Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: January ::
Re: Brush Up . . .
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0119  Friday, 22 January 1999.

[1]     From:   William Williams <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 20 Jan 1999 16:59:24 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0110 Re: Brush Up . . .

[2]     From:   Pat Dolan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Jan 1999 07:35:21 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0110 Re: Brush Up . . .


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Williams <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Jan 1999 16:59:24 -0600
Subject: 10.0110 Re: Brush Up . . .
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0110 Re: Brush Up . . .

All this reminds me of a wonderful piece of WC wit I saw many years ago:
"No matter who you vote for the Government always gets in."

WPW

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Pat Dolan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 21 Jan 1999 07:35:21 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 10.0110 Re: Brush Up . . .
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0110 Re: Brush Up . . .

Hey folks,

I didn't start it. The guy who brought up Hyde's quotation started this
particular thread. He then got piled on with people likening Clinton to
various Shakespearean villains. (Richard III!!! Come on.) I think Lear's
best-except he doesn't seem to me to have the capacity to reconfigure
his personality in response to suffering. At least so far. (And who am I
to say anyway.)

I think Hyde has the right to appropriate Shakespeare to whatever
purpose he chooses. And I don't think his particular allusion will even
contend for silliest of the year. ("Neither a borrower or a lender be"
always gets me in the context of capitalism.)

But I do think that my critique of his use is worth thinking about. It's
precisely a notion of the law as one story, instead of a braid of
narratives that gets us into trouble here.

And I notice the analogy of the Republican congress with the power
hungry competitors in Lear has drawn no response.

I believe that Paula Jones civil rights ought to be protected as
vigorously as anyone else's. It's my reading of Barr and Lott that they
believe that her rights should be protected more vigorously than anyone
else. After all she performed very well at the conservative fundraiser
where she initially raised her charges. Has she been harmed. Maybe. Does
she deserve more of a hearing in court. Probably.

But again, Strom Thurmond began his career as a segregationist.  Lott
and Barr (neither native southerners, by the way) have documented
associations with white supremacist organizations. "Civil rights"
indeed.

Again, I don't want to drop the important point of the thread here. As
any number of critics and theorists have pointed out, Shakespeare and
allusions to Shakespeare are culturally validated counters allowing us,
to for instance, distinguish between cultivated members of the educated
and trailer trash. And that's worth thinking about.


                Pat
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.