Shakespeare is just another white racist and France wants the Statute
of Liberty back so that the immigrant-invaders overrunning France can
be properly welcomed. How much more evidence do you need of the demise
of Western civilization? The only active religion in Europe is Muslim
and perhaps some Satanic cults.
I suspect you've seen the following recent news item but, if not, here's a >link.
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/16/william-shakespeare- >birthplace-trust-white-supremacy-empire/>
This is a summary if that page goes behind a paywall:
<https://www.foxnews.com/media/shakespeares-birthplace-decolonized-after- >british-researchers-say-his-work-enables-white-supremacy>
n Mon, 07 Apr 2025 13:06:11 +0100, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
<snippo, France /is/ rather sucky, after all>
I suspect you've seen the following recent news item but, if not, here's a >link.
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/16/william-shakespeare- >birthplace-trust-white-supremacy-empire/>
This is a summary if that page goes behind a paywall:
<https://www.foxnews.com/media/shakespeares-birthplace-decolonized-after- >british-researchers-say-his-work-enables-white-supremacy>
As I have noted before, there are wing-nuts on /all/ sides.
On 18:00 6 Apr 2025, Judith Latham said:
The Demonization of Shakespeare [...]
I suspect you've seen the following recent news item but, if not, here's a link.
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/16/william-shakespeare- birthplace-trust-white-supremacy-empire/> [...] :
In article <mss7vjtlvhpj1e6m3gli33u9d577fklntm@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
n Mon, 07 Apr 2025 13:06:11 +0100, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
<snippo, France /is/ rather sucky, after all>
I suspect you've seen the following recent news item but, if not, here's a >> >link.
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/16/william-shakespeare-
birthplace-trust-white-supremacy-empire/>
This is a summary if that page goes behind a paywall:
<https://www.foxnews.com/media/shakespeares-birthplace-decolonized-after- >> >british-researchers-say-his-work-enables-white-supremacy>
As I have noted before, there are wing-nuts on /all/ sides.
It is my impression that while the right-wing crazies are wingnuts; the >left-wing crazies are moonbats.
I regularly see screeds like this and they are usually better-written and >more coherent, so let me quietly recap the arguments that the original message >meant to make.
The argument is that not enough attention is being paid in schools to the >Great Western Books, and that time is being wasted by introducing students
to literature of other cultures. There is also the whole argument that doing >this implies that the literate of other cultures can be as good and as >important as the Great Western Books.
Now, personally, I do wish that more time was spent teaching the Great Western >Books in school, as well as teaching books from other cultures. But from my >perspective, the first problem is that kids aren't reading anything at all on >their own. Fixing that by giving them anything they can relate to seems like >a beginning to me. Yelling about the lack of Shakespeare in schools is >merely sound and fury, signifying nothing.
[...] The argument is that not enough attention is being paid in schools to the
Great Western Books [...]
<snippo Shakespeare examples of what the alt-right calls "woke">
<I should note that is has always been my understanding (probably from >something I was told or read) that Romeo and Juliet would have been
about 13, but who can say for sure?>
Of course, part of the problem is the insistence (well, back in the
60's it was) of the teachers on expressing their personal liking for
the books instead of taking a more objective approach, making any
comments less than adulatory unwelcome. Why bother to engage with a
book when the teacher has already told you how you must feel about it?
Oh wait, there's Henry V which is all about embracing enemies and other cultures like the French.... at least once you get to the ending.
Of course, part of the problem is the insistence (well, back in the
60's it was) of the teachers on expressing their personal liking for
the books instead of taking a more objective approach, making any
comments less than adulatory unwelcome. Why bother to engage with a
book when the teacher has already told you how you must feel about
it? And I suspect they are reading all sorts of stuff on their own.
Just not books. And certainly not books recommended by adults.
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
Oh wait, there's Henry V which is all about embracing enemies and other
cultures like the French.... at least once you get to the ending.
For certain values of "embrace":
We are glad the Dauphin is so pleasant with us;
His present and your pains we thank you for.
When we have match'd our rackets to these balls,
We will in France, by God's grace, play a set
Shall strike his father's crown into the hazard.
....
