Re: Cornish Curates

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0437  Thursday, 22 February 2001

From:           Maria Concolato Palermo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 22 Feb 2001 22:11:49 +0100
Subject: 12.0420 Cornish Curates
Comment:        R: SHK 12.0420 Cornish Curates

And if it were 'Romish'?  Just an idea. Greetings.

Popular Culture

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0436  Thursday, 22 February 2001

From:           Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 22 Feb 2001 12:36:07 -0500
Subject:        Popular Culture

>From the Buffy/Angel FAQ at Salon Magazine's Table Talk:

"MoG stands for Ministers of Grace and refers to Cordelia, Wesley, and
Gunn.  The term is taken from a line in Hamlet, "Angels and ministers of
grace, defend us." (Spoken by Hamlet when approached by the Ghost of his
father, the King.)"

Carl Upchurch

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0434  Thursday, 22 February 2001

From:           Alex Houck <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 21 Feb 2001 22:03:01 -0800
Subject:        Carl Upchurch

I just attended a lecture/dialogue with speaker Carl Upchurch and I feel
the urge to share my experience with the list.  He is an advocate for
urban youth, the niggerized, who is best known for his Gang Conference
of 1993 and his book CONVICTED IN THE WOMB.  His book chronicles his
ignorance of his personal potential, how he dropped out of school at age
nine, and wallowed in crime, he spent twenty-two years collectively in
different penitentiaries.  So, what did this urban youth from a robber
and crook into a keynote speaker that tours the country and volunteers
at juvenile halls?  Shakespeare.  While in solitary confinement,
Upchurch found a dusty copy of "The Yale Shakespeare" (a collection of
sonnets) propping up a corner of his table.  He only picked it up
because it differed from unfathomable boredom created in his grey
world.  He had no idea who Shakespeare was, the name Shakespeare meant
nothing to him--but still he read the sonnets.  As he read and re-read
he began to identify with the voice of the sonnets.  One sonnet in
particular he identified with the most, he committed it to memory, and
shared it with us.

Sonnet 29
When in disgrace with Fortune and men's eyes,
I all alone beweep my outcast state,
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
And look upon myself and curse my fate,
Wishing me like to one more rich in hope,
Featur'd like him, like him with friends possess'd,
Desiring this man's art, and that man's scope,
With what I most enjoy contented least;
Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising,
Haply I think on thee, and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day arising
 From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven's gate;
For thy sweet love rememb'red such wealth brings
That then I scorn to change my state with kings.

Upchurch identified with the "disgrace" and "bootless cries" of his
"outcast state", and through this introduction to the inspiration of
literature found his own worth.  Shakespeare put Upchurch on the path to

There have been many accounts on this list of how Shakespeare has
changed their lives, this is a case of how Shakespeare saved a life.
There is no indication that Upchurch would have survived the rest of his
term in prison, the twenty years since his release, had he not cracked
open the book that propped up his table.

So, Shakespeare marks a turning point in Upchurch's life, but it does
not stop there.  Once we have identified with the lark rising to heaven
there is then the choice of what to DO.  Do we continue to sit in our
offices and debate the significance of quarto versus folio, OR do I,
you, we, choose to share the words with those that do not know the words
exist?  Do we continue to nod at the TV as reports of police brutality
in the prisons is exposed, or do we write and march to see that change
is done?  Do we share the hope? Or do we selfishly defend our hope
against a hope of a different color?

Am I accusing anyone specifically? No, we are all at fault, because we
can always do more.  Carl Upchurch is not a perfect man, nor is he an
imperfect man.  Still, he continues to share with those who think that
they are imperfect.  I urge you to read his book, CONVICTED IN THE WOMB;
Shakespeare can go beyond the stage and academia.

Where else can you take Shakespeare?

