When the First Folio of Shakespeare’s works was compiled by John Heminges and Henry Condell in 1623, the plays were divided into three categories: comedies, tragedies, and histories. Now there are 10 histories total (some say 11 with Edward III, but that’s discussion for another day) and not too many of them are given much exposure.

People are more familiar with the Comedies and Tragedies. Some of them at least. But when was the last time you saw a production of King John? Richard II? Henry VI part 1, 2, or 3? Schools will talk about Hamlet a billion times before thinking of mentioning Henry IV. The only one of these plays that seems to get more exposure is Richard III, and I can see why.

The histories aren’t seen as much - especially outside of the UK - because, well… they take extra effort. The US isn’t familiar with these kings, it’s taught to most students. Some people seem to think that the Histories are more boring than the other plays. I was one of these ignorant people a long time ago, before I read any of the histories — except Richard III. Hm.

I understand the reluctance that people have to touching this category of Shakespeare’s works, but I think we’re missing a huge opportunity for some great language and great action. When I first picked up Richard II I was astounded with how amazing some of the verse was. The characters had plenty I really could sink my teeth into. Shakespeare wasn’t writing a history lesson for his viewers. It was real drama.

I found myself a little lost when I picked up the Histories to read. I didn’t know much about who these kings were, and I had some problems keeping track of everyone and their relations. I didn’t let this stop me and it shouldn’t stop you. A little research on the characters then finding a family tree of English Royalty will be a lifesaver for you and lead to your enjoyment. Once you know who these people are and a couple things about what they did, the language and drama is much more accessible and enjoyable.

If When you read these plays, try to read em in chronoligical order. Be careful. A lot of books and editions will list histories in order of when they were written which is NOT the same as the order in which the historical events occurred. Just to help you along, here are the kings with plays named after them in Historical order starting with the earliest:

• John
• *Edward III
• Richard II
• Henry IV
• Henry V
• Henry VI
• Richard III
• Henry VIII

*Edward III isn’t in most Complete Works, not everyone believes Shakespeare wrote it.

If I count Edward III then it comes out to 11 History plays. But wait! There are only 8 names up there! That’s because of the lovely storytelling device I like to call THE SEQUEL! Some of these stories are big. So big that they take up multiple plays. Henry IV has a part 1 and 2. Lucky for him. But even luckier was Henry the VI. His story gets 3 parts! There’s another reason not to produce that story… it’s long.

Do yourself a favor, read the histories if you haven’t already. Do the little bit of research required and enjoy. You’ll be glad you did. It also might come up on Jeopardy one day, so be prepared!

We often hear how much Shakespeare has influenced our language, that there are phrases and words we still use today. Often they go unnoticed because they’re so tightly woven into our minds and tongues. There’s one recently however that has been hitting me over the head repeatedly.

HORATIO
Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince:
And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!
- Hamlet (V.ii)

“Good night sweet prince,” says Horatio as Hamlet dies. This phrase is everywhere! I haven’t always watched a lot of TV, but I’ve had time recently. Over the last couple months I’ve heard these words at multiple deaths or people going to sleep. In all instances it is used for comic effect for those who get the reference. And all should, if they paid attention in English while studying Hamlet. Most, of course, didn’t.

The most recent shows I heard this phrase were Futurama and M*A*S*H. There are others, but I can’t seem to remember them at this moment in time. I should have been keeping track.

Keep your eyes and ears peeled for this one. And let me know where else you find it. In fact, if you find other similar occurrences of different Shakespearean phrases please let me know! I’d love to hear about it.

Cutting one of Shakespeare’s plays is a common practice for obvious reasons: many of them are long. Not everyone has the patience for a three and a half hour (or more) Hamlet. Performing an uncut version of one of The Bard’s plays is in fact uncommon. But if you ever see an CUT version of The Comedy of Errors - Shakespeare’s shortest play - the director is probably crazy or is performing for an entire crowd with Attention Deficit Disorder.

But what happens to a play when we cut the tail end off of it? What is changed when the resolution of the conflict is ended but there is no return to a new or the old stasis? It might put a different spin on what the full play is showing. For example: after Romeo and Juliet kill themselves there is still another 125 lines of text consisting of Friar Laurence, the kids’ families, the Prince, and others coming to the scene. The incredulous spectators of this horrible event listen to the Friar tell how it all came to pass; Lord Montague and Capulet, in their grief, put aside their differences and end their feud; the Prince wraps everything up with a nice speech ending in a rhyming couplet.

