Podcasts about shakespeare

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for November 16, 2025 is: writhe • RYTHE • verb To writhe is to twist one's body from side to side. The word is often used when the body or a bodily part is twisting in pain. // The injured player lay on the football field, writhing in pain. // At the instruction of their teacher, the children rolled the fallen log aside to reveal worms and other small critters writhing in the soft earth. See the entry > Examples: “The creatures named after writers are mostly bugs, which makes sense. There are a lot of those little guys writhing around, and I imagine most of them escaped our attention for long enough that science had to start reaching for new names. And a lot of them are wasps: Dante has two wasps named after him; Marx has two, Didion has one, Dickens has two, Zola has two, Thoreau has seven, and Shakespeare has three wasps and a bacterium. Nabokov has a lot of butterflies, naturally.” — James Folta, LitHub.com, 25 Aug. 2025 Did you know? Writhe wound its way to us from the Old English verb wrīthan, meaning “to twist,” and that ancestral meaning lives on in the word's current uses, most of which have to do with twists of one kind or another. Among the oldest of these uses is the meaning “to twist into coils or folds,” but in modern use writhing is more often about the physical contortions of one suffering from debilitating pain or attempting to remove oneself from a tight grasp (as, say, a snake from a hawk's talons). The word is also not infrequently applied to the twisting bodies of dancers. The closest relation of writhe in modern English lacks any of the painful connotations often present in writhe: wreath comes from Old English writha, which shares an ancestor with wrīthan.

Det har taget 22 år, men nu er Marx' økonomiske hovedværk endeligt på vej i trykpressen. Efter at alle har ventet på ham så længe, er Marx nu frygtelig utålmodig for at værket skal komme ud over rampen. I bogen blotlægger Marx kapitalens indre bevægelser. Med hjælp fra Dante og Shakespeare giver Marx kapitalens forskellige dele stemme og fører som en anden Virgil læseren gennem det kapitalistiske helvedes forskellige cirkler. Nu er spørgsmålet om nogen vil læse mesterværket? Historien om Marx fortæller i ni afsnit historien om den revolutionære filosof Karl Marx, fra hans fødsel i Trier i 1818 og til hans død 64 år senere i London. I den periode gik Marx fra at være indflydelsesrig redaktør til at blive en ignoreret polemikker. Fra at være en marginaliseret aktør på den politiske scene, til at lede en nærmest verdensomspændende organisation der indgød de herskende eliter med eksistentiel angst. Og i slutningen af hans liv begynder hans ord at få nærmest profetisk kraft. Vært: Reinout Bosch Skuespillere: Som Karl Marx: David Rønne Som Jenny Marx: Victoria Velasquez Som Shylock: Illias Berhili Som Friederich Engels: Klaus Münster Indtaling af intro: Laura Winge Kilder: Averill, Sebastian. “The relationship between G. W. F. Hegel and Mikhail Bakunin”. Academia.edu. Set 15. maj 2025. Draper, Hal. The Marx-Engels Cyclopedia. Berkeley, CA: Center for Socialist History, 1984. Gabriel, Mary. Love and Capital. Karl and Jenny Marx and the Birth of a Revolution. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company, 2011. Hobsbawm, Eric. The Age of Capital 1848-1875. London: Abacus, 2000. Jones, Gareth Stedman. Karl Marx. Greatness and Illusion. London: Penguin Books, 2017. McLennan, David. Marx' leven en werk. Amsterdam: Van Gennep, 1975. Nissen, Andreas. “Kampen mellem Marx og Bakunin i første internationale”. Speciale, Københavns Universitet, 1974. Sperber, Jonathan. Karl Marx. A Nineteenth Century Life. New York, NY: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2014. Musik og lydeffekter: Felix Mendelssohn - symphony no. 4 in a major 'italian', op. 90 - ii. andante con moto – Wikimedia commons The Evergreen Symphony Orchestra - Haydn's Symphony No.104 in D major, Hob.I-104 - III. Menuetto allegro-Trio – Wikimedia commons Paganini - Caprice No. 5 in A minor - 24 Caprices, Op. 1 af Gregor Quendel via Pixabay Fairy Night (Slow Waltz) - Valentinik via Pixabay Fantasia in F minor by Franz Schubert, D.940 (Op. posth. 103) – Wikimedia commons Haydn - The Creation (Dalal) - 5 The marv'lous work – Wikimedia commons Lydeffekter: Free_sound_community, Luca Di Allesandro, Breakz Studios via. Pixabay

Host Natalie Grueninger speaks with Emma Rutherford and Dr Elizabeth Goldring about the freshly authenticated Nicholas Hilliard portrait miniature, likely depicting Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton. The episode covers stylistic and technical evidence, costume comparisons, family provenance, and the discovery of a defaced playing card on the reverse. Guests discuss the miniature's emotional context, its possible ties to Shakespeare and the sonnets, and why this intimate find matters for Tudor art, patronage, and literary history. VISIT THE LIMNER COMPANY https://www.portraitminiature.com/ LEARN MORE ABOUT DR ELIZABETH GOLDRING https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/ren/centrestaff/elizabethgoldring/ Find out more about your host at https://www.nataliegrueninger.com Support Talking Tudors on Patreon!  

Horror! Medo! Desespero! Tóxicoooo! No episódio 795 do Podtrash recebemos Flavio de Castro, representante oficial da Troma na América Latina, para uma celebração radioativa da adaptação de Shakespeare mais tóxica da história do cinema: Tromeo & Juliet! E direto dos esgotos apaixonados da Troma, revisamos o clássico escrito por James Gunn (sim, ele mesmo) e […]

During the COVID-19 lockdowns, to deal with isolation and lack of live theatre, we started gathering some of our favourite people every Tuesday & Saturday night to read scripts over Zoom. We read all 38 Shakespeare plays in six months. Then we kept going. We decided to create mini-seasons featuring highlights from the canons of […] The post Corona Cold Reads: The CCR Reunion appeared first on My Entertainment World.