Alex Houck
Santa Clara University

Re: green-eyed jealousy

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0435  Thursday, 22 February 2001

From:           Werner Broennimann <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 22 Feb 2001 10:22:14 +0000
Subject:        green-eyed jealousy

"Green Eyes" is one of the songs on Erykah Badu's new album "Mama's
Gun".  Its first stanza, called first movement (a low-volume, jazzy
mock-historical 30's recording, making the story real old, with the
singer as it were listening to her own former self as a brave and good
girl) goes like this:

My eyes are green
'Cause I eat a lot of vegetables
It don't have nothing to do with your new friend

Great stuff to keep jaundice and Munch's painting far hence.


Re: Hamlet and Oedipus

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0433  Thursday, 22 February 2001

From:           Stephanie Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 21 Feb 2001 19:13:57 -0800
Subject: 12.0412 Re: Hamlet and Oedipus
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0412 Re: Hamlet and Oedipus

 Pat Dolan said,

> I'm wondering if Stephanie Hughes realises how profoundly relativist she
> sounds when she suggests that we shouldn't attend to Jefferson's racism
> and rape (can a slave consent?) or Columbus's violence and greed.

Oh, dear. A relativist! Shudder. Well, at least it's a profound
relativist.  (They're the ones who like to see Mussolini get credit for
making the trains run on time, right?)

Of course we should examine the truth behind our ikons. I don't think
what I said suggests we shouldn't.  But where in former times there was
a drive to make some faulty human into a semi-divine, now we have gone
to the opposite extreme.  The recent trend seems to me to be to tear
down every image of value, to demonstrate that in this brave new world
where all men are created equal, all are created equally pathetic, all
liars at heart, or drunks, or womanizers, and as a corollary to this
view, all acts, however brave they may appear on the surface, have
dreadful consequences. This is a terribly grim and desolate attitude and
not good if we wish to raise hopeful, energetic, eager young people.

> The trouble with "Ultimately we need to honour our pathfinders, not for
> what they didn't do, or did wrong, but for what they did right," is that
> it requires us to ignore or suppress the evidence.

No such thing. My post was a response to the person who spoke about the
shift in his feelings about Freud, from hero worship to hatred.  When
the truth about Freud's equivocations came out back in the 70s (80s?),
to me it was a relief since it meant I could understand where all that
nonsense he was preaching about Oedipus and penis envy was coming from.
At that point I was free to appreciate him for what he actually did,
help the study of human nature to become accepted as a science, taught
at universities so that others, with fewer social barriers to face,
might be free to pursue the truth.

Of course everything that you say about the history behind Jefferson and
Columbus is true, and good to know, but none of it invalidates what they
did that makes us remember them. Hundreds, thousands of southern
landowners owned slaves, bought and sold them and sometimes slept with
them, but only one wrote the Declaration of Independence.  Hundreds of
lunatics set off in little wooden tubs to cross oceans, sail around the
tips of Cape Horn and the Cape of Good Hope (delightful euphemism), get
ice bound in the northern Atlantic looking for a northern route to
China, and certainly many killed, raped and infected the natives.  Most
of their names have been lost. We honor Columbus, not because he was a
good man or even because he was the best of the explorers who came to
the shores of America, but because we happen to have his story.

Because some landowners raped their slaves, should we disavow
Jefferson?  Because exploration opened the door to colonization, shall
we disavow our explorers?

I'm concerned because I see a generation of children growing to
adulthood without heroes. The trouble is, since kids have to have
heroes, when thoughtful adults don't offer them appropriate heroes, they
pick bad ones, like M and M. We connect with our children at a profound
level when we share our heroes with them. My Dad's hero was Abraham
Lincoln. Watching the recent program on Lincoln on PBS, I'm sharing
something wonderful with my Dad, who's been gone a long time, but who
was there with me in my mind. Whether you care or not that Lincoln
"saved the union," he bore a level of suffering that is truly astounding
and bore it for a very long time.  Though he tottered under the weight
of it, he never fell.

The many faults of heroes like Lincoln, Jefferson and Columbus do not
detract in the slightest from what they did that makes us remember them
any more than Babe Ruth's drinking and misbehavior take points off his
home run record.

There are heroes in the realms of moral choice, Gandhi, Martin Luther
King, Raoul Wallenberg, Mohammed Ali, the great religious leaders.  We
don't scorn them because they couldn't play baseball.

Stephanie Hughes

Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.