Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1995 :: June ::
Re: Citing SHAKSPER; Catholic Church; Humor; Rutland
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0500.  Tuesday, 20 June 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Tom Clayton <TSC@UMNACVX.BITNET>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Jun 1995 14:51:25 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0466  Q: Citations from SHAKSPER
 
(2)     From:   Corey Ross <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 19 Jun 1995 16:51:54 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0492  Catholic Ch
 
(3)     From:   Kate Wilson <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 20 Jun 1995 17:08:48 +1000 (EST)
        Subj:   HUMOR
 
(4)     From:   Louise Nichols <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 20 Jun 1995 11:05:55 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Rutland in Henry VI
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Clayton <TSC@UMNACVX.BITNET>
Date:           Monday, 19 Jun 1995 14:51:25 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: 6.0466  Q: Citations from SHAKSPER
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0466  Q: Citations from SHAKSPER
 
Since list postings are communications no less public than printed
publications, I don't see why they require more "proper etiquette" than other
publications. It is of course more convenient to seek permission electronically
than through the post (as for printed publications), but it is burdensome all
the same, and I cannot see that it is warranted, except perhaps as a personal
courtesy shared between those who think of themselves as closely akin by virtue
of their participation in the electronic conference.
 
Courtesies undoubtedly lubricate civility, and I am all for both. But there are
all too many administrative calls upon the time of most of us to make still
more desirable when redundant, like many of their counterparts just re- ferred
to.
 
        Best wishes,
        Tom
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Corey Ross <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 19 Jun 1995 16:51:54 -0400
Subject: 6.0492  Catholic Ch
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0492  Catholic Ch
 
While the discussion seems to have drifted slightly away from Shakespeare I
feel an obligation to respond to Brendan Patrick Murphy's sharp defence of the
Catholic Church from allegations of (gasp) anti-semetism. Mr. Murphy seems
quite ready to admit that there may be or have been the occassional anti-semite
attatched in some way to the Catholic Church over the past 1900 years, however,
that in the words of the Church anti-semitism is wrong and theologically, Jews
are okay.  Well, the truth is that there have been a plathora of anti-semites
involved at all levels in the catholic church over the past 1900 years and
there should really be no need to cite them individually to prove it (Spanish
inquisition ring a bell?).
 
While the words Mr. Murphy quoted sounded encouraging, I'll reserve my
judgement until I see action. Until the Catholic church releases Jewish art and
documents siezed during the Holocaust to the state of Israel, and until they
stop building convents at Aushwitz as survivors and the world Jewish community
has been pleading with them to do, and until the Church actively removes
anti-semites (such as Polish cardinal Glemp) from the Church I'm afraid Mr.
Murphy will have a hard time convincing Jews that the Catholic Church is a
friend.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kate Wilson <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 20 Jun 1995 17:08:48 +1000 (EST)
Subject:        HUMOR
 
This is the thread that won't go away...however, from a British-derived
Australian perspective, it seems to me that much English (not sure if it's
universally Brit) humour and many English comedians (Hill, Emery, the Pythons,
Kenny Everett et al) rely on drag (female impersonation) for laughs. From
recollection, only one female performer ever appeared in all of the years of
the Monty Python series...the lads did the drag. There's also a tendency
towards what my mother would call "lavatory humour"...any mention of bums,
titties and especially knickers is bound to get a huge laugh. Any thoughts on
the connections to Shakespeare in these terms? As to how this differs from
American humour (US variety), I can't call to mind too many American comics,
sit-coms, texts etc which relish drag and bum-jokes quite as the English do. OK
bombard me! (Yes, *Priscilla Queen of the Desert* shows her post-colonial
English pedigree!)
 
Bottoms up!
Kate
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Louise Nichols <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 20 Jun 1995 11:05:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Rutland in Henry VI
 
In response to David Maier's query re. Rutland, I suppose one could say that
just as you're adapting Shakespeare's three plays of *Henry VI* to suit your
purposes, Shakespeare too adapted history to suit his.
 
Hence, the young Rutland.
 
Louise Nichols
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.