Podcasts about shakespearean

Episode Description:In this episode of Conceptually Speaking, I sit down with Dr. Joseph Allen Boone, Professor Emeritus of English at the University of Southern California, to discuss his new book from Columbia University Press, The Melville Effect: A Literary Afterlife Across the Arts. According to Boone, we are living through a second Melville revival. The first, in the 1920s, was engineered by critics who pulled Melville out of obscurity and streamlined him into an American answer to European modernism. Our current renaissance is being driven by artists working in painting, collage, performance, musical theater, video, fiction, and more besides. Our conversation works through why Melville has been “having a moment” as it were. Part of the answer he offers is thematic, since a novel that already contains globalism, extraction, ecological collapse, and racial encounters will feel resonant with our current moment despite when it was authored. The larger part, however, is shaped by its form. Moby-Dick opens with a dictionary page, moves through etymologies and epigraphs borrowed from the commonplace book tradition, drops in a sermon, a Shakespearean soliloquy, a play script, legal affidavits, and parodic scientific taxonomy, and absorbs the whole media explosion of the 1840s and 50s along the way. Boone calls this aesthetic hybridity, and it is one the reasons Melville is legible as a companion to artists who work in our era of pastiche, collage, mashup, and remix. We also get into the pedagogical stakes, including an inspiring call for more arts integration and multimodal approaches to teaching canonical works.Key Concepts from the Episode:Aesthetic HybridityMelville's formal promiscuity could be seen as an exploration of the way form shapes content, which is the same question contemporary multimedia artists are asking about their creative use of diverse media and materials.Boone borrows the counterpane scene as his governing metaphor. Ishmael wakes unable to distinguish the crazy quilt from Queequeg's tattooed arm, and that indistinction, where the parts refuse to resolve into a pattern but cohere anyway, describes both Melville's method and the work being made from him.Consider how you might bring aesthetic hybridity into your classroom. What different mediums and materials could you bring into the patchwork quilt of your own curriculum?Literary History as AfterlifeThe reason literary history reads as dead is that we treat it as exclusively retrospective. Boone's counterclaim is that it is also progressive, continually reconstituted by whoever is currently reading and remixing it.The project of extending a text's afterlife cannot be accomplished through genuflection and submission. Instead, readers and creators should see themselves as participating in an ongoing production or a work and its related legacy.Consider what it might look like to have your students participate in the ongoing production of a text's literary afterlife. How might you balance scaffolding their ability to engage with the text and giving them agency to take it new places?Gaps as Sites of InquiryAbsence functions as invitation. Melville gives Mrs. Ahab two sentences in the whole of Moby-Dick, and artists have built collage cycles, a stage production, and a novel out of that gap. Reading what is not present can be a powerful act of critical framing and reading.The same logic drives the queer readings of Pierre, where James Creech's criticism, Maurice Sendak's illustrations, and Elizabeth Schultz's reading of a broom closet in the plates each produce something that is in the text and not in the text at once. Creative and critical readings provide us with the ability to construct new narratives that complicate the legacy of traditional works.Consider the gaps that exist in the literary works that you teach. Who is not featured or mentioned? Who appears briefly and why? How can you invite students to explode those glimpses into something bigger?Regular readers of Becoming Literary will recognize some of my favorite throughlines. This is a conversation about how we can move beyond treating canon as a collection of revered, pedestal placed texts and start treating it as a site of debate and dialogue. It is an invitation to see hybrid interpretive work as a legitimate mode of literary knowledge production, and an opportunity to move the field forward without leaving its past behind. I hope you enjoy the episode and answer its call!Links:The Melville Effect: A Literary Afterlife Across the ArtsDr. Joseph Allen Boone's WebsitePodMatchPodMatch Automatically Matches Ideal Podcast Guests and Hosts For InterviewsSupport the show

In ep 184 of “How Do You Say That?!” sponsored by britishvoiceover.co.uk, Brigid Lohrey joins Sam and Mark to talk about approaching an Apple News script in a very specific way - bringing it to full conversational, but not too rounded. We explore performances where you're left feeling, "Surely you want more than this?" Are we being told to make everything blander?? We talk about how directors can be really helpful in setting the scene for us, and how nothing moves fast underwater! Plus is it a help or a hinderance if a script is labelled as "corporate"? Our obsessions are West End theatre and summer night attire!Our VO question this week is all about whether you should be upfront about your natural accent if you come from more than one place!Get involved! Have you got a Wildcard suggestion that we should try or an idea for the show? Send it to us via Mark or Sam's social media or email it directly to podcast@britishvoiceover.co.ukScript 1Compared to the bustle of spring, it's quiet in the autumn forest; I miss the hoards of gently pulsating sea jellies that cloud the water all summer long and lament the absence of spider crabs that have migrated back to deeper water. Territorial by nature, ballan wrasse remain in residence, patrolling their patch among the kelp. I spot a chunky male, coloured amber to match the scene and greet him with a broad smile that lets a trickle of cold water into my dive mask.Script 2Murder in Paradise: The Unsolved Killings on Australia's East Coast. The NSW north coast has a disturbing history of unsolved murders and disappearances. Have its beaches, roads and rainforests been a killing ground for one or more serial killers? Written for Australian Women's Weekly. A young woman is standing on a road leading to the Pacific Highway, her thumb out, hitching. With her long hair and cut-off jeans she doesn't wait long to be picked up. She is never seen again. This scenario has happened again and again on the north coast of NSW.We'd love your feedback - and if you listen on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, hit the follow button today!**Listen to all of our podcasts here - you can also watch on YouTube, or say to your smart speaker "Play How Do You Say That?!"About our guest: Brigid Lohrey is a Tasmanian actress, who trained in London, and has been acting on stage and screen for over 20 years. She 's in the BBC's Hope Street and HBO's Game of Thrones spin-off House of the Dragon. On stage she's played Panto villains and Shakespearean leads up and down the country. As a Voice Actor she started 15 years ago with Audio Drama for Dr Who and the Dark Shadows series, then with audiobooks for the RNIB. Since then she has voiced 80 audiobooks, and has branched into commercials and gaming. She has done radio presenting and commentates medieval jousting and fun dog shows.Resources: Click here for the Wildcard Generator and don't forget to think of an action your character can be doing!About your hosts:With over 40 years representing major international clients such as Google, Emirates and HSBC; Mark Ryes has been trusted to be the voice for some of the world's biggest brands. If your business needs a fresh voice to represent you, then make it Mark's British voice. As a voiceover, TV presenter, podcaster or product demonstrator - Mark makes your brand truly sparkle!Mark's demos & contact details: https://linktr.ee/britishvoiceovermarkElegantly British with an intelligent, warm and seductive voice, Samantha Boffin helps creatives and production companies create great audio that really connects with their audience. BBC-trained and with over 20 years of broadcast experience on both sides of the mic, she's created award-winning promos, narration and commercials for companies all around the globe, including the BBC, Sky, Games Workshop, John Lewis, Audible and Penguin Random House.Samantha's demos & contact details: https://linktr.ee/samanthaboffin

As a cinematic monster, the mummy seems less an embodiment of revenge against colonial forces than a figure invented by colonialism itself. On the one hand, the mummy represents mystery, romance, magic, and the East. His wrappings suggest to the imagination that he's not just dead, but wounded—ripped from a lost time and a broken narrative. Conveniently for the colonizer's psyche, the mummy actually longs for someone to violate his tomb and wake him—not least so that his curse can lay systematic waste to its victims. And that brings us to the other hand: the mummy as a scientific and historical artifact, an ancient puzzle which requires anthropological, archeological, and linguistic knowledge to solve. The very apparatus of the mummy's tomb—his body locked in box upon box, his organs apportioned to canopic jars, hieroglyphic inscriptions on every surface—suggest the complexity of the undertaking. What might these two strands of the mummy's DNA—in Shakespearean terms, part-Antony, part-Cleopatra—reveal about the relationship between colonizer and colonized, and about our own desires, fears, and guilt? Wes & Erin discuss the 1999 film, “The Mummy.” Upcoming Episodes: Elizabeth Bishop poetry, including “The Moose” Pre-order Erin’s forthcoming book “Avail” here: http://subtextpodcast.com/avail For bonus content, become a paid subscriber at Patreon or directly on the Apple Podcasts app. Patreon subscribers also get early access to ad-free regular episodes. This podcast is part of the Airwave Media podcast network. Visit AirwaveMedia.com to listen and subscribe to other Airwave shows like Good Job, Brain and Big Picture Science. Email advertising@airwavemedia.com to enquire about advertising on the podcast. Follow: Twitter | Facebook | Website

The countdown reaches the film that earned Marvel its first Best Picture nomination. Adam makes the case that Black Panther is elevated above nearly every other MCU entry by a villain the audience is meant to agree with, Killmonger, whose indictment of Wakanda's isolationism is correct even when his methods are monstrous. Why the hero loses the argument and adopts it, how the film works as a Shakespearean succession tragedy, why its self-contained story is a strength, and the one CGI-heavy misstep that keeps the climax from matching everything around it

Warrington click for 51 minutes, but Sam's statistics confirm what many feared: that's it for the season. Dennis feeds Karl Fitzpatrick's end of season statements into the What WouldBevan translation generator, while Rob continues his quest to raise his core strength above mashed potato. Plus, Daniel is back with his number one in Wire's Top 30 Summer Rugby Countdown and George walks the boards at The Globe. Enjoy. www.patreon.com/whatbevan

On the latest Whisper in the Wings from Stage Whisper, we kicked off our coverage of the 2026 Little Shakespeare Festival. The festival being presented by Frigid NYC, is a fantastic collection of wonderful Shakespearean works and Shakespearean inspired works. So make sure that you tune int o learn all about these shows, and get your tickets today!Frigid NYC Presents 2026 Little Shakespeare FestivalAugust 6th- 23rd@ Under St. MarksTickets and more information are available at frigid.nycAnd be sure to follow our guests to stay up to date on all their upcoming projects and productions: Sisters Hand in Hand written and produced by Lenny Hort August 15th, 20th, and 23rd@lennyhort lennyhort.comRaging of the Shrews written and produced by Tessa Flannery August 14th, 22nd, and 23rdtessaflannery.comModel ShakesParody: A Comedy Night of Errors written/performed by Veronica Dang, Allie Sharma Nelson, Nicole Clarke, and Carol Lee August 16thmodelmajority.com@modelmajority

Let us know what you think of the showIn this episode of Comic Cuts The Panel Show, your favourite podcast about comics, comic creators Dan McDaid & Sapphira Olson bring in panels from a couple of interestingly hard-to-guess comics. Can you guess it before the fellow guests do? Test your comic knowledge, then enjoy a chat that ranges from religion to geography, passing through the realms of DC Comics, Doctor Who, and more.See the video version here.Every episode, the guests reveal a panel from a comic, we try and guess where it's from, then we chat about it. Half an hour later hopefully we've learned something, or just shown off and had fun along the way.See the images from the episode here (they're also in the podcast artwork).If you've enjoyed this, why not buy us a virtual coffee at Kev F's Ko-Fi page.Your host, and series creator, is Kev F Sutherland, writer and artist for Beano, Marvel, Oink, The Scottish Falsetto Sock Puppet Theatre, and most recently author and artist of Shakespearean graphic novels including Hamlet Prince Of Denmark Street, Midsummer Night's Dream Team and his best selling Romeo & Juliet for fans of Dogman and Bunny Vs Monkey. kevfcomicartist.comJoin the Official Comic Cuts Facebook Page, aka Youtoobling, and comment on the show there too, why not?

The new game show “Nation's Dumbest,” flips the classic “Jeopardy!” script on its head. The format: twelve famous-ish contestants are peppered with basic logic and trivia questions. The twist is that those who perform well are sent home, with the last one standing receiving the title of “Nation's Dumbest.” On this episode of Critics at Large, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz consider how the figure of the idiot has evolved over time, from Shakespearean fools—whose position of apparent ignorance allows them to speak difficult truths—to more recent “happy fools” like Austin Powers and the goofy, stunt-obsessed heroes of the “Jackass” franchise. Once a laughingstock, the idiot has reached new heights of influence in the era of A.I. summaries and the infinite scroll. Resisting stupidity can feel like an uphill battle. “Whatever it is to be smart, I'm doing this Sisyphean thing of continuing to push it up the hill, and the rock feels heavy,” Cunningham says. “The question is: is society a wind at your back, or going in the opposite direction?”  Read, watch, and listen with the critics: “Nation's Dumbest” (2026-) “Jeopardy!” (1984-) “Austin Powers” (1997) “Seinfeld” (1989-98) “The White Lotus” (2021-) “30 Rock” (2006-13) “Tracy Morgan Turns the Drama of His Life Into Comedy,” by Vinson Cunningham (The New Yorker) “American Humor,” by Constance Rourke “Born Yesterday” (1950) “Legally Blonde” (2001) Green Day's “American Idiot” “Jackass: Best and Last” (2026) Shakespeare's “King Lear” Shakespeare's “Hamlet” “A Short History of Stupidity,” by Stuart Jeffries “The Year in Stupidity,” by Naomi Fry (The New Yorker) “A Theory of Dumb,” by Lane Brown (New York) “Naked Gun” (2025) New episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts.Critics at Large is a weekly discussion from The New Yorker which explores the latest trends in books, television, film, and more. Join us every Thursday as we make unexpected connections between classic texts and pop culture. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

RSC alum Dee Ryan returns to the 2026 Edinburgh Festival Fringe to perform the European premiere of Broadguess, her interactive comic Shakespeare solo show. Dee discusses the evolution of her show's script, and its roots in both Shakespeare and improvisation; how she finds the balance between the deep cuts and the funny; her favorite things to do in Edinburgh and where to find the best cream tea; how long it's been since she last performed at the Fringe (in The Complete Millennium Musical (abridged)); the joys of self-production; how Broadguess fits into the grand tradition of Shakespearean solo shows; and how she's looking forward to passing out flyers on the Royal Mile. Come say hi – she loves a chit-chat on a high street! (Length 17:53) The post ‘Broadguess' In Edinburgh appeared first on Reduced Shakespeare Company.

Join us on the latest Whisper in the Wings from Stage Whisper, we welcomed on the director Thomas Gordon and the actors Derek Chariton, Jeff Kushner, Emily Cummings, and Jennifer Yadav to talk about their production of the classic Shakespearean tragedy Hamlet. This was such a great conversation about this iconic masterpiece, and their insight only made this conversation better. So be sure you tune in and get your tickets today!Onomatopoeia Theatre Company PresentsHamletNow- July 25th@ The Gene Frankel TheatreTickets and more information are available at genefrankeltheatre.com And be sure to follow our guests to stay up to date on all their upcoming projects and productions:genefrankeltheatre.com@genefrankeltheatrejenniferyadav.comemily-cummings.com

