull by the horns: To approach the success of Shakespeare's company by way of its entire repertory . . . requires a shift in perspective that would have been anathema to most theater historians as recently as a generation ago.3 Organizing by repertory, she suggests, involves accepting that commercial strategies spring from company management, and that we have to explain the King's Men's success not only by reference to Shakespeare, but by looking at hacks whose were valuable items in the company repertory - if only because their number, conventionality, and appeal to a spectrum of tastes (13). Unburdened by a need to foreground Shakespeare, company scholars long ago viewed the repertory as a justifiable organizing principle: witness Michael Shapiro's Children of the Revels: The Boy Companies of Shakespeare's Time and Their Plays (1979), and Reavley Gair's The Children of Paul's: The Story of a Theatre Company, 1553-1608 (1984). But Knutson brought a new direction to such studies when she emphasized the economic milieu of the period. In her own words, Knutson moves away from authorship - toward ownership. Looking at who owned a repertory, she argues, allows us to examine the impUcations of company choices regarding subject matter and kinds of plays. Work like Knutson's freed scholars to move further away from consideration of the author, an unmooring whose theoretical tenets were authorized by Derrida, though many scholars of theater history may not appreciate that. …" @default.
• W252609388 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W252609388 creator A5083075097 @default.
• W252609388 date "2009-01-01" @default.
• W252609388 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W252609388 title "Children of the Queen's Revels: A Jacobean Theatre Repertory" @default.
• W252609388 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W252609388 type Work @default.
• W252609388 sameAs 252609388 @default.
• W252609388 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W252609388 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W252609388 hasAuthorship W252609388A5083075097 @default.
• W252609388 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W252609388 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W252609388 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W252609388 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W252609388 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W252609388 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W252609388 hasConcept C2775987171 @default.
• W252609388 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W252609388 hasConcept C2778342424 @default.
• W252609388 hasConcept C2780653484 @default.
• W252609388 hasConcept C2781321516 @default.
• W252609388 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W252609388 hasConcept C52119013 @default.
• W252609388 hasConcept C554936623 @default.
• W252609388 hasConcept C59822182 @default.
• W252609388 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W252609388 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W252609388 hasConceptScore W252609388C124952713 @default.
• W252609388 hasConceptScore W252609388C138885662 @default.
• W252609388 hasConceptScore W252609388C142362112 @default.
• W252609388 hasConceptScore W252609388C144024400 @default.
• W252609388 hasConceptScore W252609388C17744445 @default.
• W252609388 hasConceptScore W252609388C199539241 @default.
• W252609388 hasConceptScore W252609388C2775987171 @default.
• W252609388 hasConceptScore W252609388C2778061430 @default.
• W252609388 hasConceptScore W252609388C2778342424 @default.
• W252609388 hasConceptScore W252609388C2780653484 @default.
• W252609388 hasConceptScore W252609388C2781321516 @default.
• W252609388 hasConceptScore W252609388C41895202 @default.
• W252609388 hasConceptScore W252609388C52119013 @default.
• W252609388 hasConceptScore W252609388C554936623 @default.
• W252609388 hasConceptScore W252609388C59822182 @default.
• W252609388 hasConceptScore W252609388C86803240 @default.
• W252609388 hasConceptScore W252609388C94625758 @default.
• W252609388 hasLocation W2526093881 @default.
• W252609388 hasOpenAccess W252609388 @default.
• W252609388 hasPrimaryLocation W2526093881 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W1529356342 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W173419873 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W2017621288 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W2028157369 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W2036480759 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W2060078662 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W2090202865 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W2184702241 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W2321044846 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W2327465315 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W2332568574 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W2563141424 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W2583066806 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W2604087355 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W273784942 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W602853376 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W922910023 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W930338747 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W2603904554 @default.
• W252609388 hasRelatedWork W349673377 @default.
• W252609388 hasVolume "22" @default.
• W252609388 isParatext "false" @default.
• W252609388 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W252609388 magId "252609388" @default.
• W252609388 workType "article" @default.