http://lawlit.blogspot.com/2008/04/bradin-cormack-has-published-strange.html
This paper explores how, in Shakespeare‘s sonnets (and in the plays), Shakespeare looks to legal tenure and the mechanics of common-law possession to explore the claim of erotic relation and erotic estrangement on the speaking self and its "self-possession."
I have no idea.
http://www.booksunderthebridge.com/2008/04/king-of-shadows-susan-cooper.html
Interesting sounding book (story?) about a kid who travels to London for a chance to act in Dream, only to wake up 400 years ago in a production directed by Shakespeare himself.
http://1stangel.co.uk/art/x-rays-uncover-hidden-portrait
On the phone right now booking a trip to Disney...but this looks fascinating......
Actually I'm just being silly, but I noticed this morning that Tybalt's first two lines, literally, are "What?"
Enter Tybalt
TYBALT
What, are thou drawn among these heartless hinds?
Turn thee, Benvolio, look upon they death.
BENVOLIO
I do but keep the peace: put up they sword,
Or manage it to part these men with me.
TYBALT
What, drawn, and talk of peace! I hate the word,
As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee:
Have at thee, coward!
Reminds me of a neighborhood bully when we were growing up. Whenever you said something that he felt like taking as insulting he'd always start with a "What?" Far from being intimidating, it only made him seem stupid, like he was never fully able to process that he'd been insulted. There used to be a pro-wrestler who did a whole big gimmick out of punctuating his interviews with "What?" whenever somebody else was talking.
I realize of course that it is not being used in that context. It's actually a pretty common interjection in Shakespeare's dialogue, I count 14 times in R&J alone. Taming of the Shrew has 22!
You know, when I found a list of YouTube clips featuring Sesame Street doing Shakespeare, I was very excited. With 3 little kids running around my house I'm one of those adults who'll giggle hysterically every time Cookie Monster eats poor Prairie Dawn's letter of the day. There's a surprising number of references for adults to be found in the show (I once saw Grover make a Cherry Orchard reference).
Alas, the skits just aren't that good. Having a bunch of puppets running around adding "eth" and "ooth" to the ends of all their words does not make for a Shakespeare skit, in my booketh.
Although the Waiting For Godot one is pretty good, if only for Cookie Monster's description.
I'm not really sure what to do with this book. I know about as little as anybody re: Ann Hathaway, just the usual stuff - she was older than Shakespeare, pregnant when they got married, and that at some point he split for London. Everything else (forced to marry, must not have loved her, etc...) is all just conjecture. I certainly don't count myself among the "misogynist tradition" that Greer seems to be railing against in every chapter. It would never have occurred to me to assume that Ann must have been ugly, for example. But apparently there have been numerous Shakespeare biographers who wrote exactly that. Who knew? That's the price I pay for being at the outer rim of Shakespeare knowledge. Much of the controversy she discusses, and clearly wrote this book to address, I knew nothing about. Or I suppose, to be more accurate, I just never really gave it much thought.
Let's get the biography bits out of the way first, and then get to the good stuff. When I first heard about this book I assumed that it would be like most others, pulling together the few "facts" along with heaping helpings of "and then we can assume it went a little something like this." This book is certainly no exception, as there are far fewer facts known about Ann Hathaway than there are about Shakespeare. So Greer supplements them with lengthy expositions about life at the time, such as an entire chapter on pregnancy (this may be the only Shakespeare-related work I ever read that contains advice on massaging the perineum....) On the one hand it is fine and accurate and gives a picture of what the birth of Shakespeare's children must have been like, while on the other it tells us nothing definitive. There are no diaries or any such notes about these things, so we have to assume that Shakespeare and his family were pretty normal. It's a perfectly legitimate assumption, "normal until proven extraordinary" reasoning that still leaves you disappointed. Although you have in fact learned something (at least, I did), you don't feel like you learned something about Hathaway herself. Make sense? Just like I don't study Elizabethan and Jacobean history in general - I want to know about Shakespeare the person. I'm not satisfied to accept what life was like around him.