On the #amwriting podcast's Margin Notes, host Jennie Nash talks with Caroline Bicks, Stephen E. King Chair in Literature at the University of Maine and co-host of the Everyday Shakespeare podcast, about her book Monsters in the Archives: A Year of Fear with Stephen King. Bicks describes how she became the first invited into King's Bangor archives after King called to meet her, and how her sabbatical became a year of researching five formative works (including Carrie, Night Shift, The Shining, Salem's Lot, and Pet Sematary) to understand how horror language creates lasting fear. She explains choosing a first-person narrative that blends literary criticism, archival discovery, and her own anxiety, including eerie moments in the archive and insights into King's word-level edits, literary influences, and Shakespearean foundations, especially The Shining's ties to Hamlet.#AmWriting is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Read the Book* Monsters in the Archives by Caroline BicksTranscriptJennie: [00:00:00] Hi, I'm Jennie Nash, and you're listening to the #amwriting podcast, the place where we help writers of all kinds play big in your writing life, love the process, and stick with it long enough to finish what matters most. Welcome, everyone. This is Margin Notes, the part of the podcast where we're talking about the big decisions writers face in their work and creative lives.I'm here today with a super special guest. I'm so excited to speak with Caroline Bicks. She is the Stephen E. King Chair in Literature at the University of Maine, where she teaches courses in Shakespeare, early modern culture, and horror fiction. And she's the author of all kinds of very cool books ... about Shakespeare, including one on cocktails.Um, and, uh, is the co-host of the Everyday Shakespeare podcast, and we are here today to talk with her about her new book called [00:01:00] Monsters in the Archives: A Year of Fear with Stephen King. Welcome.Caroline: Thank you. Thanks for having me.Jennie: So this is gonna be the strangest interview you've probably ever done. ICaroline: don't know.Because- I've talked to a lot of people around the world about this Stephen King book.Jennie: I couldn't read your book. I, I couldn't read it. I can't read horror. Yeah. Which listeners of this podcast are gonna laugh about, ‘cause I'm actually coaching someone live and they're writing gothic horror, and they're probably like, “All you talk about is horror, Jennie.”But, um, it's actually the reason why I wanted to talk to you, because you made a decision in the writing of this book that I thought was super cool. Mm. Which was you put yourself in it.Caroline: Yeah.Jennie: And you're a scholar.Caroline: Yeah.Jennie: And you've written scholarly books, and you approach this with a scholarly perspective, but you, you really put yourself in it.And, and so [00:02:00] I was reading it for that part of the story and I had to skip over huge chunks of, of the, of the work. Because what you're doing in this book is you're getting at this question of- W- what, what is scary in writing? Like, how does it actually work? How does it act- what is the magic or the function that makes us feel this thing?And you actually feel it yourself while you're going through it, and I found it quite terrifying actually. So, um, that's kinda what I wanted to talk about is how did you make the decision? Well, first of all, you were the first person, I wanna make sure I get this right, ‘cause this is very cool. Yeah. You were the first person who was invited to the archives, the Stephen King archives.Caroline: Yeah. I mean, it's, it's a bit of a story, so I won't spend too much time on it, but just the mo- Oh, no, do. It's good ... when I ch- when I took this position... So I've been a Shakespeare professor my whole adult life, ba- as soon as I graduated from grad school in the late ‘90s, [00:03:00] and I was at Boston College for 15 years.I took this position at University of Maine nine years ago as a Shakespearean. Um, so it is an endowed chair in Stephen King's name because he's our most famous alum. So when I took the position, I, it was because I'm a Shakespearean, not because I'm a horror specialist. Um, I had always been a Stephen King fan since I read him when I was 12, and he scared the beje- Jesus out of me, um, with The Boogeyman story.Jennie: Right.Caroline: Um, so when I took this position though I was told, “You're never gonna meet Stephen King. Don't even make contact with him.” I'm like, “Fine, you know, this is still a great job. I'm excited.” Um- ThanksJennie: for the money. Yeah.Caroline: Thanks for... You know, no, it's a wonderful fund. It was funded by the Harold Alfond Foundation, and it's to support the public humanities, which is an incredible mission.So, um, I get to give money away to people. You know, it's a great, great position, but I was not a horror specialist. And particu- a- and as an adult, I actually wasn't reading horror because it scares me too much. You know? Yeah, yeah. Um, but it had grabbed me when I was a teenager. So it was about four years into the [00:04:00] job when I got a call at home from Stephen King, which just, uh, uh, my jaw hit the floor.And he said, “You know, I think it's time we meet.” I'm like, you know, I, I really fan-girled because I really, I have so much admiration for him and respect. Um, I invited him to come talk to our students. He was brilliant, generous, funny, kind, and I felt so at ease that I felt like I could ask... You know, and I got to know him professionally.We had a good professional relationship that developed from there. When I had a sabbatical year coming up the next year- I could have written another Shakespeare book. I had another one in my head. I've written a bunch of them but I knew that he and Tabitha had just collected all of his manuscripts and put them in a climate-controlled space attached to their home in Bangor, and I thought, “You know, this is an incredible opportunity.I would love to dig in there and be the first one in there, and just read those early drafts of the books that scared me so much when I was a teenager, and try to just explore why. Why were they sticking in my head still?” Um, again, I am not a specialist in... I'm not a cognitive scientist. I'm not a [00:05:00] specialist in horror literature, but I'm obviously highly trained in how to do literary analysis and how to do archival work, not Shakespeare, because we don't have any of his works, but, you know, I, I understand what that process is.So back to your question about why I wanted to bring myself into it, which was, you know, I had been experimenting with first-person storytelling after I got tenure. You know, ‘cause it's a long process, Kate. Right. And most of my writing had been academic writing, but I really had always loved storytelling And I got a piece into the Modern Love column.I started to have some success with publishing my first-person stories, and I was like, “You know, I love this.” So when I had this opportunity to go into his archives, they generously said yes, was amazing. I thought, “You know, I really wanna tell this story. I don't wanna write an academic book. I want this to be the story of a literature scholar, but really the story about a scared kid.”Jennie: Yeah.Caroline: You know, you, you never lose that scare, you know, I don't... This is the thing. Fear has stuck with me with those stories [00:06:00] for 40 years. So I was fascinated, and I just wanted to understand how he had crafted the language so that it was sticking in my head still. Because when I was talking to people around, you know, whenever you mention Stephen King to people, you know, if they've read him, they remember specific lines and specific words, and I was like, “That's an extraordinary, um, 50 years on to have that power.”So, um- Well- Anyway. Yeah. Go ahead. I, I could talk about this forever, so you tell me- Oh, no, it's- ... where you wanted to pick up from this.Jennie: It's so good. Well, I have to tell you this funny anecdote, which is that my college roommate was from Bangor, Maine, and babysat his kids in that house.Caroline: Oh, that's insane.Jennie: So when I went to visit her, she drove me by that house.There you go. And I was like, “Oh, hell no- Yeah ... would I ever babysit in that house.” Like, it's-Caroline: It's ‘cause it's like a gothic, it's like straight out of Haunting of Hill House ...Jennie: actually, and like these spiderweb gates that, and you describe that in the [00:07:00] book and, and the- Yeah ... archives are in that house. They'reCaroline: in the house.They're attached to the back. I know. And it, it was so, it was, it was insane. It was like a full-on 360 experience writing this book. Um, and I, I knew, like, so I did the research for a year. I didn't even know if this would be a book. I just knew I wanted to have the opportunity to be in there because it, I knew it was a great opportunity, and I was so curious, you know?Yeah. So I, I came out of the year with just tons of notes and observations, but I didn't have a book, you know? Yeah. And then I started experimenting with writing a chapter, and I just, the storytelling just came forward and then when I got an agent and she, you know, s- I, I, I was able to get a contract based on a proposal and that one chapter I had written and I was really fortunate to have a fabulous editor, David Ebershoff, at Hogarth, who is just such a wonderful writer himself, and he really encouraged me to bring my voice in and bring my story in even [00:08:00] more.Um, so that's- And- ... that's the story of that.Jennie: Was it hard for you as a scholar to do that?Caroline: You know what? It was so freeing and so fun that it actually wasn't, you know? Because I, I knew this wasn't going to be an academic book, so once I let go of that- Yeah ... um, I was like, wow, I have the, and yet I have this skill set I can bring forward, and I knew that's what would make this unique.Um, but I can combine my two favorite ways of writing, ‘cause I do actually love writing literary criticism. Like it's, I get a thrill out of it. I wouldn't be doing it this long if I didn't get a thrill out of it, but I also love telling my own stories and drawing a reader in. And so for me it was like just a circus carnival.Like it was so fun to be able to do it. Once I had the permission and I had a contract, I was like, fine, you know? I, I, who am I writing this book for? I'm writing it for me, you know? Like this is just something I wanna do because I'm so passionate [00:09:00] about it and I, and I love Stephen King. And, um, once I got into it that way and wasn't thinking about who's gonna criticize me for this, like how will academics view this, I was like, I don't care.I just don't care. I know I've got a great story to tell that people are gonna love to read because there's so many people that love not just Stephen King, but people who love reading about how great books get written, you know? Yeah. And so that was the audience I had in my mind when I, when I was crafting it.It was really, in my mind, anybody who cares about books and writing. It doesn't have to be... So when you say, you're not the first person who's said to me, “I can't read your book,” or, “I can't read-” Oh, I'm so glad. “... Stephen King books,” you know, and I'm like, “That's okay. You can skip, you know, the parts that really scare you,” because there's plenty about just like that first chapter I wrote about Pet Sematary, just his sticky notes back and forth with his copy editor, which is so fun I think.You know, it's just like, wow.Jennie: Totally. Yeah. But the thing that you do is you- Allow yourself to confront that fear-Caroline: Yeah ...Jennie: [00:10:00] that, that I feel that the people can't, that can't read horror feel. You know, anybody that even allows themselves to be scared feels. And-Caroline: Yeah ...Jennie: and you, you do some very specific things, um, which I, I found fascinating, including tracking down on eBay the original copy of that book you read as a- Yeah, I wanted-as a teenager.Caroline: Yeah, that was part of the process for me, was I wanted to make sure I was reading... So before I would go into the archives for each work, and I'd spent like two... I only picked five, because I wanted to... First of all, I knew I wanted to make this personal. Um, and those were the five that scared me the most when I was a teenager.So I grew up in the ‘70s and the ‘80s as a teenager, so for me, it was in real time when the books were coming out practically. So it was- Yeah ... Carrie, Night Shift, The Shining, Salem's Lot, Pet Sematary. Um, I'm forgetting one of course. Uh, but I went -Jennie: The other one.Caroline: The other one. Had a huge impact on me. [00:11:00] So it was those five, and I, I knew those were the ones I was gonna do a deep dive into, and that I wanted to really re-engage with, and bring my whole self to.So I wanted to find the copies that I had read in the ‘70s and the early ‘80s. And fortunately, it's pretty easy to find them. Uh, so yeah, but eBay sometimes I had to go on, or go into a used bookstore and, you know, find the like actual 1979 paperback, you know.Jennie: Um- I mean, that- Um ... I just, there's some, there's so much to say about that because-Caroline: YeahJennie: like, I just, um- We, we just had a new bookcase built, um, which is something I've wanted to do well for eight years in this house. But it's a thing I've always wanted to have, which is like a grand bookcase, and it just was finished last week, and we had all the books packed up in storage, and we brought all the books back.Then we went through this discernment process of what goes [00:12:00] on those shelves. And I, you know, I had all those books from when I was a kid, even when I was a kid-kid, and they're yellow, and moldy and falling apart, and the covers aren't on, and they're taped and-Caroline: Yeah ...Jennie: eh, but I cannot let them go-Caroline: Yeah ...Jennie: because those...that was the object.Caroline: That's the object. This is what I feel sad for kids now, because they're not gonna have those same memories, um, of books. Yes. You know? And I don't think they stick in your head the same way if you don't have the full sensory embodied experience with a book.Jennie: Right. You know? Even when you open...I read on Kindle, which I love for so many reasons. Yeah. But you don't even see the cover.Caroline: You don't see the cover, right. And for me, it's so much. Like, I remember going to the Scholastic Book Fair and being like- Yes ... “I'm getting Summer of My German S- Soldier because Christy McNichol's on the cover,” you know?Yes. Yes. So yeah, that was part of the journey for me was I did wanna just [00:13:00] reconnect with those books again, try to h- and as much as you can, you know, reexperience the feelings of f- like The Shining, I actually... the only one I still have from 1977 is the actual Shining that I read. Um, and that's, for me, that woman in room 217.Well, I know you haven't read it ‘cause you're probably... What? But, um, it, that particular one I still have from, from when I was growing up. Um, and I love that I still have it, and it still has the photo... You know, it's the version that has the photo inserts that includes the Kubrick film photos. Oh, okay.Jennie: Okay.Yeah, yeah.Caroline: And I read it before I saw the film, so I remember being- 15 reading it and then seeing the pictures and being like you know? And that's part of the experience, but it wasn't, it's different than seeing the film, you know? And I really, I wanted to write this book as a love letter to language and to books, and not to film.Like, there's, that's a whole other category I think that enters people's brains in totally different ways. It's a very different experience. For me it's about, like going back to your original question [00:14:00] about like why, why, why do stories cause fear, and like what's the value perhaps in that? Yeah. That was something I came to after this long journey really, and talking to people and thinking about why.And also by understanding and reading more about Stephen King's books and talking to him about them, and realizing for him how much these stories are rooted in personal experiences or fears of grief and loss. And- Yes ... that was really profound for me. And like The Night Shift, which is the ur-text that I start with, ‘cause that's the one I read when I was 12, and that's his first collection of short stories.It came out in 1978. It's 20 short stories. But he ends it with a story about his mother dying, and it's, I mean, it's thinly veiled autobiography. It's about a man who's watching his mother die in the hospital. Um, but it's clearly a mirror of his own experience losing his mother when he was 26. And I'm like, wow, what's that doing in a collection of horror stories?[00:15:00] And it's like, what? ‘Cause that is of course, at least for me and I think for a lot of people, that's the core fear we first have, is that where's mommy, right? Yeah. Right? You lose the person who's in charge of taking care of you, and if you're lucky, does it well and with care. Um, but even if it's not, like Carrie, you know, the more I was looking through the Carrie drafts, I was like, right, he's really homing in on Carrie calling out for her mother even though her mother's terrible and abusive to her, right?So it's, there's just this, I don't know. It's a long way around to say I think horror, and he writes about this really eloquently, is a way for us to metabolize our deepest fears. Um, and to look at trauma not head-on but sideways. Um, and he writes about that, um, a number of different places in a really powerful way.He's just such an extraordinary human. You know, he's been thinking about this and for so long.Jennie: Yeah. Yeah. So, so your willingness to [00:16:00] confront that, those particular fear, fears in your own self and on behalf of the reader, really puts you in it. I mean, like you, there's a really lovely moment where you are reading I think it's, I think it's Pet Sematary, reading the actual book, and you have to turn it over so you- Yeahdon't see, like on your nightstand so you don't see the cover. I'mCaroline: scared, I'm scared of the cover, right, still.Jennie: Yeah.Caroline: Yeah.Jennie: And then there's moments, se- several where you're driving And you're sort of holding your breath while you drive past a place that he writes about or, or- Mm-hmm ... you know, um, well you have to tell the story, I'm sure every interviewer asks you about the, um, the doorknob in the archive.You have to, like, I was-Caroline: Yeah, not too many people have asked me about that, but I'm like, that to me was the scary moment-Jennie: Wait, shut up ... the most, theCaroline: most sturdy. I'm like, wh- uh, why did that happen? But of course, I mean, there's a reason why it happened. It's, it's, it [00:17:00] automatically locks if, you know, the, if you- Okaydon't lock it So let's, let's play- So but it just happened that we were inside the archive room. It was me and, and Julie Ugli, who is their assistant, who was helping me through this whole process. And I know, and I was, like, literally holding the first page of the first draft of The Boogeyman, the story that had scared me so badly when I was 12, about a monster that comes out of closets, and we're like in this room.And the, the archive room, it actually, it almost feels like a closet. It's not huge at all. You know, it's just-Jennie: Yeah ...Caroline: top to bottom, ceiling to floor stacked shelving with, you know, boxes of materials. And yeah, and we were in there, and I'm holding the first page, and the lock closes on its own. It just goes...And I'm like, I'm looking at Julie, I'm like, “What is, what's happening?” We don't have our cell phones with us. I'm like, “Are we stuck in here? Like, what's gonna happen?”Jennie: In the scary archive- In this, I was terrified ... in the back of the scary house. Like-Caroline: I know, I know. It was like, you can't make this stuff up.That's why I was like, I [00:18:00] couldn't wait, when I finally got a chance to write the book and sit down and write, I was like, I can't wait to tell these stories, because they just... I, I'm not a fiction writer. Like, I, I have such mad respect for- I don't know about that ... well, I've m- We'll see I don't know. I have mad respect for people who can write fiction.For me, I only can write what I know and exper- So I'm like, ah. But these stories were just so amazing. Or like when I was reading The Shining, like the first draft of The Shining, which is crazy. I mean, it's so different from the published version. And like getting to the woman in room 217, and like reading th- and literally my head w- like I thought I was having a stroke.Like it was like, like... And it's like, and then I find an interview where Stephen King writes about how he was scared to go back to that scene when he was revising it, the book, because he was dreading it. And I was like, oh, my God, have I just like had some kind of telepathic experience with Stephen King?Like- Right ... across time, space, and yeah, it was amazing.Jennie: Well, yeah. I mean, [00:19:00] it's just, um, uh, I actually made myself go through the whole book skipping giant chunks.Caroline: I feel so badly I put you through this.Jennie: I know. I, I feel like why, I kept saying, “Why? Why did I think this was a good idea?” Um, and it- I mean, even just tangentially, I, I don't know.It's interesting. I have, I'm sure you have this too, anybody who reads a lot or spends a lot of time with words, you have a capacity to sort of pay half attention, if that makes sense.Caroline: Mm-hmm.Jennie: Um, like you c- could sort of look at it without letting it all the way in. Yeah. But I, I just was, I just was riveted by the thread of, of your story and your putting yourself through that as a scholar and a human.But, but then some really cool things happen, and I, and I have flagged, um... Do you, [00:20:00] w- would you mind reading a tiny piece? It's- No, not at all ... it's on page 82, and it's the p- the paragraph that starts, “These manuscripts.”Caroline: Yeah.Jennie: That would be amazing.Caroline: Absolutely. So this is actually the moment I just described to you, where my head was like, I got...Oh, actually, I had just discovered the last 150 pages of the original Shining manuscript in a random folder in the archives, and I was like, “What is this doing here?” And I was getting obsessive about the manuscripts at this point, clearly- Yeah. Yeah ... just like the main character in The Shining, Jack Torrance, who gets obsessed with the manu- with the papers in the basement of the Overlook Hotel.But here we go. “These manuscripts are definitely getting into my head, and not just its rational part. In his memoir, when King describes books as being a uniquely portable magic, he doesn't specify what kind of magic. What if manuscripts can absorb and store more than just ink and words? [00:21:00] What if their pages can pass on dark energy along with dark stories?Ghosts have more than one way of making sure their stories are heard, of ensuring that the past is not forgotten, but rather pressed into our minds, even if we wrench our heads off the pillow and refuse to listen.” And that last is a reference to my, I used to see a ghost when I was five, and I write about that in the book too.Jennie: I mean, when I read that, I was like, “That's, that's me.” Like, these ghosts and horrors are pressing themselves into my mind, and I'm refusing to listen, and they still, they still do. And, um, King's stories in particular are so iconic, you can't really escape them. Like, you, you know the scenarios, you know the characters, you know-Caroline: YeahJennie: you know. And, and so it was interesting for me reading this book that that described my [00:22:00] experience where I was both repelled and magnetized at the same time.Caroline: That's beautiful the way you just put that. I mean, I think that is exactly our relationship also, of course, to our own fears. You know, again, what makes these stories endure, and I didn't go into this book thinking like, “This is a book about promoting Stephen King,” and, you know- Rightlike, I don't work for Stephen King. I just want to put that out there. Right. He, you know, he graciously agreed to let me go into the archives. He's been very generous about answering all my questions I had about the manuscripts, but he never at any point was like, “You can't say this,” or, “This is how you're supposed to say this.”So, but what I came away with after this process was exactly what you're describing, why we need these stories, why they endure, actually, is because they tap into our very real human fears. It's not about the monsters. It's about the grief and loss that's coming for all of us if we live long enough, you know?So you, and you have to at some point confront that, you know? So if it's- Yeah ... you can [00:23:00] try to run away from it, but it's coming, and that's part of being human. That's the human experience, obviously. Not to be glib, but it's like-Jennie: Yeah ...Caroline: you will experience loss. You will experience grief. And if these stories help you metabolize that or have a cathartic experience with that feeling without having to actually experience your worst fear, right?Um, like Aristotle says, it's cathartic, right? It's you watch a play, a, a tragedy because you experience a catharsis.Jennie: And did you, did you get to that in your own process?Caroline: That's a really good question. Um- You know, I, I think I became more aware of it. You know, I am, you know, and I write about this very openly in the book, that I was an extremely anxious little kid, um, which is part of why I think the boogeyman triggered me in the particular way it did, you know.Um, and that I grew into a pretty [00:24:00] anxious adult, you know? Yeah. I think anxiety is one of those things that, you know, I... Again, I was born in the ‘60s, so we didn't have this language for this back then. Like, my parents wouldn't have known to call me an anxious child, you know? Right. They probably would've said, “Oh, she's shy,” or, “She's whatever.”Um, so I think I, you know, like, and I as an adult, I think I've, I've found ways to manage it pretty well, but I am definitely a control freak. Like, that's part of how I manage it. I shouldn't use that language, but you know, it's like I, I like to just control what I can control, and that makes me feel that I can put the anxiety at bay.So I will say I think it's been interesting for me, Nick, now when I have those moments that are my worst fear moments that sometimes still will creep up on me just even though when I think I've figured it out, like doom s- doom scenarios. I tend to go to doom scenarios. So, like, if I can't reach... Uh, I will say Life360 has been, like, the best invention on the planet for me-with my two kids [00:25:00] and my husband. I'm like, “I know exactly where everyone is.” Yeah. It has saved me a lot of worry. Sometimes Life360 doesn't work, or sometimes a person still doesn't answer the phone, and then I have to manage my anxie- And then it's like... So I will say it's been interesting going through this process and having to confront or revisit the core of what scares me and, like, why that impacts, you know, why certain moments come forward for me still.So I think, yeah, I think it has helped me to a degree. Like, I can recognize it more clearly now. I'm like, “Oh, right, that's why I'm scared of that,” you know? Um-Jennie: That's so cool.Caroline: Yeah.Jennie: And it feels like that's the, the, um, the transformation in the book is you're exploring how that actually works and the language and the stories.Mm-hmm. But you're, you're also exploring how it works in your own self, how it did when you were young, how it does now- Yeah ... these moments when you're scared. So it- Mm-hmm ... there's such [00:26:00] a depth to it and, I mean, I just, uh, even in my half reading of it, I just loved it. Thank you. And, um, there's something that happens That's kind of crazy, which is, so you're a Shakespeare scholarCaroline: Mm-hmmJennie: And I ha- I, I know from reading Steve, a- about Stephen King, from reading his book On Writing, of course, and, um, interviews and such that, uh, I'm, I'm probably gonna say this in a disrespectful way, and I don't mean it to be so, but the, the easiest way I can describe it is that he's always had sort of a chip on his shoulder that he's just a popular writer and not taken seriously in a literary way.Mm. I don't know if that's, if that is fair to say, but that's how I'm saying it. Uh,Caroline: yeah.Jennie: And, um, what, what I found incredible was that [00:27:00] here comes this Shakespeare scholar into his archives doing proper scholarly archiver, arch- archival work, and there's this moment when you begin to see Shakespearean themes in his, in his work, and you can't ignore it, and particularly in, in Carrie and- Yeahparticularly around exactly the thing you were wrestling with, which is like a young girl's- I don't know, sense of, of not being fitting in the world or, um-Caroline: Yeah ...Jennie: right? And so that, um, there's, on page, since you have the book in your hand, um, I think it's pageCaroline: 202. Mm-hmm.Jennie: And it refers back to that passage you just read about portable magic.It's the one that's I remembered.Caroline: [00:28:00] Right. Okay. So this is going back to when I first was, um, I was in the final round of the job for the Stephen E. King Chair in Literature, and I was working on a book about Shakespeare's, the girls in Shakespeare's plays and world and teenage girls and their cognition.Like, the how were people during Shakespeare's day thinking about girls' brains? Yeah. So I'd been working on this for 10 years. Um, and then I was getting ready to give my job talk. This was the first time Stephen King and Shakespeare came together for me, and it was getting ready, and this, again, this is an authentic story, like write what you know.So I was getting ready for the job talk. I remembered that King's 1974 novel, Carrie, featured a 16-year-old girl whose telekinetic powers are unleashed when she gets her first period in the school shower. I started rereading it, and within a few pages came across an uncanny phrase. When she's walking home after being dismissed early, Carrie feels her brain flexing in a new way, [00:29:00] as if her powers have been waiting below the surface for her to reach, quote, “mental puberty.”I couldn't have wordsmithed this dynamic cognitive change better myself. In the last part of my job talk, I used the phrase to connect the brain work of Juliet Capulet, who's described as being two weeks away from seeing the change of 14 years, to Carrie's newly activated adolescent mind. It felt like a moment of pure portable magic between Stephen King, Shakespeare, and me.Jennie: Ugh, so beautiful.Caroline: Oh, thank you. Yeah. I mean, that was just so gobsmacking. Like, when that happened, I was like, I ca- I can't believe it, but yeah.Jennie: And then, now I may be getting some of the things wrong here, but then you- You realize, is it Carrie that, that you realize he was, you thought he was emulating a play, a Shakespeare play?Caroline: I think you're thinking of Shining. I mean, definitely at the end of the Carrie [00:30:00] chapter I return to, I did notice echoes of Macbeth, and I was convinced that that must have been what he was thinking about. And, and what's funny is, so one of the conversations I got to have with him, I mean, he's so generous with his time, one of my last conversations with him was about the end of Carrie, and that's a book that he actually doesn't like very much.You know, it was his first published novel, he was 26, and he's like, “I think that was written by a young man who thought he knew more than he did.” So he's, it's not a book that he goes back to. He recognizes it's important, and it's important to him, but, ‘cause it started his whole career, his whole trajectory.Um, but he didn't particularly, he hasn't returned to it. Yeah. So that was a fun chance for me to sort of talk to him and say, “Hey, you know what? I think you should maybe go back,” ‘cause it's it's, there's a lot of Shakespeare in there. Anyway, but the Shining chapter, what was fascinating, so there's this first draft, which I, I write a lot about, called The Shine, that's in the archives, with a totally different ending.Um, and when I looked at it, [00:31:00] he'd also divided it into acts and scenes, like Roman numeral acts and little- Mm ... Roman numeral scenes. And I was like, “This, what is this? This is like a Shakespeare play.” Like, that's what it looked like. And then sure enough, I found out he was imagining, he was thinking of a Shakespeare tragedy when he wrote The Shining.And that was the first moment where I was like, “What? This is insane.” Like, this- Yeah ... like, ob- obviously that became, for me, the story I wanted to tell about that particular set of manuscripts, was sort of uncovering, like, what's the Shakespeare play? Like, what's the tragedy? And I didn't wanna ask him because I didn't want- I wanted to go in with my mind clear, like, of any outside influence.I just wanted to see what my Shakespeare brain, because I'm so embedded in Shakespeare. I also have a Shakespeare podcast I do with my best friend. Like, we're, I'm always thinking about Shakespeare and how it relates to everyday life. You know, and so I'm like, “Well, how does it relate to The Shining?” Which is, like, an ur-American text.Like, this, like, say what you want about horror, [00:32:00] like- I'd be shocked if people don't know what The Shining's about, even if they haven't read it even if they haven't seen the film. Like, you probably know something about The Shining, right? Right. So I was like, if there's a Shakespeare tragedy at the foundation of this, you know.And here's the thing about Stephen King that I came to learn, again, reading all of his notes and finding these edits, and I did find traces of Macbeth in the first draft of The Shine, um, that he ended up taking out. So I was like, “Oh, is it Macbeth? It feels like it could be Macbeth.” There's so many things it has in common with it, with hallucinations and with baby bashing.And, you know, all of these horrible things that are in Macbeth are certainly in that book. Um, but I really wanted to go in, like, just on an adventure, like, see what I saw. So I didn't ask him which chi- tragedy until I was fully done with all my research and I felt like I had it all done. And that's when he drops that he was thinking of Hamlet.And once he said that, of course, it became so ... I mean, I [00:33:00] had seen traces, there were references to Ophelia that also didn't make it into the final published draft. So you wouldn't know this. This is the beauty of archival work, like you're gonna see things that other people will never know about unless you tell the story.That's why I felt so passionate about this. Like, “I need to tell people-” Yeah ... “that Ophelia was in the first draft, that he was thinking of Ophelia.” ‘Cause of course, you know, again, even if you don't know The Shining, the woman in the tub, the woman in the bathtub, like a drowned woman in a tub, like ah, Ophelia.Yeah. Like Ophelia's another one of those ur, like she's so, she's such a part of our cultural air, right? I mean, like no matter what country you're in. Right. There's a reason Taylor Swift has a whole, you know, song The Fate of Ophelia. Like people know what that means. Um, so I was like, “Oh my gosh, this is, this is incredible.This is even deeper than I thought it was gonna be.” Um, but also it made me appreciate how much that book is about intergenerational trauma. Um, and it's not ... So he doesn't like the Kubrick film [00:34:00] for reasons that, you know, a couple different reasons. One is that it flattens out the character of Jack Torrance, and Jack Torrance is an abused child himself, and he passes on that abuse to his son, Danny, right?Um, but you wouldn't know that from Kubrick's film. While Hamlet, of course, is about a father's ghost coming forward. Like, “The past is a ghost,” King writes, which is so f- powerful, right? Um, here's this ghost saying, “You need to kill for me.”Jennie: Yeah.Caroline: Yeah. And that's what happens to Jack. Yeah, so anyway, that's a long way to say that wasEach chapter was my favorite in different ways, but that one I loved being able to do the deep Shakespeare dive.Jennie: And was that ... You know, so I started that question by saying I, I had heard or understood or maybe inferred that, um, you know, King himself had this sort of desire- Okay ... to be taken more seriously.Was that, that must have been, I don't know, powerful for both you and him, uh, to [00:35:00] come to that? Not like, “Oh, you're the only person that's ever made him feel that way” or-Caroline: Yeah,Jennie: no,Caroline: I agree ... or agree with that, but. Like I, yeah. And, um, I mean, I will say I think part of the reason he was always really ... I mean, first of all, he's just so generous, and any writer who's ever worked with him has the same experience.Like he just gives his time. He just loves writing and writers so much that he will just, he'll just t- like any email I would send him, he'd write back in like an hour with a response. The part about how he feels about academia, you know, and I never directly asked him that because I didn't wanna ... You know, if he wanted to bring it up, great.But I think- Yeah ... my, after going on this journey with him, he clearly loves talking about- literature. He's the most well-read person I've ever met. I'm just gonna say that hands down. Like, the guy reads- Really? ... cons- constantly and if you read his early works, like even when he was 17, he wrote The Long Walk, okay, which just came out as a film, [00:36:00] and in that, he's citing T.S.Eliot, he's cit- he's citing Poe at 17. Okay? So he's, he, he, this, he comes by this honestly. He's not just trying to seem smart. Like, he literally is constantly reading and it's clear when you read his manuscripts or when you read his published books, he's making references to all, whether it's Shirley Jackson or Wallace Stevens or, you know, uh, he's so capacious in his knowledge of literature.And, like, just a couple months ago, he sent me an email, I don't, I can't remember, we were talking about something about Salem's Lot, and he was like, “Yeah, when I was writing Salem's Lot,” which again, this is 1975 when he's writing Salem's Lot, so that's a long time ago. He's like, “I was really into James Dickey's poetry.”Jennie: Whoa.Caroline: You know, who was an American no, you know, poet laureate. Uh, he's like, “And I was reading everything I could read of, of his and then I read Deliverance, and then I went back to his poetry, and that really impacted how I wrote the chapters [00:37:00] about the Lot,” which if you've read Salem's Lot, has some very lyrical, poetic chapters about the town, like, “The town knew about darkness.The town had its secrets and knew how to kept it.” And then he, like, sends me the entire poem that he was thinking about that James Dickey wrote. So I mean, it's, he's, and it's not performative. He's not, like, he has nothing. He doesn't need to prove anything to me, you know?Jennie: Right, to anyone, yeah.Caroline: He just literally loves, he loves literature.Like, this guy, he loves poetry. I mean, he actually writes poetry. He wrote poetry as an undergraduate. Uh, it was actually the core start for him of The Stand, was a poem he wrote called The Dark Man one day when he was, like, hungover in the school, like, cafeteria. Like, so it's like he, he's been thinking about literature and living with literature and, uh, since he was a teenager, if not earlier.His mom brought him, uh, Bram Stoker out of the public library when he was nine, so I mean, the guy- Whoa ... ‘cause he asked for it. He asked for Dracula. [00:38:00] I wasn't reading Dracula when I was nine. Were you? I mean-Jennie: No,Caroline: no. I was reading Little House on the Prairie. I mean-Jennie: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Wow. Wow. So- I mean, this book, again, it's called Monsters in the Archives: My Year of Fear with Stephen King by Carolyn Bicks.It's just incredible, whether you're a King fan, whether you're a horror fan, um, but for sure for all writers, which are all our listeners. If you can, if you can bear it.It's very specific, um, a very specific- specific exploration of, of how good writing works really. Yeah. Right. And, and how you... You know, there's always that perennial question of how do you get emotion on the page? How do you make your reader feel something? And you, you show it very specifically, and I wanted so badly [00:39:00] to, to get into the details, and I, and I, I just, I just couldn't.Um, maybe someday, but, um, I just, I just can't recommend it enough for, for, um, this audience and, um, you know, anyone who's interested in any of these things we've talked about.Caroline: Thank you so much. I really appreciate that. And I will say, like, the Pet Sematary chapter, which is the first one, that was the first day I was in the archives.One of the things I discovered about him day one was how much attention he pays to word sounds. So I think for any writer interested in sort of doing a deep dive into, like, how one word change, right- Yeah ... can make a difference, you know? Yeah. And I didn't appreciate that about his writing until I went in there and saw his notes to the copy editor where he's like, “Nope, the word's clitter, not clatter.This is why.” You know? Like,Jennie: he's- There's a, um- Yeah ... yeah, there's a book I love, it's probably right behind me, um, called The Artful Edit by Susan Bell, in which she [00:40:00] shows examples of that kind of very careful change in, um, The Gre- The Great Gatsby and The English Patient and various works of, of literature, and your, your whole book is like that.It's, it's just amazing. Um- Thank you ... so is the next book gonna be the Shakespeare one you had thought of before? Or are you gonna- ... go in the, in the personal direction?Caroline: You know, it's such a good question. I think right now I'm just taking a break, you know, because I'm the kind... Like, I immerse myself in a project, and this has been so all-consuming.Um, and I'm back to doing my Everyday Shakespeare podcast, which I love and I missed. Um, so I'm doing that. And I, I really don't like to think too far ahead about what I'm going to write. I like to have it come organically.Jennie: Yeah.Caroline: Um, so I could go back into the archives. I could write another one of these kinds of books, but I don't know if that's the [00:41:00] right thing for me right now.Jennie: Yeah.Caroline: Um, I want to make sure whatever I write next- You know, I loved writing this book so much. It's my favorite... I mean, it's, it was such a powerful experience for me, um, because I could bring my personal experiences into it and my scholarly self into it. I don't... You know, it's gonna be hard to recreate that.Yeah. I think it can be done, but I don't wanna force it. Yeah. So I'm gonna wait and see what the next, what the next oneJennie: is. Don't you, don't you love the interviewer who's like, “Hey, congratulations. You wrote a book. What, what's your nextCaroline: one?” What are you working on now? What are you doing now? I know. And I get that.I'm like-Jennie: So mean ...Caroline: I'm just, I'm just reading books I wanna read. I'm doing my laundry. I'm getting to know my dog again. You know?Jennie: Oh, wow. Well, thankCaroline: you. But, you know, it's a fair question. Yeah.Jennie: Yeah, yeah. Thank you for coming and chatting about this, and for writing such a cool book. And- Thank you ... um, I'm looking forward to seeing what you do next.Caroline: Thank you, Jennie. It was a [00:42:00] pleasure.Jennie: Well, for our listeners, until next time, stop playing small and write like it matters.The #amwriting podcast is produced by Andrew Perilla. Our intro music, aptly titled Unemployed Monday, was written and played by Max Cohen. Andrew and Max were paid for their time and their creative output because everyone deserves to be paid for their work This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit amwriting.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony Arsenal and Jesse Schwamb bring their extended series on the parables of Matthew to a powerful climax with the passage most listeners have been waiting for: the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31–46). Far from a checklist of works required for salvation, this text is unpacked as the master parable of Christ's entire parabolic ministry — a sovereign declaration of divine election, not a merit-based audit of individual performance. Tony and Jesse explore why this passage has been chronically misread as a call to works righteousness, why the language of inheritance and predestination is front and center, and how a Reformed reading liberates rather than burdens the conscience. Along the way, they weigh in on Herman Bavinck's prescient warning about media distraction, and Jesse recommends a Puritan gem on anxiety worth picking up immediately. Key Takeaways The Sheep and Goats is best understood as a parable, or at minimum parable-adjacent. The Greek construction in verse 31 mirrors the same comparative language Christ uses throughout his parabolic ministry, placing this text firmly within that tradition rather than outside it. The kingdom was prepared before any works were done — this is election language. The phrase "inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (v. 34) is not a reward for performance; it is the language of sovereign predestination preceding all human action. The works of the sheep are diagnostic, not causative. What the righteous did reveals who they already were — sheep — rather than being the mechanism by which they became sheep. The beak doesn't make the bird. Both groups are surprised, and that surprise is the parabolic punchline. Neither the sheep nor the goats anticipated the verdict they received, which undermines any reading that frames this text as an encouragement to accumulate saving merit. This passage is a recapitulation of the wheat and tares parable. Sheep and goats co-mingled until the moment of final separation, just as wheat and tares grow together until the harvest — the judgment reveals what was always true. Any theology that requires a human contribution to activate or complete salvation misreads this text.Whether Roman Catholic, Arminian, or Mormon in flavor, every view that makes God's preparation of the kingdom contingent on foreseen human merit fundamentally inverts the logic of the passage. The scope of judgment — "all nations" (ta ethnos) — would have been scandalous to first-century Jewish ears. This language deliberately expands the kingdom beyond ethnic Israel, fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant promise and confounding the assumptions of the religious elite. Key Concepts The Kingdom Prepared Before Your Works: Sovereign Election, Not Merit When the King says to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matthew 25:34), the theological weight of that single sentence is staggering. The kingdom was not prepared in response to anything the sheep did. It was prepared before time, before works, before choice — which means the works that follow in the passage cannot be the grounds of that inheritance. Only a Calvinistic understanding of election can sustain this logic without remainder. Arminian views require God to foresee a qualifying human response; Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views require some degree of meritorious participation; even certain Lutheran frameworks lean on non-resistance to grace. Reformed theology alone places the entire cause within God's sovereign, unconditional decree — and this passage, read plainly, says exactly that. Works as Evidence, Not Ground: The Diagnostic Function of This Parable The great pastoral error in preaching this passage is treating it as a performance rubric — a list of charitable acts that, if completed, qualify a person for eternal life. But Christ does not separate the sheep from the goats because of what they did or failed to do. He separates them, and then describes the activity that characterized each group. The works are revelatory. They surface what was already true of each person's nature, just as a bird's beak reveals its species rather than constituting it. This reframing is liberating precisely because it means assurance does not rest on tallying acts of charity. It rests on the sovereign act of a Father who prepared a kingdom and the regenerating work of the Spirit who produces, in those He has claimed, a life that looks like the one described here. "All Nations": The Scandal of an Ethnically Inclusive Kingdom The Greek phrase ta ethnē — translated "all nations" in most English Bibles — would have landed very differently on first-century Jewish ears, particularly those of the Pharisees and Sadducees who comprised a significant portion of Christ's audience throughout Matthew 24–25. To them, ta ethnē meant the Gentiles, the peoples out there, those outside the covenant. The implicit effect of Christ's language is to place every people group — including Israel — within a single undifferentiated mass standing before his throne, with no ethnic group receiving preferential standing at the bar of judgment. This is entirely consistent with the Abrahamic promise of blessing to all families of the earth (Genesis 12:3), the vision of Psalm 2, and the missionary thrust of the Great Commission. The scandal is not incidental — it is the point. The kingdom Christ is ushering in is not the ethnic-nationalist kingdom the religious establishment expected. Memorable Quotes The kingdom of heaven was prepared for those whom Christ has elected before the foundation of the world, and it was the preparation of that kingdom that brought you through this such that you did the good works that you did... That is caused by the fact that God prepared a kingdom for you in advance, not that you somehow caused this kingdom to be prepared for you. - Tony It's not the beak that makes it the sparrow, it's the sparrow that makes it the kind of beak it is. That's the kind of classification we're talking about in this parable. - Tony The best freedom is the one that turns over all things to God and takes him at his word when he says, 'In love you were predestined to inherit this as sons and daughters of the kingdom,' so that he does all the work, because we do not want to have any of that work our own. - Jesse Full Transcript [00:01:11] Jesse Schwamb: Welcome to episode 498 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse  [00:01:19] Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony, and this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey, brother.  [00:01:24] Jesse Schwamb: Hey, brother. They said it couldn't be done. They said we couldn't come back. We wouldn't come back and continue in Matthew 25. But here we are, and we're ending this chapter in this whole section about sheep and goats. Everybody was clamoring for it. Everybody wanted to know, what about the sheep and the goats? And I think the last time we all chatted together, we prefaced it by saying it's parable adjacent. Or let's just say- Yes ... we just stacked up these three other parables, lots of things going on, and then Jesus resolves this or brings all these parables to a culmination by speaking about the end times, the end of all things, and the sheep and the goats. Yeah. And so we gotta go there  [00:02:06] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, I'm stoked.  [00:02:07] What Counts Parable [00:02:07] Tony Arsenal: And y- you know, I, I was talking with a brother at, um, at church yesterday on the Lord's day, and he was asking how the podcast's going and what we're doing. And, you know, I was kind of thinking, like, I was talking about the parables and how we're kind of moving forward, and we were gonna do some of the I am sayings in John. And, and I was thinking, like, what is a parable anyways? And who decides what a parable is and what a parable isn't? Right. Um, some of the parables Christ calls a parable, others he doesn't. Uh, we'll probably talk a little bit about that when we get to, uh, some of the back half of Luke. But this, this episode I think is gonna be really, really the payoff and really the culmination of not just these, like, this trio of or trilogy of parables that we've talked about, but I think really, like, the payout of all of the parables in Matthew. It's really, like, the summary of all of Christ's parabolic teachings. So it's, it's a good place for us to round out Matthew, and then we'll, we'll dip into the parables in the other gospels, probably have a couple more months of, of, uh, parable talk before we move on to the next thing. But, uh, it's been great, and I'm super, super stoked for this. This is one of my favorite passages, actually, and there's so much to dig into. I, I, I'm just gonna say now, we probably won't make it through the whole thing- Right ... uh, because there's a lot there. But we'll see. We'll see how we do. Maybe Jesse and I will be super efficient tonight, uh, but we usually aren't, so. [00:03:27] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that's never happened. We, we take it low and slow. Not only that- ... it was reminding me as you spoke about that kind of proverb generally of if you wanna go build a wall, you assess what you need, how many stones, and then you go gather those stones. Yeah. You should double it, or if you're gonna go out and fight an army, take stock of that army. That's basically what we do, but in reverse. Anytime, like, you just... I just heard you say- ... like, "It'll probably take us a couple more months," you should double that. That's probably how long- Yeah ... it's actually gonna take us.  [00:03:50] Faith Works Assurance [00:03:50] Jesse Schwamb: Even in this- Yeah ... conversation, I think we're gonna get stuck in the best way possible speaking about things like faith, works, and assurance because there's a lot of language here- Yeah that could seem on the surface to sit in this tension with justification by faith alone. And I think the key to resolving all that tension, as I hopefully think we'll see, lies in the readings of works as the evidence of living faith rather than its ground, and I think that's what- Yes ... Christ is leading us through all of these parables, actually, whether it goes back. And you should listen to all those episodes. In fact, I gotta ask. Th- I mean, this brother you were talking to, it just strikes me as that question had already be answered for him if you were listening to the podcast. So-  [00:04:29] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, I don't think he does. No, I don't think he does- ... listen to the podcast. Uh, he knows that I do the podcast, and he's very gracious to ask me about it. Tom. And I think he's probably listened to the podcast before. Got it. Um, and he's, he's just a very kind, gracious brother who, who is concerned and wants to know what I'm doing. And, um, he has, he has his own sort of, like, production stuff that he does that he enjoys that I'm, I'm not super keyed into. But, uh, it was just nice. But, but it did get me thinking, like, I was trying to explain to him where we were in the progress of the parables, and I was like, "I can't really... I don't really know," because, like, it's hard to even understand and fully... There's no, like, full comprehensive universal list of what is a parable- Right ... and what's not. And I think what we've found as we've been going through this is sometimes, sometimes you come up against a portion of a text that is often taught sort of separate from the, the rest of it. Parables get taught discreet from other parables. But then you have these sort of, like, intervening texts, or this one's kind of a summary text, that's so integrated to what the parable means you really can't do a series on these parables without also treating this text. Which is gonna be interesting, 'cause I've never, I've never encountered somebody who really roots this teaching here of Christ in the context of the parables, despite its proximity. So it'll be fun. We're gonna figure it out in real time, and, and it'll be good.  [00:05:47] Jesse Schwamb: No, it's gonna be fun.  [00:05:48] Deny Doomscrolling Bavinck [00:05:48] Jesse Schwamb: And speaking of fun, we're so glad that you're listening, and we know that you're waiting with bated breath to hear about affirmations or denials. It's of course that part of the conversation where we either affirm with something that we think is fantastic, maybe by way of recommendation, or conversely, we deny against something that isn't that great. So Tony, as is our custom in the liturgy of the Reformed Brotherhood podcast, I ask you once again, are you affirming with or deny against? [00:06:15] Tony Arsenal: I am denying against something, and I'm gonna do that by affirming a Herman Bavinck quote. Uh, so I'm gonna read it for you. This, uh... Some of the guys in the Facebook group have put... or the Facebook group, the Telegram chat, have put together a, uh, like, a reading group to work through Bavinck's, uh, Wonderful Works of God, which is great, and I'm loving it. I haven't been able to participate in the conversation as much as I would like to, but just being part of a reading group, uh, sort of keeps you on schedule, which is great. So I've been reading through Wonderful Works of God, and on the Kindle edition, on page 34, uh, which I think is still the, I think is still the, uh, introduction, he says, quote, "The reading of daily and weekly newspapers, of magazines and brochures, devours our every blink. There's a lack of desire and opportunity for the investigation of scripture and the study of old theological works," end quote. And when I read that, it just really struck me as like- If that was true like 70 years ago, 80 years ago when Bavinck was writing this, right? And all there was was hard, hard copy media. There was no, uh, there was no digital media. There was radio, but there wasn't a lot of programming. Uh, I don't think that there was much in the way of television broadcasting. If there was, it was, it was very, very limited and very rudimentary. Um, even then he was saying the daily news cycle and all of this extra stuff that is out there is consuming our, quote, "Every blink," which I thought was a really interesting phrase. Um, it's basically like it's so ingrained in us, we're so invested and obsessed with the news cycle. Uh, or you might translate that to like to our Twitter feed or our Facebook feed or our Instagram reels or whatever it might be, and dare I say it, the podcasts we listen to.  [00:08:05] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:08:05] Tony Arsenal: Um, that we don't save time for scripture and other theological works. And I think it's funny too is that the, the eternal, uh, the eternal contemporary statement of the Reformed world is like we don't read enough old theological works. Even Bavinck, who I'm reading as one of the old... I mean, not like super old, but like one of the old theological works, is saying, "Hey, we don't read enough old theological works." So I'm denying this sort of like obsession we have with the daily news cycle and with constantly being up to date and like constantly consuming all of that. Um, we've talked about how like our modern global news cycle sort of, uh, is built around the deception that we can be sort of pseudo omnipotent and know all things about everything. And, um- There's a lot of work that's been done to show that, like, the world's not really that much, not that much more of a violent place than it was 100 years ago. We just know a lot more about what's going on- Right ... in other parts of the world. And there's pros and cons to that. But I think the main con is, like, we, we feel suddenly that we have to be, you know, deeply involved in the goings on of a church on the other side of the country that we never would've even known existed otherwise. It- there's just a, there's a sense of omnipotence and omnipresence that's just not becoming for the creature that I think we try to take on. So Bavinck knew it. Uh, we've talked about it. Lots and lots of people have talked about it. This isn't new. I'm not, I'm not e- engineering anything new on this. But that quote really struck me when I was reading. I was like, "Dang, man, he, he got it right 100 years ago or, or 80 years ago, and we're still struggling with it." And I think probably, like, if you go back and you look at the, I don't know, more occasional writings of people like Martin Luther and John Calvin, um, as they're interacting with, like, people in the Reformed community or the Protestant community, I bet you would find statements like this too about how, like, we really spend a lot of time reading, like, silly things and not spending- Right our time studying the scripture or studying, um, theological works. So that's my denial. I'm sticking to it, and if that means you feel like you need to turn this podcast off and go read some John Calvin or some Herman Bavinck, then by all means. Uh, I think you're probably going to be edified by what we have to talk about. But, uh, th- the Bible's better, so if you gotta go do it, if you only got- That's true ... an hour today to study scripture or listen to this podcast, please go study scripture. Yeah. Uh, hopefully we can do a little bit of both with this podcast. But Herman Bavinck said it best. Our every blink is consumed with pamphlets and newspapers and it just is- It's true it's pretty silly.  [00:10:41] Jesse Schwamb: It's true.  [00:10:42] Meme Detour Reading Groups [00:10:42] Jesse Schwamb: I gotta take us all the way back to where you started there, and I'm going to betray, to nobody's surprise, my really strong naivete when it comes- ... to social media, and memes in particular. But this is what occurred to me, and I'm gonna try it. This is, like, what classically makes really good podcasting. Let me try to describe a meme to you that I'm not even sure I actually understand or know. So this will be great. I think, you tell me, Tony, 'cause you may have seen this. It's an old meme too, so I'm not even, like, on the cutting edge here. I think it's a meme of two panels showing, like, two pictures of Drake. In know one he's kinda, like, pushing away as if to say, like, "Get that outta here," and the other one's like, "Oh yeah, that's the stuff." Do you know what I'm talking about? Yeah. Is that accurate?  [00:11:21] Tony Arsenal: I do. I think you're gonna use it wrong, but yeah.  [00:11:23] Jesse Schwamb: Is that Drake? Okay, all  [00:11:24] Tony Arsenal: right. Yeah, that's, that's the meme.  [00:11:25] Jesse Schwamb: Okay, okay. And usually, if I understand it correctly, it's kind of like a faux juxtaposition of two things, right? Like, okay. So like here, let me try it. Uh, uh, let me just try it on everybody. Here we go. I'm gonna describe to you how I just interpret this based on what you said, 'cause something cracked me up that you said, Tony. If I were gonna make this meme just based on how you opened that up, the first panel would be like Drake pushing away the idea or being like, "That's no good," book club. The second one would be reading group, as in like, like the reading group is like the new cool way of like just kind of... Did I use it properly? Am I close?  [00:11:59] Tony Arsenal: I think the problem with this is that there's like a, there's like an ironic way to use it, and then there's like a more direct way to use it. Mm. Yeah. The direct way would be like some- like Drake's pushing away something that's bad, and he's- Yeah ... like accepting something that's good. That'd be like the direct way. Yes. The more ironic one is where like Drake is pushing away something that's actually pretty, actually pretty good, and he's- Yeah ... accepting the one that's pretty silly. Oh, okay. Um, there's a lot of memes that have that basic format. Never mind. There's one with like Jordi LaForge. I think there's a Michael Scott one. I tried. I tried. But yeah, no, I, I think yours is valid, it's just, I think it's an older usage of the meme. That's like the, that's like the middle English version of that meme. The Shakespearean use of that meme.  [00:12:36] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. I'll take that. It's the old English style. I love a good book club or a reading group. A, a reading group just, it does have that sound like maybe somebody in the group has a monocle, or you guys have tea. Either way- Yeah ... I absolutely love it. And yes, what are our beautiful quotes. You kind of hear that general conception recapitulated among like theologians almost in every era. But it does make you think, what would Bavinck say about, like doom scrolling on the smartphone? Like- Yeah ... he's beside himself, right? It would just be beside himself. So I'm with you. I, it, there's gonna be a condemnation in every generation. Maybe I say this with some degree of like chronological snobbery, especially in ours, when it comes to not, like you said, I think kind of like not carving out or not prioritizing time in the scriptures. Yeah. There's not gonna be any excuse of like, "Well, I just didn't have time." Right. Or, "There were too many things to read." It's just, it's not gonna cut it. So I'm with you. I think you and I have talked about this at length, even just like the news media like you and I consume, like just s- set aside social media for a second. Just like how i- how much value is there in a lot of like what we cons- used to consider to be like well-informed reporting? How valuable is that to us? Yeah. And I'm certainly not saying like that everybody should be like unconcerned and uninterested in the world, but I think it's to what degree and what fascination we have with that, and how it fits into our priority as we consume information each day. That's the thing that's tricky, and there's no really-  [00:14:02] Tony Arsenal: Yeah ...  [00:14:02] Jesse Schwamb: good answer except to weigh out with the spiritual discernment- Yeah ... how we ought to consume that stuff. But certainly I think, without question, we need to be prioritizing time in prayer, time in the scriptures. I imagine if we were all doing that with a great deal of attention, that all of the other things would kind of find their way into the right place. Or let's say they would just find their way out of our lives in a significant way- Yeah ... that would remove us from distraction and anxiety, instead bring us back into the providence of God.  [00:14:31] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. And I'm not, I'm not gonna be the guy that tells you you can never s- you can never scroll Instagram or TikTok or whatever. Um, I, I think that's a decision that's between you and the Holy Spirit as far as how you spend your time. But I, I do think, um, I think you're right- We are accountable for the decisions we make and how- Right ... we choose to divide up our time. And I- God, I mean, God is the inventor of fun. He's the inventor of leisure, and he is, uh, I think he's pleased and honored when we, we make good use of our time f- for things that are restful and rejuvenating. Um, he doesn't expect us to just slavishly read scripture all day, every day, like every minute. That's not, that's not the biblical expectation. Um, and so I think it's fine if you wanna sit down and watch a fun show, or if you wanna watch some YouTube videos, or listen to a silly podcast, or listen to a serious podcast. Um, but I do, I agree. Like, we, we really need to be thoughtful. And I think where, where Bavinck's quote, uh, is strong is it's not so much about, "Don't read these things." Right. He, he's talking about these things consume our every blink. Like, m- he's treating blink... He's using the word blink as sort of a fill-in for like our, our finite resource of time and attention, and these things have consumed all of them. There's a very strong use of that word consume. Uh, and I, I think that's really the, the point that I'm trying to make is we often allow, either intentionally or unintentionally, we, we just let our time get all sucked up, uh, on things that maybe are good but are not pr- properly proportioned. Um- Like I said, it's, it's fine to spend some time on Twitter and to get into a debate once in a while, or to check in on your friends on Facebook, your old high school, college buddies or whatever, but we can definitely take it too far. So I think it's a good corrective for all of us to at least make a stop and think about how we're spending our time, and whether we are affording the appropriate amount of time to things like scripture, theological study, catechesis of our children, um, family worship, all of those good things. So we don't have to go much more into that. I think the point has been made. Uh, so Jesse, what are you affirming and/or denying tonight?  [00:16:43] Affirm Puritan Anxiety Cure [00:16:43] Jesse Schwamb: Perfect segue, because speaking of reading old things, you know me, I've always got some kind of Puritan work in the rotation, and the one I just finished is the one I'm affirming, which is called Special Providence for Anxious Souls by Obadiah Sedgwick, who I think is kinda... Like, people are sleeping on Sedgwick, you know? Mm-hmm. He's, he's kinda like, he's there in the wings, but we need to take him off the bench. And I came across this book and I thought, "Who doesn't want a title like that in their lives?" Like, we got some anxiety in all of our souls. And I'm affirming this because, uh, hi- his definitions, his writing is, are on point. But here's what I thought. I was embarrassed that I picked this up expecting one thing, and then in typical puritanical fashion, was delivered something else that was far better. And I was thinking about this title as you might see it, like, in your modern bookstore today, whether it's, like, in Barnes & Nobles or at any of the periodicals we were just kind of mentioning or implying that are out there. And I was expecting to get some kind of, I don't know, six or seven things, I mean, that's Puritan style, but six or seven things that would really help you diagnose the psychology, and then going back to the scripture in ways, all, all the ways we'd expect about how God loves us and cares for us, and all those things are true. And yet the only way I could describe how this book ministered to me is, like, how you might go to a physical therapist for some kind of ailment, which I have many as I get older, and have recently been to one. And the ailment I had was, um, basically like tarsal tunnel, which is like carpal tunnel for your foot. And so there was some nerves that were inflamed and causing some pain and some weirdness in my feet. And here's what I do know about physical therapy now that I think the Puritans also do for our souls, and that is the physical therapist gave me this full workup. They prodded me and poked me and rubbed things and made things hurt- And in the course of doing that, they clearly could figure out what was wrong with my foot. And so when he gave me the diagnosis, after, again, rubbing that part and, like, doing one of those things where he's like, you know, they tap on your hard and they're like, "Does that hurt?" I'm like, "Yes, it does hurt." And I presume that's because you know anatomy. And, you know, he's, he's ta- tapping on my ankle and it's causing my foot underneath to hurt. And after all that, you know, I run on a treadmill. He d- takes all this video, and this is what he says to me. He goes, "Yeah, so this is actually pretty straightforward." And I was like, "Great, so what are we talking about? Like exercises, uh, splints, like massage?" He's like, "You have a weak butt." And I was like- "I'm sorry, let's talk about that for a second." And this is what I've learned about physical therapy, is it's rarely about the thing that's actually bothering you or the thing that's hurt, right? It's something- Yeah ... far different. It's something almost seemingly, like, disjointed or removed or divorced from the very thing, maybe even non-contiguous, if only in our minds, maybe even logically. And so what I love about this is the first half of the book is just speaking about the province of God before it even gets into this idea of anxiety. And then the treatment on anxiety and worry is, he goes through, like, six or seven things in particular, are just absolutely glorious. So good that I want you to read it. I don't even want to talk about it. Uh, that, that's my admonishment to you, is that you should just go pick it up. So I'm affirming again that the Puritans in particular do this thing where there's, there's no cheap advice here. It's not even hide advice. It's really good advice, but it's the kind that says, "You have a weak butt" when you're concerned that your ankle- is messed up. Yeah. And that's sometimes what you need to hear. And in my case, after... Let's make this super weirdly spiritual. After doing a bunch of squats, I don't know what the spiritual equivalent is of that. After doing a bunch of squats, my ankle and my foot was so much better. And it, because I had somebody who cared enough for me to go through and actually diagnose the root of it, that was the reason that inevitably there was healing. So I've, this has given me so much to think about, this tiny little treatise. So much to put into practice. It's so rich, so good, so practical, and yet I think you'll find in many ways joyfully unexpected. So I highly affirm to everybody listening, and even those who aren't, Special Providence for Anxious Souls, Obadiah Sedgwick. You'll, you'll love it  [00:20:49] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:20:49] Physical Therapy Spiritual Practice [00:20:49] Tony Arsenal: So two thoughts. Uh, one, uh, I can confirm Jesse has a weak butt, um, flat as a board. So it's probably, probably better after, after doing some squats. Wow. Uh, two- Wow. ... uh, I can say I also am in some physical therapy right now, and I've been a little bit of a slacker. And what I will contribute to the conversation is just like in physical therapy, they can give you all of the exercises- Yeah uh, that you want. If you don't do the work, you're not going to get better. Yeah. And so whether it's Jesse doing squats or me not finding time to stretch and to do some, like, arm exercises with a, with a s- uh, like a TheraBand, uh, the same holds true. And, and maybe to unify our, uh, affir- our denials/affirmations into one mega, mega recommendation, um, the same holds true in that, one, we can take a book like this from, uh, Sedgwick, and we can turn it into the same thing we do with media where we're just... it's just devouring our blinks. Right. And we're just using it as a way to sort of, like, feed our eye hole Get better. You won't improve. Um, and that's actually the same with scripture. Like y-you can- Right ... turn scripture into, uh, into a snack food that you, you don't actually use to be nutritious. Um, I think there's probably more benefit to reading scripture sort of rote and, and almost mechanically than there is to reading anything else. But, um, but at the end of the day, you can also consume your blinks with scripture and not get a lot out of it if all you're doing is passing your eyes over text. So get in there. I think that's great. I haven't read that one. I mean, I think there's... I think there are probably many, I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are many, many Puritan treaties that- treatises that are similar in theme and tone and have the same kind of like spiritual antidote or spiritual medicine, um, prescribed by these guys that is good and wholesome. And again, like, like you're saying, like it's not that complicated. It's not that hard. Right. It just takes- Right ... you just actually have to do the work. Um, it's funny, my physical therapy thing is my, my shoulder has been really ba- really messed up, and I went in, I expected him to give me all these, all these shoulder exercises, and he's like, "Uh Really what you need to do is you fix your neck, uh, 'cause your shoulder is, is being in- injured because you're sleeping- Okay on that side because you're trying to stay off the other side. So, like, you really gotta fix your neck so you can sleep on the other side of your body. And I was like, "So I'm just, like, sleeping wrong?" Like, it's funny, there's a joke, it's like in your 20s you can do anything you want, in your 30s, like, you gotta be a little bit careful, and in your 40s, like, you hurt yourself just sleeping. Right. Just getting out of bed is dangerous.  [00:23:46] Jesse Schwamb: It's  [00:23:46] Tony Arsenal: true.  [00:23:47] Jesse Schwamb: It's true. So. It's a tough world. But  [00:23:48] Tony Arsenal: it's true. I feel like a really old man saying that.  [00:23:51] Read Matthew 25 Aloud [00:23:51] Jesse Schwamb: You know, it strikes me that you're right, of course, that there's so much here we always have to put into practice. There's so much here that we have to trust with God. There's a faith that works. And so I think actually that is the most lovely inroad into this final passage of Matthew, because there's a lot here for us to talk about with all of those things, and to understand it in this proper context. So as you've already set us up, Tony, the best part of our podcast is the scripture, for sure, 100%. So let's go there. So we're in Matthew 25 in case you're just joining us. And for some reason I went into, like, a full radio mode, as if this, like, this is being broadcast live, and you just came into the program. We're in Matthew 25, uh, starting in verse 31, and I'm gonna read until the end of the chapter. There's so much here that of course we're not gonna get to all of it, but in the spirit of literally having the full context of the scripture in front of us, and to hear it all, I think it's important. It w- b- better yet, you should go back and read the entire chapter and then tune in right now. But let me start at verse 31. "But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate them one from another as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom which has been prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me in, naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me.  [00:25:32] Judgment Scene Read [00:25:32] Jesse Schwamb: I was in prison, and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? And when did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and come to you?" And the King will answer and say to them, "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of mine, even the least of them, you did it to me." Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angers-- angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me." Then they will themselves also answer saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not take care of you?" Then he will answer them saying, "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life  [00:26:47] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:26:49] Parable Not Fear [00:26:49] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, it's, it's, um, it's a sobering passage. And just as I think we've seen in a lot of the other parables, um These eschatological parables and these eschatological sayings of Christ, uh, as you kind of alluded to earlier, I, I think they are really, really, um... They are not prone to being misinterpreted. Right. The church has been prone to misinterpreting and misapplying these, um, in a, in a way that's used to make, make the Christian fearful and to, uh, undermine their assurance rather than to call them to action or to accountability.  [00:27:33] Why It's A Parable [00:27:33] Tony Arsenal: Um, and I think a- as I've been reading through this and I've been sort of glancing at the Greek as we're reading, I actually think I'm on... I, I stumbled on much more better ground to treat this as a parable than I even originally thought I did. You know, I, I had this whole lead-up that this isn't technically a parable, but when you read here, when it says, in verse 31, it says, "When the Son of Man comes in glory and the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates- Right ... the sheep from the goats." If you go back to verse 14, when it says, "For it will be like a man," uh, that, that first word of verse 14 in the Greek is the same word as is used when it says, um, uh, "He separates people one from another as a shepherd." That same word is used as there, it's just translated differently because of where it comes in the, um, in the text. So Christ is still making this comparison, so it would be as though he said, um, you know, like the common, most common, at least so far, most common kind of parabolic introduction is like, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like." Um, this is the same basic language he's using here to introduce what the eschaton will be like. Right? The ga- the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate them. It says people in the ESV, but will separate them one from another. You could also say the, the nations or the peoples will be gathered before him. Right. He will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep. So the parable here is the s- the shepherd separating the sheep from the goats, this whole process of the separation and this, this, um, frankly, like it's, it feels and smells like a parable, right? It does. This, this, um, figure, this shepherd in the parable or the shepherd in the saying is saying these sort of like parabolic statements. He's using this language that's kind of like shocking punchline statement. Like we've talked about how in parables there's often this sort of unexpected turn of events, or there's this unexpected kind of shocking language, and this whole like twist at the end in both, sort of both s- chunks here, where like the sheep don't really understand, like they didn't really recognize that they were doing sheepy things, and the goats didn't really understand that they were being goats. That's like the parabolic twist or the parabolic punchline here. So the, the kingdom of heaven is like, basically it's like the Son of Man will come in his glory and it will be like this. It will be like a shepherd separating the sheep from the goats. That's the parabolic connection here. Mm-hmm. So I actually think that, that linguistically we're on, we're on pretty solid ground not just to treat this as a summary of all the parables, um- I think of for sure these three parables, but it, it really is like the master parable, and I think probably the master parable that kinda governs and constrains and explains all of the parabolic ministry of Christ. So I'm, I'm stoked for us to really dig into the details a little bit, but I think linguistically we're on super good ground to, to treat this as a parable. I agree. At the very least, it's stronger than just parable adjacent.  [00:30:44] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:30:44] Tony Arsenal: It- but even if we aren't saying it's a parable proper, it's stronger than that. It still is using this kinda comparative ministry, comparative language that Christ has used throughout the parabolic, um, sayings of Christ.  [00:30:57] Jesse Schwamb: The construction seems a little bit less veiled because here we have Jesus implanting himself directly into the account.  [00:31:03] Tony Arsenal: Mm-hmm.  [00:31:04] Shepherd Imagery Stakes [00:31:04] Jesse Schwamb: At the same time, though, he's drawing on all the things you just said he does, especially with this allusion to shepherding, which would've been, of course, common throughout. So it seems to me a lovely bridge to all of the overt parables he's just told, but now he's bringing them all together and placing himself clearly as, like, the interpreter, as the identifier of all the things, as the one to seal up all of the edges, as it were. So it's clear that this is about the end times. All of these were all about the end times and about Jesus' role in them. And so of course here he identifies himself as the eschatological judge just to make it clear. He's the one who sits on his glorious throne, and that's significant, and that's why I think we sometimes feel like, well, this is not a parable because he's, he's being very, like, Christologically certain and direct here. You know, throughout scripture the final judgment is God's prerogative alone, but the Father has committed all that judgment to the Son, and here's Jesus affirming that. And so again, like Reformed theology, in all our conversations we've consistently emphasized that this text is in many ways, like, proof of Christ's full deity and his role as mediatorial king, and he's exercising his office as the judge at his return in glory. And though, like you said, at the same time, here's the cool parable kind of scent or flavor is you get all these nations, every person who has ever lived, not merely Israel or merely the church. And how does Jesus describe this? He goes back into parabolic language. And we got the shepherd imagery that- Yeah is, like, similar to Ezekiel 34 where God himself is judging between the sheep of his flock. And that separation, the shockingness of it, it's immediate, it's binary. There's no third category. There's only two eternal destinies. There's no purgatory, no middle ground, no post-mortem opportunity for repentance. So all that's at stake. And then again, the beauty of the language itself or the setup of the construction of the story as it unfolds is that both groups- Get the same speech with a change in do or do not, but they both ask the same question from, like, wildly different perspectives and standings. And that's the beautiful- Yeah thing to make reconciliation over is what does all this mean then? How is all this established and how is this final judgment come to be such that there are sheep and goats if, in fact, they're both doing the same things theoretically, or they're at least both asking the same questions of, well, when did this ever actually occur? That, that's what's for us to unpack either way.  [00:33:29] All Nations Gathered [00:33:29] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, and b- before we jump into, um, into the parable itself and start to unpack that, the other element that I think is worth, uh, and this just came to me so hopefully I'm not on too far of a, of a limb here. But the other element that I think is worth at least commenting on, um, we've, we've remarked, especially in these last three eschatological, um, parables, how much these are directed at the religious leaders, right? Right. The, the, the people are, um, the, the- the parables are told, um, in the context and sort of following up on these, this real directed, um, assault against the religious leaders who thought they were the ones, right? They're the ones that have a claim to the Kingdom of Heaven, they're the ones that, um, are the, you know, they're the ones that think they're doing the right thing, they're the ones that are ushering in God's kingdom. This little phrase here, "gathered all the nations," would also have really stuck in the craw of the religious leaders, right? Because the word for nations that's translated here is the same word that would el- elsewhere get translated as Gentiles, right? And the word people, when it says, "He will separate the people," that, that word people doesn't actually exist in the Greek. So if you translate this very literally, it'd say, "Before him will, will be gathered all nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." Now, I don't wanna go the route of saying, like, this is a parable about, like, which pe- people group will be brought into the kingdom and which won't, and I've read some that go that direction. I don't wanna go there. But this idea that, like, even in the final judgment, the people who are in view here are the Gentiles, right? Right. I think most Jewish, particularly the, the Pharisees and the Sadducees hearing this, would've, would've read this and would've read ta ethnos, and would not have thought nations the way we do. Certainly would not have thought of, like, modern nation states. They might have been thinking maybe, like, people groups in general, but they would be thinking more along the lines of, like, Psalm, Psalm 2, like, "Why do the nations rage?" kind of nations. Why do the Gentiles rage? Why do the peoples plot in vain? They would've been thinking th- this, this, uh, judgment almost, at least on the face of it, almost excludes the Jews entirely when you think about it this way. It's really now sort of, like, zooming out where at the very least, at the minimal least, the Jews are just another people group within this broader judgment of the people group. Right. So again, like, we've seen this theme that Christ is continually expanding the scope of what is considered to be the Kingdom of Heaven to include not just the Jewish people, um, but all nations, all people groups, all Gentiles and Jews alike. And in a very real sense, um, and I wanna be careful how I've said this, I know I've commented this in the past, there's a very real sense of anti-Semitism that is prominent in- reform, quote-unquote reformed circles right now that is just vile and disgusting and sinful, and has no place in any sort of Biblical Christianity. But there is a reality that the Jewish people, broadly speaking, um, rejected the Messiah, at least while he was here on Earth. Um, relatively speaking, very few Jewish people, especially in the Jewish elite, like the leadership class, accepted Christ for who he was while he was here. Many Jews came to faith through the ministry of Peter, uh, and, and even through the ministry of Paul, even though he was an apostle to the Gentiles. So it's not as though it remained the case, but at this point in Christ's ministry, the Jewish people were by and large were rejecting him as Messiah. And so this idea and, and sort of this like final culmination now saying like he gathered all the, all the Gentiles, all of the peoples, all of the nations. In Jewish, in Jewish language and, and when you look in the Old Testament, and even in some of the New Testament literature, the nations were those people out there. So even if we don't translate this as Gentiles, we don't, we don't take that more like restrictive sense, even then it still implies that Christ is talking about people out there, the non-Jewish nations- Right are being gathered before his throne. And so that's not to say, absolutely not to say that the Jewish people, that, that the Jewish people of his day or the, the... This is where it gets tricky too, 'cause like we think about modern Israel and we, we import our understandings of like nation states. That's not what was in view here. The, the idea of a modern nation state was not a concept that existed in the first century. Um, you might have something like city states, but even that is kind of like a little bit ethereal. The idea here is that all people groups, and maybe, maybe we conceptualize Israel now as one of these people groups, the Israeli Jewish people as one of these people groups. All of those people groups, Jews, Gentiles, Scythians, Athenians, Spartans, like, uh, Ethiopians, you know, all of these different people- Right ... groups that are mentioned in the, the New Testament, all of those peoples, all of those nations are gathered before the throne, and then he will separate them one from another in the same way that a shepherd sep- separates the goats. [00:38:35] Group Judgment Assurance [00:38:35] Tony Arsenal: And yes, I think there is an individualistic, um, judgment element, and this is where I think, um... And, and then I'll, I'll pause for a second. This is where I think we can go wrong reading this as a parable about the individual judgment of individuals in the future That's not really what the language here is supporting. This is supporting sort of a broader group-based judgment, and the grouping is there are those who are sheep and there are those who are goats. But it doesn't appear as though Christ is saying like, "I'm evaluating each individual person, and this person is a sheep, this person is a goat." It's, it's a broader picture that, yes, has some implications for individual personal judgment, but when we read too much of that individual personal judgment into this parable that doesn't seem to be there, that's where we start to, like, rob individual Christians of their assurance. We start to say, like, "Did you do enough? Did you feed enough poor people or did you not?" That's not really, not really what's at stake here, I don't think.  [00:39:40] Jesse Schwamb: No, it's definitely not. It's, it's important to remember just the beauty of, like, the consistent theological thread that runs all the way through the Old Testament, and then that we might expect, of course, to be manifest in Christ's teachings, which happen exactly here. So he is going all the way back to that covenantal promise seed through Abraham, single seed, many people groups, many ethnicities. In this way, the gospel is ethnic inclusive. And so it is, why wouldn't he say that in this way to express that this is exactly from all time what God wanted to do is gather all people groups to himself? Which means then by the time we get to the end of this chapter in verse 46, and there is this righteousness that... or the righteous that lead or go into eternal life, then of course we're led to believe here either directly or implicitly that that means that there would be some for whom the Pharisees would find it's, like, anathema to receive that kind of righteousness and eternal life are the ones in fact who are getting it. And so even that is scandalous. So the, the whole thing is very much a setup, and I think it's the confusion again of this is Jesus saying again to the Sadducees, like, "You are confused. You do not know the power of God. You, you search for it everywhere else but do not find it in front of you. It, it's he who speak to you. I am he. You think you search the scriptures, but you do not know." Everywhere it feels like he's saying that, and here also he's saying that again, but it's in the setup. And I'm with you. I think that there would've been a lot here that would've, like, just come right off his lips that would've been like, "Say what?" Uh, that would've been, like, offensive right off- Yeah ... the top.  [00:41:16] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:41:17] Sovereign Separation [00:41:17] Tony Arsenal: And the other, the other theme that plays out really loud and clear here, um, as we start to dig into this is, um, there's a sovereignty to this separation that is baked into, um, the king's right to decide who to keep and who to cast away. Right. So I think we, we, um, understandably read into this an assessment of the productivity or the profitability or somehow the, like, merit or worth of the sheep as contrasted to the worth of the goats. Um, and we read into it like the sheep have utility and the goats don't, so the goats get cast into the- Right outer darkness. That's not really, that's not really what's going on here, right? In a, in an agrarian society, like sheep and goats both have utility. It's not as though, like, sheep are worthless and goats aren't. There's a reason people have goats. Um, th- the, the issue here is that the king has decided that there are those on his right and there are those on his left, and the ones on his right he's gonna keep, and the ones on his left he's gonna cast away. And, and so, um, there's this sovereign election and determination that precedes the rest of this, right? It's not as though he's ... And this is where the personal, sort of personal assessment part comes in. He doesn't look at a person and go, "All right, you did a g- enough good works to qualify as a sheep, so you go ahead and go over-" Right and be a sheep. And you didn't do quite enough, so you're actually a goat, so you go over and you be a goat." He looks at, he says, "Y- sheep, goat. Goat, sheep." You know, he, he's separating them out, and then he describes what sheep do versus what goats do. And I, I, like I'm even drawing some of this language out. The sheep goats part of this is actually only, like, a verse and a half. He then flips out of this parabolic language to now go back to the sort of strictly predictive eschatological ex- like explanatory language. So this is what it's like when the Son of Man is on, on his kingdom. He separates sheep and goats. We read into, and maybe with some good reason, but we read into Uh, we read into the fact that the sheeps go to one side, the goats go to another. Then we sort of like attribute the characteristics of those who go to his right to sheep, and we attribute the characteristics... And I think we do this the wrong way. How many sermons have you heard where the whole sermon is about how sheep are obedient, and they're, they're affable, and they listen, and they, they, they are sweet and kind, and goats are stubborn, and they, they just wreck everything, and they don't listen, right? And how many s- how many sermons have you heard where they talk about, like, well, sheep and goats really look the same in the Middle Eastern context, and the only way you can tell them apart is what, by what they do? I think there's probably some, uh, benefit to thinking through those elements, but Christ does not make that point in this parable- Mm ... at least not directly, right? He said, "This is the activity. Imagine a man who has sheep and he has goats. He takes the sheep, he puts them on one side. He takes the goats on another side." That's what the separation at the end of the time, at the end of time will be like. Then he goes straight back out of the parable language into saying, "This is how the king will actually make the distinction.  [00:44:29] Predestination Before Works [00:44:29] Tony Arsenal: The ones on his left, or on his right, he will say, 'Come, you're blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.'" Right? This is predestination language, not eschatological judgment language. The sheep were guaranteed a kingdom from before the foundation of the world. Before they did anything bad or didn't do anything good, they were guaranteed a kingdom from before the foundation of the world. Then he says, he explains to them, like the context that, as you said before, that reveals that they were sheep all along. [00:45:02] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:45:02] Tony Arsenal: It shows them that they were already... Man, I just, just made this connection in my head. This is the parable of the wheat and of the tares- Yep ... coming to fruition- Exactly ... at the end of time. Right. Right? The sheep and the goats were allowed to mingle until the time came when they would be separated, just as the wheat and the tares were allowed to grow up until the time when they would be reaped and separated. This is what's going on. The sheep did things that sheep do. Those on the right did the things that the people on the right would do because they were part of God's blessed kingdom all along.  [00:45:34] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:45:35] Tony Arsenal: And then he goes on to explain what the people on the left did not do, not because now they've been put on the left because they didn't do it, but they were shown to have always been a part of that, part of that population. They were always goats because of these things. This shows that they were goats all along, and they did these things or failed to do these things because they were goats all along.  [00:45:58] Jesse Schwamb: That's right.  [00:45:59] Works Righteousness Trap [00:45:59] Jesse Schwamb: Let me read another verse. "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children and also our brethren to believe in Christ and to be reconciled to God. For we know that it is by grace that we are saved after all we can do." My guess is everybody was with me- ... sounded kind of okay until that last part. And if you had that, like, as we say, like, that theological muscle memory that just made you flex or bristle there, or you had the Spidey Sense, as you say, Tony, good, because that's from 2 Nephi 25:23 from the Book of Mormon. And here's what I wanna say that's shocking, is if we read this passage of scripture that we're talking about as if there's something there that we need to do that proves that we've done enough and that somehow God will be pleased with that, even at the end of time in some small way, some modicum, then we're actually acting way more like Mormons than we are like Christians. That's just the bottom line. Yeah. Because Mormons, if you ask about this verse, rather than try to qualify that last statement by saying, "Well, that's misunderstood," or, "It's really not after all you can do," because of course it begs the question how do you know that you've done enough? How you don't- you've done all the things and that you're, you're exhausted. Their explanation of this is to double down on it and say, "Well, the context of that verse is following verse 23 actually does emphasize salvation only coming through Christ, but it also encourages continued observance of the law of Moses in order to be reconciled to God." Because that's all they could do until Christ fulfilled the law through his atonement. Even that is nonsense. So all of this to say, we have to be careful with this because I, I think you're right. We're aligning, we're running right up on this, and that is I would submit to you that we just get distracted because we always, of course, want to bring something to the party here. The, the salvation cake. We wanna, I don't know, we wanna make it, we wanna do. But God is doing all the things on our behalf. And so as a result of that, I think this parable is actually, it's about the divine prerogative and the agency of Christ in judgment at the end which belongs to him and him alone, and not about these actions. But we get caught up in the actions and we're missing this thri- divine prerogative. I also think that Christ gives this to us to reverse it on us and to show us that he sets about all things. It is in fact his foreordination and his providence. By grace we have been saved through faith, and that in providence being predestined is an act of his great love. And so this shows the extent of that love because those whom he has chosen himself are asking in disbelief as if to say, "When did I do the good works that you required?" And he said, "Well, you didn't because you could never do them apart from me."  [00:48:38] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:48:38] Jesse Schwamb: And so really that's the whole point. It's just so easy for us to get it twisted and say, "Well, doesn't it make sense that there are two groups?" Well, certainly there are in this passage. And doesn't it make good sense that because he said they did things or they didn't do things, then I just need to be about doing those things. And I think that is unfortunately the adventure in missing the point in this passage.  [00:48:58] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, I, I agree 100%. And it's funny 'cause you were reading that and I was like What translation of J- of First John is it? It sound, I mean, it sounds like, it sounds like something you'd read in First John It sounds okay  [00:49:09] Jesse Schwamb: until  [00:49:10] Tony Arsenal: the end. Yeah. No, I mean, like, it literally sounds like First John until- Yeah ... you get to that last part.  [00:49:14] Jesse Schwamb: Yes.  [00:49:15] Tony Arsenal: And, and I think you're right that, um, we'll, we'll explore this more next week, but what has always struck me about this passage is that the, the p- the, the people on His right, I've gotta stop saying sheep, because that's... I just made the point that that's not really what's going on. The people on His right who are called into the kingdom because it was prepared for them before the foundation, because they were elected unto that kingdom. The people on His right, they're surprised at the fact that they did these things. And it, I, I think the works righteousness way of reading this is like, "You better earn your salvation. You better get at it because if you haven't fed Jesus in disguise, then you just aren't gonna make it. At the end of the day- Mm ... He's gonna say, 'I never knew you.'" And it, whether intentionally or unintentionally, sometimes I think intentionally, it implies that we, uh, that Jesus comes to know us because we've done good works, right? When we say, "If you don't do these things, then Jesus will say, 'I never knew you,'" then what you're saying is Jesus doesn't know you apart from your good works. Right. And what the Bible says, what this passage says, just right on the face of it, is that the Kingdom of Heaven was prepared for those whom Christ has elected before the foundation of the world, or who the Father has elected, who are blessed by the Father before the foundation of the world. Now, obviously the Father had to know those people in some sense-  [00:50:43] Jesse Schwamb: That's  [00:50:43] Tony Arsenal: right ... before the foundation of the world in order for them to be blessed by Him and for Him to prepare a kingdom. So then to come back to the end of it and say, "Well, there are some of those, uh, who the Father never knew because they didn't do enough work," well, the problem is that those who did the good work, the Father knew before they did the good works. They didn't merit the good works. I mean- Right ... it's funny you, you bring up the, the Mormons, and that's certainly true, but, like, you could substitute in, at least on this regard, right? There are meaningful, important differences between the groups I'm about to say and Mormons, that would be the dividing line between those who are possibly saved and those who are y- definitely not saved, right? You could substitute Arminians, who wanna say God looks down the corridor of time, and the reason He prepared a kingdom in advance for them from the foundation of the world is 'cause He saw that they would do these things that would merit salvation, or He saw that they would make the proper decision to receive His grace, right? Or Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodoxes in a different sense, but similarly who would say like, "Well, yeah, God knows in advance that you're gonna merit salvation, so He prepared- Right ... this kingdom anticipating your merit that you would contribute or your participation or, or whatever." I think in a certain sense, um, you could even apply this to some Lutheran theology, right? Which would say, like, "Well, God prepared this kingdom for you from the foundation of the world because he looked down the corridor of time and he understood that you were not going to resist the grace he gave," right? You were not gonna reject his grace. Um, it really truly only is Reformed theology that can say, "No, God prepared this kingdom in advance for you, and it was the preparation of that kingdom that brought you through this such that you did the good works that you did, such that you made the wise decision to follow Christ that you did. That is caused by the fact that God prepared a kingdom for you in advance, not that you somehow caused this kingdom to be prepared for you." A- and aga- again, again, like, this is dicey. It gets into, like, logical ordering, but fundamentally, a- as far as I can understand it, every competing view besides sort of a Calvinistic understanding of predestination election has to say that in some sense God prepares the kingdom for you as a response to something you have done, or chose- Right to do or chose not to do. The reality is that this passage is saying, "No To those who are on the right. He didn't separate them based on the fact that they did these things. He just said, "You are on the right, and now to those who are on the right, I say to you, come into the kingdom that is blessed. You're blessed by my Father. Come into this kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world." So I think, you know, we're c

