Re: RE: RAT John Sylvain and "grammar"

[DennisLMo@aol.com]

actually travis is right. the original shakespeare folio was more like a 
prompt script. writers who've had a production in the last five years will 
know what they are like. there never was an authorized printed script of 
shakespeare. samuel johnson, i think, said he had small latin and less greek. 
or was it ben johnson. meaning he wasn't much for the conventional learning 
scheme of the day. a clue there about something. (yes i don't use question 
marks when with friends.) keats and shelley's manuscript had idiosyncratic 
spelling everywhere. and how do you parse the grammar of a poem by robert 
creeley, emily dickinson or one of those shakespeare sonnets... words fit 
this way and then they fit that way. part of their evocation. most poems are 
like that. so. lets see. one could say its the ignorant calling those who may 
have more experience and knowledge then themselves, ignorant. that happens. 
i've been in academia now and then. often the scholars have a small view, are 
wed to their theories and suffer writer's block. and many of the poets i know 
read all over the place, including the classics a lot. also the classics in 
other languages and cultures. often they are wrestless delvers. find out 
about what they've read. from what i can tell the poets (paywrights) have 
often read wider and better than the critics and academics who can be snide. 
but then a lot of the rats know this, have experienced this, when they get 
there works done. preaching to the converted...

hey lee, couldn't get away from philly and go to la, too much to do at 
Theatre Double. now does mentioning hard work, even as an aslant, open me up 
to villification. or did i misunderstand some correctly spelled and 
grammatical, non rat spew.

love,
d