Genevieve Love – författare

What work did physically disabled characters do for the early modern theatre? Through a consideration of a range of plays, including Doctor Faustus and Richard III, Genevieve Love argues that the figure of the physically disabled prosthetic body in early modern English theatre mediates a set of related ‘likeness problems’ that structure the theatrical, textual, and critical lives of the plays of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. The figure of disability stands for the relationship between actor and character: prosthetic disabled characters with names such as Cripple and Stump capture the simultaneous presence of thefictional and the material, embodied world of the theatre. When the figure of the disabled body exits the stage, it also mediates a second problem of likeness, between plays in their performed and textual forms. While supposedly imperfect textual versions of plays have been characterized as ‘lame’, the dynamic movement of prosthetic disabled characters in the theatre expands the figural role which disability performs in the relationship between plays on the stage and on the page. Early Modern Theatre and the Figure of Disability reveals how attention to physical disability enriches our understanding of early modern ideas about how theatre works, while illuminating in turn how theatre offers a reframing of disability as metaphor.

What work did physically disabled characters do for the early modern theatre? Through a consideration of a range of plays, including Doctor Faustus and Richard III, Genevieve Love argues that the figure of the physically disabled prosthetic body in early modern English theatre mediates a set of related ''likeness problems'' that structure the theatrical, textual, and critical lives of the plays of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. The figure of disability stands for the relationship between actor and character: prosthetic disabled characters with names such as Cripple and Stump capture the simultaneous presence of thefictional and the material, embodied world of the theatre. When the figure of the disabled body exits the stage, it also mediates a second problem of likeness, between plays in their performed and textual forms. While supposedly imperfect textual versions of plays have been characterized as ''lame'', the dynamic movement of prosthetic disabled characters in the theatre expands the figural role which disability performs in the relationship between plays on the stage and on the page. Early Modern Theatre and the Figure of Disability reveals how attention to physical disability enriches our understanding of early modern ideas about how theatre works, while illuminating in turn how theatre offers a reframing of disability as metaphor.

What work did physically disabled characters do for the early modern theatre? Through a consideration of a range of plays, including Doctor Faustus and Richard III, Genevieve Love argues that the figure of the physically disabled prosthetic body in early modern English theatre mediates a set of related ''likeness problems'' that structure the theatrical, textual, and critical lives of the plays of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. The figure of disability stands for the relationship between actor and character: prosthetic disabled characters with names such as Cripple and Stump capture the simultaneous presence of thefictional and the material, embodied world of the theatre. When the figure of the disabled body exits the stage, it also mediates a second problem of likeness, between plays in their performed and textual forms. While supposedly imperfect textual versions of plays have been characterized as ''lame'', the dynamic movement of prosthetic disabled characters in the theatre expands the figural role which disability performs in the relationship between plays on the stage and on the page. Early Modern Theatre and the Figure of Disability reveals how attention to physical disability enriches our understanding of early modern ideas about how theatre works, while illuminating in turn how theatre offers a reframing of disability as metaphor.

What work did physically disabled characters do for the early modern theatre? Through a consideration of a range of plays, including Doctor Faustus and Richard III, Genevieve Love argues that the figure of the physically disabled prosthetic body in early modern English theatre mediates a set of related ‘likeness problems’ that structure the theatrical, textual, and critical lives of the plays of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. The figure of disability stands for the relationship between actor and character: prosthetic disabled characters with names such as Cripple and Stump capture the simultaneous presence of the fictional and the material, embodied world of the theatre. When the figure of the disabled body exits the stage, it also mediates a second problem of likeness, between plays in their performed and textual forms. While supposedly imperfect textual versions of plays have been characterized as ‘lame’, the dynamic movement of prosthetic disabled characters in the theatre expands the figural role which disability performs in the relationship between plays on the stage and on the page. Early Modern Theatre and the Figure of Disability reveals how attention to physical disability enriches our understanding of early modern ideas about how theatre works, while illuminating in turn how theatre offers a reframing of disability as metaphor.