[AD: This episode is proud to be in partnership with BeauFort London - a house Suzy has championed from the start, spoken about passionately over the years, and continues to be excited by.] From a single, hand-poured moustache wax to one of the world's most daringly distinctive fragrance houses, BeauFort London's story is as elemental as the scents themselves. Founded in 2013 by musician Leo Crabtree, the brand was born from salt-spray memories, naval histories and a fascination with the poetry of smoke — quite literally “per fumum” (‘through smoke').In this episode of On The Scent Podcast, Suzy Nightingale and Nicola Bonn sit down with Leo to trace that journey: from the formative fragrances he wore as a teenager to the moment he realised scent could become a storytelling medium for his fascinations with maritime might, Shakespearean drama, and the awe-inspiring power of nature. With the launch of Come Hell Or High Water in 2015 — featuring the now-iconic Tonnerre, Coeur de Noir and Vi et Armis — BeauFort London set out its stall with unapologetically bold compositions, rich in unusual materials and deliberately ‘overdosed' in their intensity. As you listen, you will hear Suzy, Nicola and Leo smelling some of the creations together — Nicola encountering them properly for the first time, while Suzy revisits fragrances she has worn and championed for years, having known Leo since the brand's earliest days and even helping to shape the direction of Fathom V. Together, we delve into the inspirations behind the scents, the emotions they stir, and the evolving landscape of perfumery that Leo reflects upon with candour. It is a conversation about transformation — personal, creative, and within the industry itself — and one that invites you to explore these boldly original fragrances for yourself…