Now, repeat that pattern often, for all other subjects. What was their courtship like? Their wedding? Where did they live afterward? In each chapter it is the same -- present some "evidence" about what life was like by examining not just official documents, but also the writing of the time, including Shakespeare's (I particularly like how she made liberal use of Taming of the Shrew to explain how a wedding would have gone, without the implied assumption that maybe that's how Shakespeare's marriage went as well). Then, use it to destroy the "misogynist tradition", by which she almost entirely means one Mr. Stephen Greenblatt (more on that later). Then start in with the "maybe it went something like this" ideas. To be fair to the author, she does do the equivalent of a literary shoulder shrug when she does this, freely admitting that it could be one way or the other and we'll just never know.
So now let's talk about the more fun bits. Rumor has it that this whole book is actually Germaine Greer's little joke, an attack on traditional Shakespeare biography that works by painting a complimentary picture of a target that that damned misogynist tradition has so long painted as the woman who ruined Shakespeare's life. She works with the same evidence and presents her arguments using the same logic, so if anybody wants to tear her apart for it, they can't do so without admitting that what we know of Shakespeare biography as well sits on the same weak foundation.
Can we talk about Chapter 2 for a second? Let me summarize chapter 2: "Hey Shakespeare, your mom sucked."
I'm not kidding, even in the slightest. Start with the premise that "misogynist tradition" will bestow upon the mother all the qualities that the wife lacks, therefore Mary Arden must have been smart and beautiful and all these wonderful things. Greer then systematically tears her apart - she had no claim to the famous Arden name, she was spoiled rotten, she made no attempt to find wives for her children, and if she was at all a good wife, Shakespeare's dad would never have run the business into the ground and ruined his life. I can't remember now without looking back but I'm sure she threw in a couple of "Yo momma's so ugly" jokes as well, just to prove her point. The chapter ends with a laundry list of Shakespeare's bad mother characters, including "the cannibal Tamora" (ummm..does unwittingly being fed human flesh make you a cannibal?), "the depraved Gertrude" (I guess women shouldn't ever remarry after their husband dies), and, my favorite....Lady Macbeth. Did I miss a couple of little Macbeths running around that play?
And then there's Greenblatt. I toyed for a long time with how to properly describe his place in the book. I was going to say that the original working title was "Shakespeare's Wife : Or, Stephen Greenblatt Can Just Go Bite Me." Then I was going to say that I could imagine Ms. Greer reading Greenblatt's Will In the World with an indignant gasp and an "Oh no he *didn't*!" exclamation every other page. Instead I think the best description comes from Alan K. Farrar, who never references Greer without adding (bbke) after her name, like some type of blessing (he's told us that the bb is in fact for "blessed be"). I've decided that, in Greer world, I will imagine her doing a similar thing for Greenblatt. Only the letters will be (sob) (That's "son-of-a-b*tch", in case I'm being a little too subtle for folks). The book is far more amusing if you imagine the author sticking a pin in a voodoo doll every time she mentions his name. (The really annoying thing about this whole issue is that when I read Greenblatt's book it was very plain to me that this was Greenblatt's own personal fantasy about how he wished Shakespeare's life had gone. I never for a second thought of any of it as remotely defensible.)
In the end I guess this book comes with too much baggage for me to fully appreciate and/or enjoy it. Is it intended to be a serious biography, or an ironic attack on all the other Shakespeare biographies? If I were to ever cite Greer in mixed company (and by that I mean mixed company of Shakespeare scholars, naturally) would I be laughed out of the club? She's so busy pointing out how much of a right bastard Greenblatt and his ilk are (she's got some choice words for Anthony Burgess as well, though I can't say I've ever read anything of his that wasn't fiction....) that I found myself rolling my eyes every time another attack came up. It was like reading the transcript from a political rally. "Well, here's why my opponent's an idiot....blah blah blah nothing to back up my own case, just bunches and bunches of reasons why his case stinks."
