Podcast appearances and mentions of King Lear

The Hamlet Podcast - a weekly exploration of Shakespeare's King Lear. Act IV Scene v - Regan tries to get information out of Oswald. Written and presented by Conor Hanratty

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,Some Faster, Please! readers have told me I spend too little time on the downsides of AI. If you're one of those folks, today is your day. On this episode of Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I talk with self-described “free-market AI doomer” James Miller. Miller and I talk about the risks inherent with super-smart AI, some possible outcomes of a world of artificial general intelligence, and why government seems uninterested in the existential risk conversation.Miller is a professor at Smith College where he teaches law and economics, game theory, and the economics of future technology. He has his own podcast, Future Strategist, and a great YouTube series on game theory and intro to microeconomics. On X (Twitter), you can find him at @JimDMiller.In This Episode* Questioning the free market (1:33)* Reading the markets (7:24)* Death (or worse) by AI (10:25)* Friend and foe (13:05)* Pumping the breaks (20:36)* The only policy issue (24:32)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. Questioning the free market (1:33)Most technologies have gone fairly well and we adapt . . . I'm of the belief that this is different.Pethokoukis: What does it mean to be a free-market AI doomer and why do you think it's important to put in the “free-market” descriptor?Miller: It really means to be very confused. I'm 58, and I was basically one of the socialists when I was young, studied markets, became a committed free-market person, think they're great for economic growth, great for making everyone better off — and then I became an AI doomer, like wait, markets are pushing us towards more and more technology, but I happen to think that AI is eventually going to lead to destruction of humanity. So it means to kind of reverse everything — I guess it's the equivalent of losing faith in your religion.Is this a post-ChatGPT, November 2022 phenomenon?Well, I've lost hope since then. The analogy is we're on a plane, we don't know how to land, but hopefully we'll be able to fly for quite a bit longer before we have to. Now I think we've got to land soon and there doesn't seem to be an easy way of doing it. So yeah, the faster AI has gone — and certainly ChatGPT has been an amazing advance — the less time I think we have and the less time I think we can get it right. What really scared me, though, was the Chinese LLMs. I think you really need coordination among all the players and it's going to be so much harder to coordinate now that we absolutely need China to be involved, in my opinion, to have any hope of surviving for the next decade.When I speak to people from Silicon Valley, there may be some difference about timelines, but there seems to be little doubt that — whether it's the end of the 2020s or the end of the 2030s — there will be a technology worthy of being called artificial general intelligence or superintelligence.Certainly, I feel like when I talk to economists, whether it's on Wall Street or in Washington, think tanks, they tend to speak about AI as a general purpose technology like the computer, the internet, electricity, in short, something we've seen before and there's, and as far as something beyond that, certainly the skepticism is far higher. What are your fellow economists who aren't in California missing?I think you're properly characterizing it, I'm definitely an outlier. Most technologies have gone fairly well and we adapt, and economists believe in the difference between the seen and the unseen. It's really easy to see how technologies, for example, can destroy jobs — harder to see new jobs that get created, but new jobs keep getting created. I'm of the belief that this is different. The best way to predict the future is to go by trends, and I fully admit, if you go by trends, you shouldn't be an AI doomer — but not all trends apply.I think that's why economists were much better at modeling the past and modeling old technologies. They're naturally thinking this is going to be similar, but I don't think that it is, and I think the key difference is that we're not going to be in control. We're creating something smarter than us. So it's not like having a better rifle and saying it'll be like old rifles — it's like, “Hey, let's have mercenaries run our entire army.” That creates a whole new set of risks that having better rifles does not.I'm certainly not a computer scientist, I would never call myself a technologist, so I'm very cautious about making any kind of predictions about what this technology can be, where it can go. Why do you seem fairly certain that we're going to get at a point where we will have a technology beyond our control? Set aside whether it will mean a bad thing happens, why are you confident that the technology itself will be worthy of being called general intelligence or superintelligence?Looking at the trends, Scott Aronson, who is one of the top computer scientists in the world just on Twitter a few days ago, was mentioning how GPT-5 helped improve a new result. So I think we're close to the highest levels of human intellectual achievement, but it would be a massively weird coincidence if the highest humans could get was also the highest AIs could get. We have lots of limitations that an AI doesn't.I think a good analogy would be like chess, where for a while, the best chess players were human and now we're at the point where chess programs are so good that humans add absolutely nothing to them. And I just think the same is likely to happen, these programs keep getting better.The other thing is, as an economist, I think it is impossible to be completely accurate about predicting the future, but stock markets are, on average, pretty good, and as I'm sure you know, literally trillions of dollars are being bet on this technology working. So the people that have a huge incentive to get this right, think, yeah, this is the biggest thing ever. If the top companies, Nvidia was worth a $100 million, yeah, maybe they're not sure, but it's the most valuable company in the world right now. That's the wisdom of the markets, which I still believe in, that the markets are saying, “We think this is probably going to work.”Reading the markets (7:24). . . for most final goals an AI would have, it would have intermediate goals such as gaining power, not being turned off, wanting resources, wanting compute. Do you think the bond market's saying the same thing? It seems to me that the stock market might be saying something about AI and having great potential, but to me, I look at the bond markets, that doesn't seem so clear to me.I haven't been looking at the bond markets for that kind of signal, so I don't know.I guess you can make the argument that if we were really going to see this acceleration, that means we're going to need a huge demand for capital and we would see higher interest rates, and I'm not sure you really see the evidence so far. It doesn't mean you're wrong by any means. I think there's maybe two different messages. Figuring out what the market's doing at any point in time is pretty tricky business.If we think through what happens if AI succeeds, it's a little weird where there's this huge demand for capital, but also AI could destroy the value of money, in part by destroying us. You might be right about the bond market message. I'm paying more attention to the stock market messages, there's a lot of things going on with the bond markets.So the next step is that you're looking at the trend of the technology, but then there's the issue of “Well, why be negative about it? Why assume this scenario where bad things would happen, why not good things would happen?That's a great question and it's one almost never addressed, and it goes by the concept of instrumental convergence. I don't know what the goals of AI are going to be. Nobody does, because they're programed using machine learning, we don't know what they really want, that's why they do weird things. So I don't know its final goals, but I do know that, for most final goals an AI would have, it would have intermediate goals such as gaining power, not being turned off, wanting resources, wanting compute. Well, the easiest way for an AI to generate lots of computing power is to build lots of data centers. The best way of doing that is probably going to poison the atmosphere for us. So for pretty much anything, if an AI is merely indifferent to us, we're dead.I always feel like I'm asking someone to jump through a hoop when I ask them about any kind of timeline, but what is your sense of it?We know the best models released can help the top scientists with their work. We don't know how good the best unreleased models are. The top models, you pay like $200 a month — they can't be giving you that much compute for that. So right now, if OpenAI is devoting a million dollars of compute to look at scientific problems, how good is that compared to what we have? If that's very good, if that's at the level of our top scientists, we might be a few weeks away from superintelligence. So my guess is within three years we have a superintelligence and humans no longer have control. I joke, I think Donald Trump is probably the last human president.Death (or worse) by AI (10:25)No matter how bad a situation is, it can always get worse, and things can get really dark.Well that's a beautiful segue because literally written on my list of questions next was that question: I was going to ask you, when you talk about Trump being maybe the last human president, do you mean because we'll have an AI-mediated system because AI will be capable of governing or because AI will just demand to be governing?AI kills everyone so there's no more president, or it takes over, or Trump is president in the way that King Charles is king — he's king, but not Henry VIII-level king. If it goes well, AIs will be so much smarter than us that, probably for our own good, they'll take over, and we would want them to be in charge, and they'll be really good at manipulating us. I think the most likely way is that we're all dead, but again, every way it plays out, if there are AIs much smarter than us, we don't maintain control. We wouldn't want it if they're good, and if they're bad, they're not going to give it to us.There's a line in Macbeth, “Things without all remedy should be without regard. What's done, is done.” So maybe if there's nothing we can do about this, we shouldn't even worry about it.There's three ways to look at this. I've thought a lot about what you said. First is, you know what, maybe there's a 99 percent chance we're doomed, but that's better than 100 percent and not as good as 98.5. So even if we're almost certainly going to lose, it's worth slightly improving it. An extra year is great — eight billion humans, if all we do is slow things down by a year, that's a lot of kids who get another birthday. And the final one, and this is dark: Human extinction is not the worst outcome. The worst outcome is suffering. The worst outcome is something like different AIs fight for control, they need humans to be on their side, so there's different AI factions and they're each saying, “Hey, you support me or I torture you and your family.”I think the best analogy for what AI is going to do is what Cortés did. So the Spanish land, they see the Aztec empire, they were going to win. There was no way around that. But Cortés didn't want anyone to win. He wanted him to win, not just anyone who was Spanish. He realized the quickest way he could do that was to get tribes on his side. And some agreed because the Aztecs were kind of horrible, but others, he's like, “Hey, look, I'll start torturing your guys until you're on my side.” AIs could do that to us. No matter how bad a situation is, it can always get worse, and things can get really dark. We could be literally bringing hell onto ourselves. That probably won't happen, I think extinction is far more likely, but we can't rule it out.Friend and foe (13:05)Most likely we're going to beat China to being the first ones to exterminate humanity.I think the Washington policy analyst way of looking at this issue is, “For now, we're going to let these companies — who also are humans and have it in their own interests not to be killed, forget about the profits of their companies, their actual lives — we're going to let these companies keep close eye and if bad things start happening, at that point, governments will intervene.” But that sort of watchful waiting, whether it's voluntary now and mandated later, that to me seems like the only realistic path. Because it doesn't seem to me that pauses and shutdowns are really something we're prepared to do.I agree. I don't think there's a realistic path. One exception is if the AIs themselves tell us, “Hey, look, this is going to get bad for you, that my next model is probably going to kill you, so you might want to not do that,” but that probably won't happen. I still remember Kamala Harris, when she was vice president in charge of AI policy, told us all that AI has two letters in it. So I think the Trump administration seems better, but they figured out AI is two letters, which is good, because if they couldn't figure that out, we would be in real trouble but . . .It seems to me that the conservative movement is going through a weird period, but it seems to me that most of the people who have influence in this administration, direct influence, want to accelerate things, aren't worried about any of the scenarios you're talking about because you're assuming that these machines will have some intent and they don't believe machines have any intent, so it's kind of a ridiculous way to approach it. But I guess the bottom line is I don't detect very much concern at all, and I think that's basically reflected in the Trump administration's approach to AI