Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: October ::
Re: "Shakespeare's Hidden Lesbians"
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2287  Thursday, 4 October 2001

[1]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 03 Oct 2001 12:55:12 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2281 Re: "Shakespeare's Hidden Lesbians"

[2]     From:   Karen Peterson <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 3 Oct 2001 10:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2281 Re: "Shakespeare's Hidden Lesbians"

[3]     From:   Graham Hall <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 04 Oct 2001 09:40:15 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2281


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 03 Oct 2001 12:55:12 -0400
Subject: 12.2281 Re: "Shakespeare's Hidden Lesbians"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2281 Re: "Shakespeare's Hidden Lesbians"

> Personally, I've always suspected something between Titania and her
> votress ; )

What about Oberon and Puck?  Fairies will be fairies, you know.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Peterson <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 3 Oct 2001 10:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 12.2281 Re: "Shakespeare's Hidden Lesbians"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2281 Re: "Shakespeare's Hidden Lesbians"

In reference to Don Bloom's question about terminology:

Insofar as I have observed, the term "queer studies" tends to be used as
almost, but not quite, synonymous with "lesbian and gay studies."  One
of the better discussions of how "queer studies" might *differ* from
"lesbian and gay studies" that I have read is in the first chapter of
*Pure Resistance: Queer Virginity in Early Modern English Drama* (2000),
by none other than Theodora A. Jankowski herself.

Jankowski writes, "We all know that there were no early modern
heterosexuals, homosexuals, lesbians, gays, or bisexuals.  There were
also no early modern queers." (6).  She goes on to outline her own use
of the term queer as a signifier for activities outside the early modern
heterosexual gender paradigm.  She then quotes Sue Ellen Case (writing
in 1991) in some length.  Case sets "queer" in opposition to "'the
rather polite categories of gay and lesbian'", as that which "'revels in
the discourse of the loathsome, the outcast, the
idiomatically-proscribed position of same-sex desire...the queer is the
taboo-breaker, the monstrous, the uncanny...The equation of
hetero=sex=life and homo=sex=unlife generated a queer discourse that
reveled in proscribed desiring by imaging sexual objects and sexual
practices within the realm of the other-than-natural, and the consequent
other-than-living.  In this discourse, new forms of being, or beings,
are imagined through desire'" (7).

I'm not saying I agree with her, by the way.  I'm just saying it's one
way (and NOT the only way) of defining these notoriously slippery
terms.  On a practical level, it's been my observation that when one
says that one is engaging in "queer studies" the statement seems to
carry a somewhat stronger political charge than would the equivalent
statement employing the term "lesbian and gay studies."  This may be
what Jankowsi and Case allude to in the above description of "lesbian
and gay studies" as "rather polite categories."

For what it's worth.

Cheers,
Karen

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Graham Hall <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 04 Oct 2001 09:40:15 +0000
Subject: 12.2281
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2281

>Personally, I've always suspected something between Titania and her
>votress ; )

> >Scott

Seyton responds thus:

Well, "Give me that boy [...] Not for thy fairy kingdom" places Oberon
in the frame and clears Titania I would say.

But  Sweno's ten thousand dollars is on an each way (safer  than a
straight win, given the androgyny and the equivocation) bet for the
Weyward Sisters.

Best wishes,
Graham Hall

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.