And tell the pleasant Prince this mock of his
Hath turn'd his balls to gun-stones, and his soul
Shall stand sore charged for the wasteful vengeance
That shall fly with them; for many a thousand widows
Shall this his mock mock of their dear husbands;
Mock mothers from their sons, mock castles down;
And some are yet ungotten and unborn
That shall have cause to curse the Dauphin's scorn.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 21:15:14 +0000, Mike Spencer wrote:
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
Oh wait, there's Henry V which is all about embracing enemies and other
cultures like the French.... at least once you get to the ending.
For certain values of "embrace":
We are glad the Dauphin is so pleasant with us;
His present and your pains we thank you for.
When we have match'd our rackets to these balls,
We will in France, by God's grace, play a set
Shall strike his father's crown into the hazard.
....
And tell the pleasant Prince this mock of his
Hath turn'd his balls to gun-stones, and his soul
Shall stand sore charged for the wasteful vengeance
That shall fly with them; for many a thousand widows
Shall this his mock mock of their dear husbands;
Mock mothers from their sons, mock castles down;
And some are yet ungotten and unborn
That shall have cause to curse the Dauphin's scorn.
Great quotes and thank you for them. I'd thought Scott
Dorsey was referring to the French language scene at the
end of Henry V?
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmH47UslWpc>
I regularly see screeds like this and they are usually better-written and >more coherent, so let me quietly recap the arguments that the original message >meant to make.
The argument is that not enough attention is being paid in schools to the >Great Western Books, and that time is being wasted by introducing students
to literature of other cultures. There is also the whole argument that doing >this implies that the literate of other cultures can be as good and as >important as the Great Western Books.
On 09/04/25 01:49, Paul S Person wrote:
Of course, part of the problem is the insistence (well, back in the
60's it was) of the teachers on expressing their personal liking for
the books instead of taking a more objective approach, making any
comments less than adulatory unwelcome. Why bother to engage with a
book when the teacher has already told you how you must feel about
it? And I suspect they are reading all sorts of stuff on their own.
Just not books. And certainly not books recommended by adults.
WIWAL there were two kinds of books. There were books that were
compulsory reading, and then there were books that were read for
pleasure. Making a book compulsory made it less interesting.
Maybe that's how I picked up the habit of reading lots of SF. SF was not quite respectable in the 1960s (our school's assistant librarian became
quite concerned at how much of it I was borrowing), so it rarely got
onto the "compulsory" list.
I regularly see screeds like this and they are usually better-written and more coherent, so let me quietly recap the arguments that the original message
meant to make.
The argument is that not enough attention is being paid in schools to the Great Western Books, and that time is being wasted by introducing students
to literature of other cultures. There is also the whole argument that doing this implies that the literate of other cultures can be as good and as important as the Great Western Books.
This author is using Shakespeare as a proxy for the Great Western Books, which
seems odd to me because high schools that I know of are still teaching Shakespeare.
On top of that, Shakespeare is extremely "woke" by their standards, as anyone who actually read his work would realize. Othello is basically a story about racial tolerance. Julius Caesar shows the futility of violent revolution. Romeo and Juliet is about a couple pre-teens who couldn't keep their hands off
of one another in spite of the best efforts of their families. So a I am not quite sure that Shakespeare is in any way a valid example.
Oh wait, there's Henry V which is all about embracing enemies and other cultures like the French.... at least once you get to the ending.
Now, personally, I do wish that more time was spent teaching the Great Western
Books in school, as well as teaching books from other cultures. But from my perspective, the first problem is that kids aren't reading anything at all on their own. Fixing that by giving them anything they can relate to seems like a beginning to me. Yelling about the lack of Shakespeare in schools is merely sound and fury, signifying nothing.
--scott
Kevrob <kjrobinson@mail.com> writes:
On 4/8/2025 11:05 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
I regularly see screeds like this and they are usually better-written and >>> more coherent, so let me quietly recap the arguments that the original message
meant to make.
The argument is that not enough attention is being paid in schools to the >>> Great Western Books, and that time is being wasted by introducing students >>> to literature of other cultures. There is also the whole argument that doing
this implies that the literate of other cultures can be as good and as
important as the Great Western Books.
This author is using Shakespeare as a proxy for the Great Western Books, which
seems odd to me because high schools that I know of are still teaching
Shakespeare.
