Not I, said the blogger.

Note, for clarity: I think Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. I do care. I’m not entirely apathetic. My whole point to this post is that it seems that researching the authorship question has put a fog in front of the works themselves.

There are so many theoretical webs that have been spun over the past several years about who the REAL Shakespeare was. Shakespeare couldn’t have written the plays… he was uneducated, lower class, not well read, didn’t travel, didn’t know about this, that, or the other, blah, blah, blah. Because of all that it must’ve been The Earl of Oxford, or Queen Elizabeth, or Bacon, or a black Jewish woman!

I’ve often pondered what people’s fascinations with finding the “REAL Shakespeare” is. It has become a mystery story with infinite possibilities. The authorship question is a choose your own adventure story among researchers and authors. People are crazy about finding connections between people and possibilities of this and that. Are we searching for answers or are they trying to avoid something by raising different questions?

I’m merely asking questions; I don’t have the answers.

Does all this talk about who wrote Shakespeare’s plays detract in anyway from the works themselves? You decide. I personally am not wholly concerned with who wrote them… they good! If several monkeys with quill and inkwell scribbled out this wonderful poetry, so be it. It’s great theatre and that’s what matters to me. If Arthur Miller didn’t write his plays, shame on him for lying, but they plays are still amazing. Who can argue with quality art? The fact is that we know so little about Shakespeare’s life that it’s not possible for us to say for sure what he could or couldn’t do, what knew and didn’t know, where he went and where he didn’t go.

Maybe the authorship debate is in some way an attempt to knock Mr. Shakespeare off the high pedestal he’s been on for a few centuries. “Shakespeare’s overrated, and no one remembers Oxford. Time to change that!” Maybe. Could it be that a student long ago didn’t want to study Shakespeare’s plays because he was bored and happened to draw some connections between the works and some other person alive at the time? “Now nobody will read the plays, they’ll only read my book on who wrote them! MUAHAHAHA!!!”

I exaggerate. But if Shakespeare didn’t write the plays… so what? That’s all I want to know. People make it such a big issue, but what does it change? I actually enjoy hearing all the crazy stories that people make up on this subject. That’s entertainment! So I’ll continue to let the history detectives do their work. I’ll also continue to read, perform, study, blog about, and enjoy the works by the artist currently known as Shakespeare.

The man himself turns 444 today. Can you imagine that? He’s been around for a long time and is still very much alive in books, theaters, and our hearts. Go Shakey! I lift my glass of juice to 444 more years of fame!

I can’t say that I threw a party today, but just some little things. I could’ve gone out to celebrate if I wasn’t at work but that’s okay. I did write “HAPPY 444th BIRTHDAY SHAKESPEARE” on a very prominent Chalkboard that people use to send messages.

I also was asked to do a review of a book on Shakespeare to post on Dust Jacket Review, an online book community. I chose to do a review of Isaac Asimov’s Guide To Shakespeare, one of my favorite books about Shakespeare. I may transfer the review here at some point, but for now check it out there! And then buy the book because [to sum up my conclusion in the review briefly:] it’s awesome.

Keep celebrating Shakespeare! Don’t drink too much sack. And celebrate St. George’s day, of course. How coincidental that the day of England’s Patron Saint is also Shakespeare’s birthday… and deathday. Very patriotic of old Bill Shakes. So how are you celebrating?

Don’t forget that the next Shakespeare Blog Carnival is coming up! Remember to submit your post.

Apologies in advance for a not so happy sort of post, but the subject was on my mind.

I was listening to an audiobook version of Antony and Cleopatra today while driving to an from my various engagements (audio Shakespeare is great while driving, try it sometime!). Antony hears that Cleopatra is dead, so he decides to kill himself. His servant, Eros, kill himself when asked to kill his master. “Why, there then: thus I do escape the sorrow Of Antony’s death.” And of course Cleopatra meets a self inflicted end. In the previous Roman Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Cassius and Brutus kill themselves when they find that their battles aren’t going well. Portia kills herself. Plenty of other plays include suicide, one of the most famous examples: Romeo and Juliet.

Lots of people dying in these plays, many of them suicides. How does a suicide affect an audience or reader in context of one of these plays? Romans held the belief that suicide rather than capture was a noble death but I have a feeling that Shakespeare doesn’t share this view.

The real tragedy in many of these stories, I believe, have to do with the unnecessary deaths that occur. Cassius’ death was because he misinterpreted what his messenger saw. Brutus on the other hand preferred not to be captured and preserve his honor. Were either of these honorable?

In R&J and A&C the first lover thinks the other is dead and kills himself, the ladies soon follow suit. Was that a smart thing to do? I don’t think the author is painting a beautiful, romantic end to either pair of star-crossed lovers.

In the Christian world, suicide is a sin and was likely a view shared by Mr. Shakespeare. But I know there are some out there who think suicide serves a different purpose. Maybe Romeo and Juliet were fated to die because a love so perfect cannot exist. Or maybe because the prologue says they die. Depends on the production and the director’s take on the script. What’s your take?

It’s a touchy subject for a lot of people these days with lots of coverage in the media about youngsters taking their own lives, and people taking their lives along with other people for various reasons. Parallels can be drawn between the tragedy of someone so young dying before their time and possibly in vain, as well as those who die “for honor” (in their opinion anyway). Billy Shakes shows us once again that his works can be relevant today.

So what is it with tragedies and suicide? What does killing one’s self accomplish? And are there other parallels to today that can be made? Horatio tries to end his life as Hamlet is dying, but is stopped by Hamlet so that he can “Tell my story.” What story are you hearing when Shakespeare’s characters die by their own hand?

