The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0099 Tuesday, 19 January 1999.
Date: Monday, 18 Jan 1999 21:09:54 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Oh Geez, I can't resist.
As long as we're doing politically pointed Shakespeare references, ever
since 1994 the leadership of the Republican party have been doing a
great imitation of Regan, Goneril and Edmund's power dance.
And you'll note that I recognize that Lear was jerk addicted to hollow
and damaging love affirmations.
By the way, does anyone else find the words "civil rights case" out of
the mouths of Trent Lott, Bob Barr and Strom Thurmond a little odd?
Now, if they had impeached him for the NAFTA or that retarded kid he let
them execute in Arkansas while he was governor...
And most seriously, none of us can claim that our readings, no matter
how edited or considered, exist independently of our politics. Which,
to my mind, makes the study worth the candle.
To return to the Hyde allusion, for instance. I think the allusion's
weakness is precisely this: the law isn't a tale. It's a field in which
tales get told. One tale in this instance concerns "limitless abuse"
(who'd he kill again?). Another concerns a person who is flawed, and
pursued on the basis of those flaws by people who aren't concerned with
principle or justice, but with their own political agenda. There are
others. (My Republican brother believes that if Clinton weren't
pro-choice, he wouldn't have half the legal trouble he does.) Another
suggests that the viciousness of the battle indicates how little is
really at stake. And on and on.
There are other stories (see Jerry Falwell's video). There are also
other fields-history will eventually be one of them.
Hoo-boy. I must really want to avoid planning tomorrow's classes.
Martin Luther King would have been seventy on Saturday. I think we
should have better off, if he were still around. (Yeah, I know that's
way off Shakespeare, but I think it connects with all the Christmas