There are those not embroiled in controversy who just want to learn more about the couple, and I think for that audience, this book does offer some value. Take my wife, for instance. She's the sort who bonds with others at the family level. You could put up a picture of a random celebrity on television, announce that she's pregnant, and watch as my wife's ears perked up, followed by "Who is that? Who's she married to? Do they have any other children?" It interests her. The same is true of Shakespeare. She has asked me what Shakespeare's married life was like. In particular, did he love his wife? After all, the man wrote some pretty romantic stuff. I hate to say "I don't know", or worse, "The circumstances seem to suggest they were pretty unhappy." To a romantic like my wife, the idea that Shakespeare loathed his own wife and wrote to escape his situation, rather than to praise it, makes the whole thing a pretty sad story. I'm happy at least to say that Greer paints a very positive picture of Shakespeare's relationship with his wife. So if you could care less about what the misogynist tradition has to say on the subject, and just want a little bit of a more positive spin on what their marriage might have been like, there are bits in here for you to enjoy (provided that you learn to skim past the attacks on Greenblatt and crew).
Earlier today I got to use the word "pandering" in IM conversation, just hoping that I'd get to point out that the word comes from Pandarus, a Shakespearean character. Alas, no such luck.
However, not 5 minutes ago I heard a hallway conversation from two cubes over on the derivation of the character "Lothario." Before the inevitable "I wonder if it's a Shakespeare thing. Hey Duane?" came lofting my way I'd already googled enough to answer, "Nope, not Shakespeare, he's apparently from a 1703 play by Nicholas Rowe called The Fair Penitent." I like anticipating when I'm needed. :)
Although interesting, the Wikipedia is unclear on whether Rowe's character is in fact the origin. There's a reference to a Lothario in Don Quixote, which was 100 years previous. So perhaps Cervantes is the originator of the name? In that case Shakespeare could also have known of the character. Maybe he shows up in Cardenio!
So, Megan Fox is the sexiest woman in the world, according to FHM magazine. It also happens that she has a King Lear tattoo, which I've pointed out in the past. You know what that means, right? Traffic spike for Shakespeare Geek! :) I'm getting a heck of a lot more traffic from people googling "Megan Fox tattoos" then I ever got from Folger, I'll tell ya that.
Other than that, it's a slow day. :)
http://www.tvsquad.com/2008/03/27/abc-orders-two-more-pilots/
I'm surprised I missed references to "The Prince Of Motor City" the first time around. This potential new ABC drama claims to have "Shakespearean themes." The obvious guess (as the above post points out) is a battle over who takes charge of the family business when the dad dies, the son is not quite ready, and the evil uncle swoops in and takes control.
Could be good, I suppose, if they actually went for it and did a planned 2-season run or something, complete with accidental murder of the uncle's advisor, eventually insanity and suicide of the girlfriend, and so on, culminating in the big death scene at the end of the series.
http://akfarrar.vox.com/library/post/shakespeares-oldest.html
Our very own Alan K Farrar (how many blogs do you *have*, Alan???) reciting Shakespeare's sonnet 145, labelled as his "oldest piece of writing, written when he was around 18 to his wife, Ann Hathaway."
I'm curious - do we know that to be fact (or at least, strongly evidenced theory)? This is the "I hate from hate away she threw" sonnet, which is typically considered a direct reference to his wife ("hate away" -> "Hathaway"). But I'm not sure where the logic comes from that it is the first? I realize that they were not published or numbered in chronological order, so the 145 doesn't bother me so much. I'll call it the first if somebody explains to me why it is, and not just because it doesn't fit the same iambic pentameter structure of all the others and thus must have been an early effort. That logic could just as well demonstrate that Shakespeare didn't write that one at all.
http://www.shakespearescene.com
I just got word of a new "Shakespeare magazine" coming out called Shakespeare Scene. Looks intriguing. I wonder a bit how much popular interest such a magazine will have, especially with a worldwide audience (it is published out of the UK). Would I in the United States care about productions in Australia, or would I feel that my money ($12/issue!) was being wasted on pages of content that is irrelevant to me? I do like that they plan to have content on the plays themselves, and biographical bits on Shakespeare himself, rather than just modern interviews and other contemporary issues. I suppose that will be the balancing act, figuring out how best to present both types of information in a way that satisfies the audience who wants one, while not alienating those who want the other.
I wish them luck with it! The more Shakespeare in the world, the better.
http://www.frashii.com/romjul.swf
I was hoping that would be better. It's actually really bad, in my opinion, but I suppose someone out there might like it. Claiming to be a demonstration of "l33t"-speak Romeo and Juliet (which has already been done to death a thousand times), this particular animator seems to equate the syntax of l33t (where numbers and letters freely transpose, and proper spelling is a nuisance) with a far more abrasive world in which every other word is "u suk, fag".
