Shakespeare is not my dog’s name. I don’t even own a dog.

What I mean to say is that I spend a lot of time reading, reading about, memorizing, writing about, speaking, and speaking about Shakespeare instead of doing other things! I like to think of it as a full time hobby, although it is sometimes my work. Unfortunately that hobby seems to be eating up more and more of my time. I’m becoming a Bardaholic! I no longer talk Shakespeare exclusively at parties, mealtime, or among friends. Sometimes I’ll be alone at home and working on some Shakespeare. It’s even getting in the way of my other activities! Help!

It’s not a huge problem actually, I enjoy it. But I would rather read a scholarly journal about Shakespeare than write a scholarly essay on Neoclassic drama for something else. Who wouldn’t? Who else spends too much time with Shakespeare? If you read this blog regularly you’re probably among the ranks of B.A., Bardaholics Anonymous.

Shakespeare’s plays have been edited, re-edited, and re-published countless times over the past few centuries. The number of different editions available for purchase in your local bookstore is frightening to some. Many customers aren’t sure which to buy. I worked in a bookstore once upon a time. Clueless customers aren’t always fun.

I’m not going to be a salesman today and tell you which edition I would purchase. You, if you choose, will tell me. Sort of.

I’ve been paying extra attention to footnotes, introductions, and appendices in editions of Shakespeare’s plays lately. I’ve been hearing and reading what an editor of a text actually DOES. It fascinates me. The editor must choose what they feel is the best spelling/punctuation/definition for this passage. Are they creating what they feel is most “authentic,” “understandable,” or “performable”?

As one who works in theatre, my bias is towards what can be performed. If I were to direct a show I would be creating my own edit of the text, to some extent… but not as pedantic as published editions. Maybe someday I’ll do my own full scholarly edit of a text. Maybe when I have a whole year with nothing else to do. In other words: not anytime soon.

But now I turn my attention toward you, gentle reader. What do you prefer to have in an edition of a play if you were to purchase one? Do you want summaries before each scene? A bio of Shakespeare at the beginning? Commentary on the differences between the Folio and Quarto editions? Do you want a copious cornucopia of footnotes? Definitions? Paraphrases? And what would you use this version for? Study in classroom? Performance? Reading for pleasure? Do you have different requirements for an edition for each of the aforementioned purposes? Maybe you wouldnt buy one at all, but instead download a freely available text from the internet?

If you have a favorite edition or two, tell me! And why? There’s a lot of Shakespeare out there, and a lot of Shakespeare fans out there who all want and need something different. I’ll share with you my preferences and processes of working with the text in an upcoming post. But what do YOU need in your book?

On Friday I was lucky enough to witness several students (seniors in college) do an end-of-the-year performance called The Shakespeare Projects. Each student did a 10 minute solo piece. They chose a character and used lines spoken by that character to tell a story. There were sets, costumes, and props were all present. I saw some very creative things ranging from a man whose life and family have been altered by the war in Iraq with lines from Titus to Romeo living his story and the other characters appear as he draws them.

This isn’t the usual way that Shakespeare is performed… but it’s not a bad one. To clarify, the students were not playing the exact character from the play. They were using some of a character’s lines to create their own original journey and agenda. One was a mad scientist far in the future using Prospero’s lines. Miranda was a robot and Ariel was shapes of light on the ceiling.

I know that not everyone likes this idea. Some say that Shakespeare’s words must remain in their own context! Says who?

What I saw here were student actors connecting to the text and meaning what they said. I think everyone in the audience knew what was going on all the time. That’s more than I could say for some professional productions I’ve attended.

Seeing this got me thinking if there might be a place for these sort of performances to take place outside an educational environment. It’s not horribly uncommon to have a night a scenes as a fundraiser or showcase. Why not a little something different? Various actors creating a story with lines from a character in Shakespeare and sets and props to go with it. It could be fun to see. What say you?

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.

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?

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

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!