Being in the web business, I get excited when I see headlines go by like "Shakespeare and the Invention of Web 3.0" and other topics that look like they'd tie my two loves together. Imagine how disappointed and frustrated I get when I skim said article and discover that the closest they get to Shakespeare is one "A rose by any other name...." message thrown into the mix. (I saw this one just this morning, as a matter of fact).
So when I saw Print, Real People, and Shakespeare : A Content Strategy I thought I was again in for disappointment. In fact on first skim of the article I saw no Shakespeare mention at all, and dreamed up this ranting blog post.
The answer can be found, as usual, in Shakespeare. I don’t mean that there’s a line from Hamlet that we can lazily interpret to impress the audience. I’m talking about the plays themselves — the performances. Will a video of actors on the live stage ever replace the experience of being in the theater? Not likely. I think most will agree that seeing a live play will always provide a different experience than watching it on a screen — and that it will always be a valued experience.
The article goes on to argue that it is that "real" content of a print publication, something you can hold in your hands, that will forever give it a premium value over and above purely online content. It's an interesting argument, and I can see his point. Not sure I agree with it, but that's a different story. I just wanted to credit them with actually using Shakespeare meaningfully in their article. Thanks!