Re: Silver Nemesis reborn, only with cappier music

On 3 Jan, 14:45, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:0baf2041-8e27-4ff4-8fa3-e3a664a05e50@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 3 Jan, 01:22, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

beside the point because the original story WAS NOT ABOUT SOMEONE
NAMED OTHELLO. The name is never mentioned at all. It was, however,
about a Moor. All Shakespeare did was give that Moor a name. He didn't
reinvent the story based around a historical character who had no
connection at all with the Othello of the story.

POPPY***. There was a real Venetian governor of Cyprus called Othello and
his tower to which Shakespeare refers exist in Cyprus and dates to the
time
in question.

<<<*sigh* This is like the Osiris tomb thing - a myth attaches to
something after the event and you confuse it with real history. There
was a tower in Cyprus at that time; the play was largely set in
Cyprus. Shakespeare would have made the backdrop as accurate as
possible, like any writer. If you write a story about a fictional>>>

WHAT? You are clearly INSANE! Shakespeare had NEVER been to Cyprus or
anywhere outside of England. How would he know about the REAL Othello's
Tower?

Let's try this one more time:

Shakespeare was not the originator of the Othello story. He only gave
the characters names and dialogue. The story, about an unnamed Moorish
captain, was written by Cinthio, who could very well have known about
the tower and included it (not having read the original I don't know
for sure). Or Shakespeare could well have heard about it some other
way.

Alternatively, Shakespeare could have made it up. The story is set in
a tower on Cyprus - like the tomb of Osiris, only tradition links it
to the Shakespearean character, and it isn't given sufficient detail
to identify it as anything other than a generic tower. The story we
have is about the politics between high-ranking military officials
sent to administrate in Cyprus. In the 16th Century, military
governors and generals would have been found within fortifications
like, oh, I don't know, a tower. Shakespeare would hardly have set the
play in a barn or a field. Why did Tolkein use castles as the setting
for parts of Lord of the Ring that involved kings and war leaders? Why
did he have a major part of one book dealing with soldiers and
generals set in a fortress? There doesn't have to be a real Helm's
Deep for him to have based it on. Cyprus was a garrisoned part of
Venice's territory and an area prone to attack - of course it was
going to have towers and other fortifications to house its military
command. There's no actual basis for believing that the tower used as
a backdrop to scenes in Othello was intended to be or was modelled on
the real Citadel, other than the suggestion that Othello might have
been partially inspired by a real governor who happened to use that
tower.

He was clearly complying an earlier text which originated from Italy which
told the history of the real Othello which he then based his play on.

The earlier text was not a history - it mentioned no characters by
name (save Desdemona), while a historian chronicling Christopho Moro's
history would clearly have named him, and likely given him a title
other than "the captain" to boot.

<<<You should also consider that there's a reason Shakespeare divided his
stories into "Histories", "Comedies" and "Tragedies" - Hamlet, Othello
and Romeo and Juliet are not Histories, they are Tragedies.>>>

IDIOT! Tragedies are where the main protagonists die.

So, in the history "The Life and Death of King John", the protagonist
survives? And in Richard II? And...

They are still
history. Only comedies were based on fiction, and there are indications that
some of Shakespeare's comedies were based on fact also.

Oh, I can't wait until you tell us the real story of Puck's historical
identity...

<<<One problem with this: The source material for the Saxo is unclear, is
probably a saga and may have been an oral account. Although presented>>>

BULL***! There is NO SUCH THING as an oral tradition. They are unprovable

So are all of your speculations. Oral traditions, by contrast, have
been extensively documented.

and not one is referred to by any ancient of medieval historian.

Why would it have been? Just because something wasn't studied before
the 18th Century, that doesn't mean it didn't exist any earlier. In
any case, in past threads you've actually presented quotes from
ancient historians that DO mention oral traditions - the fellow
recounting a local history of the kings in their area, I remember.

<<<as history, there is absolutely zero evidence that King Amleth ever
existed in reality. It's true (and I hadn't realised it) that>>>

MORE BULL***! Amleth's ancestors are documented by Roman historians.
Denmark's kings go back all the way to the time of the Trojan War.

Here is a sample of the list of kings of Denmark

24. Danus III, son of Frotho          69            146- 77
      In his time the German
      Cymbrians joined the
      Teutons in a terrible war
      against Rome in 113.
      Italy would have been
      conquered if the consul
      Marius had not defeated
      them utterly.