Not really my cup of tea.
http://www.robotwisdom.com/jaj/ulysses/hamlet.html
Having never read the latter I'm not really sure what to do with this, but it seems like it might be interesting to the more well-read than I. A list of Hamlet references in Ulysses, cited back to Act and Scene inside Hamlet. Lots of them.
Once upon a time I picked up Asimov's guide to Shakespeare, decided it was far too heavy reading to just flip through on the shelf at the bookstore, and put it down. I mean, for pete's sake, the man gives a history lesson of the state of the world before ever getting into any of the plays.
But, knowing its place among the highly recommended guides to Shakespeare, a friend got it for me for Christmas. Nice edition, too - both volumes, hardcover. So I started reading that this weekend while I was on vacation. And you know what? It's still an encyclopedia.
I try opening randomly to a play. I have to admit, I do like the books that treat the plays individually, I feel that I can break the book up better if I can pick and choose which subjects suit me depending on mood. I end up on Merchant of Venice. Sure enough we get a quick history of Venice, but then it's on to the play after just one page (plus a map), so I suppose that's a good thing.
But then, here's a good example, Asimov gets to a quote about "let my liver rather heat with wine" and ponders whether Shakespeare was making an early connection to alcoholism? "Nothing of the sort," says Asimov. "The liver is the largest gland in the body, weighing three or four pounds in a man...."
...wait, what?
I'm reading about Merchant of Venice, and now I know that the human liver weighs about 4 pounds. Great. Super. Awesome. Asimov was legendary for this sort of encyclopedic knowledge of just about everything, but did he have to shove it in everywhere he could? Do I really need to know this? He then gives two paragraphs on the importance of the liver to soothsayers, since being the biggest organ it was the easiest to spot and watch for odd conditions. But he never actually says anything about what Shakespeare's quote means.
I guess my point, simply put, is "How does this knowledge bring me any closer to understanding/appreciating Merchant of Venice?"
Here's the book I want. At least, here's the criteria I've been using in my quest for "the" Shakespeare book. I want a book that I would recommend to a friend who doesn't know much about Shakespeare, but is open to learning about it (and by it I mean the body of work, not necessarily the man). Almost every book I've found thus far falls into one of two categories - either an academic tome written specifically for people who have already professed their undying love for the subject and now wants to debate every last detail.....or else it is a variation on "for dummies" that starts with the premise that you really want to learn as little as possible, either so you can just pass the test or so you can appear to know the subject, and breaks it down a word at a time like a vocabulary quiz, losing the appreciation of the whole along the way.
I want something in the middle. To date the closest I've found is actually Bryson's biography - it's light and conversational enough that someone with a passing interest in the subject could pick it up, understand it, and actually enjoy it. Now I want somebody to do that for the plays. I want an in depth examination of Romeo and Juliet, for example, that gives you a taste of everything that's in there, while never losing your attention and still keeping from and center the fact that it's a damned good story. No, it's more than that, it's a far better story than you know, and here's why. The kind of book that after you're done reading it you say "Wow, I had no idea. Now I want to go learn more."
I want a book that makes me want to buy copies for my friends, and send them with a little note saying "Read this and you'll have some idea of why I love this stuff so much." (To be truthful, Bryson comes up short on this bit, as there's not much passion in his writing. The first chapters of Shakespeare Wars (Rosenbaum) are probably the closest I've gotten so far. ) Remember, I'm neither history buff nor literary academic nor theater nerd. In truth there's no good reason why I should be a Shakespeare geek....except the words. There's enough magic in the words alone to hook me, so I've got to believe that it can do the same for others.
Hi Everybody,
Sorry for the interruption, but I've got a quick question. I've got a link back in the archives about "Elizabethan recipes and food" that has long been one of my most popular links. However, according to their statistics nobody's ever actually bought anything from them. I'm trying to determine if this is an error on their part, or if it is accurate. So if there's anybody out there reading that has in fact bought from the place I'm talking about (I'm no longer bothering to link to them in case the link is in fact bad), could you please let me know? All I need is confirmation of one person who actually followed the link and bought something to know that there's a problem on their end. Normally I'd say no big deal, it's a rare item that nobody wants, but on the contrary, it's typically my most popular link, so people do indeed seek the stuff out and follow the link. But that's where it stops. Seems fishy.