William Shakespeare created so many commonly used phrases that we use till this day that you might say he invented how we speak.  If you asked A.I., Artifical Intelligence, to create more pithy Shakespearean type phrases how close would it get?  The results are in.  You decide if A.I. is up to it.  Could Hollywood save a lot of money by firing writers and actors and just let A.I. do that work?  Will A.I. kill humans or threaten us if we try to put controls on A.I.?  If you think that's just science fiction, think again.  A.I. has already gone on the attack.  And if this kind of thing scares you you may not sleep tonight after hearing what one A.I. program did in retaliation.  Paul McCartney and I have written a song for the midterm elections called "Let It Blue."  I can make a tuning fork sound off so I used the enemy, A.I., to do the music and the singing and hopefully we have a Blue Wave in November and then sane politicians will try to get A.I. back in its box but until then I use it to defeat it.  Would you like to hear the happiest woman in the world laugh?  She was at a comedy show I did and when you hear her you'll know why I think she's a role model for how we should all be.  Subscribe and THRIVE!!!!

In this episode of Talking Art, Genesius Guild directors Cait Bodenbender and Michael Callahan discuss the enduring appeal of Greek drama and Shakespeare, the creative process of directing classical theatre, and this season's free outdoor productions in Davenport. They explore how centuries-old stories continue to resonate with modern audiences and why preserving these timeless works remains an important part of the Quad Cities arts community.

It's been more than 400 years since she first appeared on stage, and she's still controversial. Margaret of Anjou appears in not one, not two, but four of Shakespeare's plays—Henry VI Parts 1, 2, and 3 as well as Richard III—maturing from a young bride-to-be to a vengeful widow. She also speaks the most lines of any of Shakespeare's female characters. Although her historical counterpart never saw battle, Shakespeare's Margaret leads armies. And while the real Margaret was permanently exiled to France, the Shakespearean version returns to England to confront her old foes. Charles O'Malley and Scott W. Stern, co-authors of Shakespeare's Margaret: The Dramatic Life of a Warrior Queen, share how Margaret exists as an avatar for anxieties about women in power throughout the ages. Shakespeare's depiction may have been influenced by Elizabeth I, but Margaret has been portrayed on stage as a witch, a seductress, an anti-fascist resistance fighter, and even an analogue for Margaret Thatcher. In this episode, O'Malley and Stern shine the spotlight on Shakespeare's most deliciously complex anti-heroine. From the Shakespeare Unlimited podcast. Published July 14, 2026. © 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. Technical support was provided by Pat Mesiti-Miller in Oakland and Voice Trax West in Studio City, California. Web production was handled by Megan Fraedrich. Transcripts are edited by Leonor Fernandez. Final mixing services provided by Clean Cuts at Three Seas, Inc.

Where are thou? And I'm so sorry

Let us know what you think of the showIn this episode of Comic Cuts The Panel Show, your favourite podcast about comics, Occult Comedian Andrew O'Neill & comedian & podcaster Steve Otis Gunn bring in panels from comics, we guess what they're from and have a lovely chat that, today, encompasses every genre of music, religion, and childhood trauma. And magick with a k.See the video version here.Every episode, the guests reveal a panel from a comic, we try and guess where it's from, then we chat about it. Half an hour later hopefully we've learned something, or just shown off and had fun along the way.See the images from the episode here (they're also in the podcast artwork).If you've enjoyed this, why not buy us a virtual coffee at Kev F's Ko-Fi page.Your host, and series creator, is Kev F Sutherland, writer and artist for Beano, Marvel, Oink, The Scottish Falsetto Sock Puppet Theatre, and most recently author and artist of Shakespearean graphic novels including Hamlet Prince Of Denmark Street, Midsummer Night's Dream Team and his best selling Romeo & Juliet for fans of Dogman and Bunny Vs Monkey. kevfcomicartist.comJoin the Official Comic Cuts Facebook Page, aka Youtoobling, and comment on the show there too, why not?