Do we really need to read Shakespeare? I thought all of the books were read during morning lessons. Upper elementary literature lessons in a Charlotte Mason curriculum may just surprise you. Join us today in the podcast to find out all the details. Charlotte Mason, Volume 6 (Amazon) (Living Book Press - use code DELECTABLE for 10% off!) ADE Vol 6, Chapt 10 Reading List Heroes of Asgard by Annie and Eliza Keary (black and white or color) The Age of Fable by Thomas Bullfinch Shakespeare (Folger and Oxford Editions) ADE Literature: Forms 1-2 Breakdown ADE Shakespeare Planner Episode 38: Shakespeare Episode 135: Shakespeare Immersion Lesson ADE on YouTube  

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for November 14, 2025 is: heyday • HAY-day • noun Heyday refers to the period of one's greatest popularity, vigor, or prosperity. It is usually used in the singular. // In its heyday, the circus was a major form of entertainment for the small town. See the entry > Examples: "In its heyday, there were more than 200 Chi-Chi's nationwide; the last restaurant closed in 2004." — Nicole Hvidsten, The Minnesota Star Tribune, 1 Oct. 2025 Did you know? The day in heyday originally had nothing to do with the kind of day that's made up of 24 hours. Heyday was first used in the first half of the 16th century as an extended form of the interjection hey, used since the 13th century to express elation or wonder, as it still often is in phrases like "hey, look at that!" The day part was most likely just an extra syllable tagged on for effect. By the end of the 16th century heyday had developed noun use with the meaning "high spirits," as when Shakespeare's Hamlet tells his mother, "You cannot call it love; for at your age / The heyday in the blood is tame …” It wasn't until the 18th century that the day syllable's resemblance to the word day likely influenced the development of the now-familiar use referring to the period when one's achievement or popularity has reached its zenith.

From Truman Capote to Mr Bates, Toby Jones has built a career on disappearing- an actor whose transformations are so complete they can seem alchemical. But behind that versatility lies a story of inheritance, self-doubt and quiet rebellion. The son of two actors, Toby grew up watching his father's unpredictable career and vowing never to feel so exposed to fate. Yet the pull of performance, and the curiosity that drives it, proved impossible to ignore.In this episode of Full Disclosure, James O'Brien sits down with the actor to trace the path from an Oxford childhood to radical student politics in 1980s Manchester and a life-changing spell at a Paris theatre school that taught him never to wait for permission to create. They talk about class, curiosity, and the discipline of transformation; about how he's learned to find meaning rather than momentum in his work; and why humility, not ambition, has been his most enduring guide.It's a conversation about vocation and value- how an artist keeps searching for truth in an industry built on illusion, and why, for Toby Jones, the work itself has always mattered more than where it leads.An explosive new production of Othello at the Theatre Royal Haymarket stars David Harewood as Othello, Toby Jones as Iago and Caitlin FitzGerald as Desdemona- a gripping retelling of Shakespeare's epic story of manipulation, jealousy, power and desire. Find out more about the production here

Curses have long animated literature. Cassandra labors under a curse in “The Iliad.” Although her prophecies are true, she is never believed. Shakespeare's “Romeo and Juliet” endure the curse of a tragic fate, predetermined, in part, because their families despise each another. In Oyinkan Braithwaite's long awaited second novel, “Cursed Daughters,” generation after generation of women are cursed to lose their true loves. This week on Big Books and Bold Ideas, Kerri Miller welcomes Braithwaite back to the MPR airwaves for a conversation about curses and karma. Can a curse can be eluded, or does it become a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy? What if ancestors refuse to acknowledge a curse? Would it disappear? Or is a curse of kind of generational trauma, passed down from family to family until someone steps into the gap and breaks it? Guest: Oyinkan Braithwaite is the author of the best-selling, “My Sister, The Serial Killer.” Her new novel is “Cursed Daughters.” Subscribe to the Thread newsletter for the latest book and author news and must-read recommendations.Subscribe to Big Books and Bold Ideas with Kerri Miller on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, RSS or anywhere you get your podcasts.

To be completely honest, this episode came directly out of the fact that Owen had a colonoscopy the day we recorded.However, we stand by it - there are TONS of ass reams in the Shakespeare canon. People are always yelling at each other. That's what we're discussing today. Short and sweet. Can you think of any we missed?To send us an email - please do, we truly want to hear from you!!! - write us at: thebardcastyoudick@gmail.com To support us (by giving us money - we're a 501C3 Non-Profit - helllloooooo, tax deductible donation!!!) - per episode if you like! On Patreon, go here:  https://www.patreon.com/user?u=35662364&fan_landing=trueOr on Paypal:https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=8KTK7CATJSRYJWe also take cash!   ;DTo visit our website, go here:https://www.thebardcastyoudick.comTo donate to an awesome charity, go here:https://actorsfund.org/help-our-entertainment-communiity-covid-19-emergency-reliefLike us? Don't have any extra moolah? We get it! Still love us and want to support us??   Then leave us a five-star rating AND a review wherever you get your podcasts!!

In one of our most absolutely jam-packed Monthly Stuff installments to date, we live up to our moniker with a long discussion of teaching stories and curriculum planning (but it's fun, we promise) before moving on to talk about the avalanche of games we've playing recently, including Ghost of Yōtei, Pokémon Legends Z-A, Hades II, Super Robot Wars Y, and the Dragon Quest I & II HD-2D Remake. Before all that, we discuss some recent news, including updates on Doctor Who, Halo, and One Piece, and we end the show with perhaps our best Monthly Ten segment to date, in which Sean Chapman, who had never listened to a Taylor Swift song before this month, imagines 10 future Taylor Swift songs based on dark and upsetting plot points in William Shakespeare plays. It's a blast. Enjoy! TIME CHART:Intro: 0:00:00 – 0:04:48News: 0:04:48 – 0:54:29School Stories: 0:54:29 – 1:51:30Robert Eggers' Nosferatu: 1:51:30 – 2:07:45Plur1bus: 2:07:45 – 2:14:40Ghost of Yōtei: 2:14:40 – 2:27:04Hades II: 2:27:04 – 2:35:35Pokémon Legends ZA: 2:35:35 – 2:54:30Super Robot Wars Y: 2:54:30 – 3:01:25Dragon Quest I & II HD-2D Remake: 3:01:25 – 3:07:14The Monthly Ten: 3:07:14 – 3:31:16 Read Jonathan Lack's movie reviews and stay up to date with all our podcast projects at https://www.jonathanlack.comSubscribe to JAPANIMATION STATION, our podcast about the wide and wonderful world of anime: https://japanimationstation.comRead Jonathan's book 200 Reviews in Paperback or on Kindle – https://a.co/d/bLx53vKSubscribe to our YouTube channels! Japanimation Station: https://www.youtube.com/c/japanimationstation Purely Academic: https://www.youtube.com/@purelyacademicpodcastSupport the show at Ko-fi ☕️ https://ko-fi.com/weeklystuffOriginal Music by Thomas Lack https://www.thomaslack.com/©2012 - Present Jonathan R. Lack & Sean Chapman

"All that glitters is not gold", "Do or do not, there is no try". The first quote is from Shakespeare, and the other is from Yoda. Both are examples of aphorisms, a form of expression you don't hear much anymore. According to this author, they're making a comeback.Joining Seán to discuss is James Geary, author of ‘The World in a Phrase: A Brief History of The Aphorism'.

