What's the Worst Thing You Can Do to Shakespeare?

Citation: Hedrick, D. (2016). What's the Worst Thing You Can Do to Shakespeare? Renaissance Quarterly, 69(3), 1196-1197. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1086/689159To judge by its cover, this book is a mess — a deliberately instructive one. Its visuals combine an eroded font as well as an ink-splattered Shakespeare signature and an Etch A Sketch incongruously displaying Shakespeare’s Chandos portrait. The media mix embodies the authors’ provocative approach: Shakespeare as “multimedia archive” — Latour’s “iconoclash” of time-spanning formats in material “substrates” of texts, media, and human “wetware.” The Folio’s “media launch” by Shakespeare’s friends cannily initiated a fetish community around the “strategically imperfect” object’s gaps, urging us to read “him” — book and man composite “bio-bibilion” — “again and again.” The “worst” becomes not reading him, the condition defining the “unreadable” spaces made visible in adaptations. The study deconstructs dazzlingly, drawing readers into the brilliant, imitative high spirits of the authors’ animated, collaborative anonymity; their playful preface even occludes which coauthor speaks. Chapter transitions imitate radio or telephone: Hamlet’s ends with a “call coming through” from the next chapter’s Juliet (45). Their introduction highlights foundational scholarship for their project: McCleod on unediting; de Grazia undoing Hamlet’s post-romantic rebranding; Middleton’s authorship now altering Shakespeare’s “gravitational field”; Stallybrass’s and Lesser’s recovery of reading for sententiae, so that Hamlet was “never read”; Eagleton’s apocalyptic “worst” — that Shakespeare must be destroyed before becoming readable again

Locating the Vanishing Point: Style in Literature, Architecture and Beyond

An Anecdote. As it so happened, I was traveling on a vacation with my family, and stopped for lunch at one of the identifiable feature of the modern highway, a Nickerson Farms restaurant

Overstory-understory grass seedings on sagebrush-bunchgrass range

"Crested wheatgrass, beardless wheatgrass, and big bluegrass were seeded as overstory grasses. Streambank wheatgrass, canby bluegrass, bulbous bluegrass, and Ladak alfalfa were seeded as companion species. Pure and mixed stands were seeded on sagebrush-bunchgrass range in eastern Oregon to compare yield and competitiveness. The grasses were planted in 1956, 1957, and 1958, and half of each plot was fertilized with ammonium nitrate at 20 or 30 pounds of N per acre. The plots were evaluated for seeding success, herbage production, weed production, and brush establishment in four consecutive years after planting. Yields of overstory grasses in pure stands exceeded those in mixed stands. Nitrogen fertilization increased yields about 45% but did not increase seeding success on f allowed or burned seedbeds or alter greatly either competitive status or plant composition. Relative yields of individuals in mixed stands (yields expressed in percent of that in a pure stand) were computed to indicate competitive status and compatibility. Crested wheatgrass was highly competitive, producing 90% with canby bluegrass and 82% with streambank wheatgrass. Beardless wheatgrass and big bluegrass were about equally, but weakly to moderately, competitive, and were suppressed considerably more by streanibank wheatgrass than by canby bluegrass. The sums of relative yields in mixed stands were near 100, indicating essentially direct competition, except for the mixture of beardless wheatgrass and canby bluegrass. In this case, the sum of relative yields averaged 120%, indicating reasonable compatibility that improved with age of the stands. Crested wheatgrass in either pure or mixed stands practically eliminated all herbaceous weeds in the second growing season. All grasses except bulbous and canby bluegrass provided effective weed control by the fourth growing season. Crested and streambank wheatgrasses, and mixtures including them, permitted the establishment of fewer brush than other species. Beardless wheatgrass was least effective in resfricting brush establishment. Brush became established in the seeding years in greater numbers than in any single year thereafter, but the counts in the fourth year were about twice that in the first year. Except on plots seeded to crested wheatgrass, there was no appreciable mortality of established brush seedlings. All seedings restricted brush establishment when compared to unseeded plots. Big bluegrass was continually and severely suppressed by companion understory grasses and should be planted in pure stands. Un-i derstory grasses with crested wheatgrass offered little advantage or disadvantage, and would likely incur a small economic loss. Beardless wheatgrass and canby bluegrass were reasonably compatible and provided a mixed stand that could be recommended as preferable to beardless wheatgrass in a pure stand. In areas of coarse-textured soils where gray rabbitbrush is a problem, a closer row spacing of crested wheatgrass would likely provide maximum resistance to brush establishment."--SummaryPublished December 1964. Facts and recommendations in this publication may no longer be valid. Please look for up-to-date information in the OSU Extension Catalog: http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalo

Clipping treatments on tall fescue

One of the problems facing sheepmen on the nonirrigated pastures of western Oregon, particularly in the foothills surrounding the Willamette Valley, is the lack of succulent green pasture growth during the late summer breeding season. If early spring lambs are being produced, ewes must be bred in August and September while most pastures are in their poorest state for the year. Recognizing the need for better nutrition at this critical period, an experiment was undertaken in 1953 and continued through 1955 investigating tall fescue's August regrowth response to spring cutting at several growth stages and stubble heights

Flight Mechanics and Control of Escape Manoeuvres in Hummingbirds. I. Flight Kinematics

Hummingbirds are nature’s masters of aerobatic manoeuvres. Previous research shows that hummingbirds and insects converged evolutionarily upon similar aerodynamic mechanisms and kinematics in hovering. Herein, we use three-dimensional kinematic data to begin to test for similar convergence of kinematics used for escape flight and to explore the effects of body size upon manoeuvring. We studied four hummingbird species in North America including two large species (magnificent hummingbird, Eugenes fulgens, 7.8 g, and blue-throated hummingbird, Lampornis clemenciae, 8.0 g) and two smaller species (broad-billed hummingbird, Cynanthus latirostris, 3.4 g, and black-chinned hummingbirds Archilochus alexandri, 3.1 g). Starting from a steady hover, hummingbirds consistently manoeuvred away from perceived threats using a drastic escape response that featured body pitch and roll rotations coupled with a large linear acceleration. Hummingbirds changed their flapping frequency and wing trajectory in all three degrees of freedom on a stroke-by-stroke basis, likely causing rapid and significant alteration of the magnitude and direction of aerodynamic forces. Thus it appears that the flight control of hummingbirds does not obey the ‘helicopter model’ that is valid for similar escape manoeuvres in fruit flies. Except for broad-billed hummingbirds, the hummingbirds had faster reaction times than those reported for visual feedback control in insects. The two larger hummingbird species performed pitch rotations and global-yaw turns with considerably larger magnitude than the smaller species, but roll rates and cumulative roll angles were similar among the four species

Flight Mechanics and Control of Escape Manoeuvres in Hummingbirds. II. Aerodynamic Force Production, Flight Control and Performance Limitations

The superior manoeuvrability of hummingbirds emerges from complex interactions of specialized neural and physiological processes with the unique flight dynamics of flapping wings. Escape manoeuvring is an ecologically relevant, natural behaviour of hummingbirds, from which we can gain understanding into the functional limits of vertebrate locomotor capacity. Here, we extend our kinematic analysis of escape manoeuvres from a companion paper to assess two potential limiting factors of the manoeuvring performance of hummingbirds: (1) muscle mechanical power output and (2) delays in the neural sensing and control system. We focused on the magnificent hummingbird (Eugenes fulgens, 7.8 g) and the black-chinned hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri, 3.1 g), which represent large and small species, respectively. We first estimated the aerodynamic forces, moments and the mechanical power of escape manoeuvres using measured wing kinematics. Comparing active-manoeuvring and passive-damping aerodynamic moments, we found that pitch dynamics were lightly damped and dominated by the effect of inertia, while roll dynamics were highly damped. To achieve observed closed-loop performance, pitch manoeuvres required faster sensorimotor transduction, as hummingbirds can only tolerate half the delay allowed in roll manoeuvres. Accordingly, our results suggested that pitch control may require a more sophisticated control strategy, such as those based on prediction. For the magnificent hummingbird, we estimated that escape manoeuvres required muscle mass-specific power 4.5 times that during hovering. Therefore, in addition to the limitation imposed by sensorimotor delays, muscle power could also limit the performance of escape manoeuvres

Effects of Flight Speed upon Muscle Activity in Hummingbirds

Hummingbirds have the smallest body size and highest wingbeat frequencies of all flying vertebrates, so they represent one endpoint for evaluating the effects of body size on sustained muscle function and flight performance. Other bird species vary neuromuscular recruitment and contractile behavior to accomplish flight over a wide range of speeds, typically exhibiting a U-shaped curve with maxima at the slowest and fastest flight speeds. To test whether the high wingbeat frequencies and aerodynamically active upstroke of hummingbirds lead to different patterns, we flew rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus, 3 g body mass, 42 Hz wingbeat frequency) in a variable-speed wind tunnel $(\textrm{0–10 m s}^{-1})$. We measured neuromuscular activity in the pectoralis (PECT) and supracoracoideus (SUPRA) muscles using electromyography (EMG, $N=4$ birds), and we measured changes in PECT length using sonomicrometry ($N=1$). Differing markedly from the pattern in other birds, PECT deactivation occurred before the start of downstroke and the SUPRA was deactivated before the start of upstroke. The relative amplitude of EMG signal in the PECT and SUPRA varied according to a U-shaped curve with flight speed; additionally, the onset of SUPRA activity became relatively later in the wingbeat at intermediate flight speeds $(\textrm{4 and 6 m s}^{−1})$. Variation in the relative amplitude of EMG was comparable with that observed in other birds but the timing of muscle activity was different. These data indicate the high wingbeat frequency of hummingbirds limits the time available for flight muscle relaxation before the next half stroke of a wingbeat. Unlike in a previous study that reported single-twitch EMG signals in the PECT of hovering hummingbirds, across all flight speeds we observed 2.9±0.8 spikes per contraction in the PECT and 3.8±0.8 spikes per contraction in the SUPRA. Muscle strain in the PECT was 10.8±0.5%, the lowest reported for a flying bird, and average strain rate was 7.4±0.2 muscle lengths $s^{−1}$. Among species of birds, PECT strain scales proportional to body mass to the 0.2 power $(\infty M_b^{0.2})$ using species data and $\infty M_b^{0.3}$ using independent contrasts. This positive scaling is probably a physiological response to an adverse scaling of mass-specific power available for flight.Organismic and Evolutionary BiologyOther Research Uni

Fertilizer treatments on tall fescue

Western Oregon receives a surplus of rainfall during fall, winter, and early spring months. Temperature and soil fertility are the principal factors limiting growth during this period. If livestock producers are to take full advantage of the forage potential of this area, it is necessary for them to supply plant nutrients for maximum growth

An Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Yakima/Klickitat Fishery Enhancement Project; Preliminary Design Report, Appendix D.

The objective of this study is to estimate the economic impact of the proposed Yakima/Klickitat Production Project on the local economies of the Yakima and Klickitat subbasins. The project, when operating at planned maximum production, will augment the total number of salmon and steelhead returning to the subbasins by 77,600 and will increase the sustainable terminal harvest by 55,160. These estimates do not include fish harvested in the ocean or in the mainstem Columbia. In addition to evaluating the impacts of the construction, operations and maintenance, experimentation and monitoring, and harvest activities described in the Draft Environmental Assessment (Bonneville Power Administration, 1989), our analysis also evaluates some passageway improvements and Phase II screening of irrigation structures. Both of these augmentations are required In order for the project to reach maximum planned harvest levels. The study area includes the Yakima Subbasin economy (Yakima and Kittitas counties), the mid-Columbia Basin/Klickitat Subbasin economies (Klickitat, Hood River, and Wasco counties), and the Tri-Cities economy (Benton and Franklin counties). The study period extends from 1990 through 2015: from preconstruction planning activities through reaching maximum production

An Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Yakima/Klickitat Fishery Enhancement Project; Preliminary Design Report, Appendix D.

The objective of this study is to estimate the economic impact of the proposed Yakima/Klickitat Production Project on the local economies of the Yakima and Klickitat subbasins. The project, when operating at planned maximum production, will augment the total number of salmon and steelhead returning to the subbasins by 77,600 and will increase the sustainable terminal harvest by 55,160. These estimates do not include fish harvested in the ocean or in the mainstem Columbia. In addition to evaluating the impacts of the construction, operations and maintenance, experimentation and monitoring, and harvest activities described in the Draft Environmental Assessment (Bonneville Power Administration, 1989), our analysis also evaluates some passageway improvements and Phase II screening of irrigation structures. Both of these augmentations are required In order for the project to reach maximum planned harvest levels. The study area includes the Yakima Subbasin economy (Yakima and Kittitas counties), the mid-Columbia Basin/Klickitat Subbasin economies (Klickitat, Hood River, and Wasco counties), and the Tri-Cities economy (Benton and Franklin counties). The study period extends from 1990 through 2015: from preconstruction planning activities through reaching maximum production