Shakespeare and Disability Theory serves as a guide to the intersections of Shakespeare studies and disability studies. Intervening in contemporary critical debates about recognizing disability representations in dramatic texts, Genevieve Love explores the stakes of embodying disability in Shakespearean performance.After tracking the emergence of critical disability studies as a field, Love maps out how claims from disability theory influence and continue to transform Shakespeare studies. Through methodologies of literary disability studies, the volume provides fresh readings of a range of Shakespeare texts, illustrating the power of disability theory to reframe familiar ideas in Shakespeare and to illuminate unfamiliar ones. While the archetypal Richard III provides an extended case study that highlights performance choices by disabled actors and contemporary appropriations of disability, Love’s close readings move beyond Shakespeare’s representations of singular disabled characters. Plays such as Julius Caesar and King Lear display the expansive networks through which we recognize Shakespearean disability, including neurodiversity. Subsequent chapters underscore disability’s intersectionality, recognized through dynamics of incorporation, care, and community in Othello and Henry V, and demonstrate how plays such as The Tempest and Titus Andronicus mobilize disability as a resource for theatricality through stage properties and theatrical prostheses. All these approaches point to engagements with literary and theatrical disability representations that challenge outmoded methods for Shakespeare students, scholars and practitioners.

Shakespeare and Disability Theory serves as a guide to the intersections of Shakespeare studies and disability studies. Intervening in contemporary critical debates about recognizing disability representations in dramatic texts, Genevieve Love explores the stakes of embodying disability in Shakespearean performance. After tracking the emergence of critical disability studies as a field, Love maps out how claims from disability theory influence and continue to transform Shakespeare studies. Through methodologies of literary disability studies, the volume provides fresh readings of a range of Shakespeare texts, illustrating the power of disability theory to reframe familiar ideas in Shakespeare and to illuminate unfamiliar ones. While the archetypal Richard III provides an extended case study that highlights performance choices by disabled actors and contemporary appropriations of disability, Love's close readings move beyond Shakespeare's representations of singular disabled characters. Plays such as Julius Caesar and King Lear display the expansive networks through which we recognize Shakespearean disability, including neurodiversity. Subsequent chapters underscore disability's intersectionality, recognized through dynamics of incorporation, care, and community in Othello and Henry V, and demonstrate how plays such as The Tempest and Titus Andronicus mobilize disability as a resource for theatricality through stage properties and theatrical prostheses. All these approaches point to engagements with literary and theatrical disability representations that challenge outmoded methods for Shakespeare students, scholars and practitioners.

Shakespeare and Disability Theory serves as a guide to the intersections of Shakespeare studies and disability studies. Intervening in contemporary critical debates about recognizing disability representations in dramatic texts, Genevieve Love explores the stakes of embodying disability in Shakespearean performance. After tracking the emergence of critical disability studies as a field, Love maps out how claims from disability theory influence and continue to transform Shakespeare studies. Through methodologies of literary disability studies, the volume provides fresh readings of a range of Shakespeare texts, illustrating the power of disability theory to reframe familiar ideas in Shakespeare and to illuminate unfamiliar ones. While the archetypal Richard III provides an extended case study that highlights performance choices by disabled actors and contemporary appropriations of disability, Love's close readings move beyond Shakespeare's representations of singular disabled characters. Plays such as Julius Caesar and King Lear display the expansive networks through which we recognize Shakespearean disability, including neurodiversity. Subsequent chapters underscore disability's intersectionality, recognized through dynamics of incorporation, care, and community in Othello and Henry V, and demonstrate how plays such as The Tempest and Titus Andronicus mobilize disability as a resource for theatricality through stage properties and theatrical prostheses. All these approaches point to engagements with literary and theatrical disability representations that challenge outmoded methods for Shakespeare students, scholars and practitioners.