On top of that, Shakespeare is extremely "woke" by their standards, as anyone
who actually read his work would realize. Othello is basically a story about
racial tolerance. Julius Caesar shows the futility of violent revolution. >>> Romeo and Juliet is about a couple pre-teens who couldn't keep their hands off
of one another in spite of the best efforts of their families. So a I am not
quite sure that Shakespeare is in any way a valid example.
Oh wait, there's Henry V which is all about embracing enemies and other
cultures like the French.... at least once you get to the ending.
Now, personally, I do wish that more time was spent teaching the Great Western
Books in school, as well as teaching books from other cultures. But from my
perspective, the first problem is that kids aren't reading anything at all on
their own. Fixing that by giving them anything they can relate to seems like
a beginning to me. Yelling about the lack of Shakespeare in schools is
merely sound and fury, signifying nothing.
--scott
Paul Craig Roberts was a big shot in economics in the 1980s, an advisor
to Rep. Jack Kemp and a Reagan administration official.
The Brain Eater got him long ago.
Criticism from the libertarian-leaning Prof Volokh.
https://volokh.com/2004_01_25_volokh_archive.html#107532483671082814
The brain eater got to volokh. The heritage foundation supports
a bankrupt ideology (liberatarianism is the most selfish -ism).
http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2021/03/libertarianism-is-bankrupt.html
On 4/8/2025 11:05 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
I regularly see screeds like this and they are usually better-written and
more coherent, so let me quietly recap the arguments that the original message
meant to make.
The argument is that not enough attention is being paid in schools to the
Great Western Books, and that time is being wasted by introducing students >> to literature of other cultures. There is also the whole argument that doing
this implies that the literate of other cultures can be as good and as
important as the Great Western Books.
This author is using Shakespeare as a proxy for the Great Western Books, which
seems odd to me because high schools that I know of are still teaching
Shakespeare.
On top of that, Shakespeare is extremely "woke" by their standards, as anyone
who actually read his work would realize. Othello is basically a story about
racial tolerance. Julius Caesar shows the futility of violent revolution. >> Romeo and Juliet is about a couple pre-teens who couldn't keep their hands off
of one another in spite of the best efforts of their families. So a I am not
quite sure that Shakespeare is in any way a valid example.
Oh wait, there's Henry V which is all about embracing enemies and other
cultures like the French.... at least once you get to the ending.
Now, personally, I do wish that more time was spent teaching the Great Western
Books in school, as well as teaching books from other cultures. But from my >> perspective, the first problem is that kids aren't reading anything at all on
their own. Fixing that by giving them anything they can relate to seems like
a beginning to me. Yelling about the lack of Shakespeare in schools is
merely sound and fury, signifying nothing.
--scott
Paul Craig Roberts was a big shot in economics in the 1980s, an advisor
to Rep. Jack Kemp and a Reagan administration official.
The Brain Eater got him long ago.
Criticism from the libertarian-leaning Prof Volokh.
https://volokh.com/2004_01_25_volokh_archive.html#107532483671082814
On Sun, 06 Apr 2025 13:00:32 -0400, Judith Latham
<judithlatham@gmx.com> wrote:
Shakespeare is just another white racist and France wants the Statute
of Liberty back so that the immigrant-invaders overrunning France can
be properly welcomed. How much more evidence do you need of the demise
of Western civilization? The only active religion in Europe is Muslim
and perhaps some Satanic cults.
Didn't the Franks immigrate/invade before Shakespeare's time?
Kevrob <kjrobinson@mail.com> writes:
Paul Craig Roberts was a big shot in economics in the 1980s, an advisor
to Rep. Jack Kemp and a Reagan administration official.
The Brain Eater got him long ago.
Criticism from the libertarian-leaning Prof Volokh.
https://volokh.com/2004_01_25_volokh_archive.html#107532483671082814
The brain eater got to volokh. The heritage foundation supports
a bankrupt ideology (liberatarianism is the most selfish -ism).
http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2021/03/libertarianism-is-bankrupt.html
That is my experience as well. Although not stocked in the school
library, the public library kept up to date mainly with the yellow and
black Gollanz books. I appreciated and respected my English teachers but
was too immature to appreciate Shakespeare at that time.
Great quotes and thank you for them. I'd thought Scott
Dorsey was referring to the French language scene at the
end of Henry V?
