Originally posted June 2005. That’s right, five years ago – this is one of my original posts. Sometimes I like to go back and see how my attitudes and approaches have changed. In this particular case, not too much. I still do believe that step 1 in explaining Shakespeare to people is to tell them the story. I never followed up this post because I didn’t have the readership then to get into the discussion, but should we do more of these? Over time we could work through the entire play.

So this is interesting. A few weeks back a teacher contacted me and asked whether her Shakespeare class could interview me, videoconference-style, over Skype. They’ve been trying to make more use of technology in the classroom and stumbled across little ol’ me.
As a technologist and a Shakespeareist (? :)), I love that idea and immediately said Sure. Truthfully I know a woman who teaches Romeo and Juliet, local to me, and I’ve always secretly hoped that one day she’d invite me in to talk to her class. That’s never going to happen for a wide variety of reasons, but doing a Skype call? Why not?
Thus far, due to various technology and bureaucracy problems (translated: firewalls are a pain), this project hasn’t happened. But it’s not dead yet, just dormant until the next semester.
While we wait, though, I wanted to throw that idea out there. If there’s any teachers of Shakespeare who’d also like to make use of some technology in their classroom and interview a Shakespeare geek, I’m open to the idea. Contact me. 🙂

“Shakespeare was meant to be performed, not read.”
I hear that often. We discuss it, often. For the most part, however, I’ve been a defender of Shakespeare-as-literature. It’s simple reality that most people, in their entire lives, will not have the opportunity to experience most of Shakespeare. And even when they do, they will at best be seeing one particular company’s vision of Shakespeare. You need to see multiple versions to begin to get an idea of the whole. Or…you could just pick up a copy of the Complete Works and read what Shakespeare wrote. Nothing’s stopping you. I flinch when people suggest that the way to interpret the opening quote is “Shakespeare was meant to be performed, not read – so go see it performed, don’t read it.” Argh argh mother fricking argh. No no no. The proper interpretation for me has always been – “Shakespeare was meant to be performed, not merely read – so don’t *just* read it. See it performed at every opportunity, and read to fill in the gaps.”
But I’ve had an epiphany. I’m changing my interpretation, and it goes a little something like this.
“Shakespeare was meant to be performed, not read. SO PERFORM IT, DAMNIT.”
I would love to live in a world where every child, from the time they can sit still for a story, knows the stories of Shakespeare like they know the stories of Cinderella and Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer. The problem has always been that not every child will grow up to be an actor. Most, in fact, won’t. So it is unfair to say that unless you perform it, you will never get it. Most won’t ever perform it, therefore most won’t ever get it? Unacceptable.
But who says that perform must mean “become a professional actor” or even “join the school play”? Three Steps, right now off the top of my head, so that everybody can perform Shakespeare, wherever you are, whenever you are:
1) Say it out loud. If you do not ever hear the words you will never fully internalize the words.
2) Stand up. You are not reading a novel, you are speaking an actor’s lines. When you speak, you move. Therefore when your actor speaks, you move.
3) Interact. Shakespeare’s got plenty of soliloquies and sonnets, so if you’ve really got no Shakespeare geek friends you’re not out of luck. But, seriously, if you bust out some Shakespeare and then somebody in your immediate vicinity follows up with the next line? Spontaneous freaking Shakespeare?? I swear to god I don’t know how you don’t sleep with that person immediately. Ok, well, maybe that’s unrealistic. A bit. But I can’t promise it wouldn’t cross my mind. 😉
I’m long out of school and never been an actor. I say Shakespeare, out loud, any and every chance I get. I only wish that I knew more, and that I had more opportunities. My confidence is not always perfect – every time there is a “toasting” opportunity I secretly wish for someone to turn to me and say “How about some Shakespeare?” but I never step up and just do it. I’ll work on that.
You know what they say, Be the change you want to see in the world. Don’t dream it, be it.

While we fight it out over on that other thread over whether Romeo & Juliet is the best way to introduce Shakespeare, let me start a different thread on a similar topic. What, exactly, do we think that these kids are getting out of Shakespeare? More optimistically, what are we hoping that they get? Is it just for entertainment value? The history lesson? Simply for the accomplishment so they can say they’ve experienced Shakespeare?
This is the question that comes to mind when I hear the occasional teacher say that they’ve done King Lear at the high school level. I believe completely that teenagers can read the play, answer test questions on it, write essays about it, and even perform it. But do they *get* it? *Can* they get it?
One reason that Romeo & Juliet is defended as a good choice is that it’s about similar ages experiencing similar issues – first love, hormones, etc… not to mention violence, and dirty jokes. After all, what are Romeo and Juliet if not horny teenagers? You could have many relevant conversations that start with “You’re in love with someone your parents would not approve of. What do you do?”
On a related note I’ve often explained Hamlet to people this way: “Hamlet is the story of a kid whose father is out of the picture, and then his mom married a guy that he doesn’t get along with. Gee, you think there’s any high school kids out there that might be able to relate to that story?” Personally I was more like a freshman in college before I got into the whole “Wow, yeah, I see what Hamlet was saying….” existential phase, but I suppose that could happen at the high school level, too.
But Lear? How do *most people*, let alone teenagers who haven’t yet experienced most of their lives, get Lear? I think I’m just barely beginning to appreciate the scope of Lear, and that only because a) I’ve got children of my own and b) my parents are at that age where every conversation eventually comes around to “…and here’s what we’re going to leave you when we’re gone, we won’t be around forever you know.”
For me, personally, I like to ask “Having read/understood/absorbed/internalized this play, is my life different?” For Comedy of Errors? Nah, not really. For Hamlet, or Lear, or even The Tempest or Midsummer? Most definitely.
Am I aiming too high? Do we teach Shakespeare to change students’ lives, or just to put that checkmark next to their name saying we did it?

Want.

Spotted this new Stan Lee project on IO9’s list (posted previously). I don’t know if I’m just getting more into comics lately, but it looks cool. Don’t miss the character sketches. Somebody want to tell them there’s a typo in Montague’s name? 🙂 Benvolio looks pretty badass for a peacemaker.