🚀 'El Club de los Viudos Negros', de Asimov. CENA DE noviembre 🍷🍰 📍 Ristorante Casa Milano – Milano, Italia 🧭 Coordenadas: 45°28'19.8"N 9°12'06.4"E En "Temprano, un domingo por la mañana" investigan el asesinato de la hermana de Mario. Isaac Asimov los creó como un homenaje al placer de conversar, al arte de observar y a la deliciosa costumbre de no quedarse con la primera respuesta. Acomódate. El vino está servido. La cena va a comenzar. Y tú… Tú también estás invitado. Un círculo discreto de seis caballeros que se reúnen una vez al mes, siempre en el mismo restaurante, siempre en la misma mesa, y siempre con una única regla: cada cena debe tener un invitado, y ese invitado debe estar dispuesto a hablar y a ser interrogado. 🕷🕷🕷🕷🕷🕷🕸 Los Viudos Negros son un club de seis hombres que se reúnen una vez al mes en un reservado del restaurante Milano de Nueva York. Cada noche uno de ellos preside el encuentro y tiene el derecho de llevar un invitado, al que interrogan. Al principio sólo se reunían para comer y conversar pero últimamente uno de ellos plantea algún tipo de problema o delito. Los miembros del club buscan respuestas complejas a los enigmas planteados y luego Henry, el camarero, descubre la simple verdad. El club está formado por:🍷🍷🍷🍷🍷🍷 Geoffrey Avalon, Jeff. Alto y delgado, espesas cejas negras, bigote recortado y barbita gris. Fue oficial durante la II Guerra Mundial y trabaja como abogado en derecho patentario. Mario Gonzalo, pintor y gran artista. Thomas Trumbull. Rostro moreno y arrugado, permanentemente descontento. Experto en códigos, alto consejero del gobierno. Emmanuel Rubin, Manny. Bajito, mide 1,55, barba rala, lentes gruesos. Fue predicador adventista con 15 años y conoce bien la Biblia. Está casado y es escritor de novelas policíacas. James Drake. Bigote. Vive en New Jersey. Especialista en química orgánica con amplios conocimientos en literatura. Roger Halsted, calvo. Profesor de matemáticas en una escuela secundaria. Escribe la Ilíada en quintillas y todos los meses les recita una estrofa. Es miembro de los Irregulares de Baker Street. Henry Jackson, el camarero. Unos 60 años, sin arrugas. Es humilde y honrado. Entre ellos se llaman doctores y si uno es doctor de carrera le denominan doctor doctor. Para ayudarse en sus investigaciones cuentan con diccionarios, biblias y las obras de Shakespeare en su biblioteca. Comenzamos... ¿alguna pregunta? Y recuerda que puedes seguirnos en Telegram, YouTube, Instagram y X, y si este podcast te acompaña, te inspira o te gusta lo que hago, puedes hacerte fan y apoyar la nave. Tu energía mantiene viva esta aventura sonora.🚀 Aquí te dejo la página directa para apoyarme: 🍻 https://www.ivoox.com/support/552842 ¡¡Muchas gracias por todos tus comentarios y por tu apoyo!! Voz y sonido Olga Paraíso, Música epidemic sound con licencia premium autorizada para este podcast. BIO Olga Paraíso: https://instabio.cc/Hleidas 🖤 PLAYLIST EL CLUB DE LOS VIUDOS NEGROS EN Ivoox https://go.ivoox.com/bk/11290149 Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

"¿Deberíamos elegir la muerte por no ser capaces de olvidar nuestras discrepancias? Recuerden su humanidad y olviden", escribió Albert Einstein Te invitamos a escuchar esta conversación sobre la paz en la edad atómica, las armas de destrucción masiva y otros temas. Una historia sobre Einstein en la era atómica: el científico cuyas estructuras en la física nacieron de la necesidad de comprender el universo, no de diseñar tecnologías de guerra y muerte. ¿Cómo terminó su ecuación más famosa, E = mc², pensada para explorar la relación entre masa y energía, convertida en icono de la bomba atómica? Mucho después de que él la formulara, ciertas interpretaciones la vincularon ilegítimamente con la destrucción masiva, aunque su papel en la bomba no estuvo en la tecnología ni en el desarrollo de las armas, sino en el terreno de la asesoría política. Sabía también que el conocimiento puede mostrarnos un mundo frío y austero, donde el ser humano no goza de ningún privilegio frente a las demás fuerzas de la naturaleza. Por eso insistía en los valores, en la libertad que hace posibles a Shakespeare, Goethe, Newton, Faraday o Pasteur. Invitado: JAIRO IBARBO SEPÚLVEDA, maestro e investigador en matemática, lógica y filosofía de las ciencias.

"All that glitters is not gold", "Do or do not, there is no try". The first quote is from Shakespeare, and the other is from Yoda. Both are examples of aphorisms, a form of expression you don't hear much anymore. According to this author, they're making a comeback.Joining Seán to discuss is James Geary, author of ‘The World in a Phrase: A Brief History of The Aphorism'.