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmH47UslWpc>
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
<snippo Shakespeare examples of what the alt-right calls "woke">
<I should note that is has always been my understanding (probably from >>something I was told or read) that Romeo and Juliet would have been
about 13, but who can say for sure?>
Yes, precisely. That is probably too young to be making out in the bartizan >but that's how kids are. Romeo and Juliet are just two normal kids in a
bad situation.
Of course, part of the problem is the insistence (well, back in the
60's it was) of the teachers on expressing their personal liking for
the books instead of taking a more objective approach, making any
comments less than adulatory unwelcome. Why bother to engage with a
book when the teacher has already told you how you must feel about it?
I don't know, I always argued with teachers about what to like and not to >like. Mind you, I didn't get very good grades as a child. But yes, I think >a lot of school is there to introduce children to as many things as
possible and to explain them in context as well as one can.
In article <vt4v77$3s105$2@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
That is my experience as well. Although not stocked in the school
library, the public library kept up to date mainly with the yellow and >>black Gollanz books. I appreciated and respected my English teachers but >>was too immature to appreciate Shakespeare at that time.
My mother told me that nice people didn't read books like "Exiled on Earth" >and my English teacher was horrified to hear that I was reading Asimov. I >did find a huge stack of original Tom Swift books in the school attic though >and managed to keep them hidden.
On 4/7/2025 11:47 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2025 13:00:32 -0400, Judith Latham
<judithlatham@gmx.com> wrote:
Shakespeare is just another white racist and France wants the Statute
of Liberty back so that the immigrant-invaders overrunning France can
be properly welcomed. How much more evidence do you need of the demise
of Western civilization? The only active religion in Europe is Muslim
and perhaps some Satanic cults.
Didn't the Franks immigrate/invade before Shakespeare's time?
If by "Franks" you mean "Normans," yes.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 23:19:40 +0000, LionelEdwards wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 21:15:14 +0000, Mike Spencer wrote:
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
Oh wait, there's Henry V which is all about embracing enemies and other >>>> cultures like the French.... at least once you get to the ending.
For certain values of "embrace":
   We are glad the Dauphin is so pleasant with us;
   His present and your pains we thank you for.
   When we have match'd our rackets to these balls,
   We will in France, by God's grace, play a set
   Shall strike his father's crown into the hazard.
   ....
   And tell the pleasant Prince this mock of his
   Hath turn'd his balls to gun-stones, and his soul
   Shall stand sore charged for the wasteful vengeance
   That shall fly with them; for many a thousand widows
   Shall this his mock mock of their dear husbands;
   Mock mothers from their sons, mock castles down;
   And some are yet ungotten and unborn
   That shall have cause to curse the Dauphin's scorn.
Great quotes and thank you for them. I'd thought Scott
Dorsey was referring to the French language scene at the
end of Henry V?
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmH47UslWpc>
Donald Trump seems to be quoting Henry these days:
"Dear Kate, you and I cannot be confined within
the weak list of a country's fashion: we are the
makers of manners, Kate; and the liberty that
follows our places stops the mouth of all find-faults;
as I will do yours, for upholding the nice fashion
of your country in denying me a kiss: therefore,
patiently and yielding.
[Kissing her]
You have witchcraft in your lips, Kate: there is
more eloquence in a sugar touch of them than in the
tongues of the French council; and they should
sooner persuade Harry of England than a general
petition of monarchs.
Our English teacher allowed the class to select one SF book which we
would read and discuss. Alas, the class selection was Philip Wylie's >"Triumph", but even that was better than nothing. Still, it showed an
open mind on his part.
My submitted stories in HS English were always SF. I always got a
terrible mark, but that was because they were terrible stories, not
because they were SF.
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 11:01:45 -0400, Kevrob <kjrobinson@mail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 11:47 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2025 13:00:32 -0400, Judith Latham
<judithlatham@gmx.com> wrote:
Shakespeare is just another white racist and France wants the Statute
of Liberty back so that the immigrant-invaders overrunning France can
be properly welcomed. How much more evidence do you need of the demise >>>> of Western civilization? The only active religion in Europe is Muslim >>>> and perhaps some Satanic cults.
Didn't the Franks immigrate/invade before Shakespeare's time?
If by "Franks" you mean "Normans," yes.
I'm almost certain that Charlemagne, who was a Frank and the ruler of
Franks and subjected peoples, preceded Shakespeare.