In an uncut ending of this play, the audience is not left to think that this play “glorifies teenage suicide,” as it is often critisized of doing. We are made to see how this terrible tragedy affects the families of the two deceased. At the same time, the feuding heads of the family have to deal with the consequences of their fighting. Like at the end of most tragedies, we get some sort of an answer to the question, “How far is too far?”

How often do you see all this produced? In many of the movie versions and on stage this scene has quite a bit of text sheared from its body. Lets say a production were to have Juliet stab herself, blackout. This leaves the audience with less closure. Hopefully the director has a few notes in the program about what her/she was trying to do with the production, in case anyone is confused. But this ending elicits a host of different things to think about at the end of the show. I won’t say that this is better or worse, it is an option for anyone putting on this play.

The same goes for any of Shakespeare’s plays, but I won’t discuss them all. Just one more: Hamlet. After Hamlet dies, Fortinbras comes in and claims the throne; The English Ambassador comes to tell us that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead; Horatio will speak to the people about how this happened, etc. What if we don’t see anymore after “Good night sweet prince: And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest”? Maybe the director has cut out most the Fortinbras storyline, so it wouldn’t make sense for him to show up. Maybe they wanted to leave us thinking about the sort of tottering state Denmark would be in after the entire royal family has been killed.

There aren’t any concrete answers to these questions I bring up, just some food for thought. Directors should be mindful of what effect your cuts might have. Audience members - be aware of the effect the conclusion of a play or movie has on you. What are you left thinking, wondering, guessing? And how does that affect your enjoyment of a production?

All’s well that ends well; still the fine’s the crown;
Whate’er the course, the end is the renown.
- All’s Well That Ends Well (IV.iv)

The great potential that classic drama has to changes like this to create different responses is what really lets creativity soar sometimes, and maybe less desirable effects at other times. If you have any thoughts on this please comment and continue the discussion! I’d love to hear your thoughts too.

When you watch a movie of a Shakespeare play, or a filmed stage version, or listen to an audiobook what do most of the actors have in common? Most are British. Now I have nothing against the UK, but a lack of good Americans doing Shakespeare in the media poses a set of problems for students of Theatre and Shakespeare in the US.

What kind of problems? Life threatening? No. First off, it’s much more inspiring to see people who speak the way you do doing things you want to do. The average American when asked to speak something Shakespearean will put on a bad British accent and give you the few words they know from Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet. Seeing nearly only Brits do Shakespeare subliminally into our heads, “Americans can’t do Shakespeare.”

This is of course not true. I remember when I was reading Romeo and Juliet during freshman year of high school, I spoke the text aloud in an English accent because I thought it sounded better. Poor ignorant little me. Americans don’t do Shakespeare because they don’t know how, not because it’s a British thing. Shakespeare wrote in English, we Yanks speak English too. Shakespeare’s language was a predecessor of both modern British and American English. A lack of education about The Bard is the real problem at hand. It’s sort of a vicious circle of not learning, never trying, and then not teaching it. What’s worse is that when Americans put into movies with British actors they look very out of place (i.e., Keanu Reeves in Kenneth Branagh’s Much Ado About Nothing )

There’s not a whole lot that can be done to change the educational system at the moment, so it’s up to individuals to educate people both in and out of school. And maybe more Americans should make Shakespeare movies, audiobooks, and putting on the plays and doing a good job. I’ll do my share when I get the chance. How about you?

After quite a few mentions to this topic in the last few posts on The Shakespeare Blog - the first being For Readers’ Eyes Only - I thought I should join in on the discussion and give my three cents.

Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinion about a piece of art… but those who claim that Shakespeare’s works are not meant to be performed just annoy me. If he wasn’t meant to be performed, I’m obviously not down a good career path!

The fact is that drama was did not have a widespread appeal as reading material until well after Shakespeare. George Bernard Shaw championed that cause to an extent. But until then, plays were written to be performed. Tons of them. Theatre was a very popular forms of visual entertainment in Shakespeare’s time… no TV!

Now one of the arguments brought up against Shakespeare being performed is that “language itself is so complex and rich that physicalization only serves to obfuscate the meaning of the text.” Yes, the language is complex. No, an audience won’t understand everything. BUT the significance of each individual word is of minute importance in relation to the entirety of a whole play. The important part is to understand the story to entertain, and to provoke thought. I don’t know about you, but I always seem to be much more entertained, understand more, and be more apt to think when I see a quality full fledged production of Shakespeare, rather than just reading silently. Yes, there are advantages to reading and studying the text on your own. But is Shakespeare not meant to be performed at all!? I don’t think so. No way.

Now just because we have TV and movies today doesn’t mean that we can put Shakespeare in a book and forget about the stage. Theatre is still a living art form. Shakespeare’s words don’t really LIVE unless they are spoken in performance, as intended.

Studying Shakespeare is not for the impatient. To the astute scholar this may seem obvious. But to the young enthusiast and/or less Shakespearienced actor can always use a reminder. There is no possible way to speak the text very well with your first time with the text. Even after a month of rehearsals for a play it’s not likely you’ll be great. If you work hard, and study all you can during that time you can be good but don’t beat yourself up over it! Actors study for several years before being proficient. English majors can easily read everything in the libary on Shakespeare and still struggle.

So what can you do? Be patient! To be a good classical actor takes years, decades even. An English teacher can cover Hamlet in class for a decade and still learn more every time. I don’t think anybody out there refers to themself as a Shakespeare “master” or “expert,” because those who know the most know that there’s always more to know. Those titles are usually bestowed upon those people by others.

You heavens, give me that patience, patience I need!
- King Lear (II.iv)

Have patience, I beseech.
- Comedy of Errors (IV.ii)

I know how hard this can be. I have a voracious appetite for knowledge and I will often try to learn much more than I have been able to put into practice. It’s not a great habit to have if you’re trying to get better at something. Take your time with Shakespeare, frustration is a natural occurrence before you get something right. Slow down and enjoy the ride. Don’t get ahead of yourself!

Wisely and slow; they stumble that run fast.
- Romeo and Juliet (II.iii)

I promise this post will be a bit off topic. Not about Shakespeare exactly, but theatre in general.
For those of you theatre students and other theatre practitioners out there: do you do theatre to do theatre? Or to go into film? Teachers: Do you teach students to act theatre so that they can do TV?

I’m often asked “What do you do?” or “What have you studied in school?” I will of course mention that I do theatre, and often that I am an actor. 99% of the time, the following response is “Oh, so I’ll be seeing you on TV sometime then! Not that I don’t want to do TV or film at some point, but it’s not my goal. I study theatre so that I can do theatre! My shelf is littered with books about theatre. Not film or TV - for now. It makes me wonder: Do people think that there’s no such thing as a life in the theatre? Or no money in theatre? Or do they think theatre is a dying art? If so I believe they’re wrong on all three accounts. There’s plenty to do in theatre. A life as an actor on the other hand IS harder and financial success solely performing is less likely. But who says that’s all I do?

Now for the iota of relevance to Shakespeare. You work with Shakespeare much if you do film or TV. Few seems to want to watch the Bard on a screen. But theatre companies around the world are constantly doing Shakespeare’s plays.

I’m allowed to go slightly off topic once in a while. It’s my blog darnit, I’ll yerk you if you tell me otherwise. Does anyone else have any sort of similar experience? Discuss!

If I decided to make a Word-of-the-Millenium category, this word would be the only entry: WHEREFORE.

It means WHY! NOT WHERE! Juliet is asking “Why are you ‘Romeo’? Why not have a different name?” etc. Not “where are you”. This word has been used incorrectly everywhere for as long as I can remember. People love to use Shakespeare quotations to make their essays, articles, speeches sound clever. But many just make themselves look like idiots because they didn’t bother to do their research.

Only a few minutes ago I came across a post online titled “Wherefore art thou, Duncan?” Referring to Duncan Hunter, one of the the candidates in the 2008 presidential popularity contest. I was irked. I hesitated to write to the author and correct him, but I think I will. It’s never to late to be schooled.

It’s really not so hard to remember anyway. WHY? BECAUSE: WHEREfore? THEREfore. WHEREwolf? THEREwolf. So if you’re out and about and you hear another improper use of this word, please feel free to verbally slap the offending party with your superior intellect. Actually, politely correct them. It will go down much smoother for both of you.

EDIT : I sent a message to the writer last night right after this post. Today I got a reply, he’s changing the title. The world is safe again from improper usage of the word, but for how long? Stay tuned next week for the Adventures of BardMan!