Our favorite station commander is back to tell you all about two new shows created by Wolf 359 alumni: series creator Gabriel Urbina's new fiction podcast The Harbingers and lead actress Emma Sherr-Ziarko's new Shakespeare podcast Pod's The Thing! The Harbingers tells the story of Adam Blackwell and Amy Stirling - the first two people in the modern world to figure out how to do real magic. This feat instantly turns them into the world's two most famous, most recognizable people - which would be hard enough by itself, even if Adam and Amy didn't fundamentally disagree about how one is supposed to use magic. Oops. Oh, and also they have a history together: they briefly dated back when they were in the same grad school program. Oops again. Equal parts political thriller, modern fantasy adventure, and intimate romantic drama, The Harbingers is an exploration of what it means to have and to use power in the modern world. New episodes come out every two weeks on Thursdays. Apple Podcasts Spotify Pocketcasts Website Meanwhile, Pod's the Thing is a Shakespeare Podcast created by actors that shows a glimpse behind the curtain into the process of working on Shakespeare's Text. Whether you're also an actor, a Shakespeare enthusiast, or you're new to the Bard, you're bound to learn something new, laugh a lot, and maybe even be moved. Each episode is part conversation and part performance, as we dive into one Shakespearean scene at a time. We'll talk through the language, historical context, and our experience with the play, and then put all that together and perform the scene. Featuring Emma Sherr-Ziarko, Felix Trench, Beth Eyre, Calder Shilling, and a variety of other actors, directors, scholars, and Shakespeare enthusiasts from around the Globe, Pod's The Thing explores what has made Shakespeare moving, fun, and eternally relevant for generations of actors and fans. New episodes come out every two weeks on Wednesdays. Apple Podcasts Spotify Pocketcasts Website Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Henry VIII's commanding gaze, Thomas More's intellect, Anne of Cleves' cautious poise; Hans Holbein's portraits didn't just depict the Tudors, they defined them. His astonishing realism gave us not just faces but personalities. But how do we truly know the artist behind the art?Professor Suzannah Lipscomb welcomes back Dr. Elizabeth Goldring, whose groundbreaking research using cutting-edge technology and scientific analysis has uncovered the secrets beneath Holbein's paint layers, revealing hidden colours, lost details, and radical working methods.Shakespeare's Male Muse: A Mystery Solved?A Tudor Mystery: The Girl Who Could Be QueenPresented by Professor Suzannah Lipscomb. The researcher is Max Wintle, audio editor is Amy Haddow and the producer is Rob Weinberg. The senior producer is Anne-Marie Luff.All music courtesy of Epidemic Sounds.Not Just the Tudors is a History Hit podcastSign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe. You can take part in our listener survey here: https://insights.historyhit.com/history-hit-podcast-always-on Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When Hamlet, in his famous soliloquy, pondered the "dread of something after death, / the undiscovered country," he noted that such thoughts "puzzles the will." (Earlier editions of the play had this as a "hope of something after death" that "puzzles the brain." What's the significance for an Elizabethan writer (and audience) of the change from hope to dread? And from brain to will? In this episode, Jacke talks to Douglas Clark (The Will in English Renaissance Drama) about the moments of willing and will-making in English Renaissance drama, and how those moments play a crucial role in the depiction of selfhood, sin, sociality, and succession. PLUS Jacke takes a look at #7 on the list of the Greatest Books of All Time. Join Jacke on a trip through literary England (signup closing soon)! The History of Literature Podcast Tour is happening in May 2026! Act now to join Jacke and fellow literature fans on an eight-day journey through literary England in partnership with ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠John Shors Travel⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Scheduled stops include The Charles Dickens Museum, Dr. Johnson's house, Jane Austen's Bath, Tolkien's Oxford, Shakespeare's Globe Theater, and more. Find out more by emailing jackewilsonauthor@gmail.com or masahiko@johnshorstravel.com, or by contacting us through our website ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠historyofliterature.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Or visit the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠History of Literature Podcast Tour itinerary⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠John Shors Travel⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. The music in this episode is by Gabriel Ruiz-Bernal. Learn more at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠gabrielruizbernal.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Help support the show at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/literature ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠historyofliterature.com/donate ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. The History of Literature Podcast is a member of Lit Hub Radio and the Podglomerate Network. Learn more at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠thepodglomerate.com/historyofliterature⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

An edited version of this conversation is now available as part of our collaboration with The Yale Review. Read it here: https://yalereview.org/article/shakespeare-and-company-interview-miriam-toewsTrigger warning: This is a tender, funny, and hopeful conversation, that inevitably touches on the subjects of suicide and depression. Please be advised before listening.In this moving and intimate discussion, Miriam Toews joins Adam Biles at Shakespeare and Company to talk about her memoir A Truce That Is Not Peace. Beginning with the question “Why do I write?”, Toews embarks on a deeply personal exploration of creativity, doubt, family, and loss. She reflects on her Mennonite upbringing, the deaths of her father and sister, and the ways in which writing—and laughter—have helped her make sense of pain and love. With warmth, wit, and clarity, Toews examines the limits of narrative, the pull of silence, and the stubborn hope that persists in the face of despair. A meditation on grief, rebellion, and the meaning of home, this is a conversation about how to keep living, and how to keep creating, when life itself resists coherence.Buy A Truce That Is Not Peace: https://www.shakespeareandcompany.com/books/a-truce-that-is-not-peace*Miriam Toews is the author of the bestselling novels Women Talking, All My Puny Sorrows, Summer of My Amazing Luck, A Boy of Good Breeding, A Complicated Kindness, The Flying Troutmans, Irma Voth, Fight Night and one work of nonfiction, Swing Low: A Life. She is the winner of the Governor General's Award for Fiction, the Libris Award for Fiction Book of the Year, the Rogers Writers' Trust Fiction Prize and the Writers' Trust Engel/Findley Award. She lives in Toronto.Adam Biles is Literary Director at Shakespeare and Company.Listen to Alex Freiman's latest EP, In The Beginning: https://open.spotify.com/album/5iZYPMCUnG7xiCtsFCBlVa?si=h5x3FK1URq6SwH9Kb_SO3w Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

durée : 00:13:01 - Le Cours de l'histoire - par : Xavier Mauduit - De Jorge Luis Borges à Julia Kristeva en passant par Shakespeare, les écrivain(e)s et les poètes prouvent sans cesse le pouvoir des mots face à la violence du monde. - réalisation : Benjamin Hû

Who leaked the leadership challenge from No.10, a follow up on operation fortitude reveals a homeless military vet can be housed with his dog, but not his partner, and a new way of teaching Shakespeare in schools.

Register for the Austin listener meetup Donald S. Lopez Jr. is among the foremost scholars of Buddhism, whose work consistently distinguishes Buddhist reality from Western fantasy. A professor at the University of Michigan and author of numerous essential books on Buddhist thought and practice, he's spent decades studying Sanskrit and Tibetan texts, including a formative year spent living in a Tibetan monastery in India. His latest book, The Buddha: Biography of a Myth, tackles the formidable challenge of understanding what we can actually know about the historical Buddha. Tyler and Donald discuss the Buddha's 32 bodily marks, whether he died of dysentery, what sets the limits of the Buddha's omniscience, the theological puzzle of sacred power in an atheistic religion, Buddhism's elaborate system of hells and hungry ghosts, how 19th-century European atheists invented the "peaceful" Buddhism we know today, whether the axial age theory holds up, what happened to the Buddha's son Rahula, Buddhism's global decline, the evidently effective succession process for Dalai Lamas, how a guy from New Jersey created the Tibetan Book of the Dead, what makes Zen Buddhism theologically unique, why Thailand is the wealthiest Buddhist country, where to go on a three-week Buddhist pilgrimage, how Donald became a scholar of Buddhism after abandoning his plans to study Shakespeare, his dream of translating Buddhist stories into new dramatic forms, and more. Read a full transcript enhanced with helpful links, or watch the full video on the new dedicated Conversations with Tyler channel. Recorded October 6th, 2025. Other ways to connect Follow us on X and Instagram Follow Tyler on X Sign up for our newsletter Join our Discord Email us: cowenconvos@mercatus.gmu.edu Learn more about Conversations with Tyler and other Mercatus Center podcasts here.

Can Stephen A Smith name more Seahawks players or can Lyle name more Shakespeare stories? Brock and Salk start the hour with a game and put that to the test by reacting to Stephen A Smith sound talking about the Seahawks and having Lyle try to name Shakespeare stories. Then, they go Around The NFL with a variety of football topics.