So, yes, the Franks (immigrant-invaders) invaded (and overran)
present-day France before Shakespeare's time.
Only they did it for real (an actual armed attack). The displaced
persons more recently arrived in France just came to escape their
homelands. Calling them "immigrant-invaders" is, at best, a political
act and, at worst, a racist one.
On 4/9/2025 11:52 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 11:01:45 -0400, Kevrob <kjrobinson@mail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 11:47 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2025 13:00:32 -0400, Judith Latham
<judithlatham@gmx.com> wrote:
Shakespeare is just another white racist and France wants the Statute >>>>> of Liberty back so that the immigrant-invaders overrunning France can >>>>> be properly welcomed. How much more evidence do you need of the demise >>>>> of Western civilization? The only active religion in Europe is Muslim >>>>> and perhaps some Satanic cults.
Didn't the Franks immigrate/invade before Shakespeare's time?
If by "Franks" you mean "Normans," yes.
I'm almost certain that Charlemagne, who was a Frank and the ruler of
Franks and subjected peoples, preceded Shakespeare.
So, yes, the Franks (immigrant-invaders) invaded (and overran)
present-day France before Shakespeare's time.
Only they did it for real (an actual armed attack). The displaced
persons more recently arrived in France just came to escape their
homelands. Calling them "immigrant-invaders" is, at best, a political
act and, at worst, a racist one.
I was a bit confused. I thought the target country being "invaded" was >Britain.
I suppose either is possible, although Britain was taken over after
Hastings by Normans (North-men, ie, Scandinavians), not by Franks (a
German tribe). The peasants were neither.
The Demonization of Shakespeare [...]
I suspect you've seen the following recent news item but, if not, here's a >> link.
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/16/william-shakespeare-
birthplace-trust-white-supremacy-empire/> [...] :
"The project also recommended that the trust present Shakespeare not as
the 'greatest', but as 'part of a community of equal and different
writers and artists from around the world'."
I think that's twisting the facts to suit what people want to believe.
Now, whom can we turn to for a quotation?
I suppose either is possible, although Britain was taken over after
Hastings by Normans (North-men, ie, Scandinavians), not by Franks (a
German tribe). The peasants were neither.
A situation where most of the "adults" are teenagers as well.
Having an operatic diva sing Juliet is intrinsically hilarious. The
very concept is ROFL level. Or should be.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 06:34:37 +0100, Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
The Demonization of Shakespeare [...]
I suspect you've seen the following recent news item but, if not, here's a >> link.
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/16/william-shakespeare-
birthplace-trust-white-supremacy-empire/> [...] :
"The project also recommended that the trust present Shakespeare not as
the 'greatest', but as 'part of a community of equal and different
writers and artists from around the world'."
I think that's twisting the facts to suit what people want to believe.
Now, whom can we turn to for a quotation?
I would have no problem if people grouped Shakespeare with people like
Dumas, Zola, Camus, Rousseau, Dosteyevsky, Tolstoy etc. but you know
as well as I do that "part of a community of equal and different
writers and artists from around the world" DOESN'T in 2025 mean "more
dead white males" - or even ANY white males.
In article <l5vh5klmrjfb2osjm0hfcd6urb4gat6pf4@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 06:34:37 +0100, Hibou
<vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
I would have no problem if people grouped Shakespeare with people likeThe Demonization of Shakespeare [...]
I suspect you've seen the following recent news item but, if not, here's a
link.
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/16/william-shakespeare-
birthplace-trust-white-supremacy-empire/> [...] :
"The project also recommended that the trust present Shakespeare not as
the 'greatest', but as 'part of a community of equal and different
writers and artists from around the world'."
I think that's twisting the facts to suit what people want to believe.
Now, whom can we turn to for a quotation?
Dumas, Zola, Camus, Rousseau, Dosteyevsky, Tolstoy etc. but you know
as well as I do that "part of a community of equal and different
writers and artists from around the world" DOESN'T in 2025 mean "more
dead white males" - or even ANY white males.
Dumas is a "dead white male"? (dead, yes, male, yes).
On 08/04/2025 16:49, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo Shakespeare examples of what the alt-right calls "woke">
<I should note that is has always been my understanding (probably from
something I was told or read) that Romeo and Juliet would have been
about 13, but who can say for sure?>
I seem to remember that in several U.S. states,
that isn't a problem.