I have previously shared that text analysis is an important step in speaking Shakespeare. There are infinite ways of going about it, the best way will most likely be unique for each person. I thought I’d share an image with you that will give you a rough idea of my process.

I’m a very visual person, so my scripts are always littered with lines, arrows, pictures, different colored highlight marks, notes, abbreviations, and other gibberish that only I can understand.

This is a short monologue from I.i of Love’s Labour’s Lost, spoken by Berowne. About one minute long and comedic, if you happen to need a comedic one minute piece for a man. So here’s a rough outline of my process:

I almost always prefer to have a digital copy of the script (full play, scene, monologue… whatever I’m working on) first. I’ll download it from whatever site I get to first and paste it into word. Then I head to my Facsimile edition of The First Folio and compare the texts. I change the punctuation and capitalization in my document to match that of the First Folio. I don’t want to have other editors messing with my work. Then it’s time to print. I could do most of the rest of the work on my computer, but it feels good to mark up a paper with pens and highlighters.

I start by highlighting all the verbs, which are the real action and story-telling parts of the piece. Just a little reminder to emphasize these. I’ll usually emphasize the punctuation marks that are there with pen to make sure I see them. I highlight (in various colors) repeated words, comparisons, big shifts, and other things I think need to be emphasized. I’ll determine whether a line is full of vowels or mostly consonants - emotional or rational. I’ll count syllables, decide on any elisions, mark words that I need a definition next to (and then look up the definition and write it off the side), note any changes in the rhythm of the meter… it goes on.

I will do this for every line in a show that I speak. If I’m vocal coaching or directing a show I’ll try to do it for the whole show, but that might not always happen. Now you’ll notice that this example monologue takes up the entire page. I don’t actually do that when working on an entire show, that would be a waste of paper. But if I’m working on short piece - perhaps for an audition - then it’s nice to have larger text to look at. More room for scribbles, too.

By no means do I require or recommend that anybody does exactly this. If you can just look at it and be a brilliant actor, awesome. But if you’re not a genius then I would suggest that you experiment with different ways of emphasizing the important parts of a text.

I did say that I would do this for an entire role, and quite possibly an entire script. Yes, it takes a very long time to do all that, but the reward for the work is immense. That means I’ve spent hours and hours on the text. I almost always speak it aloud as I work. When I’m done I am very familiar with the text and have a pretty good understanding of what’s going on. You really own the text after spending so much time with it - and a performance won’t be great until the words are really yours.

You have to love language to do this sort of thing - this is how I express that.

Shakespeare’s works have inspired many writers to create films, books, plays, and more with plots borrowed from The Bard. Adaptations range from a similar play but with modernized text to works almost unrecognizable as something inspired by Shakespeare.

The list of works inspired by one of Will’s most famous plays, Hamlet, is lengthy… if not inconceivably long. But are we sometimes incorrect in saying that a work is based on one of Shakespeare’s plays? Perhaps the similar plot is coincidental.

The Shakespeare Geek posted a link to a write up about the Super Mario Brothers movie, which includes the following:

The entire plot is actually a tweaked version of Hamlet. The old Mushroom King (King Hamlet) is de-evolved (killed) by King Koopa (Claudius), and it’s up to an inexperienced hero (Mario/Luigi) to restore balance to the kingdom by avenging the king. Daisy is Ophelia and Spike and Iggy are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Except, you know, nobody dies.

A more common example is Disney’s The Lion King is based on Hamlet.

I wonder… do the writers say “Hey, I have an idea for a story. Hamlet, but with lions and it’s a musical and kid-friendly”? Or do they come up with a story about taking back the throne and realize it parallels some aspects of Hamlet? And doesn’t Lion King have things in common with any other play by Shakespeare? (Scar as Richard III, anyone?) Maybe revenge tragedies are such common plot and the first one people think of is that of the Danish Prince. If so, there were others that came before!

So are people really coming up with stories based on Hamlet, or is it just a plot that people know has been successful for hundreds of years (even before Shakespeare) so they use it? I’m thinking that it’s a little bit of both.

If I ever meet the creative team behind The Lion King I’ll ask and let you know.

Not such a long time ago I asked you how your education on Shakespeare was/is. I also posted the results of the online survey I created. There seems to be a split of people who had a good Shakespearience in school, and many who didn’t. The consensus seems to be “it depends on the teacher.”

Now it’s time for my story. I don’t think it’s a horribly fascinating story. I didn’t grow up idolizing Shakespeare, it just kind of happened. Somehow I seem to have a lot to write. So if you have nothing else to do, click to read (more…)

I went to get my car’s oil changed today. The attendant sees me get out of the car with a T-Shirt that says “Better a witty fool than a foolish wit ~Shakespeare” and a copy of Shakespeare Quarterly sticking out of my pocket.

“Do you like Shakespeare or somethin?”
“Uhh…. yeah.”

I wonder what different reactions I’d get if I went around sporting Star Wars merchandise. Would I still get a comment about it?

So who else has some geeky stories? Maybe you’re not so nerdy, but if you have any remotely similar experiences please share!

Friends, Readers of this blog, Countrymen, lend me your rears!

I know some of you who read this scour the net for anything Shakespeare. At some point for a variety of reasons everyone needs to find something on Shakespeare online: the texts, summaries, history, scholarship, questions, answers, blogs, whatever.

In the digital age I think it’s important to recognize where we are and what we still need to do. So many old texts are now being digitized and are freely available online. Google Books makes research a breeze! Quarto texts online make editing Shakespearean texts quicker. All the information we want is at our fingertips! Or is it?

Here’s a question for you: what DOESN’T the internet have - Shakespeare related, of course - that you would like to see, or something you’d like to see improved?

Why do I ask? I’m curious.