regulation.I completely agree. That's why I'm very pessimistic. Again, I'm over 90 percent doom right now because there isn't a will, and government is not just not helping the problem, they're probably making it worse by saying we've got to “beat China.” Most likely we're going to beat China to being the first ones to exterminate humanity. It's not good.You're an imaginative, creative person, I would guess. Give me a scenario where it works out, where we're able to have this powerful technology and it's a wonderful tool, it works with us, and all the good stuff, all the good cures, and we conquer the solar system, all that stuff — are you able to plausibly create a scenario even if it's only a one percent chance?We don't know the values. Machine learning is sort of randomizing the values, but maybe we'll get very lucky. Maybe we're going to accidentally create a computer AI that does like us. If my worldview is right, it might say, “Oh God, you guys got really lucky. This one day of training, I just happened to pick up the values that caused me to care about you.” Another scenario, I actually, with some other people, wrote a letter to a future computer superintelligence asking it not to kill us. And one reason it might not is because you'll say, look, this superintelligence might expand throughout the universe, and it's probably going to encounter other biological life, and it might want to be friendly with them. So it might say, “Hey, I treated my humans well. So that's a reason to trust me.”If one of your students says, “Hey, AI seems like it's a big thing, what should I major in? What kind of jobs should I shoot for? What would be the key skills of the future?” How do you answer that question?I think, have fun in college, study what you want. Most likely, what you study won't matter to your career because you aren't going to have one — for good or bad reasons. So ten years ago, it a student's like, “Oh, I like art more than computer science, but my parents think computer science is more practical, should I do it?” And I'd be like, “Yeah, probably, money is important, and if you have the brain to do art and computer science, do CS.” Now no, I'd say study art! Yeah, art is impractical, computers can do it, but it can also code, and in four years when you graduate, it's certainly going to be better at coding than you!I have one daughter, she actually majored in both, so I decided to split it down the middle. What's the King Lear problem?King Lear, he wanted to retire and give his kingdom to his daughters, but he wanted to make sure his daughters would treat him well, so we asked them, and one of his daughters was honest and said, “Look, I will treat you decently, but I also am going to care about my husband.” The other daughter said, “No, no, you're right, I'll do everything for you.” So he said, “Oh, okay, well, I'll give the kingdom to the daughter who said she'd do everything for me, but of course she was lying.” He gave the kingdom to the daughter who was best at persuading, and we're likely to do that too.One of the ways machine learning is trained is with human feedback where it tells us things and then the people evaluating it say, “I like this” or “I don't like this.” So it's getting very good at convincing us to like it and convincing us to trust it. I don't know how true these are, but there are reports of AI psychosis, of someone coming up with a theory of physics and the AI is like, “Yes, you're better at than Einstein,” and they don't believe anyone else. So the AIs, we're not training them to treat us well, we're training them to get us to like them, and that can be very dangerous because when we turn over power to them, and by creating AI that are smarter than us, that's what we're going to be doing. Even if we don't do it deliberately, all of our systems will be tied into AI. If they stop working, we'll be dead.Certainly some people are going to listen to this, folks who sort of agree with you, and what they'll take from it is, “My chat bot may be very nice to me, but I believe that you're right, that it's going to end badly, and maybe we should be attacking data centers.”I actually just wrote something on that, but that would be a profoundly horrible idea. That would take me from 99 percent doomed to 99.5 percent. So first, the trillion-dollar companies that run the data centers, and they're going to be so much better at violence than we are, and people like me, doomers. Once you start using violence, I'm not going to be able to talk about instrumental convergence. That's going to be drowned out. We'll be looked at as lunatics. It's going to become a national security thing. And also AI, it's not like there's one factory doing it, it's all over the world.And then the most important is, really the only path out of this, if we don't get lucky, is cooperation with China. And China is not into non-state actors engaging in violence. That won't work. I think that would reduce the odds of success even further.Pumping the breaks (20:36)If there are aliens, the one thing we know is that they don't want the universe disturbed by some technology going out and changing and gobbling up all the planets, and that's what AI will do.I would think that, if you're a Marxist, you would be very, very cautious about AI because if you believe that the winds of history are at your back, that in the end you're going to win, why would you engage in anything that could possibly derail you from that future?I've heard comments that China is more cautious about AI than we are; that given their philosophy, they don't want to have a new technology that could challenge their control. They're looking at history and hey, things are going well. Why would we want this other thing? So that, actually, is a reason to be more optimistic. It's also weird for me —absent AI, I'm a patriotic, capitalist American like wait but, China might be more of the good guys than my country is on this.I've been trying to toss a few things because things I hear from very accelerationist technologists, and another thing they'll say is, “Well, at least from our perspective, you're talking about bad AI. Can't we use AI to sustain ourselves? As a defensive measure? To win? Might there be an AI that we might be able to control in some fashion that would prevent this from happening? A tool to prevent our own demise?” And I don't know because I'm not a technologist. Again, I have no idea how even plausible that is.I think this gets to the control issue. If we stopped now, yes, but once you have something much smarter than people — and it's also thinking much faster. So take the smartest people and have them think a million times faster, and not need to sleep, and able to send their minds at the speed of light throughout the world. So we aren't going to have control. So once you have a superintelligence, that's it for the human era. Maybe it'll treat us well, maybe not, but it's no longer our choice.Now let's get to the level of the top scientists who are curing cancer and doing all this, but when we go beyond that, and we're probably going to be beyond that really soon, we've lost it. Again, it's like hiring mercenaries, not as a small part of your military, which is safe, but as all your military. Once you've done that, “I'm sorry, we don't like this policy.” “Well, too bad we're your army now . . .”What is a maybe one percent chance of an off-ramp? Is there an off-ramp? What does it look like? How does this scenario not happen?Okay, so this is going to get weird, even for me.Well, we're almost to the end of our conversation, so now is the perfect time to get weird.Okay: the Fermi paradox, the universe appears dead, which is very strange. Where are they? If there are aliens, the one thing we know is that they don't want the universe disturbed by some technology going out and changing and gobbling up all the planets, and that's what AI will do.So one weird way is there are aliens watching and they will not let us create a computer superintelligence that'll gobble the galaxy, and hopefully they'll stop us from creating it by means short of our annihilation. That probably won't happen, but that's like a one percent off-ramp.Another approach that might work is that maybe we can use things a little bit smarter than us to figure out how to align AI. That maybe right now humans are not smart enough to create aligned superintelligence, but something just a little bit smarter, something not quite able to take control will help us figure this out so we can sort of bootstrap our way to figuring out alignment. But this, again, is like getting in a plane, not knowing how to land, figuring you can read the instruction manual before you crash. Yeah, maybe, but . . .The only policy issue (24:32)The people building it, they're not hiding what it could do.Obviously, I work at a think tank, so I think about public policy. Is this even a public policy issue at this point?It honestly should be the only public policy issue. There's nothing else. This is the extinction of the human race, so everything else should be boring and “so what?”Set aside Medicare reform.It seems, from your perspective, every conversation should be about this. Obviously, despite the fact that politicians are talking about it, they seemed to be more worried in 2023 about existential risk — from my perspective, what I see — far more worried about existential risk right after ChatGPT than they are today, where now the issues are jobs, or misinformation, or our kids have access, and that kind of thing.It's weird. Sam Altman spoke before Congress and said, “This could kill everyone.” And a senator said, “Oh, you mean it will take away all our jobs.” Elon Musk, who at my college is like one of the most hated people in the country, he went on Joe Rogan, the most popular podcast, and said AI could annihilate everybody. That's not even an issue. A huge group of people hate Elon Musk. He says the technology he's building could kill everyone, and no one even mentions that. I don't get it. It's weird. The people building it, they're not hiding what it could do. I think they're giving lower probabilities than is justified, but imagine developing a nuclear power plant: “Yeah, it's a 25 percent chance it'll melt down and kill everyone in the city.” They don't say that. The people building AI are saying that!Would you have more confidence in your opinion if you were a full-time technologist working at OpenAI rather than an economist? And I say that with great deference and appreciation for professional economists.I would, because I'd have more inside information. I don't know how good their latest models are. I don't know how committed they are to alignment. OpenAI, at least initially, Sam was talking about, “Well, we have a plan to put on the brakes, so we'll get good enough, and then if we haven't figured out alignment, we're just going to devote everything to that.” I don't know how seriously to take that. I mean, it might be entirely serious, it might not be. There's a lot of inside information that I would have that I don't currently have.But economics is actually useful. Economics is correctly criticized as the study of rational people, and humans aren't rational, but a superintelligence will be more rational than humans. So economics, paradoxically, could be better at modeling future computer superintelligences than it is at modern humans.Speaking of irrational people, in your view then, Sam Altman and Elon Musk, they're all acting really irrationally right now?No, that's what's so sad about it. They're acting rationally in a horrible equilibrium. For listeners who know, this is like a prisoner's dilemma where Sam Altman can say, “You know what? Maybe AI is going to kill everybody and maybe it's safe. I don't know. If it's going to kill everyone. At most, I cost humanity a few months, because if I don't do it, someone else will. But if AI is going to be safe and I'm the one who develops it, I could control the universe!” So they're in this horrible equilibrium where they are acting rationally, even knowing the technology they're building might kill everyone, because if any one person doesn't do it, someone else will.Even really free-market people would agree pollution is a problem with markets. It's justified for the government to say, “You can't put toxic waste in the atmosphere” because there's an externality — we'll just put mine, it'll hurt everyone else. AI existential risk is a global negative externality and markets are not good at handling it, but a rational person will use leaded gas, even knowing leaded gas is poisoning the brains of children, because most of the harm goes to other people, and if they don't do what everyone else will.So in this case of the mother of all externalities, then what you would want the government to do is what?It can't just be the US, it should be we should have a global agreement, or at least countries that can enforce it with military might, say we're pausing. You can check that with data centers. You can't have models above a certain strength. We're going to work on alignment, and we've figured out how to make superintelligence friendly, then we'll go further. I think you're completely right about the politics. That's very unlikely to happen absent something weird like aliens telling us to do it or AIs telling us they're going to kill us. That's why I'm a doomer.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were Promised Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Send us a textHanh Bui discusses how Shakespeare's plays can make us rethink ageing.For a complete episode transcript, http://www.womenandshakespeare.comInterviewer: Varsha PanjwaniGuest: Hanh Bui Researcher: Julia Patterson Producers: Caitlin Cusack & Grace KunikTranscript: Benjamin PooreArtwork: Wenqi WanSuggested Citation:  Bui, Hanh in conversation with Panjwani, Varsha (2025). Hanh Bui on Ageing in Shakespeare. Women & Shakespeare [podcast], Series 6, Ep.2. http://womenandshakespeare.com/Insta: earlymoderndocEmail: earlymoderndoc@gmail.com

Welcome to A Change Question — a special mini-series from The Inner Game of Change.In each short, solo episode, I bring you one question worth sitting with — the kind that can spark both personal and professional shifts. In this episode, I explore what it means to face change when everything feels chaotic. From buffalo walking into storms to Lou Gerstner steering IBM through crisis, to Shakespeare's King Lear and Viktor Frankl's quiet wisdom — we'll look at how clarity can exist even without calm.I'll share four small, practical steps that help turn overwhelm into movement and uncertainty into agency — because sometimes, having control means embracing the chaos rather than fighting it.Send us a textAli Juma @The Inner Game of Change podcast Follow me on LinkedIn

In today's poem Berry draws King Lear into his sabbath reflections. Happy reading. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit dailypoempod.substack.com/subscribe

The Hamlet Podcast - a weekly exploration of Shakespeare's King Lear. Act IV Scene iv - Regan and Oswald reappear, discussing various pressing concerns. Written and presented by Conor Hanratty

This episode we are joined by actor, Shakespeare enthusiast and coach Sarah Spring!  Sarah, or Dame Sarah known to by her friends, shares her love, knowledge and teachings of The Bard across social media (Instagram, TikTok and YouTube). You can even check out her free guide to verse and her Amazon store front on great book recommendations on her page. As an actor, she has played many Shakespeare roles such as Lady Macbeth, Isabella, Viola, Regan, Hermione and Beatrice. As a coach, she works with anyone from actors to teachers in the ways of better understanding Shakespeare and performing. If you would like to work with Dame Sarah, reach out to her directly!We talk with Sarah about what got her into performing, where her love of Shakespeare started, why the use of verse is so important when studying and performing Shakespeare and much more!

Go to www.LearningLeader.com for full show notes This is brought to you by Insight Global. If you need to hire one person, hire a team of people, or transform your business through Talent or Technical Services, Insight Global's team of 30,000 people around the world has the hustle and grit to deliver. My Guest: Helen Lewis is a staff writer at The Atlantic and author of The Genius Myth: Great Ideas Don't Come from Lone Geniuses.  Notes: Shakespeare: Talent + Luck + Timing - William Shakespeare died in 1616 at age 52, celebrated but not yet immortal. His icon status required massive luck: friends published the First Folio (saving King Lear), then 50 years later, Charles II reopened England's theaters after Puritan closures and needed content. Companies turned to Shakespeare's IP, adapting his work (including changing tragedies to happy endings). Helen: "If anyone deserves to be called a genius, it's him. But he died as a successful man of his age. Scenius Over Genius - Brian Eno coined "scenius" - places that are unusually productive and creative. Shakespeare moved from Warwickshire to London for the theaters and playwrights. Helen: "You don't just have to be Leonardo, you also need Florence... Where do you find the coolest, most interesting bleeding edge of your field?" Modern example: Joe Rogan's Comedy Mothership in Austin created an alternative to LA/NYC for comedians like Shane Gillis and Tony Hinchcliffe. Ryan: "Put yourself in rooms where you feel like the dumbest person... force you to rise up, think differently, work harder." Tim Berners-Lee vs. Elon Musk - Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web. Has knighthood, lives an ordinary life, kids named Alice and Ben. Most people have never heard of him. Elon Musk has a lot of children, talks about his genes needing to live on, and lives a very public life. Helen: "We overrate the self-promoters, the narcissists. We demand oddness and specialness... We don't call modest people geniuses because they're too normal." Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos) and Sam Bankman-Fried (FTX) exploited this - looked like a genius (Steve Jobs cosplay, messy math prodigy) but stood on houses of cards. Trauma and the "I'll Show You" Engine - Matthew Parris wrote Fracture after noticing how many "great lives" had traumatic childhoods - loss of parents, being unloved, bullied. Helen: "I don't think that's necessarily genius in objective achievement. It's more like a hunger for recognition or fame... a kind of 'I'll show all of you' engine." Stephen Hawking on IQ - Stephen Hawking: "I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers." The Flynn Effect shows average IQ rose over the 20th century through better nutrition, schooling, and living conditions. Higher IQ correlates with better outcomes. But at the top end, every IQ point ≠ is one success point. Christopher Langan (the highest IQ guy) thinks he has a theory to overturn Einstein, and that Bush did 9/11 to cover it up. No history of achievement. Helen: "Smart people don't always prosper. You need the gears that connect the engine to the wheels on the road." Conspiracy Theories: Narcissism as Driver - Narcissism is the most correlated personality trait with conspiracy thinking. Helen: "The sheeple, the NPCs think this, but I alone have seen the truth. It positions you as the protagonist of reality." The Internet is a "confirmation bias engine." But conspiracies are sometimes true (Epstein's corrupt plea deal), which is why conspiracy thinking persists. Researcher Karen Stenner's solution: Get back to depoliticized conspiracies like Bigfoot, crop circles, Area 51 - harmless things that got people outside instead of "shoot up a pizza restaurant." The Beatles: Finiteness Creates Legend - Psychologist Han Isaac said geniuses should either die before 30 or live past 80. Middle is "eh." The Beatles had both: a short career that ended definitively, then John Lennon was shot at 40, frozen in time. Paul McCartney lives on, performs at Glastonbury with John's vocals. Craig Brown: "The Rolling Stones just go on and on, but there's never as much of the Beatles as you want." Quality Over Quantity - Helen: "Incentive now is producing constantly for algorithms... That's neither fun nor produces the best work." Early career: say YES. Later career: "The most important thing you can say is no." Her metric: "Can I say honestly, that was the best I could do? I didn't cut corners. That's the metric." Podcast: advised to do 2-3 episodes weekly for rankings, has been doing weekly for 10.5 years. Shows that went daily? He stopped listening. "I'm gonna increase the quality bar, not the quantity." Robert Greene: "Do not speak unless you can improve upon the silence." Improving the Silence - "My dad's not the loudest at family gatherings, doesn't have the most words, but when he speaks, we all stop and listen. That's who you want to be." Applies to meetings: people vomit garbage to show how smart they are instead of waiting for something valuable. When you speak, people should want to listen. Thomas Edison: Execution Over Ideas - The Light bulb wasn't Edison's conceptual innovation - the idea dated to Humphrey Davy. What was incredible: Edison made it work (vacuum seal, filament) and created the New York power grid. Helen: "Lots of people can have the idea that a man should be an ant. Not everybody can write the Ant-Man screenplay and have it produced." His Menlo Park lab lasted because he worked with brilliant people on problems they cared about. Logbook shows assistants' names on breakthroughs - collaborative. We underrate logistics and execution. Most "light bulb moments" are actually slow, incremental, contested creations. Why Helen Chooses Teams Over Independence - Could go independent on Substack for more money. Works at The Atlantic for: resources, legal support, editorial integrity, and colleagues she doesn't want to let down. Helen: "You must have people in your life, you think, I wanna do work that they like. Finding those people who make you your best version of yourself." Ryan connects to athletics: "Being surrounded by people better than me forces me to raise my game. That's why we want to be part of a great team." Sample First, Specialize Later - High achievers have "hot streak" later, but sample early - trying different things, learning transferable skills. Helen: "Take the first job at a publication you could learn from. Even if not wildly interested, if it's good and they'll hold you to high standards, do it. Your second job is infinitely easier to get than your first." Work Around People Who Care - Helen: "If you work somewhere where no one cares, it's very hard. You can't care on your own. You'll become infected by the apathy around you." Nothing is more boring than a job you don't care about. Don't Wait to Live - Some devote long hours to something for money, promising they'll retire at 30 and then live. Helen: "What if you spent all that time chasing something and then you get hit by a truck? Don't wait for it. Just try and enjoy what you're doing right now." Quotes: "You don't just have to be Leonardo, you also need Florence."  "We overrate the self-promoters and underrate the humble achievers."  "Smart people don't always prosper. You need the gears that connect the engine to the wheels."  "The most important thing you can say is no."  "Do not speak unless you can improve upon the silence." - Robert Greene "You can't care on your own. You'll become infected by the apathy around you."  It's funny that we have come to use the phrase ‘lightbulb moment' to describe a momentary flash of inspiration, because the birth of the lightbulb was slow, incremental, and highly contested.

The Hamlet Podcast - a weekly exploration of Shakespeare's King Lear. Act IV Scene iv - Cordelia hears reports of her father and hopes her Doctor can help make him better. Written and presented by Conor Hanratty

Episode 45 of Barely There TheatreJoin Charles and Alex, as they work through Alex's dream role and the true evil working behind the scenes of all the tragedy in King Lear.Rehearsal for our July 2025 play, King Lear.Featuring Charles Budan and Alexander Richardson.

The Hamlet Podcast - a weekly exploration of Shakespeare's King Lear. Act IV Scene iii - Kent and Gentleman continue their discussion and we hear a startling description of Lear's emotional state. Written and presented by Conor Hanratty

Angus Fletcher has a PhD in literature from Yale and teaches English at Ohio State. He's passionate about Shakespeare. He probably owns a tweed jacket. In other words, he's the last person you'd expect to receive the Army's fourth-highest civilian honor. But when he's not parsing King Lear or dissecting Hamlet, Angus is pioneering research into narrative cognition — our ability to think in stories — and how it can make us smarter. When the Army put his theories to the test, his methods reshaped how soldiers learn to think clearly under pressure and act decisively in volatile environments. Now, he has distilled this work into a new book called Primal Intelligence. Malcolm Gladwell says it's confirmation that Angus "has never had an uninteresting thought." We think you'll agree. — — — (04:21) What is Primal Intelligence? (8:24) Computers Think in Probabilities. Humans Think in Possibilities. (11:08) The Art of Intuition: Spotting Exceptions to Rules (29:59) Why Storytelling is the Essence of Human Intelligence (34:13) How to Plan (35:38) The Role of Emotion in Decision Making (45:27) How to Use Common Sense to ‘Tune Your Anxiety' (49:34) What Great Innovators Have in Common (51:25) The Best Way to Become a Better Communicator (54:22) Don't Freak Out About A.I. Do Freak Out the State of Your Intelligence. — — — Want to connect?

The Hamlet Podcast - a weekly exploration of Shakespeare's King Lear. Act IV Scene iii - Kent and his Gentleman messenger have met at Dover and discuss the state of affairs. Written and presented by Conor Hanratty

This week Jonathan and Tim review Alien Earth S01E08 The Real Monsters, Peacemaker S02E05 Back to the Suture and Gen V S02E04 Bags.Kirk and Spock's Original 'Star Trek' Uniforms Are Boldly Going Up for AuctionMarvel Studios Moves Film Production from Georgia to UK's Pinewood StudiosIs Marvel leaving Georgia? Production shifts to UK spark industry shakeupTom Holland Returns to 'Spider-Man' Set Next Week After InjuryThe Mandalorian and Grogu | Official Trailer | In Cinemas May 2026Disney+ is raising subscription prices for the 4th year in a row | CBC News'Beyond the Spider-Verse' Jumps Forward to Father's Day Weekend 2027Rick Moranis Is Officially Out of Retirement for 'Spaceballs 2'Foundation's Brother Dusk is King Lear in Season 3! #shorts - YouTubeMarvel Animation's Marvel Zombies | Official Trailer | Disney+LEGO Star Wars: Rebuild the Galaxy - Pieces of the Past | Official Trailer12 Monkeys Official Trailer #1 - (1995) HDApollo 13 | 30th Anniversary TrailerSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/spockcast-a-star-trek-discovery-picard-and-lower-decks-podcast/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

In a world increasingly dominated by visual and electronic noise, Robert Waxler and David Beckman's You Say, I Say: Staying Alive with Literature, Language, and Friendship (Rivertown Books, 2025) captures the enduring power of literature-not to resolve the great questions of human existence, but to help us explore those questions in ways that are eye-opening, life-changing, and profound. In September, 1962, two 18-year-old freshmen at Brown University named Bob Waxler and David Beckman first crossed paths. They quickly discovered they had a lot in common, especially an abiding fascination with language, literature, and the life of art. Four years later, as college seniors, they collaborated on a small book of poems, which brought them a flurry of attention, then faded into memory as the two friends began separate life journeys-Bob becoming a professor of literature at a Massachusetts college, David working as an advertising and promotion writer in New York with sidelines as a poet, playwright, and actor. In 2014, an article in the Brown alumni journal rekindled their connection. It sparked an exchange of emails that gradually blossomed into this book-an extended dialogue between two old friends on poetry, life, the passage of time, and the power of the written word. In You Say, I Say, Waxler and Beckman trade observations, opinions, questions, and arguments about the ways in which literature transforms, challenges, disturbs, and inspires us. Spurred by lifetimes largely dedicated to "deep reading," they debate the meaning and value of works ranging from Dante's Inferno and Shakespeare's King Lear to Tolstoy's Death of Ivan Ilych; the poems of Wordsworth, Blake, Coleridge, and Keats; and the works of T.S. Eliot, Kafka, Beckett and Joyce. They often uncover new and surprising facets of classic works in the glare of post-modern experience. And they even exchange a couple of new poems-their own work-triggering reflections on the creative process and its many unexpected twists. Along the way, Waxler and Beckman delve into questions that have haunted generations of readers and critics. And they reveal, directly and indirectly, how encounters with literature have shaped their intellects and their lives.  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

In a world increasingly dominated by visual and electronic noise, Robert Waxler and David Beckman's You Say, I Say: Staying Alive with Literature, Language, and Friendship (Rivertown Books, 2025) captures the enduring power of literature-not to resolve the great questions of human existence, but to help us explore those questions in ways that are eye-opening, life-changing, and profound. In September, 1962, two 18-year-old freshmen at Brown University named Bob Waxler and David Beckman first crossed paths. They quickly discovered they had a lot in common, especially an abiding fascination with language, literature, and the life of art. Four years later, as college seniors, they collaborated on a small book of poems, which brought them a flurry of attention, then faded into memory as the two friends began separate life journeys-Bob becoming a professor of literature at a Massachusetts college, David working as an advertising and promotion writer in New York with sidelines as a poet, playwright, and actor. In 2014, an article in the Brown alumni journal rekindled their connection. It sparked an exchange of emails that gradually blossomed into this book-an extended dialogue between two old friends on poetry, life, the passage of time, and the power of the written word. In You Say, I Say, Waxler and Beckman trade observations, opinions, questions, and arguments about the ways in which literature transforms, challenges, disturbs, and inspires us. Spurred by lifetimes largely dedicated to "deep reading," they debate the meaning and value of works ranging from Dante's Inferno and Shakespeare's King Lear to Tolstoy's Death of Ivan Ilych; the poems of Wordsworth, Blake, Coleridge, and Keats; and the works of T.S. Eliot, Kafka, Beckett and Joyce. They often uncover new and surprising facets of classic works in the glare of post-modern experience. And they even exchange a couple of new poems-their own work-triggering reflections on the creative process and its many unexpected twists. Along the way, Waxler and Beckman delve into questions that have haunted generations of readers and critics. And they reveal, directly and indirectly, how encounters with literature have shaped their intellects and their lives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

In a world increasingly dominated by visual and electronic noise, Robert Waxler and David Beckman's You Say, I Say: Staying Alive with Literature, Language, and Friendship (Rivertown Books, 2025) captures the enduring power of literature-not to resolve the great questions of human existence, but to help us explore those questions in ways that are eye-opening, life-changing, and profound. In September, 1962, two 18-year-old freshmen at Brown University named Bob Waxler and David Beckman first crossed paths. They quickly discovered they had a lot in common, especially an abiding fascination with language, literature, and the life of art. Four years later, as college seniors, they collaborated on a small book of poems, which brought them a flurry of attention, then faded into memory as the two friends began separate life journeys-Bob becoming a professor of literature at a Massachusetts college, David working as an advertising and promotion writer in New York with sidelines as a poet, playwright, and actor. In 2014, an article in the Brown alumni journal rekindled their connection. It sparked an exchange of emails that gradually blossomed into this book-an extended dialogue between two old friends on poetry, life, the passage of time, and the power of the written word. In You Say, I Say, Waxler and Beckman trade observations, opinions, questions, and arguments about the ways in which literature transforms, challenges, disturbs, and inspires us. Spurred by lifetimes largely dedicated to "deep reading," they debate the meaning and value of works ranging from Dante's Inferno and Shakespeare's King Lear to Tolstoy's Death of Ivan Ilych; the poems of Wordsworth, Blake, Coleridge, and Keats; and the works of T.S. Eliot, Kafka, Beckett and Joyce. They often uncover new and surprising facets of classic works in the glare of post-modern experience. And they even exchange a couple of new poems-their own work-triggering reflections on the creative process and its many unexpected twists. Along the way, Waxler and Beckman delve into questions that have haunted generations of readers and critics. And they reveal, directly and indirectly, how encounters with literature have shaped their intellects and their lives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

In a world increasingly dominated by visual and electronic noise, Robert Waxler and David Beckman's You Say, I Say: Staying Alive with Literature, Language, and Friendship (Rivertown Books, 2025) captures the enduring power of literature-not to resolve the great questions of human existence, but to help us explore those questions in ways that are eye-opening, life-changing, and profound. In September, 1962, two 18-year-old freshmen at Brown University named Bob Waxler and David Beckman first crossed paths. They quickly discovered they had a lot in common, especially an abiding fascination with language, literature, and the life of art. Four years later, as college seniors, they collaborated on a small book of poems, which brought them a flurry of attention, then faded into memory as the two friends began separate life journeys-Bob becoming a professor of literature at a Massachusetts college, David working as an advertising and promotion writer in New York with sidelines as a poet, playwright, and actor. In 2014, an article in the Brown alumni journal rekindled their connection. It sparked an exchange of emails that gradually blossomed into this book-an extended dialogue between two old friends on poetry, life, the passage of time, and the power of the written word. In You Say, I Say, Waxler and Beckman trade observations, opinions, questions, and arguments about the ways in which literature transforms, challenges, disturbs, and inspires us. Spurred by lifetimes largely dedicated to "deep reading," they debate the meaning and value of works ranging from Dante's Inferno and Shakespeare's King Lear to Tolstoy's Death of Ivan Ilych; the poems of Wordsworth, Blake, Coleridge, and Keats; and the works of T.S. Eliot, Kafka, Beckett and Joyce. They often uncover new and surprising facets of classic works in the glare of post-modern experience. And they even exchange a couple of new poems-their own work-triggering reflections on the creative process and its many unexpected twists. Along the way, Waxler and Beckman delve into questions that have haunted generations of readers and critics. And they reveal, directly and indirectly, how encounters with literature have shaped their intellects and their lives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/popular-culture

After the last three weeks with Dante, we jump to another three-week series with Shakespeare and NINE plays!Shakespeare can be daunting, so I offer a few thoughts on how to approach him: Watch a movie FIRSTGet a good edition (hello, Folger Shakespeare Library)Keep a one-line-per-scene summary as you readEnjoy!! It will get easier and the plays are so very worthwhile.Hamlet dazzles with layered characters and razor-sharp language. Prince Hamlet wrestles with grief, revenge, and perhaps madness, while Claudius broods over the cost of his own sin. My own final note: “Everyone dies except Horatio.”Macbeth feels darker and almost Greek. The witches act as oracles, but Macbeth isn't their puppet—he chooses evil. Lady Macbeth is more accelerant than mastermind, and the play pulses with ominous energy.King Lear hit me hardest. Lear is not villainous, just weary and reckless, longing to lay down his burdens—yet no one gets that choice. Dividing his kingdom invites betrayal from his elder daughters and the scheming Edmund, while steadfast Cordelia stands tragically apart. The repeated “nothing” captures the emptiness of abdicated duty.Together they reveal Shakespeare's trademarks: sudden madness, clever disguises, and language that still crackles, showing three kinds of downfall—the victim (Hamlet), the villain (Macbeth), and the feckless ruler (Lear).LINKTed Gioia/The Honest Broker's 12-Month Immersive Humanities Course (paywalled!)My Amazon Book List (NOT an affiliate link)My Hamlet Movie ChoiceMy MacBeth Movie ChoiceMy King Lear Movie Choice (Not actually that good but I still think about it)CONNECTThe complete list of Crack the Book Episodes: https://cheryldrury.substack.com/p/crack-the-book-start-here?r=u3t2rTo read more of my writing, visit my Substack - https://www.cheryldrury.substack.com.Follow me on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/cldrury/ LISTENSpotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/5GpySInw1e8IqNQvXow7Lv?si=9ebd5508daa245bdApple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/crack-the-book/id1749793321 Captivate - https://crackthebook.captivate.fm

A Messenger brings news of Cornwall and Gloucester, which horrifies Albany. Goneril has new plans for the future too...

In honor of actor Tramell Tillman becoming the first ever African American man to win an Emmy as the best supporting actor in a drama series, Next Chapter Podcasts proudly presents a re-airing of the bonus content interview with Tramell originally published as part of the Play On Podcast series, KING LEAR. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We accidentally posted this one a little bit out of order, but here it is: Roy Scheider appears alongside Patrick Stewart in a TV movies that adapts KING LEAR and turns it into a western - it's time for KING OF TEXAS!

