¶ 2Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Welcome to the open peer review of Shakespeare Quarterly’s new experimental feature, “After SAA.” Papers grouped under “Shakespeare and Philosophy,” “Shakespeare and Language,” and “Shakespeare and Skepticism” were first presented at the 2012 meeting of the Shakespeare Association of America. They appear here because they offer particular opportunities for further discussion within, and across, the boundaries of their hosting seminars. A fourth group of papers, under “Non-Shakespearean Drama and Performance,” marks SQ’s initiative of encouraging more work on drama other than Shakespeare’s. This open peer review and our subsequent “After SAA” issue of Shakespeare Quarterly will provide a place to continue the critical discussion that is the hallmark of the SAA seminar system, and to make the results of those conversations, and the communities that have formed around them, more freely and permanently available.
¶ 3Leave a comment on paragraph 3 1 The essays posted here will be open for commenting for six weeks, from June 18 to July 27, 2012. The seminar leaders have solicited reviewers for their cluster of essays, but interested readers can comment on all essays. To get started, read the introductions to each group of essays by Jonathan Hope, Sarah Werner and Pascale Aebischer, Paul Kottman, and Joseph Loewenstein. For information on how to register as a commenter and to use the site, see How to read these essays and How to comment on these essays. After the open-review period, the authors will have three weeks to revise their essays in light of the comments here and to submit them to Shakespeare Quarterly’s editor, David Schalkwyk, for possible publication.
¶ 4Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 Regular readers of SQ will notice that the essays posted are shorter than the usual journal contribution and do not conform to our usual style guidelines. In addition, we have asked to authors to submit revised essays of no more than 4,000 words. Our hope is that this new form of SQ essay will allow a different shape of argument and a greater variety of subject matter, as well as contribute to the formation of a newly active academic community.
- Margaret Tudeau-Clayton, Shakespeare and “the King’s English”
- Jacob A. Tootalian, Shakespeare, Without Measure: The Rhetorical Tendencies of Renaissance Dramatic Prose
- Ross Knecht, The Practice of Theory: Early Modern Grammar
- Lynne Magnusson, “God I pray him / That none of you may live”: Grammatical Theatricality and Schoolroom Optatives in Richard III
- ¶ 7Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0
- José A. Pérez Díez, An Editor’s Theatre: The Impact of Non-Professional, Experimental and Hypothetic Performance on Editorial Practice
- Kevin Ewert, Reading Performance: Shakes and Not-Shakes
- Peter Hyland, The Bigger Picture: Why Canons Are Bad for Us
- James Hirsh, Selfhood, Shakespeare, and Soliloquies
- Kristin Gjesdal, Shakespeare’s Hermeneutic Legacy: Some Reflections on Herder’s Contribution
- Andrew Cutrofello, Hamlet’s Negativity: Toward a Performance History of His Conceptual Character
- Galena Hashhozheva, Timon of Athens, Skepticism, and the Lucianic Mistrust of Philosophy
- Katherine Eggert, Hamlet’s Bullshit: Transubstantiation and Skepticism
- Tom Bishop, The Clown’s Boots: Performing Skepticism in King Lear