The Garbage Heist and the Fire Truck Joyride When it comes to dumb criminal stories, this week's episode of The Shallow End Podcast might just take the trash-covered cake. JG and Linds explore two jaw-dropping tales of grand theft municipal—one featuring a pair of Alabama geniuses who used a stolen garbage truck as their getaway vehicle in an ATM heist gone gloriously wrong, and another involving an Australian man who took a fire truck for a joyride… sirens blazing. From sparks flying down Birmingham streets to a cross-jurisdiction chase through New South Wales, it's a masterclass in bad ideas—where optimism bias meets municipal machinery. The guys dissect what drives people to commit felonies in the least stealthy vehicles possible and find surprising poetry (and Shakespeare) in the stupidity. Plus, listener mail brings a “petrified wood curse,” an unexpected toddler interruption during mommy and daddy time, and a conversation about Maine slang that'll make you rethink your “door yard.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We've been sitting on this idea for a while, but with Chloe Zhao's Oscar hopeful Hamnet opening this month, it seemed like as good a time as any to finally move forward with one of the biggest topics a film podcast can tackle: big-screen adaptations of the work of Elizabethen/Jacobean playwright William Shakespeare, the most-adapted writer in film history on top of being the most famous name in the history of both English drama and English literature. Such a grand subject deserves a bigger crowd, so this week, Tim is joined by no fewer than three Alternate Ending regulars: Gavin McDowell, Brian Fowler, and Caleb Wimble. Together they discuss what makes a good Shakespeare movie, what we should do with adaptations that discard the original text, and why there are such a disproportionately high number of good Macbeths. Before the main event, our regular movie roundtable covers a wide range of movies, as wide as the number of genres good old Billy S. touched on his career: Brian has caught up with Black Phone 2, Gavin celebrates Armistice Day with nice, pleasant WWI/Armenian genocide movie, 2016's The Promise, Caleb has checked out the brand-new Predator: Badlands, and thanks to Patreon supporter Robin Zimmerman, Tim is here to discuss 2015 cult film Turbo Kid.

In this College Deep Dive, Jonathan Shandell and Kathryn Petersen the Co-Program Director of Theater at Arcadia University chat with MTCA Director Charlie Murphy about:  Where do you want to live on the Acting to MT spectrum? A reminder that the process isn't so binary!  Higher Education is shifting with new “experience-based” learning like study abroad & summer programs. Choose a school that lets you grow and change, not one that boxes you in. Arcadia shows how program continuity and collaboration can make all the difference. If you have any questions about the college audition process, feel free to reach out at mailbag@mappingthecollegeaudition.com. If you're interested in working with MTCA for help with your individualized preparation for your College Audition journey, please check us out at mtca.com, or on Instagram or Facebook.  Follow Us!  Instagram: @mappingthecollegeaudition YouTube: @MTCA (Musical Theater College Auditions)  TikTok: @mtcollegeauditions  Charlie Murphy:@charmur7  About MTCA:  Musical Theater College Auditions (MTCA) is the leader in coaching acting and musical theater students through the college audition process and beyond with superlative results. MTCA has assembled a roster of expert artist-educators who can guide students artistically, organizationally, strategically, and psychologically through the competitive college audition process. MTCA provides the tools, resources, and expertise along with a vast and strong support system. They train the unique individual, empowering the artist to bring their true, authentic self to their work. MTCA believes that by helping students reveal their potential it allows each school to connect with those who are truly right for their programs, which in turn guides each student toward their best college fit.  About Charlie Murphy:  Charlie is a proud graduate of Carnegie Mellon University's BFA program. As an Actor he has performed with theaters such as: NY Public Theatre's “Shakespeare in the Park”, The Pearl Theatre Company, Hudson Valley Shakespeare Festival, Chautauqua Theatre Company, Kinetic Theatre Company, and the Shakespeare Theatre of DC. With MTCA [Musical Theater College Auditions -- mtca.com], he has been helping prospective theatre students through the college process for over 15 years. As a Teacher and Director, he is able to do a few of his favorite things in life: help students to find their authentic selves as artists, and then help them find their best fit for their collegiate journey. Through this podcast, he hopes to continue that work as well as help demystify this intricate process. This episode was produced by Meghan Cordier, Kelly Prendergast and Socials by Jordan Rice. Episode theme music is created by Will Reynolds with Additional Vocals from Elizabeth Stanley Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Wars of the Roses began their final spasm, and in this chapter we explore how Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Lord Protector of England, sitting in the mansion of a rich London Grocer near Bishopsgate, would, over a series of a few weeks, turn into Richard III, King of England. But more than the traditional narrative, it is an exploration of London in those weeks- what did they hear, what did they see, and above all, how did they respond. From mobs pouring into Westminster Abbey, to a significant moment of silence in the Guildhall, from crowds listening in stunned silence around St Paul's Cross, to cheering the coronation, London witnessed and partook in all events. How loyal were they to this man? Were they indeed, as Shakespeare later called them, his ‘duteous citizens'? Cover contains a detail of The Princes in the Tower by John Everett Millais (1878).

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

With special guests: Brendan Morris & Stephan Wellink… in conversation with Bill Kable The Thornetts, a band of brothers as Shakespeare might have called them. Today we explore what makes a champion when we hear about a sporting giant from 1960’s Australia, namely Richard, or as he was more commonly known, Dick Thornett. Dick was the youngest in a family of champions. Dick’s oldest brother was John who became the Captain of the Australian Rugby team, the Wallabies. Under John, the Wallabies had a legendary tour of South Africa. The next brother Ken also played Rugby at a representative level but is best known for his Rugby League abilities. Starting his Rugby League career in England he became known as the Mayor of Leeds before he came back to Australia representing Parramatta and Australia in the Kangaroos. Dick is called “the Natural” because he was so good at any sport he turned his hand to. After representing Australia in water polo at the 1960 Olympics in Rome he went on to represent Australia in two very different sports namely Rugby and Rugby League. Podcast (mp3)

Welcome back to The Literary Life podcast and our series on Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Angelina Stanford, Thomas Banks, and Ella Hornstra open the conversation by sharing their commonplace quotes, then jump into the book discussion with some connections between Huxley and Lewis Carroll and how Brave New World is like Alice in Wonderland. Angelina also teaches about the medieval conception of the tripartite soul and how it relates to this story, as well as making some distinctions between literary satire and parody. They talk about more of the pictures of Freudian principles as illustrated in this society, as well as the way in which the characters live like machines. Ella goes into a little introductory information on Shakespeare's The Tempest and its connections to Brave New World to keep in mind as we continue reading. Don't forget to check out this coming year's annual Literary Life Online Conference, happening January 23-30, 2026, "The Letter Killeth, but the Spirit Quickeneth: Reading Like a Human". Our speakers will be Dr. Jason Baxter, Jenn Rogers, Dr. Anne Phillips, and, of course, Angelina Stanford and Thomas Banks. Also, we are excited to announce the upcoming spring course with Dr. Michael Drout, Viking and Old Norse Culture. Learn more and register at HouseofHumaneLetters.com. To view the full show notes for this episode, including book links, quotes and more, please visit https://theliterary.life/302. 

