Posted on 01/09/2008 10:56:17 AM PST by bs9021
Shakesqueer
by: Bethany Stotts, January 09, 2008
Chicago, Ill.—The recent Shakespeare panel at the 2007 Modern Language Association (MLA) convention, ironically titled “Shakesqueer,” featured four queer theorists presenting articles soon to be published by the notoriously liberal Duke University press. The panelists described the collection as the first reputable, scholarly collection of Shakespeare queer theory criticism, and it will join other illustrious Duke Press lesbian bisexual gay transsexual (LGBT) titles such as “Barbie’s Queer Accessories,” “Desiring Disability: Queer Theory Meets Disability Studies,” “Female Masculinity,” and “In the Name of National Security: Hitchcock, Homophobia, and the Political Construction of Gender in Postwar America.”
They presented a quick peek inside their theses:
Hamlet.....
Asserting that Hamlet’s faults derive not from his hostile intentions, but from his overwhelming desire to reestablish the reproductive norm, Nonokawa implied that Hamlet is a “monster” because he uses ruthless methods to enforce monogamous, opposite-sex marriages. According to Nonokawa Hamlet is “stricken by his excess of filial passion for the reassertion of norm. Hamlet is truly too much in the son, too much, that is, his father’s son.” This turns him into a “monster of normativity incapable of ... seeing how much he gets off on the luxury of his antiluxurious discourse.”
Romeo and Juliet...
“Changing the gender of objects of desire can easily leave intact the grand mystified romance of star-crossed lovers struggling—and failing— to surmount insuperable cultural impediments to their love... Romeo and Juliet can remain in tragically romantic dire straights, even when it’s a girl-on-girl song,” she said.
...
Cleopatra and Antony....
Love’s Labors Lost.....
(Excerpt) Read more at campusreportonline.net ...
Well, DUH. I've been saying the same thing for weeks! [/s]
It’s sick out there and getting sicker...
The pointy-heads love their : marks don’t they?
Bread, milk and cheese: An academic’s grocery shopping trip recalled.
A push, a flush, and a refill: Professor Smith goes to the loo.
Slower traffic keep right: A 40-year-old grad student risks using his Prius on the freeway and drives at a ‘responsible’ 55 in the left lane.
>>four queer theorists<<
I wonder who they’re voting for, Clinton or Ubama?
Part of the homosexual agenda is to claim great people of the past were all practitioners of sexual deviance. These sickos will stop at nothing including demanding access to kids.
The 1988 dissertation, entitled "Beyond the (Dis)Integration of Post-Modern Post-Toasties Pair 'o Dimes and Paradigms: Look at How Clever I Am," created a stir in academic circles and landed Lowenstein a prestigious teaching position at Harvard. From there, he honed his cutting-edge research. "I began to deconstruct everything I could get my hands on," says Grok. "The Old Testament, Shakespeare, Dick and Jane, a 1967 J.C. Whitney catalog, the Boston phone book, you name it. I showed how everything is a lie, that everything could be deconstructed. Well, except Deconstruction, obviously."
Go figure.
My favorite contribution to contemporary literary criticism is Frederick Crews’s “Postmodern Pooh”:
http://www.amazon.com/Postmodern-Pooh-Frederick-Crews/dp/0865476543/
The “Did Shakespeare eat Bacon?” controversy has been going on for years.
Several actors of the time were eunuchs...
I would imagine that would work for college types also....
Move to Iran!
Whoever came up with this project had way too much time on their hands.
It seems to me that a pretty good case can be made from this that Shakespeare was at least bisexual.
My point: Who the @#$% cares.
Speaking of tales told by idiots full of sound and fury ...
How is it that some people who claim to put diversity and tolerance at the head of their social priorities are not satisfied unless every great author and scholar are provided a “sexual orientation” identity, as some mystic clue to their writing, while, hypocritically, the entire base of promoting “diversity and tolerance” is the “universal” nature of so many “social” themes, such as love and romance, regardless of “sexual orientation”. Their need to supply a sexual orientation identity to the authors of great works says that they do not actually believe the themes they claim to be universal are universal. Hypocrites.
Shall I compare thee to a Summer’s day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And Summer’s lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And oft’ is his gold complexion dimm’d;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature’s changing course untrimm’d:
But thy eternal Summer shall not fade
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;
Nor shall Death brag thou wanderest in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou growest:
So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.
Yeah? Which part exactly?
There is no way that you can call Shakespeare’s writing “Fairy Tales!”
Since Shakespeare is the most acclaimed writer in the English language and frequently wrote about romantic topics, the solid evidence that he was at least partially gay is actually quite interesting.
Except to people who don't care about much of anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.