However, "Juliet" originally is a boy actor
in a dress. This could be brought up.
In some British actor's recent memoir that
I heard on radio, I've forgotten who, the
school drama was similarly cast, since that's
all that they had. I also don't remember if
he was Juliet or Cleopatra or Lady Macbeth,
but apparently the male lead role was a
good-looking young man.
Ian McKellen?
Gregory Doran?
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 23:28:38 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
On 08/04/2025 16:49, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo Shakespeare examples of what the alt-right calls "woke">
<I should note that is has always been my understanding (probably from
something I was told or read) that Romeo and Juliet would have been
about 13, but who can say for sure?>
I seem to remember that in several U.S. states,
that isn't a problem.
I don't think its a problem here, either, except, of course, that
being 13 they are very excitable.
Young teenagers with swords duelling in the streets -- what could
possibly go wrong?
However, "Juliet" originally is a boy actor
in a dress. This could be brought up.
I believe Hamlet remarks on the hope that a boy actor's voice hasn't
yet changed. At some point, the idea of having female actors caught
on. IIRC, there was at least one female who played Hamlet. And was
very effective in the role.
Actors did not enjoy the best of reputations. Originally, IIRC, this
was because they were always lying about who they were.
One of the tales in /The Desert Fathers/ (I think) features an actor
who descended to that low rung of society when the armed robber band
he had been in tossed him out and nobody else would take him in.
In some British actor's recent memoir that
I heard on radio, I've forgotten who, the
school drama was similarly cast, since that's
all that they had. I also don't remember if
he was Juliet or Cleopatra or Lady Macbeth,
but apparently the male lead role was a
good-looking young man.
Ian McKellen?
Gregory Doran?
The film /Bridge on the River Kwai/ does something like that. The book
/King Rat/ goes a bit farther.
And I'm not even going to mention /Mrs. Doubtfire/ and other films
that play with the idea but aren't really the same thing.
Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 23:28:38 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
On 08/04/2025 16:49, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo Shakespeare examples of what the alt-right calls "woke">
<I should note that is has always been my understanding (probably from >>>> something I was told or read) that Romeo and Juliet would have been
about 13, but who can say for sure?>
I seem to remember that in several U.S. states,
that isn't a problem.
I don't think its a problem here, either, except, of course, that
being 13 they are very excitable.
Young teenagers with swords duelling in the streets -- what could
possibly go wrong?
However, "Juliet" originally is a boy actor
in a dress. This could be brought up.
I believe Hamlet remarks on the hope that a boy actor's voice hasn't
yet changed. At some point, the idea of having female actors caught
on. IIRC, there was at least one female who played Hamlet. And was
very effective in the role.
In Aubrey's "Brief Lives" he mentions one daring theatre manager who
allowed women to play on stage circa 1660.
In the comedy "Upstart Crow" Kate aspires to be an actress but only
succeeds once by disguising herself as a boy. I recall figuring out
that if Kate were real, she'd have been about 85 before being allowed on
the stage.
On 7/9/25 09:04, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 23:28:38 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
On 08/04/2025 16:49, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo Shakespeare examples of what the alt-right calls "woke">
<I should note that is has always been my understanding (probably from >>>> something I was told or read) that Romeo and Juliet would have been
about 13, but who can say for sure?>
I seem to remember that in several U.S. states,
that isn't a problem.
I don't think its a problem here, either, except, of course, that
being 13 they are very excitable.
Young teenagers with swords duelling in the streets -- what could
possibly go wrong?
However, "Juliet" originally is a boy actor
in a dress. This could be brought up.
I believe Hamlet remarks on the hope that a boy actor's voice hasn't
yet changed. At some point, the idea of having female actors caught
on. IIRC, there was at least one female who played Hamlet. And was
very effective in the role.
Sarah Bernhart in the 19th and early 20th Century.
Actors did not enjoy the best of reputations. Originally, IIRC, this
was because they were always lying about who they were.
Well before actors started acting in Christian dramas they were wed to
the mystery plays of the pagan cults of the Romans. So that prejudiced the >ecclesiastic arm against them.
One of the tales in /The Desert Fathers/ (I think) features an actor
who descended to that low rung of society when the armed robber band
he had been in tossed him out and nobody else would take him in.
