So I go on vacation for three whole days, and the Shakesphere asplodes when Sarah Palin compares herelf to Shakespeare.  Wonderful.

Specifically, for those that haven’t seen it (or don’t care as much), she made a post using the interesting word “refudiate”.  When people pointed out that this was probably not the word she meant, as it was not actually a word, she a) changed the original Twitter message to read “refute”, and b) said that Shakespeare liked to coin words, too.

Three thoughts.  We’ve brushed against political topics here in the past without much ado, but I get the feeling that these days you pick the wrong target and everybody goes absolutely batshite nutty. 

First, in defense of Mr. Shakespeare (as if he needs it), the man deliberately constructed new words for the purposes of his poetry, not because he simply didn’t know the right word.  

Second, either defend your apparently deliberate coinage of a new word, or change the word to something else, but how can you do both? If it was the word you meant, why did you change it? If you legitimately made a mistake to be corrected, why try to cover it up?  Plenty of politicians, past and present, Republican and Democrat alike, have misspoken and made up words.  That’s not the thing that bothers people, it’s the refusal to acknowledge it as an honest mistake.

Third, “refute” (“Peaceful New Yorkers, please refute the Ground Zero mosque plan …”) is still not the correct word to use, since it means “prove to be false or erroneous.”  She may want you to prove that it’s a bad idea, but that’s not the same thing as proving that there is no such plan.  She may have meant “repudiate”,  which means something more akin to “refuse to acknowledge, or to disown.”  That’s my guess.  I think the refute thing is the red herring, and that she just misspoke repudiate.  No biggie.

Then again this all happened on Twitter, so perhaps the real problem is that she really did mean both words, and just ran out of characters?

Ok, I’m going back to vacation.   Flame away, I’ll be on the beach.

So, I’m on vacation.  I wander into the living room of the house we’ve rented where my father-in-law is watching the History Channel, and I see the Chandos portrait on tv.  So you know what we’re doing for the next hour :).  Turns out that it is a show about “death masks”, not specifically Shakespeare.  We’ve just come in on his segment.

This is odd, I think – I would surely know about a new discovery like this.  (Turns out I did,back in 2006).  So it’s not a new show.  That makes sense.  Since we have 3 small children running around making noise it’s hard to get all the details, but the gist of it appears to be a comparison of the Chandos and Cobbe portraits to the death mask, but it’s unclear to me which they are assuming is real and which they are trying to prove.

Mentioning the show on Twitter led me to UndyingFaces.com, which in turn linked here, an article I could swear I’ve seen before about authenticating (or in this case, refuting) the Cobbe portait.  What I find unusual, that I don’t think I noticed the first time around, is this:

On comparing the Cobbe and Janssen portraits, and referring also to the Droeshout engraving and the four previously authenticated true-to-life images (the Chandos and Flower portraits, the Davenant bust and the death mask)

 (Emphasis mine). Ummm…really?  Chandos and Flowers are authenticated as true-to-life?  Now we’re back into “How did I miss that???” land.

I am still technically on vacation, writing this while the rest of the family has breakfast, so I can’t make it too long.  Anybody got comment?

There is a quote you may have heard, attributed to Charles Darwin, where he claims that Shakespeare is “so intolerably dull, it nauseated me.”  I researched this quote and found that what Darwin was really saying was that in his youth he loved Shakespeare, and was actually somewhat sad that as he grew older he no longer found enjoyment in those things he once enjoyed.

At the time I’d not seen the following quote, courtesy Mr. Shakespeare, via Benedick in Much Ado About Nothing:

But doth not the appetite alter? a man loves the meat
in his youth that he cannot endure in his age.Shall quips and sentences and these paper bullets of
the brain awe a man from the career of his humour?

 I love it.  He’s like Nostradamus for what it means to be human.  You *will* do this, you *will* feel this way about it.