Many a fella has said that The Tempest is Shakespeare’s goodbye to the theatre. I am not sure what they mean by that, does it mean goodbye to the magic of words?

Have a look at the last issue of Gaiman's "The Sandman".

How would you answer question 8.

http://www.teachit.co.uk/attachments/5382.pdf

Following up on the Sandman reference, here is a link for those who've not yet looked it uu: http://www.enjolrasworld.com/Annotations......ions.htm

Now on to that teaching aid Tommy cited...

I'd argue that Prospero's Tempest is the climax of the actual story and the rest of the play is a sort of "clean up" or consequences.

As to "magical effects"... no idea what the writer of the question had in mind. The earth and air elementals are what they are and serve a more allegorical purpose in the same way as the island itself.

IMHO most of the questions are "leading" and not so helpful to the student.

I thought the answer might tell us what Shakespeare thought of magic effects.

You might find that answer reading that linked source cited.

Still no comment on the implied wordplay about "props" ?

Ealier I used the word props to mean any object or clothing that is used in or for an effect.

Yes tommy, and that is facile reading of the phrase. No props for that one.

Reading is not such a passive skill as sounding out words or looking for the most likely definition in an online dictionary. It's still a fundamental skill. Especially in magic.

Where words announce worlds, both the writer and the reader serve sentences adjudged by their language.

I did not look in the dictionary on line or otherwise. I was explaing what I was thinking when I used the word prop as I think props are not only what we use as you said, but a prop can be something that has no use. It can be something that is there for effect. To take the notion to an extream it could be colour in my opinion.

Without getting into a discussion of production design, I happen to agree that color can be used effectively in set design. There was a Shakespeare in the Park (Central Park NY) production of Midsummer Night's Dream using an all red set that got great reviews.

Fancy clothes and furniture or whatever I think of them as objects that can used to effect the mind without me doing anything with them or saying anthing about them. You seem to think only words and actions can give meaning to things and I do not.

I assert that meaning comes from context.

If different descriptions reflect the difference in different viewpoints on the same thing, then it‘s a matter of how you see it is the way I look at it.

Words do mean things. I agree with you Johnathon.

I think what tommy sugests has merit as well.

I submit into evidence example 1:

The phrase "Luke, I am your father" has meaning. But add to that a death mask and an the character's established evil history and the the phrase move from meaningful to chilling. I still get goosebumps when I watch Empire Strike Back.

Unless you know about Star Wars the sentence is not particularly meaningful. Context!

Gotta admit that hearing James Earl Jones intone those words to a blond blue eyed white kid was quite amusing.

Till we can work with the frame of reference (and sharing that creates the perspective) is difficult to discuss meaning.

For example, how many folks get goosebumps reading this sentence: "Calling Sister Midnight, what can I do about my dreams?".

Not too many, but if you look up the video clip via YouTube and play the thing loud a few times you will likely have the context and the response, (anchoring for those studying)

Oh, so now you wanna talk context do ya?

Well, context is established by several things... Here I'll go first!

Story/Script
Setting/Time Period
Characters (which includes physical appearance)

What else?

Ricky Jay used to do a full evening show using nothing but items borrowed from the audience.

One can conjure up magic with words as Lewis Carroll did. "magic with no props" so to speak. Read The Magic of Lewis Carroll by John Fisher. Or talk to Martin Gardner who has book called The Annotated Alice. Also I have seen Lennart Green conjure up magic with a few words using logical fallacy and math. See the openers on his Lite DVD for examples.

Wow, what a roller coaster!

Tommy, just so we can get back on track, can you be a little more explicit about this article you read about magic with no props? What was the gist of the article? What did the author mean by "props?"

I'm not referring to any articles but books George.

The Magic of Lewis Carroll by Fisher in particular, a snip from the introduction: “As early as 1850 Carroll, realising even then that pen can be more potent than the wand in conjuring up the impossible, had practising how to convey in narrative form the special aura of a successful magical performance with its own individual blend of mystery, suspense and tongue in check humour.”

And Lennart’s humorous opener and the only non card routine on the Lite DVD. The routine sets the scene for the card tricks as it opens by talking about mathematics, probability and statistics such as: if there are ten people in a room and 12 of them leave, then do two of them have to return before the room is empty!

Green does not deck it out with such interesting characters so much as Carroll did but roughly he does the same thing.

That should give the gist of what I mean. I think Martin Gardener is something of an expert on this sort of thing. I am not sure if he is a member here but I think he is at Genii. The introduction which is about a dozen pages long in the Fisher book explanation the concepts better than I can.