In some British actor's recent memoir that
I heard on radio, I've forgotten who, the
school drama was similarly cast, since that's
all that they had. I also don't remember if
he was Juliet or Cleopatra or Lady Macbeth,
but apparently the male lead role was a
good-looking young man.
Ian McKellen?
Gregory Doran?
The film /Bridge on the River Kwai/ does something like that. The book
/King Rat/ goes a bit farther.
And I'm not even going to mention /Mrs. Doubtfire/ and other films
that play with the idea but aren't really the same thing.
But it ws done in Japan as well where the actresses that originated Kabuki
were barred from perforing and the roles given to males. The actresses were >demeaned with the world prostitute as were female actors when they started >working on the stage.
Shakespeare is the nearest the decent western chappie can get to life-affirming gentle paganism; so Shakespeare has to be hated by the monotheistic bigots - or set at the extreme limit of their tolerance.
Arindam has improved his sonnets by translating them to Bengali.
Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 0:25:42 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
Shakespeare is the nearest the decent western chappie can get to
life-affirming gentle paganism; so Shakespeare has to be hated by the
monotheistic bigots - or set at the extreme limit of their tolerance.
Arindam has improved his sonnets by translating them to Bengali.
He is the best.
Woof
Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
--
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 23:26:51 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 0:25:42 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
Shakespeare is the nearest the decent western chappie can get to
life-affirming gentle paganism; so Shakespeare has to be hated by the
monotheistic bigots - or set at the extreme limit of their tolerance.
Arindam has improved his sonnets by translating them to Bengali.
He is the best.
Over the flecks of foam I have seen you roam
When the moon did light the path between You and me
Aphrodite Aphrodite Aphrodite...
Anything in Shakespeare to beat that?
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof
Woof
Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
--
--
On 7/9/25 09:04, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 23:28:38 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
On 08/04/2025 16:49, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo Shakespeare examples of what the alt-right calls "woke">
<I should note that is has always been my understanding (probably from >>>> something I was told or read) that Romeo and Juliet would have been
about 13, but who can say for sure?>
I seem to remember that in several U.S. states,
that isn't a problem.
I don't think its a problem here, either, except, of course, that
being 13 they are very excitable.
Young teenagers with swords duelling in the streets -- what could
possibly go wrong?
However, "Juliet" originally is a boy actor
in a dress. This could be brought up.
I believe Hamlet remarks on the hope that a boy actor's voice hasn't
yet changed. At some point, the idea of having female actors caught
on. IIRC, there was at least one female who played Hamlet. And was
very effective in the role.
    Sarah Bernhart in the 19th and early 20th Century.
Actors did not enjoy the best of reputations. Originally, IIRC, this
was because they were always lying about who they were.
    Well before actors started acting in Christian dramas they were wed to
the mystery plays of the pagan cults of the Romans. So that prejudiced the ecclesiastic arm against them.
One of the tales in /The Desert Fathers/ (I think) features an actor
who descended to that low rung of society when the armed robber band
he had been in tossed him out and nobody else would take him in.
In some British actor's recent memoir that
I heard on radio, I've forgotten who, the
school drama was similarly cast, since that's
all that they had. I also don't remember if
he was Juliet or Cleopatra or Lady Macbeth,
but apparently the male lead role was a
good-looking young man.
Ian McKellen?
Gregory Doran?
The film /Bridge on the River Kwai/ does something like that. The book
/King Rat/ goes a bit farther.
And I'm not even going to mention /Mrs. Doubtfire/ and other films
that play with the idea but aren't really the same thing.
    But it ws done in Japan as well where the actresses that originated Kabuki
were barred from perforing and the roles given to males. The actresses were demeaned with the world prostitute as were female actors when they started working on the stage.
    bliss
On 11/07/2025 1:38 p.m., Bertietaylor wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 23:26:51 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 0:25:42 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
Shakespeare is the nearest the decent western chappie can get to
life-affirming gentle paganism; so Shakespeare has to be hated by the
monotheistic bigots - or set at the extreme limit of their tolerance.
Arindam has improved his sonnets by translating them to Bengali.
He is the best.
Over the flecks of foam I have seen you roam
When the moon did light the path between You and me
Aphrodite Aphrodite Aphrodite...
Demis Roussos?
Anything in Shakespeare to beat that?
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof
Woof
Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
--
--
On 09/07/2025 10:14 PM, William Hyde wrote:
In Aubrey's "Brief Lives" he mentions one daring theatre manager who
allowed women to play on stage circa 1660.
That - the Restoration - was when actresses were first tolerated. It was >16662 when Charles II Charles II issued royal patents to theatre
companies, formally permitting women to play women’s roles.
<https://www.folger.edu/blogs/shakespeare-and-beyond/the-first-english-actresses/>--
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 01:07:01 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 09/07/2025 10:14 PM, William Hyde wrote:
<snippo>
In Aubrey's "Brief Lives" he mentions one daring theatre manager who
allowed women to play on stage circa 1660.
That - the Restoration - was when actresses were first tolerated. It was
16662 when Charles II Charles II issued royal patents to theatre
companies, formally permitting women to play women’s roles.
In the film /Moliere/, women are shown as performers. This was in
France and Charles II was in exile in France. The possibility here is
that he allowed it because he was accustomed to it.
<https://www.folger.edu/blogs/shakespeare-and-beyond/the-first-english-actresses/>
On 7/8/2025 6:28 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 08/04/2025 16:49, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo Shakespeare examples of what the alt-right calls "woke">
<I should note that is has always been my understanding (probably from
something I was told or read) that Romeo and Juliet would have been
about 13, but who can say for sure?>
I seem to remember that in several U.S. states,
that isn't a problem.
However, "Juliet" originally is a boy actor
in a dress. This could be brought up.
In some British actor's recent memoir that
I heard on radio, I've forgotten who, the
school drama was similarly cast, since that's
all that they had. I also don't remember if
he was Juliet or Cleopatra or Lady Macbeth,
but apparently the male lead role was a
good-looking young man.
Ian McKellen?
Gregory Doran?
Last night, I watched an episode of 'The Sandman'
in which there is included parts of a
Shakespeare-contemporaneous production of 'A
Midsummer Night's Dream' The female parts are
played by young men.
I know this is historically accurate, but I don't
remember seeing it done this way in any other modern
film or TV adaption.
On 15/07/2025 19:26, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 01:07:01 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 09/07/2025 10:14 PM, William Hyde wrote:
<snippo>
In Aubrey's "Brief Lives" he mentions one daring theatre manager who
allowed women to play on stage circa 1660.
That - the Restoration - was when actresses were first tolerated. It was >>> 16662 when Charles II Charles II issued royal patents to theatre
companies, formally permitting women to play women’s roles.
In the film /Moliere/, women are shown as performers. This was in
France and Charles II was in exile in France. The possibility here is
that he allowed it because he was accustomed to it.
<https://www.folger.edu/blogs/shakespeare-and-beyond/the-first-english-actresses/>
I know nothing about actresses in France at that time but...
A film??
Are we to take films as reliable sources of historical data?
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 22:33:06 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 19:26, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 01:07:01 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 09/07/2025 10:14 PM, William Hyde wrote:
<snippo>
In Aubrey's "Brief Lives" he mentions one daring theatre manager who >>>>> allowed women to play on stage circa 1660.
That - the Restoration - was when actresses were first tolerated. It was >>>> 16662 when Charles II Charles II issued royal patents to theatre
companies, formally permitting women to play women’s roles.
In the film /Moliere/, women are shown as performers. This was in
France and Charles II was in exile in France. The possibility here is
that he allowed it because he was accustomed to it.
<https://www.folger.edu/blogs/shakespeare-and-beyond/the-first-english-actresses/>
I know nothing about actresses in France at that time but...
A film??
Are we to take films as reliable sources of historical data?
That depends, I suppose, on the film.
And only as support for a suggestion, of course.
Even if you include Jane Austen, Agatha Christie and Charlotte Bronte
you KNOW that's not what the sort of people who used that term
ACTUALLY mean.
I would have no problem if people grouped Shakespeare with people like
Dumas, Zola, Camus, Rousseau, Dosteyevsky, Tolstoy etc. but you know
as well as I do that "part of a community of equal and different
writers and artists from around the world" DOESN'T in 2025 mean "more
dead white males" - or even ANY white males.
Dumas is a "dead white male"? (dead, yes, male, yes).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 35:26:28 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,146 |