It's always a delight when Rev David Parry materializes at the Virtual Alexandria. We'll discuss the Gnosis found in the Catholic Mass, as outlined in his new book, Cultivating Presence. We'll go even deeper, exploring theatrical poetry, the neofolk arts movement, and their relationship to contemporary miracle and mystery traditions. Expect a deep dive into modern Valentinian theology, Elvis Presley, Shakespeare, Burroughs, Nephilim, and more. It will be a mystic blast! Get the book: https://amzn.to/3WHPCjl More on David: https://www.davidwilliamparry.com/home Get The Occult Elvis: https://amzn.to/4jnTjE4 Virtual Alexandria Academy: https://thegodabovegod.com/virtual-alexandria-academy/ Gnostic Tarot Readings: https://thegodabovegod.com/gnostic-tarot-reading/ The Gnostic Tarot: https://www.makeplayingcards.com/sell/synkrasis Homepage: https://thegodabovegod.com/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/aeonbyte AB Prime: https://thegodabovegod.com/members/subscription-levels/ Voice Over services: https://thegodabovegod.com/voice-talent/ Support with donation: https://buy.stripe.com/00g16Q8RK8D93mw288 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We've been sitting on this idea for a while, but with Chloe Zhao's Oscar hopeful Hamnet opening this month, it seemed like as good a time as any to finally move forward with one of the biggest topics a film podcast can tackle: big-screen adaptations of the work of Elizabethen/Jacobean playwright William Shakespeare, the most-adapted writer in film history on top of being the most famous name in the history of both English drama and English literature. Such a grand subject deserves a bigger crowd, so this week, Tim is joined by no fewer than three Alternate Ending regulars: Gavin McDowell, Brian Fowler, and Caleb Wimble. Together they discuss what makes a good Shakespeare movie, what we should do with adaptations that discard the original text, and why there are such a disproportionately high number of good Macbeths. Before the main event, our regular movie roundtable covers a wide range of movies, as wide as the number of genres good old Billy S. touched on his career: Brian has caught up with Black Phone 2, Gavin celebrates Armistice Day with nice, pleasant WWI/Armenian genocide movie, 2016's The Promise, Caleb has checked out the brand-new Predator: Badlands, and thanks to Patreon supporter Robin Zimmerman, Tim is here to discuss 2015 cult film Turbo Kid.

The UK's medicines watchdog has said criminal gangs in the UK have started making their own weight-loss drugs, with packaging and branding designed to look like legitimate products. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has warned that the new trend poses a significant threat. Presenter Clare McDonnell is joined by Sukhi Basra, vice chair of the National Pharmacy Association who also runs a weight loss practice, to dicuss the risks. 'Buy now, pay later' credit schemes are increasingly being used to pay for everyday items like food, bus passes and school uniforms. Leading debt advisors have told the BBC that more women are juggling these debts as they struggle to cope with the cost of living. BBC Yorkshire investigations reporter, Stephanie Miskin, and Rebecca Routledge from debt advice organisation Money Wellness talk to Clare. Jackie Clune is an actor, writer and performer whose eclectic career has included a Karen Carpenter tribute act, Shakespeare, Mamma Mia! and most recently the narrator in a UK tour of The Rocky Horror Show. On screen, she's familiar to many as Motherland's school secretary Mrs Lamb, but she's also written novels and a memoir about unexpectedly becoming a mum to triplets at 39 and finding herself with four children under 19 months. She's now on stage in The Meat Kings! (Inc.) of Brooklyn Heights at London's Park Theatre, playing a tough, no-nonsense boss fighting to keep the family business afloat. She joins Clare to discuss the play, parenting and grief. A rare 500-year-old English parchment birth scroll is to be shown in the UK for the first time following recent pioneering analysis that confirmed its use during pregnancy and childbirth. The medieval scroll is central to Expecting: Birth, Belief and Protection at the Wellcome Collection exploring the protective practices and beliefs around pregnancy, childbirth and infertility that existed in medieval times. Dr Elma Brenner, Research Development Lead at Wellcome Collection and Professor Valerie Worth, Fellow of Trinity college oxford who holds a research grant from the Leverhulme Trust talk to Clare.Presented by: Clare McDonnell Produced by: Dianne McGregor

In this episode of Epic Realms, Nick welcomes the remarkable Jeri Shepherd - a multi-time #1 bestselling author known for her expansive body of work across genres including science fiction, fantasy, horror, children's books, and game writing. Jeri shares her lifelong journey through storytelling, from her early days as a playwright and poet to becoming a respected figure in genre fiction and tabletop RPG design. A U.S. Air Force Arabic Linguist veteran, Jeri discusses how her global perspective and sense of community continue to shape her writing and creative approach. Together, Nick and Jeri explore: How she transitioned from stage and screenwriting to fiction and publishing. Her collaborations with Luke Gygax, Ed Greenwood, and the team at Chaotic Great Gaming. The creation of her system-driven project Dungeon Race RPG and her philosophy on accessible game design. The rise of anthologies like Otherworldly, Outerworldly, and Netherworldly under the Nerd Street banner. Her upcoming Shakespeare-inspired play Of Thread and Thorn, premiering next May. Her insights on community building, burnout prevention, and empowering other creators through mentorship and retreats. Whether you're a reader, writer, or gamer, this conversation highlights Jeri's passion for collaboration and storytelling across every medium.

Tom Bateman has delivered wonderful performances in "Thirteen Lives," "Death on the Nile," "Murder on the Orient Express," and Peacock's dark comedic thriller series "Based on a True Story," alongside Kaley Cuoco and Chris Messina, to name a few. For his latest, "Hedda," he got to work opposite Tessa Thompson and Nina Hoss. On this episode, he explains what made that production special, starting with the 2 weeks of rehearsal that director Nia DeCosta insisted on. He takes us through his beginnings in the theater, how Shakespeare is the gift that keeps on giving, gives examples of direction that ignited discoveries, hard lessons learned in younger days, the curious phenomena of finding similarities in his characters the further he gets away from himself, and much more! Back To One is the in-depth, no-nonsense, actors-on-acting podcast from  Filmmaker Magazine. In each episode, host Peter Rinaldi invites one working actor to do a deep dive into their unique process, psychology, and approach to the craft.  Follow Back To One on Instagram

This week I had the absolute honour to sit down and chat with star of stage and screen Blythe Duff. Undoubtedly best known for her role as Detective Jackie Reid in Taggart, from Shakespeare to the West End, Blythe has curated a hugely successful, extensive career to date. From over 20 years of starring in one of Scotland's most beloved shows to most recently taking to the stage in the newly refurbished Citizens Theatre in Small Acts of Love, Blythe continues to gravitate to the projects that make her soul sing.. A founding member of Lacunas Music Society, Blythe is a master at her craft who embraces challenges and opportunities to connect with her audiences. This episode is supported by Honey Vine Flowers and Events Website: http://www.honeyvineflorist.co.uk/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@honeyvineflorist1?_t=ZN-90zZXmZLckI&_r=1 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/honeyvineflorist?igsh=dHZkdHcwZm1ibDh5 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/1ELB7yrUXU/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Katherine Mansfield's writing, said Virginia Woolf, "was the only writing I was ever jealous of." In this episode, Jacke talks to author Gerri Kimber about Katherine Mansfield: A Hidden Life, which explores the life and work of one of literary modernism's most significant writers. PLUS Jacke takes a look at the unusual friendship between poet W.H. Auden and the sex worker whom he hired, was robbed by, and befriended. And Kenneth Sacks (Emerson's Civil Wars: Spirit and Society in the Age of Abolition) stops by to discuss his choice for the last book he will ever read. Join Jacke on a trip through literary England (signup closing soon)! The History of Literature Podcast Tour is happening in May 2026! Act now to join Jacke and fellow literature fans on an eight-day journey through literary England in partnership with ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠John Shors Travel⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Scheduled stops include The Charles Dickens Museum, Dr. Johnson's house, Jane Austen's Bath, Tolkien's Oxford, Shakespeare's Globe Theater, and more. Find out more by emailing jackewilsonauthor@gmail.com or masahiko@johnshorstravel.com, or by contacting us through our website ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠historyofliterature.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Or visit the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠History of Literature Podcast Tour itinerary⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠John Shors Travel⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. The music in this episode is by Gabriel Ruiz-Bernal. Learn more at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠gabrielruizbernal.com⁠⁠⁠⁠. Help support the show at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/literature ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠historyofliterature.com/donate ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. The History of Literature Podcast is a member of Lit Hub Radio and the Podglomerate Network. Learn more at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠thepodglomerate.com/historyofliterature⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Hamlet Podcast - a weekly exploration of Shakespeare's King Lear. Act IV Scene vi - Gloucester attempts to jump, but Edgar has a whole plan in place. Written and presented by Conor Hanratty

 Join hosts J.D. Barker, Christine Daigle, Jena Brown, and Kevin Tumlinson as they discuss the week's entertainment news, including stories about a new fund for literary arts organizations, James Patterson's podcast, and how to read a book and feed a neighbor. Then, stick around for a chat with Orson Scott Card!Orson Scott Card is the author of the novels Ender's Game, Ender's Shadow, and Speaker for the Dead, which are widely read by adults and younger readers. His most recent series, the young adult Pathfinder series (Pathfinder, Ruins, Visitors), the fantasy Mithermages series (Lost Gate, Gate Thief, Gatefather) and the Side Step series (Wakers, Reawakening) are taking readers in new directions.Besides these and other science fiction novels, Card writes contemporary fantasy (Magic Street, Enchantment, Lost Boys), biblical novels (Stone Tables, Sarah), the American frontier fantasy series The Tales of Alvin Maker (beginning with Seventh Son), poetry (An Open Book), and many plays and scripts, including his "freshened" Shakespeare scripts for Romeo & Juliet, The Taming of the Shrew, and The Merchant of Venice.Card was born in Washington and grew up in California, Arizona, and Utah. He served a mission for the LDS Church in Brazil in the early 1970s. Card currently lives in Greensboro, North Carolina, with his wife, Kristine Allen Card. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Merchant of Venice; Act 3, Scene 1 ShylockNovember 10, 2025 The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.” Actor and storyteller Saul Rubinek takes us inside his one-man show Playing Shylock, now on stage at the Polonsky Shakespeare Center in New York City. Rubinek explores Shylock's confounding genesis and reveals why one of Shakespeare's so-called “minor” roles continues to be one of the most groundbreaking, misunderstood and controversial characters in theater history. Click here to see the Folio Version. Click here for a Modern Version of the Text. Click here for more information about Playing Shylock. Click here for Saul's book, All in the Telling. Click here for a transcript of "The Stranger's Case" by Thomas More.

In All's Well That Ends Well, a character is described as “That with the plume: 'tis a most gallant fellow” (III.5), and in Love's Labour's Lost, the Princess of France mockingly asks, “What plume of feathers is he that indited this letter?” (IV.1), revealing how feathers could both elevate and satirize their wearer. Feathers might seem like a simple decoration today, but in the 16th and early 17th centuries, feathered clothing—especially feathered hats—spoke volumes about a person's status, identity, and even their participation in the expanding global economy. To better understand the culture behind feathers in clothing for Shakespeare's lifetime, we're sitting down this week with Professor Ulinka Rublack, whose article Befeathering the European investigates the history of feathers in clothing, to help us explore where the feathers come from, what they looked like, and how they were used. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the very seventy-fifth episode of Bite-Sized, Ben & Sarah discuss The Twilight Saga: New Moon - Scene 6 (8:34-11:03)! They talk about their feelings, Shakespeare, and Alan Rickman (but only for a little bit)! We want to hear from you! Follow the show on social media (@bitesizedpod_ on YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok), email myfavoritetwilightpodcast@gmail.com or go to patreon.com/TwilightPodcast!

Not all radio detectives carried a badge or a private eye's license. Some were amateur sleuths who dabbled in deduction in addition to their day jobs, and we'll hear a collection of those crimesolvers and their adventures. Walter Hampden stars as Leonidas Witherall - professor, author, dead ringer for Shakespeare, and amateur detective - in "Murder at the State Fair" (originally aired on Mutual on September 24, 1944). Gale Gordon is San Francisco importer and detective Gregory Hood in "The Forgetful Murderer" (originally aired on Mutual on July 29, 1946). Alan Ladd is mystery writer Dan Holiday, who seeks adventures to fuel the plots of his stories, in "Killer at Large," a syndicated episode of Box 13. And finally, Joseph Curtin and Alice Frost are book publisher Jerry North and his wife Pam, and their idea of a date night involves stumbling over a dead body. We'll hear "The Premature Corpse," an Armed Forces Radio Service rebroadcast of Mr. and Mrs. North (originally aired on CBS on February 12, 1952).

