Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1998 :: March ::
Re: "Hamlet Studies"; Is Shakespeare sexist?
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0184  Monday, 2 March 1998.

[1]     From:   Cindy Sullivan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 27 Feb 1998 11:31:54 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0173  Q: "Hamlet Studies"

[2]     From:   Stevie Simkin <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 1 Mar 1998 22:58:25 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0174  Re: Is Shakespeare sexist?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Cindy Sullivan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 27 Feb 1998 11:31:54 EST
Subject: 9.0173  Q: "Hamlet Studies"
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0173  Q: "Hamlet Studies"

In answer to Nely Keinanen's question concerning "Hamlet Studies". I
believe it is still available through Desai Publishing, Rangoon Villa,
1-10, W Patel Nagar, New Delhi 110 008 India. As a devotee of Hamlet, I
hope to look into this publication myself.

Cindy Sullivan

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stevie Simkin <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 1 Mar 1998 22:58:25 -0000
Subject: 9.0174  Re: Is Shakespeare sexist?
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0174  Re: Is Shakespeare sexist?

Larry Weiss wrote

> Marilyn Bonomi writes that she would be "thrilled" the celebrate the
> Bard, but only provided we "equally" acknowledge "all those who aren't
> D, W, E, or M."  I hope that by "equally" Ms. Bonomi really means justly
> proportionate to their achievements.  We cannot justify giving equal
> prominence to, say, the poetry of a living African-American woman
> because of her sex or race (or the fact that she is not
> life-challenged).  We celebrate Shakespeare and his works because of
> their brilliance, not because the author is dead, white, European or
> male.

To which I would respond that the whole point of reassessing a
DWEM-dominated canon is to interrogate the criteria by which said canon
is constructed, and what qualifies a work (or author) for inclusion or
exclusion.  Saying "We celebrate Shakespeare and his works because of
their brilliance" merely reinforces the need to re-examine those
criteria: one would hope there is something more to them than we might
be led to fear, given the vague terms in which Larry Weiss's argument
has been framed.

Stevie Simkin

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.