Crime and Westerns on a WednesdayFirst, a look at the events of the day.Then, The Whisperer starring Carleton Young, originally broadcast  July 8, 1951, 75 years ago, First Show of the Series.  The Whisperer is a brilliant young attorney with a secret identity. He tackles the plans of Scurelli to sell marijuana to the unsuspecting youth of the city.Followed by The Roy Rogers Show, originally broadcast July 8, 1954, 72 years ago,The Spell of Indian Magic.   An elderly Navajo is dying from an Indian curse (the curse must be from Haiti as the curse sounds very much like voodoo). Actually, the old man is killed by an evil spirit named Wonga.Then, Fort Laramie starring Raymond Burr, originally broadcast July 8, 1956, 70 years ago, The Talented Recruits. Feeney and Merriweather, a medicine hawker and a Shakespearean actor, join the army and find out about soldiering the hard way.Followed by Gunsmoke starring William Conrad, originally broadcast July 8, 1956, 70 years ago, Passive Resistance.   Two cattlemen slaughter the herd of sheep owned by Gideon Seek, then burn down his house and wagon and finally shoot him. Gideon is a peaceable man who won't even identify his tormentors. Finally, Claudia, originally broadcast July 8, 1948, 78 years ago,  Visitors and Gifts.  Kathryn Bard and Paul Crabtree star.  Thanks to Debbie B. for supporting our podcast by using the Buy Me a Coffee function at http://classicradio.streamIf you like what we do here, visit our friend Jay at http://radio.macinmind.com for great old-time radio shows 24 hours a day

What happens to your creativity when you're in pain or sick, and can you ever get it back? How can you find and sharpen your author voice? J. Daniel Sawyer talks about voice mastery, writing with chronic pain, and building an eclectic author business. In the intro, leaning into your Strengths and deciding what you want to achieve by the end of the year; and Bones of the Deep by J.F. Penn. Today's show is sponsored by ProWritingAid, writing and editing software that goes way beyond just grammar and typo checking. With its detailed reports on how to improve your writing and integration with writing software, ProWritingAid will help you improve your book before you send it to an editor, agent or publisher. Check it out for free or get 15% off the premium edition at www.ProWritingAid.com/joanna This show is also supported by my Patrons. Join my Community at Patreon.com/thecreativepenn J. Daniel Sawyer is the author of over 30 books across science fiction, fantasy, crime, short stories, and nonfiction, as well as being a podcaster and filmmaker. His latest book for authors is The Pitch-Perfect Author: Voice Mastery for Writers. You can listen above or on your favorite podcast app or read the notes and links below. Here are the highlights and the full transcript is below. Show Notes Writing fiction through chronic pain and re-emerging into health after surgery How your physical health shapes (and darkens) your fiction Rebooting an author business around a weekly Substack column What author voice really is, and why it's fundamentally about sound The building blocks of voice: functional vocabulary, dialect, and musicality The “crossing the line twice” trick for hearing your own voice objectively You can find Dan at JDsawyer.net or on Substack. Transcript of the interview with J. Daniel Sawyer Jo: J. Daniel Sawyer is the author of over 30 books across science fiction, fantasy, crime, short stories, and nonfiction, as well as being a podcaster and filmmaker. His latest book for authors is The Pitch-Perfect Author: Voice Mastery for Writers. So welcome back to the show, Dan. Dan: Hello, Joanna. It's good to be back. Jo: Goodness me, you have been on the podcast a few times, but actually, the last time was April 2017, which is crazy. It's nine years ago. When I saw your book, I was like, “I can't believe we haven't talked for that long.” For anyone who doesn't know you, tell us a bit more about— What does your creative and author business look like these days? Dan: Oh, well, these days it's in a state of recovery because it basically ground to a halt while I was dying a few years ago. It turned out I had an organ disease from the time I was a kid that I didn't know about, and it just progressively got worse and worse, putting me in more and more pain. I hit a point around about 2020 or so where I was in so much pain that I couldn't write fiction. I continued to write nonfiction, but when you're carrying around a lot of physical pain, there comes a point where so much of your brain's activity goes into coping with it that you actually lose the ability to model other people's emotional states—or at least well enough to write fiction. So I was very frustrated, and I was despairing that I was ever going to be a novelist again. Then suddenly, what I was sick with went acute. I went to the emergency room, and they're like, “Oh, if you don't have surgery in the next 24 hours, you're going to die.” So I went and got surgery, and there was one bed in the whole state. There was a three-hour drive to get to the one that was available in the time window. I get there. They wheel me into the OR. I wake up afterwards, and I realise that I'm not in pain, and that I had never felt that before in my adult life. Jo: Wow. Dan: Just the walls of my whole reality came caving in. Two weeks later, I was back up and working, and since then I've been slowly reacquiring my ability to write fiction. So now I've got four novels going again, like I used to have going all the time, as well as doing a weekly column and all sorts of other stuff. Jo: I think a lot of people will be interested in this. A lot of writers have chronic pain issues or chronic health issues, and yours sounds like it was a sort of down, down, down, down—and then more of a sudden up. Maybe just talk a bit more, because I feel like a lot of the time people are too hard on themselves about, “Oh my goodness, if I can't write fiction, is it the end of everything?” So how did you adapt to that, with the mental health aspect of dealing with that change in circumstance? Dan: Well, it was happening so gradually, and it happened at the same time that a whole bunch of other weirdly stressful things happened, like COVID and a couple of family emergencies that derailed my whole life for a couple of years. I assumed it was just really bad stress that would pass with time. So I had the despairing feeling, because when you write fiction, it tends to occupy a central place in your self-concept. I'd also been through very tough times before, so I was like, “Well, got through that then, maybe I'll get through this now.” I just made sure to keep writing something, because at least you keep the discipline of the words flowing. There was still thought going on, so I would have ideas for novels and write them down. There were good days and bad days. Occasionally I would sit down and be like, “I feel like fiction today,” and I would write a couple thousand words, and then it would be 10 months before I could do that again. When you work with your mind, it is really easy to develop or sink into the delusion that your mind is not your body. Now, if you're paralysed or you're missing limbs, you can still write—but your mind and your body are a single system, and eventually, if something terrible is wrong with your body, it's going to affect your cognition, your emotive abilities, and all the things that we depend on for creativity. That doesn't necessarily mean that if you're sick or injured, or you've got chronic health problems from birth, that you can't write. It just means that it really is one of the factors that goes into shaping your experience of the world, that goes into shaping the way you process things and they come out on paper. When there's a massive change in your health, it's going to show up in your fiction somehow. If your health goes way down, especially if you get into a lot of pain or you have a terminal illness, your fiction's going to get darker. One of the reasons—I discovered this after I got my surgery—one of the reasons is that the sense of impending doom is actually a medical symptom of organ death. Jo: Well, don't say that to a dark writer like me. I have a sense of impending doom the entire time. Dan: Well, there's a cognitive sense of impending doom that you get if you're modelling systems and you see how things can go wrong. But the sense that you feel the claws of demons grasping at your heart all the time—that can be a medical symptom. So pay attention to that. I didn't know that until afterwards, or I'd have gotten looked at a lot sooner. Jo: That is really interesting. You mentioned there you are reacquiring the ability to write fiction, or that's what you've been focusing on. You also talked about having to reboot the business. So what are some of the concrete things you're doing to rebuild? Dan: Well, the first thing I did is I allowed myself to get talked into doing a weekly Substack column a couple of years ago, and that's worked out really well. Pay is pretty decent. I've been posting most everything for free except for some previews of upcoming books, but I'm now learning the art of paywalling, so that also helps. Getting paid for the weekly column is quite nice, and a side effect is that it does drive people occasionally to the fiction, even though I'm writing nonfiction. It more frequently drives people to the nonfiction books, but it gives me a good place to announce new releases, to promote book bundles, Kickstarters, and all that sort of thing. It's a very good place for that because the people who are subscribing there—especially the people who are subscribing and supporting—are interested enough in what I'm saying that they want my email every week. So it's a good filtering mechanism for building the email list as well. Jo: You used to do a lot of audio. That's how we connected way back, like 17 years ago, I think, when we first connected. So are you still doing a lot of audio? Dan: I am not at the moment. It's not because of a decision to drop the audio. It's because I am now building my house, and I don't have a place that's quiet enough to record dependably. I'm living in a little RV at the moment while I build the house. In the deep winter, everything is quiet enough in the forest to record some things, and so I do audiobooks for clients, and I work on audiobooks of my own that are coming out. It's not quiet enough to podcast, and it's not quiet enough to be recording any other time than when the whole world is asleep. Hopefully by next year I will have the recording studio building built, and then I'll be back at it. Because boy, I miss it. Jo: I know. So you mentioned there bundles and Kickstarters and things, and we reconnected because I bought a StoryBundle, and your new book, The Pitch-Perfect Author, was in the StoryBundle, which was part of why I bought it anyway. So let's get into the book and what's useful. Let's start with— What is author voice anyway, and why is it important? Dan: Author voice. Everything about the way that you write is part of your author voice. The themes that you gravitate to, the way that you turn a phrase, the way that you tell a joke, the way that you handle dramatic tension. When all of that combines, it creates in the reader's mind an emotional fingerprint, a gestalt that says, “This is a Joanna Penn book. This is a Dan Sawyer book,” or whoever. When you bring the focus down further, author voice is fundamentally an auditory phenomenon. You can see this if you look at the careers of writers who had major worldview shifts during their career, or who shifted genres. If you read an Isaac Asimov mystery, and you read Asimov's Guide to the Bible, and you read Isaac Asimov's The Robots of Dawn, they're all Asimov. You can hear him talking to you through all of those different venues. So author voice is not a genre thing. It's not dependent on content. It has to do fundamentally with how your brain processes language and how it comes out of your mouth. That, in turn, is based on patterns that were laid down when you were pre-verbal as an infant. You learned language by mapping the music of the conversations around you, and then gradually learning that the sing-song you were hearing corresponded to ideas. That's how the brain bootstraps itself into language. So when you start writing, just like when you start speaking, you wind up imitating a lot—unconsciously—the people you've read and heard, because that's how you develop your voice. There comes a point at which all the various influences on you, and who you are, and how they pass through you, crystallises into something definite. By the time you're a moderately competent writer, and you're finishing novels and short stories well, your author voice is pretty well established. But that doesn't mean it's sharp, because most people don't actually concentrate on learning to hear their author voice, so they can't tell when it's off. This is why new writers who revise a lot tend to revise their voice right out. When they write, they're using language as feels right to them, but when they read, they're reading it like an English teacher, or through the lens of someone who has very definite ideas about how grammar should work in all circumstances. So they tend to smooth the quirkiness out of their voice, and what you get is something flat. It doesn't feel alive. It may convey information, it may tell a good story, but it doesn't feel like you're entering something that's living. Jo: I think this is so difficult, especially for people who are new to writing. Because I remember very much spending the first few years going along to writers' conferences, and there were always sessions on “you must find your writer's voice.” You must find your author's voice, and we publish books because of the voice, and all this. It was very, very confusing to me. As you say, it has to emerge somehow, and yet that emergence seems to be very hard to accept. So what are some of the ways we can perhaps think about voice? You mentioned there some patterns. You talk about music. So what are some of those angles? In the book, you have different chapters on all of these things, but maybe just talk more about some of the elements. Dan: The first and most obvious is functional vocabulary. This is not the number of words that you know. These are the words that you can reach for in the moment. You can expand your functional vocabulary by deliberately using more words—burnish your inner thesaurus. The greater your functional vocabulary is, the more your personality is going to come out through your voice. When you've got more options to do something that's just the way that you want to do it, the closer it's going to be to the way you want to do it. So there's functional vocabulary. There's your native dialect and accent. You, being British, have a different set of preferred terms for everything than I, being a West Coast American, do. One of the great differences that's always visible between an English writer and an American writer is that you guys have a different way of speaking. When you speak of a difference between one thing and another, you talk about how this car is different to that car. And Americans say this car is different from that car. It always marks out a British writer versus an American writer. There are 100 little things like that. They happen not just between major countries, but within regions in every country. You could tell on paper the difference between someone from Yorkshire and someone from London, just as I can tell on paper the difference between someone from the West Coast and someone from Mississippi. Even if they're highly educated, the idiom, the preferred turns of phrase, the preferred imagery—all of that is going to be a little bit different, and it conveys that regionality. There's also the musicality of the language. This is the actual rhythm of the words with which you speak. When you learn to analyse poetry or to write poetry, you learn something called scansion. How a poem scans is—what are the beats of the lines, how are the beats of the lines related to each other, and how does the rhyme move in and out of that? A Shakespearean sonnet, or a sonnet from the Elizabethan era, has a specific metre, a specific number of lines, and a specific rhyme scheme, and the metre is iambic pentameter. An iamb is “bum-bum,” if I remember right. It's the rhythm of the heartbeat. It's “bum-bum, bum-bum, bum-bum.” And you can hear it in the name of the metre, the iamb. The iambic pentameter is where the stressed syllable is the second syllable and the unstressed syllable is the first syllable. All of Shakespeare is written in blank verse, which is unrhymed iambic pentameter. The pentameter is five feet per line, so one iamb is “bum-bum”—that's one foot—and five of those makes one line of Shakespeare. We all have inherent rhythms like that in the way we naturally speak, but we can also tweak those rhythms on purpose to achieve dramatic effect. The iamb has the sound of the heartbeat. It's a very reassuring speech rhythm. The trochaic is a much more rapid one—it mirrors the rhythm of a rapidly beating heart. So you see this a lot in Edgar Allan Poe, especially in his frenetic poems like “The Bells,” how they jingle, jingle, jangle on a hoary moonless night. There's a rushing sound to that metre. You're going to find that you will automatically do a little bit of this, just the way that you'll automatically have picked up the convention of breaking sentences up into shorter lengths during really exciting or suspense-filled parts of your book. Once you know what it is, you can start to use it on purpose. Quite a lot of developing your voice is learning to recognise these latent, existing qualities in the way you communicate, and sharpening them up and making them conscious tools that you can pull in whenever you want. Jo: On the one hand, there are a lot of technical words there that are really interesting, and maybe poets know a lot more of those words than most other writers. The book is really interesting in that way—kind of learning about these different things. I guess I want to reassure people as well that, as you said, some of this can be unconscious. So often when I'm self-editing and I'm reading a sentence to myself, there's something that doesn't feel right about it. So I will rewrite that sentence so that it feels right. Sometimes we do something that might be grammatically less correct, but it sounds better than it did before. So many of these things we almost know instinctively, just from reading so much. Dan: Oh, yes. From reading so much and talking so much, and again, from the way you acquire language. That gives you a template in your head of what sounds right. Language is inherently musical. So if you've ever listened to a song—especially one that wasn't recorded by a professional, but someone singing in a church choir, or your kid practising for a recital, or you practising for a recital—you know that feeling that happens when someone hits a wrong note. There's that little wince down in the core of your being, and then the song carries on and you forget about it, unless there are too many of them, in which case you just sort of cower and ooze out of the room. That feeling of “Ooh, someone just hit a wrong note”—that's exactly the feeling you get when you're reading through to edit your work and something is off in the technical layer of your voice. You should pay attention to that and rewrite so that it feels good, or feels great, which is even better. You've got the opposite of the wince, which is that sense of rapture and joy if you're listening to a professional musician and they go on an amazing guitar solo, or a flautist does an incredible trill that just sends shivers up your spine. That sense of excitement and joy—that's what happens when you're reading and the author does something with the language that makes the whole piece fly. So you want to be paying attention for those too, because those you'll commit without intending to. When you're reading back and you find those, you want to make note of them, because that's you seeing where you are at your strongest with your voice. By learning both where you're making mistakes and where you're being brilliant—just like with anything else—you can start to advance towards being brilliant more often and making fewer mistakes. Jo: Then there's a difficulty around where the line is, especially when you're an early-stage writer. Many people work with editors, and you mentioned the problem of revising your voice away, and that may also happen if you're working with an editor. Like you said, as a Brit, I work with an American editor, Kristen, and she's excellent. She's very, very good at letting my voice be my voice, and then fixing things that make it better. But a lot of people don't feel that way about their editors. So how can people understand where those lines are between being well-edited and becoming a better writer, and then needing to hold the line on their voice? Dan: It really helps if you understand where you are weak. Why are you hiring the editor in the first place? I'm a big believer in the utility of having other eyes on the manuscript, but it's really important to know what you're looking for from them. You and I have both been to the Oregon Coast writing seminars, back when that was a thing. Jo: Mm. Dan: One of the things they would talk about with editors is when you've got a story editor or a beta reader who says, “Hey, something here didn't work in the story for me,” you usually don't want to look at that point. You want to trace back from that point to figure out where you set the wrong expectation. Any editorial feedback is going to have a gap between what they notice and what really needs to be fixed. As a writer, learning to interpret the feedback properly so that you actually elevate the material, instead of interpreting the feedback like you're trying to do customer service for an employer, where you just want to make the customer happy, is a really important skill to develop. That's regardless of whether the feedback has to do with voice or plot or characterisation or whatever. Some editors are really good at back-tracing and actually spotting the real problem. Editors make their money, or get hired, or get picked by you to volunteer, because they're good at being an audience—not because they're good at being a writer. So learning to interpret the editorial feedback is a really important step in that maturation journey. Jo: Yes. I think “maturation journey” is a good way to put it. Personally, I think it was around book five when I really felt, “Okay, now I see what my voice actually is.” Like, it had to be five novels, and then I was like, “Okay, now I know.” I just didn't get it before then, and then finally—I don't know—a penny dropped or something. Maybe I grew into it, grew more confident, that kind of thing. Dan: Yes, and that's actually about right. If you look at writers with a big catalogue, five books in is usually where they start really sounding like them. So that's a pretty normal maturation curve. There is a way to speed it up, which is to read your books aloud—or even better, make audiobooks and then listen to them a thousand times. Listen to them until you are sick of them, and then listen to them until you start to like them again. Jo: That's a lot. Dan: It's a lot, but there's a really specific neurological mechanism at work. You're familiar with the comedy term “crossing the line twice,” right? Jo: Not really. Dan: Okay. Have you seen the Monty Python Spam sketch? Jo: Yes. Dan: Okay. So for those of you who have not seen this—in the Monty Python Spam sketch, there's a couple, they're in a diner, and everything on the menu has spam in it. They say the word “spam” so much that you just want to shoot your television. But they keep it up, and then suddenly, at some point—it's a different point for everybody watching—they keep it going on long enough that everybody gets there. At some point, the word “spam” itself becomes hilarious, and you can't stop laughing, and you don't know why, because it shouldn't work, but goddammit it really does. It's so funny that we named junk email “spam” after this sketch, because it's a whole bunch of stuff that you don't want, but it keeps showing up anyway. That's crossing the line twice. What's going on is that your brain is getting accustomed to a sound. It has extracted all of the meaning it can, and so it's doing what it does with all sensory input. When it thinks it's got it mapped out, it's trying to filter it. Unless you are going to sit and concentrate on it, you can't feel the texture of the fabric of your clothing on the back of your legs, because your brain—despite the fact that it's getting that input all the time—is filtering that out, because it needs you to have your resources free for thinking. When you experience something over and over and over, no matter what it is or how complex it is, the brain habituates like that. But if that signal refuses to be filtered, and the input keeps coming, and it keeps getting more intense, or it stays persistent and it's too complex to filter easily, your brain starts to think, “Oh, maybe I shouldn't be filtering this out.” “Maybe there's meaning here that's important for my survival that I hadn't extracted.” And so suddenly it starts searching for meaning to associate with that sensation—and that's the point at which the joke becomes funny again, or you start to experience your voice as if it's somebody else's. When you begin to experience your author voice as if it's somebody else's, you can hear it as a distinct, objective style, rather than just as an echo of the voices that are in your head. That's why music students practise over and over and over, even on a piece they know cold. They're doing the same trick that I'm advocating with listening to your audiobooks until you're not sick of them anymore. Jo: I mean, I think that's terrifying, because I just don't want to listen to my books over and over again. I think it's very interesting that you think it could shortcut that voice process. Staying on audio—since we last spoke, I have done a lot of my own audiobook narration, mainly for nonfiction, but also my short stories. I haven't done my full-length fiction. What I discovered in doing this is that what read fine to me when I was self-editing my own work on the page—and obviously I'm hearing it in my head—when I perform the audiobook, I actually have to edit things again. So what are some of your tips for how we can bridge that gap? Because that's kind of strange. Dan: So what's happening is that there's a much wider latitude of things that work on the page than what works with voice. The reason is that with voice, all of those rhythmic elements I was talking about before are really pronounced, as well as all the sensual elements. Basically every word and sound has a mouth shape. The mouth shape affects the emotional valence of the sound. Stuff that's unpleasant tends to have a really close-in feel—I'm trying to scrunch my face up—where you would grit your teeth and scrunch up your face if something is unpleasant. And if something is really pleasant, it tends to have a rounded feel, and our language reflects it. In fact, all languages reflect this, because language is a physical thing that's based on the sensuality of the body. So, like, in all cultures “mama” is the word for mother that babies first say, regardless of what it is. It has a round feel, because babies associate their mother with roundness. A lot of language is built up that way, from baseline sensual cues. When you're working just in text, that aspect is not nearly as obvious to you. When you're reading, it's not as obvious to you. It's still at play, but when you go to do something verbally, and you go to read a text, all of those sensual cues come in at the same time. Then the rhythm comes in hard, and you suddenly realise that—hey, that conveys the thought, but it doesn't feel right. So you wind up retooling a bit. There's also occasionally tongue twisters, which you have to work your way around. So that's why that happens. Jo: Then I guess another thing—I hear quite often, people say, “Oh, I don't like my voice.” And they mean, “I don't like speaking out loud. I don't want to be on video. I don't want to be on audio.” I wonder— Does that sort of resistance potentially affect their writing voice? Are there ways people can get over that feeling? Dan: Yes, for sure. There are a few things that go into that. One is basic self-loathing. A lot of people carry it around. Most people learn to make a decent life even though they kind of secretly suspect that they're not worth anything, or they secretly find themselves revolting. That kind of thing you can't really fix with exercises. That's something you fix with — Jo: Therapy. Dan: Psychological work, or spiritual work, or that kind of thing. Jo: Yes. Dan: But the not liking the sound of your own voice—that's easy to fix. Here's why it happens. When you're listening to your voice as you speak, the bones in your head are amplifying the bass signals and attenuating the treble. It's kind of like if you were to shout in another room and your spouse hears you, but they can't make out the consonants. That's because all the consonants are being filtered out by the wall in between, but the bass is being resonated through. The same thing happens in your head. So when you get on a microphone—especially if it's an accurate microphone—you're suddenly hearing what everybody else hears when you speak, and it sounds thin and tinny and unpleasant compared to what you're used to hearing. The really easy way to get around this is to get a microphone that is tuned for singers. The condenser mic that I have isn't made anymore, so I can't really recommend a good condenser mic. If you're on a dynamic mic, the Shure SM58 is the one to use. I podcasted with that for years before I could afford an upgrade. It is tuned for singers to sound as good as possible without any other help from the sound engineer, which means that the baseline sound for that microphone is what you're hearing in your head. If you use the right equipment, you get around that problem really quickly, to the extent that you can technically. Then after that, it's just a matter of crossing the line twice. You listen to yourself enough that you stop hearing, “Oh my God, I'm talking,” and you start hearing, “Oh, that voice is making this sound.” And once you hear, “Oh, it's that voice making this sound,” you don't have that problem anymore, ever again. Jo: Oh, good. Well, hopefully that's fixed it for people. And of course, there are lots of brilliant things in the book, The Pitch-Perfect Author. Before we finish up, I did want to return to your Substack. I was having a look at it, and it includes some really interesting things. Like, you're doing this metalwork, which is really cool. It felt coherent to me, because I know you, and you're a polymath, and you're interested in so many things. So your Substack kind of stood out to me as quite eclectic, compared to, say, other writers who are going on Substack to try and sell specific books. So is this a deliberate marketing choice, or is it just be an interesting person and you will attract people who are interested more generally? Dan: Well, I suppose it kind of winds up being the latter, but basically it's that I get bored easily. If I'm going to be writing every week, I need to stay interested in it. One of the books I wrote when I was really sick—that's not out on the market yet, but it is serialised on Substack—is a guide to self-education. It'll be coming out later this year on the general market. It's called Reclaiming Your Mind: An Autodidact's Bible. I talk in there quite a bit about the illusion of discrete areas of knowledge. There is a level of learning at which the silos of information start to collapse together. Woodworking and writing have a lot to do with each other. A lot of the terminology we use in writing is pulled from the trades—especially woodworking, and metalworking, and gunsmithing. As you begin to spot these connections between different areas of knowledge, it becomes really easy to slide between them for your hobbies, for your writing, for just your personal gratification. As I've gotten older—and also as I've gotten access to a little space that's not contained within a teeny little apartment—I have just gone with it. As I've discovered, “Hey, this thing is tangentially connected to this other thing over here,” I'm like, “Oh, well, I'm going to go over to this other thing and see what's over there.” It's tremendously creatively fertile. Since a lot of the things that our language connects us to have to do with trades and crafts and nature, it gets you out in the open air, which is really good for any writer—because sitting at a desk all day is worse than smoking three packs of cigarettes a day for 40 years. Jo: I love that. Dan: My curiosity is the chief feature of my Substack, and it kind of works for me as a writer, because it's also one of the chief features of my fiction. Jo: Me too, and I was actually quite inspired by your Substack. Because I think this happens when you've been in the writing industry long enough. Substack has become the sort of trendy place to be now. People are going into specific niches, very much like blogging did, and then podcasting had to be on a specific niche, and all this. Of course, we know logically that, marketing a book—you know, if you had just a Substack on voice mastery, then for sure that would be a better marketing vehicle. But, as you say, how boring. Dan: Well, it depends a lot on what you're trying to cultivate as an author. If you're a single-genre author with a very narrow niche, and you're really happy writing that kind of stuff, then a narrow column supporting it is not a bad idea. Especially when you serialise old novels, once you've got 20 or 30 under your belt. That's not a bad idea, because you're trying to attract people who want one thing and want it regularly. If I were to get a reader who wants one thing and wants it regularly, and finds it, say, in my Clarke Lantham mysteries, and then they hop over to my science fiction—oh boy, are they going to be pissed. If they're not there for my voice, and they're just there for the way I write a mystery plot, then not only are they not going to get what they're looking for—but they're going to start to doubt whether they can trust that they're going to get what they're looking for in my next mystery. Whereas if they're coming to me through something where the multiplicity of what I'm doing is on display—whether that's this Substack, or whether that's what I used to do on The Every Day Novelist when I was podcasting that, or whether it's what I did with all the after-shows on my fiction podcast when I was doing that—then they kind of know what they're in for. The people who stick with me are more likely to be people who are in it for the experience of my voice. And for my bibliography, that's what I've got to offer, because I'm all over the place in terms of genre and subject matter. Jo: Yes, which is why I find you interesting. Dan: Oh, why thank you. Jo: So where can people find you and your books online? Dan: Well, you can find pretty much everything at JDsawyer.net. I've got the weekly column at jdanielsawyer.substack.com. At jdsawyer.net there's a page with all of my podcasts on it, and there's also a store with all of my books on it. Of course, everything is also available on Amazon and just about everywhere that the distributors take you. Jo: Brilliant. Well, thanks so much for your time, Dan. That was great. Dan: Thank you, Joanna. It was great to talk to you again.The post Author Voice Mastery, And Rebooting an Author Business With J. Daniel Sawyer first appeared on The Creative Penn.