25. Fridlevus I, the Swift,           37             77- 40
      son of Danus

26. Frotho III, the Pacific,          54             40- 15
      son of Fridlevus                              ("A.D.")
      King of Denmark, Sweden
      and Norway.
      INTERREGNUM for nearly       4 years           15- 19

27. Hiarnus, a poet                    2             19- 21

28. Fridlevus II, son of Frotho       12             21- 33

29. Frotho IV, the Liberal,           46             33- 79
      son of Fridlevus

30. Ingellus Wendemothius,            23             79-102
      son of Frotho

Frotho? Ah, he must have had a ring and travelled to Mordor to throw
it into the Mountain of Doom. After all, he's got the same name. Must
be the real life version.

31. Olaus I, son of Ingellus          10            102-112

32. Haraldus I, reigned                5            112-117
      contemporary with brother

33. Frotho V, brother of              19            112-131
      Haraldus

34. Haraldus II, son of               10            131-141
      Haraldus I

35. Haldanus II, son of               15            131-146
      Haraldus II
      Reigned 10 years
      contemporary with
      brother, 5 years alone.

36. Unquinus, king of Gothland,        9            146-155
      succeeded son-in-law
      Haldanus in Denmark.

37. Sivaldus I, son of
      Unquinus                          22          155-177

38. Sigarus, son of Sivaldus            13          177-190

39. Sivaldus II, son of                 11          190-201
      Sigarus
      INTERREGNUM -- Rule of            40          201-241
      5 governors

40. Haldanus III, married               20          241-261
      Guritha, granddaughter
      of Sigarus.

41. Haraldus III, (Hilletand            66          261-327
      or Hilderand), son of
      Haldanus; died in Sweden
      after a seven-year war,
      during which time his
      daughter Haditha governed
      Denmark.

And no Amleth in sight. But in any case it's been explained to you
exhaustively in the past that writing a legendary/historical figure
into a chronology does not make them real. Romulus and Remus weren't
really descended from Mars.

In any case, the point really isn't whether Amleth was real or not.
Shakespeare's incarnation of the legend wasn't - it wasn't based on a
historical character, but on a past story. Shakespeare wasn't trawling
the literature to find accounts of real events to dramatise, he was
looking for material that made a good story, and preferably that was
already popular with the punters (just as filmmakers today adapt books
to draw in their fans), and the Amleth story in its various
incarnations was a well-known story at the time.

<<<Shakespeare used the legend as a basis for his play, but all that
shows is that Shakespeare pinched his ideas from older stories, which
is well-known. It doesn't say anything about the accuracy of those
sources or whether they related to real characters.>>>

POPPY***!

Shakespeare used ESTABLISHED UNDISPUTED HISTORICAL FACTS as the basis of his
dramas.

NO he DIDN'T. I CAN use ALL CAPS COMPLETELY at RANDOM TOO, you KNOW!
AMAZING how IT doesn't DO ANYTHING to help COMMUNICATE the POINT,
ISN'T it?

Not only was it called Mauritania, but the use of the term dates to
exactly
the time of Shakespeare.

<<<You do realise this book was a translation of a much older work?>>>

IGNORANT LIAR!

The book was not a translation. It was authored by Lynche himself.

See the "Done into English..." bit again.

http://www.annomundi.com/history/travels_of_noah.htm

You should be pleased - Lynche translated the book from the work of an
ancient Greek historian.

<<<origin of the term. Moor does not mean "someone from Morea/
Mauretania". It specifically referred to North Africa, and the>>>

BULL***! I have showing you that in Shakespeare's time that Mauritania was
the name of the Peloponnese which was then under the rule of the Turks.

This is not the same as saying that people from that region were
called Moors - as I've noted, they weren't based on anything I've
located, and you haven't provided any evidence to counter that. The
usage of the term 'Moor' was well-established by that time to describe
North Africans, and particularly the Islamic states that had formerly
occupied Spain.

<<<Mauretania and Morocco there were so named because they were places
Moors came from. The etymology of Morea is entirely different - it was
named after a plant that grew in the region. All of which is
irrelevant as no Venetian governor ever came from the Pelopenesse.>>>

POPPY***! Morea/Mauritania was under the dominion of Venice at the time of
Othello.

You're parroting out of desperation again. THIS IS IRRELEVANT -
Christopher Moro was not from the Pelopenesse, whatever it was called,
and nor was Cinthio's captain or Shakespeare's Othello.