Thanks! Again, sorry for the interruption, but I've been meaning to ask that for weeks now.
http://www.folger.edu/template.cfm?cid=2649
Well, sure, it's small potatoes (linking to my "What are you doing for Shakespeare's birthday" post), but still - it's FOLGER,man! I feel special.
Thanks, whoever did that :). Nice to know I have fans in high places.
Wow my feeds are full today with Shakespeare's Birthday posts :).
I'd like to say I'm doing something special, but as discussed, not so much. I'd like to announce that I've finally begun my own little side publishing project, but I'm far too chicken to commit myself like that. Apparently I'm to spend Shakespeare's 444th birthday reading Germaine Greer's book, Shakespeare's Wife. It arrived today. (Yes I do realize that earlier this year I wrote that I had no interest in reading this book, at least not in the sense that I go seek it out like I did for Greenblatt or Rosenbaum. This one was sent to me for review.)
I can't wait to see how Alan's opinion of me changes after I'm done!
I've already blogged about Hamlet 2 previously, but now there's a trailer! You know what? It looks good! The "doesn't everybody die at the end of the first one" question is asked and answered in the trailer -- time machine! Out steps Hamlet...and Jesus!
http://community.livejournal.com/metaquotes/6644038.html
Making the rounds. Absolutely brilliant, wish it was longer.
Here's a question that just came to mind (thanks, Alan). Are you "in the business", so to speak, of Shakespeare? What's your connection? Do you get to do it as a full time job, a side job, a hobby? Wish you could do more?
As I've said in the past, this blog is really it for my connection to Shakespeare. I do it as much as I can. Lately it's also turned into "book reviewer", which I kind of dig, because I get to read books I wouldn't normally, which in turn has definitely increased my exposure to all things Shakespeare.
One of these days I hope to get something published on the topic of teaching Shakespeare, if for nothing else than to put my money where my mouth is and see if I know what I'm talking about. Of course, I've been saying that for years. Maybe by the time my kids get to high school? The computer programmer geek in me keeps trying to turn the project into something interactive, technologically speaking, but then I go down that path for awhile before falling back on good old print.
Ok, who's next?
http://drb.lifestreamcenter.net/Lessons/RomJul/test_act_2-3.htm
I love this. A huge test on Romeo and Juliet (Acts 2 and 3). If I didn't have so much to do at my day job I would print it out, take it, and then research the answers myself to see how well I do. It does cover lots of bases, ranging from "Who said this and why" to "Tell me if you understood the story properly" to "Is this an example of a simile or a metaphor", so that's good.
Still, though, it always feels weird to me to break down the plays into such small bits. To dissect something, first you have to kill it. I have a different idea for a test - how about we go to a production of Romeo and Juliet, and then at intermission, ask people in the audience if they felt that the Friar knowledge of herbs was an example of foreshadowing. Then ask whether or not they care, and whether or not the answer to that question impacts their enjoyment of the show. Yes, we're talking about education, so there are certain things you should be tested on. But at some point can't you appreciate it for a work of art, too?
The true/false questions are interesting to me. On the one hand I like some of them, like #9, which asks whether Juliet hates Romeo for killing Tybalt. Since Juliet tells her *mother* that she hates Romeo, this question shows whether the student realizes that she was just saying that, and didn't really mean it. But then look at #12, "The Nurse comforts Juliet when her father says she must marry Paris." I went back and looked up the Nurse's speech. I'm not sure if "Look, Romeo is banished, and you could do worse than Paris" counts as "comforting". But isn't that a matter of interpretation? The Nurse probably thinks she's being comforting, but Juliet pretty much never looks at her the same again ("ancient damnation, o most wicked fiend!") Yes, Juliet had asked for "comfort", and that was the Nurse's response, so perhaps the teacher expects a true answer her. But, like the "I'm only telling my mother I hate Romeo, I don't, really" thing from question #9, shouldn't we take Juliet's "thou hast comforted me marvellous much" to be equally deceptive? Is comforting an active or a passive verb - does the person doing it or receiving it get to decide whether it worked?
Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I think this is a big part of why I like to talk about Shakespeare, when we get to show examples of how people can miss the big picture because they're too busy dissecting the individual word choices. I'm cool with the reader having to interpret when Juliet's words don't match what she's feeling - that's something people do every day. But when the hardest part of the question is determing what the teacher wants for an answer, because you can justify both, well, then you're kind of stuck.
This April 23 the world will celebrate William Shakespeare's 444th birthday. Nice number. What are you doing, anything good? I wish I'd planned something in advance, like a big giveaway or something. But alas, nothing good this year from your Shakespeare Geek.
I don't really love the quality of this site's work, but it's been in my saved pages for awhile and I figure it does have enough Shakespeare content to deserve a link. This is a catalog of reprintable cartoons, with a Shakespeare theme. Or rather, reference. Many of them are variations on the "to be or not to be" thing. There's at least one with a typo (nice quality control). And some I just don't get at all -- who is Fifi Oscard?
What I did find amusing was artist "Kes", who has 10 pieces in the catalog - 5 of which are Yorick jokes, with Hamlet posed the exact same way in each picture :). I'll bet it's like writing greeting cards, you think of 10 variations on a single theme, so rather than going with the best one you just go with all of them.
http://todayshistorylesson.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/the-pride-of-shakespeare/
I don't fully understand the connection here, but I'm intrigued. This history web site tells us about Ie Shima, a small island near Okinawa that apparently fell pretty easily during World War II. Big deal, you say? Fair enough. But the island "has a Shakespearean tragedy-legend all its own", we learn. A girl named Hando-gwaa wanted to marry her love, named Kanahi. But it turns out he’s already married, so she climbs Tacchu Mountain and hangs herself with her long hair.
...and?? There's nothing else in the post about this story. So I'm a little confused on why the author makes the leap to associate it with Shakespeare. While our man in Stratford did write a few doozies, he does not have a monopoly on tragedy. I'm hoping that there's something else to the story to merit the Shakespeare connection.
Anybody got more to the story? Should we throw a yellow card on Today's History Lesson for unnecessary Shakespeare references?
http://legendsofamerica.blogspot.com/2008/03/shakespeare-and-new-mexico-border.html
Seriously. It's a ghost town, named Shakespeare. I knew about it's existence, but I don't think I've ever linked to it. Technically has nothing to do with the real Shakespeare, as far as I can tell, which would normally break one of my rules (I don't, for instance, blog references to Shakespeare fishing rods), but it seems like it *should* be related to the man, and I can't see any evidence that it's not. Be sure to follow the links that describe the history of the town, it's actually pretty fascinating.
I have a brother out in New Mexico. If I ever get out there to visit him, I'll have to check this place out.
I just happened to see a review roll through my feeds today. This one was in Cleveland, and neither the production nor the source material get a particularly good review.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/14/theater.patrick.stewart.ap/index.html
Great article (by CNN, no less!) on what Patrick Stewart does when he's not playing Macbeth. Answer? He reads Hamlet. For fun. The man is far more a "Shakespeare freak" than I think even his biggest fans give him credit for.
"What I'm doing now is all I ever wanted to do. I didn't have any other ambitions," he says. "Once I'd been accepted into the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1966, I was perfectly content."
He stayed for an eyebrow-raising 14 years, playing everything from Mark Anthony to Henry IV to Shylock to Oberon. "People who were not in the company would say to me, 'Give it a break. Why don't you go somewhere else?' And I would say, 'To do what?' " he says. "Telly?"
![Savage Chickens [Shakespeare Cartoons]](http://www.google.com/custom?q=shakespeare&sitesearch=savagechickens.com&sa=Search&cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.savagechickens.com%3BGL%3A0%3BAH%3Acenter%3BLH%3A75%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fsavagechickens.com%2Fimages%2Fnav%2Fsearch_logo.gif%3BLW%3A344%3BAWFID%3Aef47a3e84e139259%3B&domains=savagechickens.com){kind=link}