Today's guest is Jenny Mann, who has a new book titled The Trials of Orpheus: Poetry, Science, and the Early Modern Sublime (Princeton University Press, 2021). Jenny is Professor in both New York University's English Department and the Gallatin School, and her work has been supported by the Mellon Foundation and the Folger Shakespeare Library. She is the author of the previous monograph, Outlaw Rhetoric: Figuring Vernacular Eloquence in Shakespeare's England (Cornell University Press, 2012) and is the co-editor with Debapriya Sarkar of a special issue of Philological Quarterly on “Imagining Scientific Forms.” Additionally, Jenny works in collaboration with the Public Shakespeare Initiative at the Public Theater in New York. John Yargo is Visiting Assistant Professor of English at Boston College. He holds a PhD in English literature from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, specializing in the environmental humanities and early modern culture. His peer-reviewed articles have been published or are forthcoming in the Journal for Early Modern Culture Studies, Early Theatre, Studies in Philology, and Shakespeare Studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Have any questions about screenwriting? Comment below and I'll address them in future podcasts.My novel Deadpan is out in hardcover! Order it here. Get full access to Get Reel with Richard Walter at richardwalter.substack.com/subscribe

Wrestling with Shakespeare, Faith, and the Limits of Technology   Host Curtis Chang and Dr. Jessica Hooten Wilson—Fletcher Jones Chair of Great Books at Pepperdine University—explore The Tempest by William Shakespeare and its timeless wisdom for our technology-driven world. Through Prospero's struggle with power, control, and love, they draw parallels between Shakespeare's "magic" and our modern dependence on digital tools. Wilson explains how the play invites us to surrender our illusions of control, embrace humility, and rediscover relationships grounded in grace. Curtis and Jessica's discussion touches on C.S. Lewis, Andy Crouch, and the spiritual discipline of wrestling with hard texts and ideas in an age of easy answers from ChatGPT.   (02:30) - Dependence Upon Technology as Magic (05:40) - What Do We Forget in Our Obsessions? (11:03) - The Change in Prospero (13:41) - Engaging With Challenging Texts (18:53) - The Temptation of AI (21:40) - Celebrating Good Faith Podcast Production   Join The After Party   Send Campfire Stories to: info@redeemingbabel.org   Donate to Redeeming Babel   Mentioned In This Episode: William Shakespeare's The Tempest (entire play) Andy Crouch's The Tech-Wise Family: Everyday Steps for Putting Technology in Its Proper Place Genesis 32:22-32 (ESV) - Jacob Wrestling with God or "the Angel" C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man (pdf) The Tempest Act V, Scene 1: "Prospero's Speech" John 1:1-14 (ESV) - Jesus as the Word or "logos" Hebrews 5:11-6:12 (ESV) - the metaphor of milk and solid food   More From Jessica Hooten Wilson: Jessica Hooten Wilson's website Explore Jessica's books HERE Read articles and Essay by Jessica HERE   Follow Us: Good Faith on Instagram Good Faith on X (formerly Twitter) Good Faith on Facebook   Sign up: Redeeming Babel Newsletter   The Good Faith Podcast is a production of Redeeming Babel, a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan organization that does not engage in any political campaign activity to support or oppose any candidate for public office. Any views and opinions expressed by any guests on this program are solely those of the individuals and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of Redeeming Babel.  

On 5 November 1605, Guy Fawkes became infamous not for what he achieved, but for what he failed to do: kill King James VI & I and bring down the British parliament. But what if the Gunpowder Plot had been successful? How would it have reshaped Britain, Europe and even the wider world? And would Shakespeare have written 'Guy Fawkes' instead of 'Macbeth'?In this special episode Professor Suzannah Lipscomb explores one of history's most tantalising "what ifs" with a panel of historians: Jessie Childs, Gareth Russell and Professor Anna Whitelock.Mary I: What If She'd Lived?Gunpowder Plot: Tudor OriginsPresented by Professor Suzannah Lipscomb. The researcher is Max Wintle, the audio editors are Alex Elkins and Amy Haddow and the producers are Fiona Turnock and Rob Weinberg. The senior producer is Anne-Marie Luff.All music courtesy of Epidemic Sounds.Not Just the Tudors is a History Hit podcast.Sign up to History Hit to see this episode on film and for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe. You can take part in our listener survey here: https://uk.surveymonkey.com/r/6FFT7MK Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dmitry Ivanovich Khvostov (1757-1835) might be the worst poet who ever lived. Pathologically prolific and delusional dedicated to a craft for which he had no talent, he continued to write and publish his poetry despite the pleadings of friends, loved ones, critics, and the public. In this episode, Jacke talks to author Ilya Vinitsky and translator James H. McGavran III about their book, The Graphomaniac: A Literary-Historical Discussion of Dmitry Khvostov as a Reprieve from Teaching, the Vanity of Worldly Affairs, and Melancholy Reflections Brought On by the Loss of a Front Tooth, Together with the Current Cultural and Political Situation. PLUS Stephanie Sandler (The Freest Speech in Russia: Poetry Unbound, 1989-2022), an expert in Russia's Golden Age of literature and Russian contemporary poetry, stops by to discuss her choice for the last book she will ever read. AND Jacke reveals the #8 Greatest Book of All Time! Join Jacke on a trip through literary England (signup closing soon)! The History of Literature Podcast Tour is happening in May 2026! Act now to join Jacke and fellow literature fans on an eight-day journey through literary England in partnership with ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠John Shors Travel⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Scheduled stops include The Charles Dickens Museum, Dr. Johnson's house, Jane Austen's Bath, Tolkien's Oxford, Shakespeare's Globe Theater, and more. Find out more by emailing jackewilsonauthor@gmail.com or masahiko@johnshorstravel.com, or by contacting us through our website ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠historyofliterature.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Or visit the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠History of Literature Podcast Tour itinerary⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠John Shors Travel⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. The music in this episode is by Gabriel Ruiz-Bernal. Learn more at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠gabrielruizbernal.com⁠⁠⁠⁠. Help support the show at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/literature ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠historyofliterature.com/donate ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. The History of Literature Podcast is a member of Lit Hub Radio and the Podglomerate Network. Learn more at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠thepodglomerate.com/historyofliterature⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode as well as Part 2 are available ad free at all levels on the Patreon for the first week of release! A cargo ship spots a lone life raft 115 nautical miles south of Martha's Vineyard. Inside is 22-year-old Nathan Carman. He's alert, steady on his feet, and claiming he's survived seven days at sea after his fishing boat, Chicken Pox, sank. His mother, Linda, was on the boat with him and is now missing. As investigators press for answers, red flags pile up: no mayday call, an oddly pristine survivor, and a family history that reads like Dynasty meets Shakespeare, complete with a murdered patriarch, a sprawling fortune, and bitter rivalries. Is Nathan just misunderstood… or the common thread in two catastrophes? Sources: Why Nathan Carman, suspected in his mother's murder, remains 'both a victim and a villain' - ABC News The Chilling Case of Nathan Carman's Deadly Fishing Trip Book: Blood in the Water by Casey Sherman Sponsors: Acorns Early Get your first month on us when you head to acornsearly.com/CREEPERS or download the Acorns Early app. Blissy Because you're a listener, Blissy is offering 60-nights risk-free PLUS an additional 30% off when you shop at Blissy.com/CREEPERSPOD. TYour skin and hair will thank you! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices