Yes, I’m reading them.  Technically, listening on audio book.  I like to know what the latest pop culture things are all about.  Just don’t ask me about 50 Shades of Grey…

Anyway, I discovered (and I don’t think it’s a spoiler) that the bad guy’s first name is Coriolanus.  Really?  That caught my attention quickly.  I wondered why for awhile, but could not immediately make the connection.

Then I learned that a girl who has her tongue cut out is named Lavinia.  Aw come on!  That can’t be coincidence.

Of course, there’s an obvious connection to Roman history running through the games (not even counting the whole bread and circuses, gladiatorial thing).  Once I started looking I realized that other characters are named Cinna (“I am Cinna the Poet!  I am Cinna the Poet!!”), Octavia…heck there’s even a Caesar.

So does anybody know whether the author had any Shakespeare thoughts in mind with these stories?  I’m guessing that perhaps she had enough passing familiarity with Shakespeare that she was able to pull names at will, and just used them as she saw fit.  The Lavinia thing probably isn’t a coincidence, I suspect that when she was seeking a Roman name for her girl with no tongue, Lavinia was the obvious choice for anybody who knows who that is.

I saw a brief mention yesterday of “America’s Son” being picked up by Fox:

This project focuses on a Kennedy-esque political family. When the family’s favorite son and presidential hopeful is killed in a car crash, his son (described as being a JFK, Jr. type) returns to D.C. to find out the crash that killed his father wasn’t really an accident.

But I was unaware of ABC’s venture into a similar (potential?) space with Westside:

ABC also has a Shakespeare-based project on tap called Westside, which is generally referred to as being based on West Side Story.

The Cinema Blend article  goes on to talk about how far removed the projects are from Shakespeare, so that they “don’t suffer too much.”  Fair enough.

But perhaps we should point them to Sons of Anarchy, which will be heading into its sixth season?  The show about a motorcycle gang has long been seen as drawing upon Hamlet for its inspiration. Though I’ve never seen it (not really the kind of thing we watch at my house), I did spot the connection back in 2009.

I’ve also just realized that in my article, the creator said that he planned a 5 year run of the series to mimic the 5 acts of Hamlet.  And that it’s now been renewed for a sixth season.  Hmmmm.

I didn’t post much last week about the possible discovery of Richard III’s bones, because so many other stories already beat it into the ground.  We did have some fun with the puns, though:

• To repeat, archaeologists are not 100% sure that this is Richard III – they only have a hunch.
• Somebody please tell me he was found on a Wednesday so we can call it Hump Day?
• You might think Richard III would have been great at the new “Gangnam Style” invisible horse dance, but he was partial to the Humpty Hump.
• Ironically, they found the bones of a horse right behind Richard.

You get the idea.  If you like them, they’re mine, if they’re awful they’re Bardfilm’s. 😉

Anyway, by not posting I realized that I was denying the Shakespeare Geek audience the opportunity to get together for discussion, so here be that post.  What are your thoughts?  Do you think it’s him?  Where do you stand on the whole “Richard III wasn’t really the bad guy he’s been painted by history” angle?

As I’ve mentioned, I’m just plain not that familiar with the story of Richard III, so I have little opinion on the matter other to say that I make no connection between what Shakespeare wrote, and what reality was.   He could have been a saint for all I know.  Though probably not.

My favorite quote from the linked story, by the way:

“If Richard was the kind of plotter Shakespeare makes him out to be there are a lot of questions to be answered, like if he was so power-hungry why didn’t he kill his brother King Edward IV?”

“Oh yeah?  Well what about all the people he *didn’t* kill, huh?  How come nobody ever talks about that?”  That sounds like a line out of a Saturday Night Live skit.

Methinks that Stanley Wells was jonesing for some Cherry Garcia.

The problem is that they were supposed to get permission, and didn’t. They were unaware that the building was classified Grade I (“the building is of exceptional interest, sometimes even considered to be internationally important”). They are now on the hook to get “retrospective” permission and, if that falls through, could be required to put the building (actually just a “pea shed”) back to its original condition.

Paul Edmondson from Blogging Shakespeare alerts us to mark the date for October 20th, when Roehampton University will be hosting a symposium entitled Shakespeare and the Contemporary Sonnet:

Which Shakespeare sonnets do modern poets refer to again and again? What still attracts them to the sonnet as a form, and to Shakespeare’s poems in particular? Are there sonnets that resist adaptation in terms of theme, sexual politics, structure? Is the original 1609 sequence still important or do a small number of sonnets now stand alone? What are the challenges and possibilities afforded by adapting Shakespeare’s sonnets into modern idiom and modern culture?

Sounds like a neat topic.  Naturally it’s more on the academic side, not the kind of thing that we casual hobbyists can just zip off to.  Maybe they’ll do some live tweeting or blogging of what content comes of it?

[ If you want to see just how much depth can be found in even a single sonnet I point you to Paul’s previous article “Miracles in Miniature” where he talks about working through Sonnet 29 with a group of people and how you could talk about it for hours, down to the last syllable and punctuation mark. ]