You've already admitted that all the basic elements of the plot -
Prospero being stranded on an island, having a daughter called Miranda
and a servant called Caliban who raped her - are complete inventions.

NO I HAVE NOT! Only treatment of it was fictional, ie. what the characters
said, not the main characters themselves.

<<<If what the characters said and did had no bearing on any real people
with those names, very clearly they are NOT THE SAME PEOPLE. Why are>>>

LEARN TO READ AN UNDERSTAND ENGLISH AND STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH I
DID NOT UTTER.

You've admitted that there is no evidence that the characters in the
story actually did the things they're depicted as doing - they were
never stranded on an island, Prospero never learned sorcery, Caliban
never raped Miranda (calling them "exaggerations") - and you've said
specifically that Shakespeare invented the dialogue. So what is it
that makes these in any way real characters? Do you even understand
the question? If you call a character Adolf Hitler, made him ruler of
Germany, and portray him as a dedicated pacifist who set up happy
holiday camps for the Jews, that is not the real Adolf Hitler. The
character's been given the name and some feature of the background,
but everything else is completely unrecognisable from the real
character; there is no meaningful sense in which they can be said to
be the same person.

Only the treatment of it was fictional, ie. what the characters said, not
the main characters themselves.

<<<you unable to comprehend that? And who was the historical Caliban, or
Miranda?>>>

Make up your own mind.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PV4MAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA365&lpg=PA365&dq=d...same

No, there's no one mentioned in this account who can be equated with
Caliban (who died during the story - in your world where the character
was intended to represent the Duke of Milan, this occurred during his
exile and so wouldn't have been mentioned in this account, which
doesn't mention Prospero until his return). Nor is any daughter
mentioned at all.

<<<"A few exaggerations?!" Prospero being deposed was a minor plot
element which allowed the character to get to the island, where the
body of the story took place. It was not the point of the story. And
was this real duke ever deposed before returning home?>>>

Yes. "Prospero Adorno was then elected doge; but was soon after driven away,
and Fergoso put in his place."

http://books.google.com/books?id=PV4MAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA365&lpg=PA365&dq=d...

So, in your world, The Tempest represents the fictional account of
something Shakespeare fantasised might have happened to him during his
mysterious time in exile? Even if true, yet again we're straying into
the realms of a wholly fictitious story and a portrayal of a character
who might as well have been a fantasy creation, since his story bore
no relation to anything in the real doge's history save that he was a
deposed duke who eventually came back (and in the play, I don't recall
him returning at the head of an army). Any way you look at it, your
argument is senseless.

Prospero Adorno was a real person.

<<<Prospero the magician wasn't - even if he did pinch the name.>>>

Prospero the magician was based on Prospero Adorno

No more so than kindly Fuhrer Adolf who gave sweets to Jewish children
living in his holiday camps and refused to invade anywhere is based on
the real Hitler. I don't think you understand what it means to be
'based' on something - we came up against this with the gods debate. A
god throwing thunderbolts is not 'based' on a king who did nothing of
the kind. It is not impossible, nor is it contentious, that Prospero
might have been *inspired* by a real duke of that name who was
deposed, or that Othello might have been *inspired* by Christopho
Morro. THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING THEY WERE REAL CHARACTERS OR
THAT DRAMAS ABOUT THEM WERE "BASED ON REAL PEOPLE". Julius Caesar is
based on a real character - a historical figure whose story in the
play more-or-less parallels that of his inspiration. MacBeth is not
based on a real character - he takes the name and date from a real
King of Scotland, bit his story has nothing in common with that
character. The story is *inspired* by that character. Othello has
nothing in common with Governor Moro. Prospero is not based on
Prospero Adamo. The name Adama is inspired by Adam, the Biblical first
man, because in the original Battlestar Galactica he was the founder
of a new civilisation of humans. So the basic outline of the
characters is similar - but Adama is not Adam, nor is he based on
Adam. Tolkein was inspired to name a book "The Two Towers" because of
two towers - one an industrial site, like Saruman's - found near the
area where he lived. That does not mean that he intended that area to
represent Middle Earth, an entirely fictional place.

I'm not a medical doctor, and I can tell the difference between a
fresh corpse and a living creature. Death wasn't sterilised back then

You are not 12 years old.

<<<Where is it said that they were? Most depictions I've seen show them
portrayed as young adults.>>>

They were 12. Get used to it.

You've been shown to be wrong on this.

the way it is today - it didn't happen out of sight in hospitals, it
happened on the streets every day of the week. It's an absurd
contrivance that someone would be taken for dead just because they had
a slow heartbeat. It wasn't meant to be realistic - it was meant to
tell the story of one character's emotional reaction to thinking his/
her lover was dead.

They were 12 year old kids.

<<<So what? 12 year old kids still go out onto the streets, see corpse
wagons being trundled around, dead bodies lying in the gutters and all
the other features of Renaissance life.>>>

YOU ARE INSANE!

Learn some history sometime.

Nonsense. They weren't, but even if they had been there's no reason
at
all why comic characters can't have realistic emotions - ever watched
Coupling?

You still haven't understood Satire have you.

What on earth does satire have to do with the relationships in
Coupling? No one's feelings for one another were being satirised.

Never seen it. You still haven't understood Satire have you.

<<<So why raise some irrelevant point about satire?>>>

You brought it up as an example of comedy.

Where?

I'll point it out again: You still haven't explained what was
inappropriate about her behaviour.

She was put in a farcical situation.

I'll point it out again: You still haven't explained what was
inappropriate about *her behaviour*.

She was put in a farcical situation that she should never have got into.

<<<I'll point it out again: You still haven't explained what was
inappropriate about *her behaviour in that situation*.>>>

She was put in a farcical situation that she should never have got into.

I'll point it out again: You still haven't explained what was
inappropriate about *her behaviour in that situation*.

What, even the characters who weren't *gasp* working class? You mean,
as though ... the working class weren't being singled out as being
unintelligent?

The characters who were not workings class were there to insult the ones
that were.

<<<One character insulted the others who were there - and the dialogue
criticised him for it on every occasion. The point of the character
was to show that such insults were unacceptable.>>>

WRONG! Showing such insults makes them acceptable.

No it doesn't, any more than showing Nazis in Indiana Jones or The
Blues Brothers makes Nazism acceptable. You really need to get a grip
on this idea of context - the WAY things are used determines how they
are portrayed and how acceptable they are. I thought you were saying
you understood the concept of satire?

When school starts again
a proportion of the kids who have seen this will start insulting their
classmates who are overweight.

And no kid who never watched Dr Who or this episode would ever dream
of insulting the fat kid...

And yet somehow lacked every one of the features of those pantomimes.

You would only expect a magic lamp in Alladin or a talking cat in ***
Whittington or *** In Boots. This was Voyage of the Damned. It featured a
bunch of talking comical aliens, a giant space ship designed to look like
the SS Titanic and a comic newspaper seller and a comic queen with her
corgis instead, to make it pantomime.

Read the definition of pantomime again. Being comic is no part of the
definition. Being a parody is no part of the definition. They happen
to be common features of panto, comedy especially, but you can have
pantomime without them and plenty of other forms of entertainment that
feature both comedy and parody. You're back to your "Cats have four
legs, my dog has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat" nonsequitur
again - "Pantomime features comic parody, VotD features comic parody,
therefore VotD is pantomime" is precisely the same nonsensical
argument.

And for future reference: "comic parody" is not part of any definition
of pantomime. It's debatable whether pantomimes parody anything. Since

Of course they are parodies.

<<<Parodies of...?>>>

Parodies of life.

So what bit of life are giant beanstalks and magic lamps recognisably
imitating?

you appear not to grasp the definitions, "comic" translates as
"humorous/done in a humorous way". Parody means "making fun of"

You don't understand the meaning of anything. "Parody is defined as the
imitation of the recognisable features of a character or style and is
therefore reliant on its audience recognising the
original."http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A843022

<<<Which, put in the simplified way I used to aid your comprehension,
translates as "making fun of".>>>

NO IT DOES NOT!

You're really desperate to try and catch me out, aren't you, however
spurious your efforts. "Making fun of" something involves "imitating
the recognisable features of a character or style and is therefore
reliant on its audience recognising the original" - you can't make fun
of something if no one knows what it is, and you can't make fun of it
without imitating it. I will accept that for the sake of brevity I
used a definition which isn't exhaustive - there are other ways of
imitating something that don't make fun of it - but as conventionally
used, parody does amount to making fun of something, and this is the
way it is used in pantomime, sitcom and drama alike. Simply being an
'imitation' is not enough to qualify as a parody - if it were, then
all acting would by definition be parody, since it relies on imitating
recognisable characters, character types and situations - and
certainly any drama based around real historical figures would be a
parody because it would necessarily require the actor to imitate, say,
Henry V or Julius Caesar, characters recognised by the audience.

Phil
.