<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Seattlest: Roethke Goes Down Writing: First Class @ ACT</title>
<link>http://seattlest.com/2007/08/03/if_you_want_to.php</link>
<description>All comments for Roethke Goes Down Writing: First Class @ ACT</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>2009 seattle_katelyn</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:00:00 -0800</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
<managingEditor>kbhackett@gmail.com</managingEditor>
<webMaster>kbhackett@gmail.com</webMaster>
<ttl>60</ttl>
<item>
<title>Jeremy M. Barker</title>
<link>http://seattlest.com/2007/08/03/if_you_want_to.php#comment-1164026</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://seattlest.com/2007/08/03/if_you_want_to.php#comment-1164026</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:08:56 -0800</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Personally, I&apos;ve yet to see (or read) any sort of biographical play I&apos;ve actually enjoyed. Even Stoppard can&apos;t resist the temptation of psychoanalyzing his subject in The Invention of Love.

What separates modern biographical plays from older works--like Shakespeare&apos;s histories--is that even good writers seem to fall into the trap of judging their subjects. Often times, the structure of the plays even reinforces it with framing devices which limit perspective. I guess it&apos;s a sign of our bastardized rationalism that we embrace the facade of realism (in the attention to historical fact) at the expense of representing historical characters as complex and ambivalent (as Shakespeare did, frequently to the detriment of historical accuracy).&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