For the latests Whisper in the Wings from Stage Whisper, we welcomed on the founder/director Karsten Otto, to talk about his upcoming production Shakespeare Entirely's Taming of the Shrew. This fantastic version of the classic Shakespearean work, made for fantastic conversation. So be sure that you tune in and turn out for this fantastic show!Small Boat and Kotto Productions Presents:Shakespeare Entirely's Taming of the ShrewJuly 9th-August 2nd @ La MaMaTickets and more information are available at eventbrite.comAnd be sure to follow Karsten to stay up to date on all his upcoming projects and productions: @kotto_@kottopro_

Spoilers, obviously. Dragons, definitely. Sensible decisions? Not so much. House of the Dragon Season 3, Episode 2 gave us grief, dragons, snot, Shakespearean drama, Aemond chaos, Daemon's terrible management style, and ravens apparently running on 5G. We're breaking down the whole episode — Rhaenyra's spiral, Aemond at Harrenhal, Larys and Aegon, Alice Rivers, Corlys' family mess, and whether the show is pushing Rhaenyra toward full Mad Queen territory. Watch/listen now. Available on YouTube, Apple Podcasts & Spotify Support the show on Patreon for ad-free episodes & bonus content : http://bit.ly/44Mo8xU Like & Subscribe Leave a 5-star review if you're enjoying Thumb War Email us: ThumbWarPod@gmail.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Back for more Shakespeare! This week it's Henry IV Part 2 (following up last month's Part 1)--but with the addition of the book Year of the Fat Knight by Shakespearean actor Antony Sher.Part One's pairings of characters give way to one central relationship in Part 2: fathers and sons. It's much more serious as Prince Hal moves closer to assuming the throne: how much will he follow his father's wishes for him? How can he create his kingly presence with Falstaff acting as his best friend and surrogate father? And who, if anyone, might fill that advisor/father role when Hal loses his own?On top of this play, I read the wonderful Year of the Fat Knight. Sher was Falstaff in the productions of Henry IV from Royal Shakespeare Company, the ones I watched, and he was marvelous. I spotted this book when we were in Stratford last summer and decided that this was the perfect month to read it.Sher's memoir is amazing, full of all kinds of anecdotes about not only this play but being a Shakespearean actor in general. I strongly feel that you can't experience a Shakespeare play without seeing it in some form, and Sher's memoir made me see why. It's a true vocation to act in a play like this--embodying the complicated language so that it seems natural, filling in the blanks of a personality that Shakespeare leaves, deciding exactly how to appear in front of an audience. I'm really happy I read this one.Next week--Happy Birthday, America!BOOKS IN THIS EPISODEThe complete list of Crack the Book Episodes (Amazon affiliate links): https://cheryldrury.substack.com/p/crack-the-book-start-here?r=u3t2rHenry IV Part 2 (RSC Production)Year of the Fat Knight (Antony Sher)CONNECTTo read more of my writing, visit my Substack - https://www.cheryldrury.substack.com.Follow me on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/cldrury/Like what you heard? Buy me a coffee! https://ko-fi.com/crackthebookLISTENSpotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/5GpySInw1e8IqNQvXow7Lv?si=9ebd5508daa245bdApple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/crack-the-book/id1749793321Captivate - https://crackthebook.captivate.fm

“His descent is in a sense our descent.” — Peter Wehner on Trump at 80 Donald Trump turned 80 two weeks ago. But Peter Wehner's timely Atlantic piece, “The Apotheosis of Donald Trump,” isn't much of a birthday present. Wehner even suggests that for all Trump's madness, mayhem and malevolence, the orange octogenarian eludes Shakespearean tragedy. So no historic hall of infamy for Donald. He's too sad for that. Trump is a man, Wehner says, of borderless corruption — malicious, totally corrupt, without any visible redeeming qualities. But he isn't King Lear. Trump lacks Lear's complexity, Wehner says. Lear was a figure with whom you could have some empathy. Trump is not. He is, as Wehner notes, “a flatter figure in that sense” — but that doesn't make him any less dangerous. For the DC-based Wehner, what makes Trump more dangerous, as an octogenarian, is his decomposition. The signs are everywhere: the disinhibition intensifying, the impulsivity more easily triggered, the volatility producing a foreign policy that no ally can track or trust. His descent, Wehner warns, might be our descent. Peak Trump. The apotheosis of a pathetically malevolent madman. Just in time for the semiquincentennial, which Wehner will “celebrate” at Monticello. Five Takeaways •       Trump at 80: The Apotheosis and the Decomposition: Wehner's Atlantic piece, written to mark Trump's 80th birthday, argues that what we are seeing is not just the decline of an old man but a visible decomposition in his mental and physical capacities that is making him more, not less, dangerous. The disinhibition is more intense. The impulsivity is more easily triggered. The volatility is producing a foreign policy that no ally can track or trust. Trump 2.0 is more dangerous than Trump 1.0 — and Trump 1.0 was not a walk in the park. The question is not whether this ends well. The question is how badly it ends. •       Not King Lear: A Man of Borderless Corruption: Wehner uses a King Lear allusion in his Atlantic essay but hesitates to lean on it. Lear was a complicated figure — someone you could have empathy with, who saw things at the end he hadn't seen earlier. Trump is not like that. He is, as best Wehner can tell, a man of borderless corruption, malicious from head to toe, with no visible redeeming qualities — a flatter figure in the Shakespearean sense. That flatness makes the Lear parallel partial. But it does not diminish the danger. His descent is in a sense our descent. •       European Mystification: When It Happens Twice, That Breaks Trust: Andrew has just returned from Europe, where every prominent journalist and historian he met was mystified by Trump. Wehner agrees: Trump is sui generis, unlike any leader the post-war world has produced. What he says is particularly disturbing is the second election. If it had happened once, Europe could have told itself it was a parenthesis. When it happens twice, that breaks trust. Even if the next president is sane and rational, there is no guarantee the following one will be. That uncertainty, Wehner says, is a real inflection point in the relationship between the United States and the rest of the world. •       The Crack-Up of MAGA World: The cult-like grip Trump had on the Republican Party and the MAGA base is no longer there. His approval among Republicans has dropped from the nineties to the seventies — still high, but significant. And the fissures in MAGA world are, in Wehner's word, extraordinary: Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly and Candace Owens have broken from the movement or turned on its leadership. Marjorie Taylor Greene too. The crack-up has begun. Whether it is fast enough or decisive enough to matter remains to be seen. But the movement that once seemed invincible is showing its first serious cracks. •       Monticello for the 250th: Welcoming New Immigrants: Wehner and his wife are considering spending July 4 at Monticello — Thomas Jefferson's house in Charlottesville, Virginia — where a friend has invited them to an event welcoming new American citizens and immigrants. It is, he says, going to be a birthday that is not untainted by sadness even as there will also be hope of what can still happen. Six days from the 250th, Andrew asks what Jefferson would think of Trump. Wehner: probably not terribly favourable. Probably true of most of the founders. About the Guest Peter Wehner is a Contributing Editor at The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He served as a senior policy adviser in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. He is a frequent contributor to The New York Times. His Atlantic piece “The Apotheosis of Donald Trump” was published June 14, 2026. References: •       Peter Wehner, “The Apotheosis of Donald Trump,” The Atlantic, June 14, 2026 — the piece that occasions this conversation. •       Episode 2945: Samuel Moyn on Gerontocracy in America — referenced at the opening. •       Monticello, Charlottesville, Virginia — Thomas Jefferson's home; venue for the July 4 immigrant-welcoming event Wehner mentions. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 3,000 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - Introduction: Trump at 80 and the apotheosis (02:07) - Visible decomposition: more dangerous than Trump 1.0 (02:54) - Something to celebrate or be concerned about? (03:21) - The disinhibition intensifies; impulsivity more easily triggered (04:18) - Is there a Shakespearean arc? (04:54) - King Lear allusion: hesitation; Trump is a flatter figure (05:30) - Man of borderless corruption; his descent is our descent (06:40) - European mystification: just back from Poland (07:18) - Trump is sui generis (08:10) - When it happens twice, that breaks trust (10:22) - Not everyone elected Trump: the Republican question (11:16) - The crack-up of MAGA world (12:19) - Marjorie Taylor Gre...

Let us know what you think of the showActor and Crushed podcaster Margaret Cabourn Smith and comedian and crime writer Ian Moore bring in comic panels from a newspaper strip and a graphic novel that inspire talk ranging for Mod to the Middle Class and covering so much more on the way.See the images from the episode here (they're also in the podcast artwork).Margaret's award-winning podcast Crushed is a star-studded look into the world of people's unrequited loves, and Ian Moore' best-selling crime novels include the Follet Valley series beginning with Death & Croissants, and the Judge Lombard series.Every episode, the guests reveal a panel from a comic, we try and guess where it's from, then we chat about it. Half an hour later hopefully we've learned something, or just shown off and had fun along the way.If you've enjoyed this, why not buy us a virtual coffee at Kev F's Ko-Fi page.Your host, and series creator, is Kev F Sutherland, writer and artist for Beano, Marvel, Oink, The Scottish Falsetto Sock Puppet Theatre, and most recently author and artist of Shakespearean graphic novels including Hamlet Prince Of Denmark Street, Midsummer Night's Dream Team and his best selling Romeo & Juliet for fans of Dogman and Bunny Vs Monkey. kevfcomicartist.comJoin the Official Comic Cuts Facebook Page, aka Youtoobling, and comment on the show there too, why not?

Show Notes- Joe Azzopardi joins us to discuss his exciting role in Netflix's highly anticipated Enola Holmes 3, premiering July 1, 2026. Joe shares his journey from Malta to the international stage and screen, his experience working alongside stars like Millie Bobby Brown, Helena Bonham Carter, and Henry Cavill, and what audiences can expect from his mysterious new character, Mikiel Mizzi. We also dive into his work in Jurassic World: Dominion, The Boat, Shakespearean theater, and how adventure and outdoor pursuits influence his approach to acting. In this episode: • Landing a role in Enola Holmes 3 • Bringing Malta to a global audience • Working alongside Hollywood's biggest stars • Lessons from blockbuster films and theater • The challenges of carrying a one-man film • Adventure, creativity, and performance • Future projects including Xelter Watch Enola Holmes 3 on Netflix beginning July 1, 2026. Takeaways Confidence and clarity at a young age can propel an acting career. Working with talented filmmakers enhances the acting experience. Cultural background can add depth to character portrayal. Preparation and research are crucial for historical roles. Ambition to perform Shakespearean roles reflects a desire for artistic growth.   Sound Bites "I always just wanted to be an actor." "This film is a coming together of England and Malta." "Working with phenomenal actors and filmmakers was incredible." Chapters 00:00 Introduction to Joe Azzopardi 00:56 Career Highlights and Upcoming Projects 02:47 Introduction to Joe Azzapardi 02:54 Journey from Malta to International Recognition 04:49 The Realization of Acting as a Career 06:09 Excitement for Enola Holmes 3 07:53 Character Insights: Mikael Mitzi 09:09 Aspirations for Future Roles 10:02 Podcast Outro.mp3   Resources Enola Holmes 3 on Netflix Mountview Academy of Theatre Arts Shakespeare's Play

Put on your best bad wig and join us for our discussion of the Amanda Bynes classic She's the Man with returning special guest, author Samantha Allen! We talk about the star quality of Amanda, the original text of Twelfth Night, gender stuff, romance, and feminism(?). Then we have a spoiler-free interview with Samantha about her latest novel, Puck, which is inspired by another Shakespearean play! Read along with us for our next Bookpisode on The Body by Bethany C. Morrow on July 7. Then join us another Othersode with author Paul Tremblay on July 21, wherein we'll discuss The Big Lebowski and Paul's newest novel, Dead but Dreaming of Electric Sheep.:30–Welcome, Samantha! 9:30–Movie intro11:00–How do we all feel about this movie nostalgically? Amanda Bynes?19:22–Has anyone read Twelfth Night?21:28–The Gender of it All33:10– Is this movie romantic?38:04–Is this movie funny?41:55– Is this movie feminist?51:04–Interview with Samantha Allen about Puck!1:44:00–What's up next? 

Go hence, and have more talk of these sad things. For never was a story of more woe than the 2026 San Francisco Giants. Kerry and I go to Shakespearean lengths to try to figure out what is ailing this organization.There R Giants 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 rogermunter.substack.com/subscribe

Bliss in Triple Rhythm–A Toolbox for Poets: Nine Ways to Shape A Word Song: Shown in 300 Original Poems by Martin Bidney https://www.amazon.com/Bliss-Triple-Rhythm-Toolbox-Poets/dp/1987402561 Mmartinbidney.org This book of word songs in unexpected melodic patterns will surprise you by its equally unusual liveliness. I’m so eager to begin singing for you that, as you noticed, I’ve already written a prefatory poem in one of the varied kinds of triple rhythm units I’ll be illustrating (la LA la; weak STRONG weak; one TWO three; x/x). The strangest thing I’ll be doing in my collection is to bring about a resurrection of ancient stanza patterns embodying the musical structures I love. The uncustomary triple-rhythm stanza forms richly displayed will acquire a real if unlikely novelty by presenting tools so extremely old. About the author Martin Bidney, Professor Emeritus at Binghamton University (NY), writes poetry books that are dialogues. In “Shakespair” he converses in Shakespearean sonnets with the 154 that the bisexual Bard himself wrote in the 1590s about his boyfriend and girlfriend. In “A Unifying Light” Martin converses with Qur’anic passages on the topic of Jews and Christians in the Qur’an and the Islamic virtues they embody. “East-West Poetry” shows Martin replying, in poems, to passages from both the Qur’an and Rumi. “Poems of Wine and Tavern Romance” offers 103 dialogues between Martin and Hafiz, the 14th century Persian pub poet he translates, a Muslim Sufi who was bisexual, like Shakespeare, and whom Germany’s greatest poet, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, called his “twin” brother! (Martin translates Hafiz from the same version Goethe used.) In fact, Martin has also translated Goethe’s own “West-East Divan” (divan means “collection”) and wrote conversational reply poems to all of Goethe’s 240 lyrics. Martin’s dialogue book with the greatest Polish poet, Adam Mickiewicz, contains, on facing pages, the sonnets he wrote in response to the “Crimean Sonnets” he translated from Polish. In “Like a Fine Rug of Erivan” he translates 39 Pushkin poems from Russian and recites them on a CD. His wide-ranging fascination with revelatory writing stems from “Patterns of Epiphany,” where Martin pioneered a method of analysis he has since applied to over 20 authors.

Jacob Ming-Trent shares the way in which Shakespeare Saved My Life has become a play about gratitude and salvation. Folger's new show promises to deliver a beautifully electric and touching night of theater. 