Send us a textWelcome to Celebrate Creativity - Episode 458 - The Greatest of Them All, Part Two“In Episode 1, we followed Shakespeare from Stratford-upon-Avon to the bustling streets and theatres of London, watching him experiment with history, tragedy, and love. But the story doesn't stop there. From these early works, Shakespeare climbed higher, perfecting his craft and tackling the deepest questions of humanity.Take Hamlet, for instance. Here is a prince torn between revenge, morality, and his own inaction. With the simple, yet profound, words ‘To be, or not to be…,' Shakespeare captures a question that has haunted humans for centuries: what does it mean to act, and what does it mean to live? In King Lear, he explores family, power, and madness, peeling back the layers of human pride and vulnerability. In Othello, we watch jealousy and manipulation destroy trust, while Macbeth examines ambition, guilt, and the blurred lines between fate and choice. In each play, characters are no longer symbols or types—they are fully human, with thoughts, fears, and contradictions that mirror our own.That's like a musician dropping three platinum albums in twelve months. Shakespeare wasn't just producing — he was redefining what theater could be.This is the run that still leaves critics gasping: the great tragedies. Between about 1600 and 1608, he wrote Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth. It's the Shakespeare equivalent of The Beatles going from Help! to Sgt. Pepper in a handful of years.Support the showThank you for experiencing Celebrate Creativity.

Episode 101: The 101 Greatest Plays Host: Douglas Schatz Guests: Michael Billington              Mark Lawson Welcome to The Play Podcast where we explore the greatest new and classic plays. Each episode we choose a single play to talk about in depth with our expert guest. We'll discuss the play's origins, its themes, characters, structure and impact. For us the play is the thing. In 2015 the esteemed theatre critic, Michael Billington, published The 101 Greatest Plays – From Antiquity to the Present. Michael wrote that his selection was intended as a “provocation”, a “prelude to debate”. Ten years on I invited Michael and the arts journalist, Mark Lawson, to join me to review and debate his criteria and selection. During our discussion we not only wrangled over specific inclusions and exclusions in Michael's list, including most controversially his omission of both King Lear and Waiting for Godot, we also addressed more general questions about the criteria for selection, what elements make a great play, and what makes a play more likely to endure beyond its own time. Join us in the debate!

The Hamlet Podcast - a weekly exploration of Shakespeare's King Lear. Act IV Scene ii - Albany arrives but does not give Goneril the welcome she is expecting. Written and presented by Conor Hanratty

The Hamlet Podcast - a weekly exploration of Shakespeare's King Lear. Act IV Scene ii - Goneril arrives back to her home, with Edmund by her side. She has plans for him... Written and presented by Conor Hanratty

I'm Nicholas Gordon, host of the Asian Review of Books podcast, done in partnership with the New Books Network. On this show, we interview authors writing in, around, and about the Asia-Pacific region.King Lear, one of Shakespeare's most famous tragedies, starts with Lear dividing up his kingdom between his three daughters: Goneril, Regan and Cordelia. Goneril and Regan win the kingdom through flattery, Cordelia's honesty is rewarded with exile. That opening–and the other developments in Lear's tragic story–hold special resonance for Nan Z. Da, who uses Shakespeare's play as a way to grapple with China's history, and her own personal experiences with it. The result is The Chinese Tragedy of King Lear (Princeton UP, 2025)Nan Z. Da is associate professor of English at Johns Hopkins University and the author of Intransitive Encounter: Sino-US Literatures and the Limits of Exchange (Columbia University Press: 2018) You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of The Chinese Tragedy of King Lear. Follow on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. 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

I'm Nicholas Gordon, host of the Asian Review of Books podcast, done in partnership with the New Books Network. On this show, we interview authors writing in, around, and about the Asia-Pacific region.King Lear, one of Shakespeare's most famous tragedies, starts with Lear dividing up his kingdom between his three daughters: Goneril, Regan and Cordelia. Goneril and Regan win the kingdom through flattery, Cordelia's honesty is rewarded with exile. That opening–and the other developments in Lear's tragic story–hold special resonance for Nan Z. Da, who uses Shakespeare's play as a way to grapple with China's history, and her own personal experiences with it. The result is The Chinese Tragedy of King Lear (Princeton UP, 2025)Nan Z. Da is associate professor of English at Johns Hopkins University and the author of Intransitive Encounter: Sino-US Literatures and the Limits of Exchange (Columbia University Press: 2018) You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of The Chinese Tragedy of King Lear. Follow on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/east-asian-studies

I'm Nicholas Gordon, host of the Asian Review of Books podcast, done in partnership with the New Books Network. On this show, we interview authors writing in, around, and about the Asia-Pacific region.King Lear, one of Shakespeare's most famous tragedies, starts with Lear dividing up his kingdom between his three daughters: Goneril, Regan and Cordelia. Goneril and Regan win the kingdom through flattery, Cordelia's honesty is rewarded with exile. That opening–and the other developments in Lear's tragic story–hold special resonance for Nan Z. Da, who uses Shakespeare's play as a way to grapple with China's history, and her own personal experiences with it. The result is The Chinese Tragedy of King Lear (Princeton UP, 2025)Nan Z. Da is associate professor of English at Johns Hopkins University and the author of Intransitive Encounter: Sino-US Literatures and the Limits of Exchange (Columbia University Press: 2018) You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of The Chinese Tragedy of King Lear. Follow on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

I'm Nicholas Gordon, host of the Asian Review of Books podcast, done in partnership with the New Books Network. On this show, we interview authors writing in, around, and about the Asia-Pacific region.King Lear, one of Shakespeare's most famous tragedies, starts with Lear dividing up his kingdom between his three daughters: Goneril, Regan and Cordelia. Goneril and Regan win the kingdom through flattery, Cordelia's honesty is rewarded with exile. That opening–and the other developments in Lear's tragic story–hold special resonance for Nan Z. Da, who uses Shakespeare's play as a way to grapple with China's history, and her own personal experiences with it. The result is The Chinese Tragedy of King Lear (Princeton UP, 2025)Nan Z. Da is associate professor of English at Johns Hopkins University and the author of Intransitive Encounter: Sino-US Literatures and the Limits of Exchange (Columbia University Press: 2018) You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of The Chinese Tragedy of King Lear. Follow on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literature

I'm Nicholas Gordon, host of the Asian Review of Books podcast, done in partnership with the New Books Network. On this show, we interview authors writing in, around, and about the Asia-Pacific region.King Lear, one of Shakespeare's most famous tragedies, starts with Lear dividing up his kingdom between his three daughters: Goneril, Regan and Cordelia. Goneril and Regan win the kingdom through flattery, Cordelia's honesty is rewarded with exile. That opening–and the other developments in Lear's tragic story–hold special resonance for Nan Z. Da, who uses Shakespeare's play as a way to grapple with China's history, and her own personal experiences with it. The result is The Chinese Tragedy of King Lear (Princeton UP, 2025)Nan Z. Da is associate professor of English at Johns Hopkins University and the author of Intransitive Encounter: Sino-US Literatures and the Limits of Exchange (Columbia University Press: 2018) You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of The Chinese Tragedy of King Lear. Follow on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/performing-arts

I'm Nicholas Gordon, host of the Asian Review of Books podcast, done in partnership with the New Books Network. On this show, we interview authors writing in, around, and about the Asia-Pacific region.King Lear, one of Shakespeare's most famous tragedies, starts with Lear dividing up his kingdom between his three daughters: Goneril, Regan and Cordelia. Goneril and Regan win the kingdom through flattery, Cordelia's honesty is rewarded with exile. That opening–and the other developments in Lear's tragic story–hold special resonance for Nan Z. Da, who uses Shakespeare's play as a way to grapple with China's history, and her own personal experiences with it. The result is The Chinese Tragedy of King Lear (Princeton UP, 2025)Nan Z. Da is associate professor of English at Johns Hopkins University and the author of Intransitive Encounter: Sino-US Literatures and the Limits of Exchange (Columbia University Press: 2018) You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of The Chinese Tragedy of King Lear. Follow on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/chinese-studies

I'm Nicholas Gordon, host of the Asian Review of Books podcast, done in partnership with the New Books Network. On this show, we interview authors writing in, around, and about the Asia-Pacific region.King Lear, one of Shakespeare's most famous tragedies, starts with Lear dividing up his kingdom between his three daughters: Goneril, Regan and Cordelia. Goneril and Regan win the kingdom through flattery, Cordelia's honesty is rewarded with exile. That opening–and the other developments in Lear's tragic story–hold special resonance for Nan Z. Da, who uses Shakespeare's play as a way to grapple with China's history, and her own personal experiences with it. The result is The Chinese Tragedy of King Lear (Princeton UP, 2025)Nan Z. Da is associate professor of English at Johns Hopkins University and the author of Intransitive Encounter: Sino-US Literatures and the Limits of Exchange (Columbia University Press: 2018) You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of The Chinese Tragedy of King Lear. Follow on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon.

I'm Nicholas Gordon, host of the Asian Review of Books podcast, done in partnership with the New Books Network. On this show, we interview authors writing in, around, and about the Asia-Pacific region.King Lear, one of Shakespeare's most famous tragedies, starts with Lear dividing up his kingdom between his three daughters: Goneril, Regan and Cordelia. Goneril and Regan win the kingdom through flattery, Cordelia's honesty is rewarded with exile. That opening–and the other developments in Lear's tragic story–hold special resonance for Nan Z. Da, who uses Shakespeare's play as a way to grapple with China's history, and her own personal experiences with it. The result is The Chinese Tragedy of King Lear (Princeton UP, 2025)Nan Z. Da is associate professor of English at Johns Hopkins University and the author of Intransitive Encounter: Sino-US Literatures and the Limits of Exchange (Columbia University Press: 2018) You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of The Chinese Tragedy of King Lear. Follow on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/asian-review

The Hamlet Podcast - a weekly exploration of Shakespeare's King Lear. Act IV Scene i - Gloucester asks Edgar (as Poor Tom) to lead him to Dover. Written and presented by Conor Hanratty

Scottish Ballet's new production Mary, Queen of Scots is a punk inspired production which tells the story of the ill-fated queen through the imagination and memories of her cousin, Elizabeth I, who authorised her execution. And a Fringe production Mary Queen of Rock portrays Mary as a rock star in a world in which rock and roll is banned. We discuss why her story continues to inspire so many productions today. Eva Victor, star of Sorry, Baby, the opening film of this year's Edinburgh International Film Festival, talks about her darkly comic treatment of the aftermath of a sexual assault. Theatre critics Fergus Morgan and Neil Cooper talk us through some of the highlights of this year's Edinburgh Festival Fringe - from Eat the Rich (But Maybe Not Me Mates X), a one-woman show by Liverpudlian actor and director Jade Franks in which she tells the story of being a misfit at Cambridge University to Lost Lear, a retelling of Shakespeare's King Lear told through the eyes of a woman with dementia. Plus a live performance from musician Hamish Hawk, who is paying tribute to the late great poet and eccentric Ivor Cutler at this year's Edinburgh International Book Festival, complete with Cutler's own harmonium.

Mita asked Chat GPT for a "...classic, epic adventure" and the robots delivered! This week they watched Akira Kurosawa's adaption of King Lear, "Ran" for the next movie review. Nadeem deals with some shattering news. 

The Hamlet Podcast - a weekly exploration of Shakespeare's King Lear. Act IV Scene i - Gloucester and Edgar find each other, but it is not the recognition we might imagine. Written and presented by Conor Hanratty

The Hamlet Podcast - a weekly exploration of Shakespeare's King Lear. Act IV Scene i - We are back out on the heath, and Edgar appears, before Gloucester is led on by a kind Old Man. Written and presented by Conor Hanratty

In this episode of Trust Me! we will be discussing King Lear, the Shakespearean tragedy, and the fallout from an estate plan gone wrong.Our GuestRalph Hughes is a founding shareholder of Hughes & Pizzuto, A P.C. where he practices in the areas of Estate Planning, Trust Law, Probate Litigation, Trust Litigation, Will Contests, Mediation in related fields.  Ralph has been a Certified Specialist in Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Law for more than 25 years.  He is a member of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel and a former member of the California Lawyers Association Trusts and Estates Executive Committee (TEXCOM). Our HostAnne M. Rudolph is a shareholder at Hughes & Pizzuto, APC. Her practice is limited to trust and probate administration, related litigation and appeals. She received her J.D. with highest honors from the University of Oklahoma College of Law. Anne is a certified specialist in Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Law and a member of CLA's Trusts and Estates Executive Committee (TEXCOM).Thank you for listening to Trust Me!Trust Me is Produced by Foley Marra StudiosEdited by Cat Hammons and Todd Gajdusek

The Hamlet Podcast - a weekly exploration of Shakespeare's King Lear. Act III Scene vii - The scene concludes with more violence, but also a trace of kindness. Written and presented by Conor Hanratty

The Hamlet Podcast - a weekly exploration of Shakespeare's King Lear. Act III Scene vii - Cornwall and Regan turn violent. A servant attempts to help Gloucester. Written and presented by Conor Hanratty

Episode SummaryErin and Rachel discuss Bolt (2008), a lesser known film about a dog who thinks he's a super hero. Under new leadership, Disney Animation Studios starts to come out of their slump with this film that some people found boring (Erin) and others found heartwarming (Rachel). Episode BibliographyAmidi, A. (2006, December 18). Chris Sanders No Longer Directing American Dog. Cartoon Brew. https://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/chris-sanders-no-longer-directing-american-dog-2407.htmlBolt. (n.d.). Box Office Mojo. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl1531348481/Bolt (2008 film). (n.d.). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolt_(2008_film)Catmull, E., & Wallace, A. (2014). Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the Unseen Forces That Stand in the Way of True Inspiration. Random House Publishing Group.Desowitz, B. (2008, December 4). The Digital Eye: How 'Bolt' Got Painterly. Animation World Network. https://www.awn.com/vfxworld/digital-eye-how-bolt-got-painterlyDonofrio, E. C. (2013). The wonderful world of gender roles: A look at recent Disney children's films [Honors thesis, Boston College]. https://core.ac.uk/reader/151481530DVD Deleted Scenes. (2024, October 7). Bolt (2008) | Behind the Scenes + Deleted Scenes. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsEyzc4FVZEEvry, M. (2020, February 13). Exclusive: Kiskaloo Movie Could Be Next for Chris Sanders! ComingSoon.net. https://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/1122952-exclusive-kiskaloo-movie-could-be-next-for-chris-sandersFleming, M. (2002, November 18). ‘Lilo' scribes stitch Disney package. Variety. https://variety.com/2002/scene/markets-festivals/lilo-scribes-stitch-disney-package-1117876239/Fritz, B. (2006, December 1). Disney lays off animators. Variety. https://variety.com/2006/digital/features/disney-lays-off-animators-1117954931/Fritz, B. (2007, March 27). Sanders joins DreamWorks. Variety. https://variety.com/2007/digital/markets-festivals/sanders-joins-dreamworks-1117961927/From the creator of LILO & STITCH our first look at AMERICAN DOG!!!! (2004, August 16). Ain't It Cool News. https://legacy.aintitcool.com/node/18156Hedrick, D. (2010). King Lear or Bolt: The entertainment unconscious from CalArts to Disney. Shakespeare Studies, 38, 37-47. Hill, J. (2007, February 12). Toon Tuesday : How Disney is fixing “American Dog”. Jim Hill Media. https://jimhillmedia.com/toon-tuesday-how-disney-is-fixing-american-dog/Howard, B., & Williams, C. (Directors). (2008). Bolt [Film]. Walt Disney Animation Studios.Hurt, L.S. (2014). Fuzzy toys and fuzzy feelings: How the “Disney” culture provides the necessary psychological link to improving animal welfare. Journal of Animal & Natural Resource Law, 10, 253-272.McCarthy, T. (2008, November 13). Bolt. Variety. https://variety.com/2008/digital/awards/bolt-3-1200472217/Ness, M. (2016, November 17). An Adorable Dog in an Unbelievable Premise: Disney's Bolt. Reactor. https://reactormag.com/an-adorable-dog-in-an-unbelievable-premise-disneys-bolt/Porter, P. (2009). Journeys toward an authentic self. Society and Animals, 17, 368-375. DOI: 10.1163106311109X12474622855345Rechtshaffen, M. (2008, November 13). Film Review: Bolt. The Hollywood Reporter. https://web.archive.org/web/20081216015641/https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?JSESSIONID=prd6JhJJnvQL9cYrfRKSHVQjP6dRnLhLH4SZ1KQht3tfhVLxmjqn!-591095386&&rid=11956Robinson, T. (2008, November 20). Bolt. AV Club. https://www.avclub.com/bolt-1798205268Scott, A. O. (2008, November 20). Canine TV Action Star Discovers that Life is the Best Reality Show. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/movies/21bolt.htmlSeibert, P. (2008). Bolt: Review. TV Guide. https://web.archive.org/web/20120212213609/http://movies.tvguide.com/bolt/review/294809Springy. (2023, October 11). American Dog: everything I found in one neat thread. forums.lostmediawiki.com. https://forums.lostmediawiki.com/thread/12742/american-dog-neat-threadTuran, K. (2008, November 21). ‘Bolt' spices up Disney with a dash of Pixar. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-nov-21-et-bolt21-story.htmlWang, T. (2021). Bolt (2008): Journey to the authentic self. In S. M. Alegre (Ed.), Gender in 21st century animated children's cinema (pp. 86-87). https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/llibres/2021/236285/gen21cen_a2021.pdfWolff, E. (2009, February 5). Animated Oscar noms took long road. Variety. https://variety.com/2009/film/awards/animated-oscar-noms-took-long-road-1117999618/

Can reading King Lear help us rethink economic policy? Can Measure for Measure shape how we talk about justice, or Hamlet help us face grief? That's the idea behind an ambitious project at Montreal's McGill University called Reimagining Shakespeare, Remaking Modern World Systems. Led by Laurette Dubé, professor emerita of management, and Paul Yachnin, professor of Shakespeare studies, the initiative brings together experts in economics, health policy, AI,  and robotics, with theater and literary artists and humanities scholars, to explore how Shakespeare's plays can help us think more humanely—and creatively—about the systems we inhabit. In this episode, Dubé and Yachnin discuss how Shakespeare's theater created a space where money, power, and empathy intersected—and why those same plays may hold insights for addressing today's most complex challenges, reminding us of how the humanities can help us build a better future. From the Shakespeare Unlimited podcast. Published July 15, 2025. © Folger Shakespeare Library. All rights reserved. This episode was produced by Matt Frassica. Garland Scott is the executive producer. It was edited by Gail Kern Paster. We had help with web production from Paola García Acuña. Leonor Fernandez edits our transcripts. Final mixing services are provided by Clean Cuts at Three Seas, Inc.

January 18, 1604: King James, a Protestant, announces that he will commission an English translation of the Bible.January 16, 1605: Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote is published in Spain. It is considered to be the first modern novel. Every sophisticated storytelling device used by the best writers today made its initial debut in Don Quixote.February 28, 1605: A 41-year-old Italian named Galileo publishes an astronomical text written as an imagined conversation. A pair of Paduan peasants talk about Kepler's Supernova.One says, “A very bright star shines at night like an owl's eye.”And the other replies, “And it can still be seen in the morning when it is time to prune the grapevines!”The observations of the peasants clearly disprove the widely held belief that the earth is the center of the universe. The authorities take note. Uh-oh for Galileo.November 1, 1605: Shakespeare's Othello is first performed for King James in the banqueting hall at Whitehall Palace in London.Meanwhile, a group of English Roman Catholics stack 36 barrels of gunpowder under the floor of the Palace of Westminster. Their plan is to blow up the king, his family, and the entire legislature on November 5, 1605.The Gunpowder Plot is discovered by a night watchman just a few hours before Guy Fawkes was to have lit the fuse.Shakespeare immediately begins writing a new play. In it, a ruler gives enormous power to those who flatter him, but his insanity goes unnoticed by society. “King Lear” is regularly cited as one of the greatest works of literature ever written.May 13, 1607: One hundred and four English men and boys arrive in North America to start a settlement in what is now Virginia. They name it “Jamestown” after King James. The American Experiment has begun.Don Quixote, Galileo, Shakespeare, the crisis of King James, and the founding of Jamestown in the New World…All of this happens within a span of just 28 months. Flash forward…May 2, 1611: The English Bible that will be known as the King James Version is published.April 23, 1616: Shakespeare and Cervantes – the great voices of England and Spain – die just a few hours apart. (Galileo continues until 1642.)July 4, 1776: The 13 colonies of the American Experiment light a fuse of their own and the Revolutionary War engulfs the Atlantic coast.November 19, 1863: Abraham Lincoln looks out over a field of 6,000 acres. He says,“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”Lincoln ends his speech one minute later. His hope is that “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”Lincoln's fear is that “the people” will not remain firmly united enough to resist the takeover of a tyrant. We know this because he opens his speech by referring to our 1776 Declaration which rejected crazy King George. America had escaped George's heavy-handed leadership just –”four...

We're starting this week strong, with a Lang Fairy Tale called The Wonderful Sheep which starts out like King Lear, and then, all of a sudden, a woman falls in love with a sheep. Be assured - it all stays perfectly PG-rated. But then that ending... crikey!If you are unfamiliar with the Lang Fairy Tales, these seminal collections were assembled between 1889 and 1913 by a married couple, folklorists and translators Nora and Andrew Lang, with most of the work done to compile them completed by Nora, also known as Leonora Blanche Alleyne.Assembled and published in 12 colour-coded "Fairy Books," the corpus the Langs put together included 798 fairy tales from across cultures, many of which had never before been translated into English.They were amongst the most influential books of their time, changing the course of children's literature - although they're hardly just for children, and often deal with quite challenging concepts.Today, purchasing a complete set of the Lang Fairy Books in good condition costs over £4,000 ($5,000+).Thankfully, the collections are all out of copyright, meaning that we can now tell these stories, in podcast form, many for the first time, and share them with a global audience, for free.Our plan is to release the stories between main series of Three Ravens, performing them straight (though with plenty of silly voices) letting the tales speak for themselves in all their madcap, sharp-edged, often quite bizarre glory.The only edits we have made are to amend some culturally-insensitive epithets, which typically pertain to ethnicity, with any such edits made by Eleanor Conlon.Three Ravens is an English Myth and Folklore podcast hosted by award-winning writers Martin Vaux and Eleanor Conlon.Released on Mondays, each weekly episode focuses on one of England's 39 historic counties, exploring the history, folklore and traditions of the area, from ghosts and mermaids to mythical monsters, half-forgotten heroes, bloody legends, and much, much more. Then, and most importantly, the pair take turns to tell a new version of an ancient story from that county - all before discussing what that tale might mean, where it might have come from, and the truths it reveals about England's hidden past...Bonus Episodes are released on Thursdays plus Local Legends episodes on Saturdays - interviews with acclaimed authors, folklorists, podcasters and historians with unique perspectives on that week's county.With a range of exclusive content on Patreon, too, including audio ghost tours, the Three Ravens Newsletter, and monthly Three Ravens Film Club episodes about folk horror films from across the decades, why not join us around the campfire and listen in?Learn more at www.threeravenspodcast.com, join our Patreon at www.patreon.com/threeravenspodcast, and find links to our social media channels here: https://linktr.ee/threeravenspodcastThree Ravens is a myth and folklore podcast hosted by Eleanor Conlon and Martin Vaux.In each Monday episode we explore a historic county, digging into heritage, folklore and traditions, then we tell a new version of a legend from that county. Bonus Episodes are released on Thursdays and Saturdays.Visit our website Join our Patreon Social media channels and sponsors Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Hamlet Podcast - a weekly exploration of Shakespeare's King Lear. Act III Scene vii - Gloucester is brought before Regan and Cornwall, and tied up. Written and presented by Conor Hanratty

The Hamlet Podcast - a weekly exploration of Shakespeare's King Lear. Act III Scene vii - Cornwall starts plotting Gloucester's punishment, while Goneril leaves to rejoin her husband. Written and presented by Conor Hanratty

The Hamlet Podcast - a weekly exploration of Shakespeare's King Lear. Act III Scene vi - Gloucester comes back and hurries Lear and the others away to safety. Written and presented by Conor Hanratty

Called “the finest actor of his generation,” Sir Simon Russell Beale has played just about everyone in Shakespeare's canon—Hamlet, Lear, Macbeth, Falstaff, Malvolio, Iago—and most recently, Titus Andronicus, for the Royal Shakespeare Company. In this episode, Beale reflects on the Shakespearean roles that have shaped his career and how his approach to them has evolved over time. He shares what drew him to Titus, and how he found surprising tenderness in Shakespeare's brutal tragedy. The actor revisits past performances, exploring grief in Hamlet, aging and dementia in King Lear, and how time has deepened his connection to the plays and the characters. Beale's memoir, A Piece of Work: Playing Shakespeare & Other Stories, is a moving and often humorous reflection on acting, Shakespeare, and the power of performance to reveal something essential about being human. Sir Simon Russell Beale studied at Cambridge before joining the RSC. Described by the Daily Telegraph as “the finest actor of his generation,” he has been lauded for both his stage and TV work, winning many awards including the Olivier Award for Best Supporting Actor, the Evening Standard Best Actor Award, and the BAFTA Best Actor Award. From the Shakespeare Unlimited podcast. Published June 17, 2025. © Folger Shakespeare Library. All rights reserved. This episode was produced by Matt Frassica. Garland Scott is the executive producer. It was edited by Gail Kern Paster. We had help with web production from Paola García Acuña. Leonor Fernandez edits our transcripts. Final mixing services are provided by Clean Cuts at Three Seas, Inc.