Measure for Measure (review)

282 Reviews interesting even though it only indirectly addresses the main themes of the collection. Without doubt, the most lucid and comprehensive consideration of Shakespeare's mediation into another discursive form is Madge Mitton's excellent essay, '"Murder Most Foul": Shakespeare in the Detective Novel'. Here Mitton looks at the influence of Shakespearian tragedy on detective fiction, in reference to novels by Michael Innes, Ngaio Marsh and Simon Brett. The choice of these authors is significant in that 'Michael Innes' is the alter ego of Shakespearian scholar J . I. M. Stewart, Ngaio Marsh directed a number of Shakespeare's plays for the stage and Brett was formerly an amateur comic actor. The essay illustrates the differing strategies with which the scholar, the director and the actor mediate Shakespeare to the same potential audience. In doing so, Mitton addresses the issues raised generally by this collection with more success than any other essay. The editors of Shakespeare: Readers, Audiences, Players have provided a highly readable, well-balanced collection. The accessibility of the book is further enhanced by a helpful subject index. The index offers an easy starting point for those readers w h o wish to locate a particular subject among this collection's extensive range of contributors and interests. Craig Allan Horton Department of English University of Sydney Wood, Nigel, ed., Measure for Measure (Theory in Practice), Buckingha Open University Press, 1996; pp. xiv, 210; R.R.P. AUS$39.95. Nigel Wood's Measure for Measure is an instance of a radically new practice: his book comes as close as it is possible to get to an interactive text in hard copy. A brief set of advice on 'How to Use this Book' draws attention to (1) the text's critical history in the general introduction, (2) the editor's introduction that prefaces each individual essay, (3) the extensive reading list at the end of the volume, incorporating the critical material mentioned in all the essays and m u c h more besides, and (4) the dialogue between the author and the editor at the end of each essay, Reviews 283 wherein the two discuss the essay. Of these, (1) and (3) are fairly standard, (2) is somewhat innovative and (4) is quite startling in that it brings the reader into an active debate concerning the work that (s)he has just read. Throughout these various procedures, the intention of the series to present 'Theory in Practice' is validated by careful attention to points of connection between literary theory and what critics actually write. The volume contains four very substantial essays of approximately 15,000 words each. Peter Corbin, on 'Performing Measure for Measure', sets about refuting c o m m o n popular perceptions of the iconic Shakespeare play as a static and monumental edifice. Not stated, but implied, is the point that the Royal Shakespeare Company is no more the authorised keeper of the sacred text than any other company: there are different Shakespeares rather than true and false Shakespeares. Corbin demonstrates that any one presentation of the play is a cultural production comprised of m a n y forces, including the director but also including the Ughting designer, the set designer, the actors themselves, the audience and, not least, social preoccupations surrounding the time and place of production. Another point is in refutation of the sort of interpretation encouraged by close reading in the m o d e of the N e w Critics (though Corbin doesn't mention them as such): 'Images' and 'themes', which m a y have seemed of striking significance in our solitary reading of the text, disappear in our experience of the flow of the performance'. Corbin also emphasises the openness of the text to a variety of understandings in terms of quite basic action. For example, what happens to Isabella, w h o says nothing, in response to the Duke's proposal of marriage? Does she accept, just stand there, or walk off? As with other essays in this volume, one m a y discern a political subtext : conventional, conservative views of the play are not only limited but so fundamentally questionable as to be in need of subversion. A...