English accents have been evolving ever since the first people started speaking this very strange language. People in historic films often speak with a modern British accent, and when they don't, people think it's inaccurate. But what did people really sound like during Shakespearean times? Or American Revolution times? Author and linguist Valerie Fridland joins us to discuss all these questions and more! Buy a copy of Valerie's book Why We Talk Funny: The Real Story Behind Our Accents (affiliate link) — ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy a copy of Ann's book Rebel of the Regency⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ — Get 15% off all the gorgeous jewellery and accessories at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠commonera.com/vulgar⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠commonera.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and use code VULGAR at checkout — Get Vulgar History merch at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠vulgarhistory.com/store⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (best for US shipping) and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠vulgarhistory.redbubble.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (better for international shipping) — Vulgar History is an affiliate of ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Bookshop.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, which means that a small percentage of any books you click through and purchase will come back to Vulgar History as a commission. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Use this link to shop there and support Vulgar History.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You know that moment. You had a plan. You felt good about it. And then one unplanned meal, one late night, one vacation evening and before you've even put the dish in the sink, the word shows up. Failure. And it doesn't feel like a word. It feels like a verdict. Your brain lines up the evidence. You're not trying hard enough. You never stick with anything. You're never going to change. And what started as one bowl of ice cream at 9pm has somehow become a statement about who you permanently are. This episode is about that sequence. Where it comes from, why your brain does it, and four surprisingly quick tools to break it — including a Harry Potter spell, a Shakespearean ice cream monologue that made my client cry laughing, and a little something from psychology called cognitive defusion.   What You'll Learn in This Episode Why "failure" stops feeling like a word and starts feeling like an identity The psychology of cognitive fusion and why your brain treats thoughts like facts Four specific tools to take the power back from the failure spiral How to replace the thought with something your brain can actually grip Why one unplanned meal is never the whole story   Key Takeaway The failure spiral isn't a character flaw. It's a brain pattern, and brain patterns can change. The four steps in this episode won't stop the thought from showing up. They will stop it from running the whole show.   Listen If You've Ever Thought... "I ruined it. Again." "Why can't I just stick with anything?" "I was doing so well and then I completely blew it." "One bad night and I'm back to square one." "I don't know why I even try." Want More? If this episode resonated with you, I'd love for you to subscribe to The Confident Body Podcast. Every week we talk about the mental and emotional side of weight loss, the part that diets never cover. We cover things like sustainable weight loss, emotional eating, self-trust around food, and how to break free from diet rules that have never worked long term. Because the goal isn't just to lose the weight. It's to become someone who knows how to keep it off and feel good while doing it. Leave a review if this episode helped you. It only takes thirty seconds and it helps other women find the show.   Check out my new Substack page! You'll get bonus articles, inspiration, and wisdom. Plus some extra goodies I've got rolled up my sleeve. Check it out at: https://substack.com/@coachlizziemerritt   PS: Ever had that moment when you just WANT it?  Your brain doesn't care if you're hungry. It just tastes SO good and you just want it.  If that's you, then download the guide I JUST WANT IT. IT TASTES SO GOOD at: confidentbody.coach/wantit   Get the book my new book LIGHT: The New Psychology of Weight Loss Also, check out my first book: You Are A Miracle 

Jay and young Paco perform gigs on the road together and develop a bond. Paco is the Bonfire videographer as well as a new comedian and Jay is more than happy to give him advice about the business. Bob's urges him to be just like Jo Koy and cater to his Asian audience. | Jay is currently watching "Dutton Ranch" which is the spin-off of "Yellowstone" and has a problem with the Shakespearean dialogue. | Comic Rich Vos visits his motherland and posts pictures of himself reading by the Wailing Wall. | Bobby declares that Joe Rogan was his comedy hero when he was just starting out in stand-up. *To hear the full show to go www.siriusxm.com/bonfire to learn more! FOLLOW THE CREW ON SOCIAL MEDIA: @thebonfiresxm @louisjohnson @christinemevans @bigjayoakerson @robertkellylive @louwitzkee @jjbwolf Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of The Bonfire ad-free and a whole week early.  Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

He-Man was always camp. The loincloth, the harness, the flexing, the pink tunic, Masters of the Universe was masculinity as WWE spectacle.. The 2026 film knew this, it just couldn't decide what to do about it. Host Matthew Fox welcomes Pete Wright of The Next Reel Film Podcast on TruStory FM to dig into why this movie feels like five films playing simultaneously, why the Barbie comparison is more complicated than it looks, and what a genuinely great He-Man movie would have required of its filmmakers.There's real craft on display; Idris Elba anchoring chaos, Jared Leto's Skeletor going full Shakespearean villain, moments of nostalgia that land exactly right. But the movie sets up a father-son arc about masculinity and emotional bravery, then resolves it with a half-hearted deathbed forgiveness scene that changes nothing. It gestures at He-Man's campy legacy and then gets embarrassed by it. It makes Adam an HR rep with empathy skills, then turns those skills into a punchline. The movie knew what it wanted to say. It just didn't have the nerve to say it.We also get into the full Mattel pipeline — Polly Pocket, Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots, Magic 8-Ball as a horror comedy — and the nostalgia properties we'd actually pay to see: Gummi Bears, Darkwing Duck, and what Scooby-Doo keeps getting right that everyone else gets wrong.Full Show Notes and Resources**************************************************************************This episode is a production of Superhero Ethics, an Ethical Panda podcast and part of the TruStory FM Entertainment Podcast Network. Check out our website to find out more about this show and our sister podcast Star Wars Generations.We want to hear from you! Keep up with our latest news and send us feedback, questions, or comments via social media or email.TikTok · Twitter/X · Instagram · Facebook · EmailJoin the conversation in the Star Wars Generations and Superhero Ethics channels on the TruStory FM Discord.Want even more content while supporting the podcast? Become a member! For $5 a month or $55 a year you get access to bonus episodes and bonus content at the end of most episodes — and you can even give membership as a gift. Sign up here.You can also support us through our sponsors:Purchase a lightsaber from Level Up Sabers, run by friend of the podcast Neighborhood Master Alan.Use Audible for audiobooks. Sign up for a one-year membership or gift one through this link.Purchase any media discussed this week through our sponsored links.

The dark side rises as The Commentary Booth hosts, Jamie Apps and Corrina Mabey, conclude their journey through the Star Wars prequel trilogy with a deep dive into Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith.Widely regarded as the strongest entry in the prequel saga, Revenge of the Sith delivers the tragic downfall of Anakin Skywalker, the rise of Darth Vader, the execution of Order 66, and the birth of the Galactic Empire. But does the film truly earn its reputation, or is it simply the best of a flawed trilogy?Jamie and Corrina break down the film's darker tone, Shakespearean tragedy, and iconic moments, including Anakin's fateful turn to the dark side, Obi-Wan's heartbreaking confrontation on Mustafar, and Palpatine's masterfully orchestrated rise to power. Along the way, they discuss whether Anakin's visions of Padmé ultimately caused the very future he was trying to prevent, the effectiveness of Order 66, General Grievous' brief but memorable role, and how the film bridges the gap to the original trilogy.Highlights Breakdown: - Why Revenge of the Sith remains the standout film of the prequel trilogy - The inevitability of Anakin Skywalker's tragic fall to the dark side - Breaking down Palpatine's galaxy-spanning manipulation and long-term strategy - The emotional impact of Order 66 and the destruction of the Jedi Order - General Grievous, his unique design, and the surprising origin of his cough - Whether the story would have worked better as a prestige television series - The pair also examine the movie's biggest weaknesses, from its lengthy runtime and uneven pacing to some questionable CGI choices that haven't aged particularly gracefully. - Is Revenge of the Sith the masterpiece many fans claim it is, or simply a satisfying conclusion to an otherwise inconsistent trilogy? Join us as we revisit one of the most important chapters in Star Wars history.This week's episode is brought to you byAustralian Wrestling CardsCheck out more great content from Pario Magazine on our website.-------------------------------------------------------------SUPPORT PARIO MAGAZINE & THE COMMENTARY BOOTH- PATREON- BUY MERCH- AMAZON PRIME VIDEO- TUBEBUDDY- Subscribe to AEW Plus using my code (q0yydoz) to earn $10 in FITE credit- Shop Online With Honey- Shop Online With SatechiMY EQUIPMENT- Elgato Facecam- Rode PodMic- Elgato Wave Mic Arm LP- Streamlabs Talk StudioFOLLOW JAMIE ON SOCIAL MEDIA- Twitter- Facebook- Instagram- TikTokFOLLOW PARIO MAGAZINE ON SOCIAL MEDIA- Twitter- Facebook- Instagram

For the latest Whisper in the Wings from Stage Whisper, we welcomed back on the actors Will Watkins, Clayton Hamburg, and Leah Schwartz from Atlas Shakespeare Company's Othello. These fantastic artists sat down with us and shared some inspired insight and brilliant ideas regarding this iconic Shakespearean drama. So be sure that you tune in and get your tickets now for this fantastic production!Atlas Shakespeare Company Presents OthelloJune 16th-28th@ The Abrons Arts Center Tickets and more information are available at abronsartscenter.org And be sure to follow our guests to stay up to date on all their upcoming projects and productions: atlasshakespearecompany.com@atlasshakespeare@shroomerhasitleah-schwartz.com@_itsjustleah_williamoliverwatkins.com@wowatkings

Lorien McKenna is joined by Co-Creator and showrunner of the hit Netflix Series Nemesis. Courtney talks about seeing her protagonists in ACTION, how she created worthy adversaries, and how the pilot really is the show. Courtney adores Shakespeare and highlights how season 6 of her first smash hit, Power is as she says "Richard The Third". A fabulous episode filled with incredible inspiration for new and emerging writers. Looking for more support on your writing journey? Join Meg and Lorien inside ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TSL Workshops⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Episode Links: Check out the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TSL merch shop⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ TSL on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ The Screenwriting Life is produced and edited by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Alex Alcheh.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on Sibling Rivalry, Bob and Monét welcome Susan Heyward to the show. Susan talks about preparing to play Sister Sage on The Boys, how it felt telling a story that mirrors current events, and reveals who she thinks is the hottest guy on the show. They discuss her work on stage, performing with Cicely Tyson, her memories of Orange Is the New Black, and the survival jobs she worked in New York before making it as an actor. They also get into favorite fast food, horror movies, karaoke songs, dream acting collaborators, and whether Little Shop of Horrors has Shakespearean roots. Rula patients typically pay $15 per session when using insurance. Connect with quality therapists and mental health experts who specialize in you at https://www.rula.com/RIVALRY #rulapod Take the first step. Visit WaldenU.edu.  If you're struggling with OCD or unrelenting intrusive thoughts, NOCD can help. Book a free 15 minute call to get started: https://learn.nocd.com/rivalry  Book your next stay on Airbnb! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week on Sibling Rivalry, Bob and Monét welcome Susan Heyward to the show. Susan talks about preparing to play Sister Sage on The Boys, how it felt telling a story that mirrors current events, and reveals who she thinks is the hottest guy on the show. They discuss her work on stage, performing with Cicely Tyson, her memories of Orange Is the New Black, and the survival jobs she worked in New York before making it as an actor. They also get into favorite fast food, horror movies, karaoke songs, dream acting collaborators, and whether Little Shop of Horrors has Shakespearean roots.   Rula patients typically pay $15 per session when using insurance. Connect with quality therapists and mental health experts who specialize in you at https://www.rula.com/RIVALRY #rulapod Take the first step. Visit WaldenU.edu.  If you're struggling with OCD or unrelenting intrusive thoughts, NOCD can help. Book a free 15 minute call to get started: https://learn.nocd.com/rivalry  Book your next stay on Airbnb! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

St. Louis Shakespeare Festival's fast-moving production of "The Tempest" in Forest Park sets the story to the tune of sea chanteys and folk songs, performed live on two stages. As St. Louis Public Radio's Jeremy Goodwin reports, the production evokes the magic encountered by its characters … with music.

Jeremy and Chris pull back the curtain on one of the most dynamic "new gods", Scott Free, aka, Mister Miracle. A unique character created by Jack Kirby while at DC, this escape artist by trade, and extra powerful extra-terrestrial by birth, Mister Miracle has an almost Shakespearean backstory. He's got the responsibilities of a powerful world warring general, with a relatable desire for a normal family life. We cover his origin, publication history, reading recommendations, adaptations, and of course a fun "what-if" question. You'd be a fool to escape listening to this one If you want to connect even more, you can join our Discord where we have a dedicated channel just for the book club! Come join in on the fun by clicking the link right HERE! You have a super-power, too! You can write a REVIEW! A five star review on Apple Podcasts goes a long way and helps get the word out. Leave a comment so we can say thanks! We read EVERY one!   Join our Patreon for exclusive bonus content! You can support the show at https://www.patreon.com/ComicBookKeepers We have merchandise in the store with our Cosplay Logo! Get yours here! https://comicbookkeepers.threadless.com/designs/comic-book-keepers-cosplay-logo/heroes/t-shirt/regular?variation=front&color=royal_blue Comic Book Keepers is hosted by the Geekly Grind. Check out reviews and discussion on everything Geeky from Anime, Manga, Boardgames, comics, and more. www.thegeeklygrind.comsdThe Geekly Grind @thegeeklygrind Link tree: https://linktr.ee/CBKcast Social media: Twitter @cbkcast Instagram @cbkcast

Steve Schmidt returns to the Daily Beast Podcast with a blistering warning about Donald Trump's unraveling grip on power, the Republican Party's “Shakespearean” collapse into cowardice, and why he believes MAGA is heading toward a political wipeout. In a conversation that ricochets from the Epstein files to the future of American democracy, Schmidt tears into GOP leaders he says have “lashed themselves to the mast,” predicts a brutal reckoning in 2028, and unleashes a stunning critique of John Fetterman, calling the Pennsylvania senator unfit for office after his stroke and accusing Fox News of psychologically manipulating him in public. Schmidt also paints a deeply alarming picture of America's standing abroad, arguing the U.S. is already losing a hidden war with Iran while Trump drifts toward another dangerous foreign adventure in Cuba, all as gas prices soar and public frustration boils over. Schmidt then turns his fire on Jeff Bezos and the billionaire class he says chose submission over resistance, framing this political era not just as a fight over power, but as a historic test of national character that future generations will study with disbelief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Steve Schmidt joins "The Daily Beast Podcast" with Joanna Coles once again with a blistering warning about Donald Trump’s unraveling grip on power, the Republican Party’s “Shakespearean” collapse into cowardice, and why he believes MAGA is heading toward a political wipeout. In a conversation that ricochets from the Epstein files to the future of American democracy, Schmidt tears into GOP leaders he says have “lashed themselves to the mast,” predicts a brutal reckoning in 2028, and unleashes a stunning critique of John Fetterman, calling the Pennsylvania senator unfit for office after his stroke and accusing Fox News of psychologically manipulating him in public. Schmidt also paints a deeply alarming picture of America’s standing abroad, arguing the U.S. is already losing a hidden war with Iran while Trump drifts toward another dangerous foreign adventure in Cuba, all as gas prices soar and public frustration boils over. Schmidt then turns his fire on Jeff Bezos and the billionaire class he says chose submission over resistance, framing this political era not just as a fight over power, but as a historic test of national character that future generations will study with disbelief. Support The Warning and become a YouTube member today! https://www.youtube.com/@UC2I50t9-7Ol7AjwryRv-Fiw Today's Merch: Tear Down This Ballroom https://thewarningwithsteveschmidt.com/products/tear-down-this-ballroom-tee SUBSCRIBE for more and follow me here: Substack: https://steveschmidt.substack.com/subscribe Store: https://thewarningwithsteveschmidt.com/ Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/thewarningses.bsky.social Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SteveSchmidtSES/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thewarningses Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thewarningses/ X: https://x.com/SteveSchmidtSES See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Antoni Cimolino is beginning his final season as the artistic director of Ontario's Stratford Festival, the largest repertory theatre company in North America. Antoni started working at Stratford as an actor in 1988, eventually becoming a director at the festival, and then moving up to the role of artistic director in 2012. He joins Tom to talk about his life in theatre, the challenges he's faced along the way, and why he's chosen The Tempest as his Shakespearean swan song.

One small step into the wrong classroom becomes a giant leap into a new life as a Shakespearean actor. That's how Jacob Ming-Trent tells it in his remarkable one-man tour-de-force, How Shakespeare Saved My Life. As the Folger prepares to welcome How Shakespeare Saved My Life to the stage this June, Ming-Trent joins us to delve deeper into his story. Ming-Trent is no stranger to the Folger stage, having previously presented How Shakespeare Saved My Life at the 2024 Reading Room Festival and portrayed Nick Bottom in A Midsummer Night's Dream in 2022. A multitalented stage and screen actor, he has appeared in Broadway musicals from Gypsy to Shrek, television series like Watchmen and Ray Donovan, and films including The Forty-Year-Old Version and Friendship. In this episode, Ming-Trent presents Shakespeare as an urban poet in the vein of Tupac and Biggie. He breaks down the inspiration behind How Shakespeare Saved My Life and how he brings his own experience to his interpretation of Shakespeare's words, rearranging and reframing them to create something uniquely personal.

Anthony and Joe are back to break down this weekend's WWE Backlash: Tampa premium live event! With the dust settling from WrestleMania 42, the guys give their official predictions for the entire five-match card.Can Jacob Fatu dethrone the "cry bully" Original Tribal Chief, Roman Reigns, for the World Heavyweight Championship? Anthony and Joe dive into the Shakespearean drama of the Asuka vs. Iyo Sky clash, predict the fallout of Seth Rollins finally getting his hands on Bron Breakker, and debate who will walk out with the United States Title in the Trick Williams vs. Sami Zayn rematch. Plus, the guys throw out their wild guesses for who will step up as Danhausen's mystery tag partner against The Miz and Kit Wilson.Tune in for the Backlash booking theories, match predictions, and the usual Wrestling Soup chaos!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/wrestling-soup--1425249/support.

0:00 – Intro / Raw Review: Asuka and Iyo Sky's "Shakespearean" mist segment7:30 – Roman Reigns' "cry bully" babyface promo and The Usos' return14:45 – Judgment Day rushed booking: Roxanne Perez hits Finn Balor with a hammer20:10 – The wrestling was good, but Seth Rollins' "I don't trust me" promo was terrible24:20 – Joe Hendry confronts Seth Rollins / Logan Paul conspiracy theories28:50 – Rumored 50% pay cuts for undercard talent vs. massive TKO executive raises37:10 – Exploring The New Day's contract buyout and Edge's AEW run44:20 – Match of the night: Otis and Tozawa stepping up to Oba Femi52:15 – Sol Ruca's botched debut against Becky Lynch and the Tiffany Stratton fallout59:30 – WrestleMania merch sales realities and Backlash previewBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/wrestling-soup--1425249/support.

When his eighteen-year-old twin brother Anh gets into a drunken fight at a party, Trung stabs his attacker. San Jose police place both identical twins in a lineup, and witnesses mistakenly say Anh was the one who delivered the fatal blow…a mistake neither brother cares to correct. Their silence was born from their intense fraternal bond, as well as being Vietnamese immigrants in street gangs where snitching is a dangerous proposition. But Anh's resentment festers as Trung's guilt for his actions grows. Will one of them spit out the truth or will they both swallow a lie? In the podcast “Blood Will Tell” from Wondery and Campside Media, host Jen Miller frames Trung and Anh's story in Shakespearean terms, a tragedy about how far someone will go to protect a loved one. As the brothers recount their life stories and explain their actions, Miller eventually gets the two to address the consequences of their decisions on their brotherly bond. OUR SPOILER-FREE REVIEWS OF "BLOOD WILL TELL" BEGIN IN THE FINAL 10 MINUTES OF THE EPISODE. For exclusive podcasts and more, sign up at Patreon.Sign up for our newsletter at crimewriterson.com.This show was recorded in The Caitlin Rogers Project Studio. Click to find out more. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Rob Corddry makes everything he's in better. From grand Shakespearean aspirations to getting work playing all the douchebags you love to hate ("Hot Tub Time Machine", "Children's Hospital", "Ballers"), Rob is simply too funny to let Dan "The Grief Eater" Le Batard make this a downer episode. Instead, Dan and Rob share laughs, dive deep into Rob finding his dream job as a correspondent alongside Stephen Colbert and Steve Carell on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," and the absurdity of Hollywood, keeping things refreshingly light. "The Audacity", starring Rob Corddry, Zach Galifianakis, Billy Magnussen, Sarah Goldberg, and Simon Helberg, premieres Sunday, April 12th at 9PM ET/PT on AMC and AMC+ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Rob Corddry makes everything he's in better. From grand Shakespearean aspirations to getting work playing all the douchebags you love to hate ("Hot Tub Time Machine", "Children's Hospital", "Ballers"), Rob is simply too funny to let Dan "The Grief Eater" Le Batard make this a downer episode. Instead, Dan and Rob share laughs, dive deep into Rob finding his dream job as a correspondent alongside Stephen Colbert and Steve Carell on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," and the absurdity of Hollywood, keeping things refreshingly light. "The Audacity", starring Rob Corddry, Zach Galifianakis, Billy Magnussen, Sarah Goldberg, and Simon Helberg, premieres Sunday, April 12th at 9PM ET/PT on AMC and AMC+ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices