Thanks to reader Christopher S for this fascinating video from the Jewish TV Network where top atheism advocates – including Christopher Hitchens – debate the existence of an afterlife with several top rabbis.
At 1:28 (that’s one hour, twenty-eight minutes – it’s a long video), they break out the Hamlet. Which side, exactly, brings up Hamlet? *Both*. That’s cool. They both try to argue that Hamlet supports their case. And apparently, though I don’t have time to find every reference, Chris tells me that “Several times throughout the evening they bring up Shakespeare’s canon as a foil to the religious canons, arguing about whether we should read both in the same way or whether they need to be approached in different ways.” This is a topic that we’ve covered as well.
What do you think about the atheism question? Does Hamlet fear the undiscovered country because he doesn’t know what comes next … or because he’s wondering if *anything* comes next? I wouldn’t go so far as to extend the discussion to “Is Hamlet atheist? Therefore, was Shakespeare atheist?” I know that’s been argued elsewhere on the net. I think the odds are against it. I’m referring to this particular case. Even if Hamlet is a devoutly religious chap with a firm belief in the afterlife, is this speech a moment of weakness where he wonders “What if I’m wrong?”

On this the anniversary of his death, I went hunting for references to Shakespeare and Stanley Kubrick. What I found was a quote from the man himself (Kubrick that is – Shakespeare was relatively silent on his impressions of Stanley):

How do you explain the kind of fascination that Alex exercises on the audience?

I think that it’s probably because we can identify with Alex on the unconscious level. The psychiatrists tell us the unconscious has no conscience — and perhaps in our unconscious we are all potential Alexes. It may be that only as a result of morality, the law and sometimes our own innate character that we do not become like him. Perhaps this makes some people feel uncomfortable and partly explains some of the controversy which has arisen over the film. Perhaps they are unable to accept this view of human nature. But I think you find much the same psychological phenomena at work in Shakespeare’s Richard III. You should feel nothing but dislike towards Richard, and yet when the role is well played, with a bit of humour and charm, you find yourself gradually making a similar kind of identification with him. Not because you sympathize with Richard’s ambition or his actions, or that you like him or think people should behave like him but, as you watch the play, because he gradually works himself into your unconscious, and recognition occurs in the recesses of the mind. At the same time, I don’t believe anyone leaves the theatre thinking Richard III or Alex are the sort of people one admires and would wish to be like.

Emphasis mine. If you don’t recognize the context, they are speaking of the lead character in A Clockwork Orange.
Full interview (or, at least, the public excerpts) available here.

Last week I published my review of Pocket Posh Shakespeare, a collection of 100 Shakespeare-themed word puzzles from The Puzzle Society.

And now I’ve got three (3) copies to give away!

How Do You Enter?

First, let’s start with a puzzle. That is the theme, after all:

TW FGL SXWSJV; LZW AKDW AK XMDD GX FGAKWK,
KGMFVK SFV KOWWL SAJK, LZSL YANW VWDAYZL SFV ZMJL FGL.

You can start by attempting this cipher (link goes to a definition of this puzzle type, if you’re unfamiliar). As I mentioned in my review of the book, your knowledge of Shakespeare should help you solve the puzzle, otherwise is it really a Shakespeare puzzle?

Second, email me your answer. I’m just looking for the quote, you don’t have to send me the mapping of all 26 letters. (Even if you can’t quite solve it, see below….)

Optionally, follow me on Twitter and help me promote the contest. Remember, publishers give their products away as promotional items, and they want to see as many people as possible take part. Successful contests means more giveaways in the future!

Comment on this post if you want, but please do so only to talk about the game or ask questions. Do NOT post solutions (I’ll delete them as fast as I spot them) or consider a comment left here to be your entry into the contest.

How Do You Win?

Ok, I’m going to put a spin on this, so pay attention. I’ve got 3 copies to give away. *TWO (2)* copies will be given to randomly chosen entrants who provide the correct solution. *ONE (1)* copy will be given to someone randomly chosen from people who do *not* have the correct, complete solution, but instead provide only a partial one.

You heard that correctly. Even if you cannot solve the puzzle, do your best and send in an answer anyway! Part of the mission of this blog has always been to encourage people to learn more about Shakespeare, so it doesn’t seem right to punish people who may not yet be familiar enough with the topic to recognize the chosen quote. Entirely blank entries will not be counted.

When is the Deadline?

I’ll be collecting entries through end of day Thursday, March 10. Winners will be chosen as described above – 2 from among the correct solutions, 1 from the incorrect solutions. On the off chance that there are not at least 2 correct solutions entered, I’ll naturally have to adjust accordingly.

I will attempt to contact the winners beginning Friday, March 11. Please note that to receive your prize I’ll need to get your mailing address, which will then be sent along to the publisher. I say this in the interest of full disclosure, as I will not be the one doing the mailing.

What exactly is the nature of art? It’s a big question, no doubt. One that we struggle with constantly, trying to find the line between the value inherent in what Shakespeare gave us, and any given interpretation. Although much the same battle rages every time a cover song comes out — does the cover surpass the original? Can it, ever? Matter of opinion.
So, here’s the thing. I just finished Marco and the Red Granny, the latest podcast from Mur Lafferty. It’s short (7 episodes), it’s complete (so you can get it all at once), and it’s available in ebook if you prefer to read. Highly recommended. In this story, Mur imagined a world where art is multisensory – you see a painting of a thunderstorm and taste hot chocolate with marshmallows. You put on a fancy new shirt and feel the anger of having a fight with your spouse. It’s science fiction, of course. But it’s a fascinating idea.
It was with that story in mind that I returned to this ongoing idea of page and stage, whether reading Shakespeare has value, or whether he must be performed. I compared acting Shakespeare to grabbing some brushes and canvas and trying to paint your own Mona Lisa….but it’s not the same. There’s one Mona Lisa, we can all see it, it doesn’t change.
But is that a good thing? Shakespeare’s words don’t change, but we’re quick to point out that that’s not the same — how you *say* them (and why and where…) always changes, and that’s part of its nature.
Is that the way it should be, or simply the way it is? What if it was different? We’ll never know why Mona Lisa is smiling. What if we did? What if, in Mur’s world, simply looking at the painting could impart to you exactly what she was thinking? What if the very nature of reading Shakespeare’s works made you experience the same rush of emotions that Hamlet does? Technically, I suppose, it does … but in each case it’s merely your own brain doing it for you, it’s not like the creator could leap through his medium and stick those emotions into your brain.
A related example – the invention of film as a medium did not kill theatre. On the contrary, theatre fans are quick to point out all the places where theatre is still superior. When I saw Macbeth? The power went out. Scared us silly. Oh, yeah? Well I saw King Lear during a thunderstorm, it was amazing! I saw Timon of Athens and the person behind me unwrapped hard candy the whole time, I hated it. Film can’t do that.
I’ll give you an even simpler example. Books, particularly old books, smell. eBooks do not. This is enough, in many people’s minds, to brush aside the rise of ebooks and swear that nothing will ever replace a “real” book. In its own way, that is the exact same argument. Where, exactly, is the value in reading a book? Is it to impart the information contained in the words on the page? Or is it the whole multisensory experience associated with how old you were when you read it, what the book looked and smelled like, how it made you feel, etc….?
I don’t know where I”m going with this, really. Bit of a ramble. Trying to decide whether or not our inability to capture all those things is a good thing, a bad thing, or only a matter of time.