The Apocryphal Shakespeare

We don’t often discuss the authorship question here (at least, until there’s a major motion picture on the subject :)).  But author Sabrina Feldman contacted me directly and sent me preview copies of her new work, so I felt it polite to at least provide some info and links.  I have not been through the argument, nor do I consider myself informed enough to have a strong opinion.

From the website:

During
his lifetime and for many years afterwards, William Shakespeare was
credited with writing not only the Bard’s canonical works, but also a
series of ‘apocryphal’ Shakespeare plays. Sty­listic threads linking
these lesser works suggest they shared a common author or co-author who
wrote in a coarse, breezy style, and created very funny clown scenes. He
was also prone to pilfering lines from other dramatists, consistent
with Robert Greene’s 1592 attack on William Shakespeare as an “upstart
crow.” The anomalous existence of two bodies of work exhibiting distinct
poetic voices printed under one man’s name suggests a fascinating
possibility. Could William Shakespeare have written the apocryphal plays
while serving as a front man for the ‘poet
in purple robes,’ a hidden court poet who was much admired by a
literary coterie in the 1590s? And could the ‘poet in purple robes’ have
been the great poet and statesman Thomas Sackville (1536—1608), a
previously overlooked authorship candidate who is an excellent fit to
the Shakespearean glass slipper? Both of these scenarios are well
supported by literary and historical records, many of which have not
been previously considered in the context of the Shakespeare authorship
debate.

For more information, please visit http://www.apocryphalshakespeare.com/

I believe that Sabrina is following the blog, by the way, so if you have comments or questions about her work please feel free to post them, she might respond!

What, Me Teach?

Ok, so, ready for the followup from this story about meeting my 2nd grader’s teacher?

It appears that I get to put my money where my mouth is.  My daughter came home last week with a report that I am to email her teacher and let her know when I can come in, and how much time I need.  Apparently I get up to an hour to talk on the subject of Shakespeare.  Details to be worked out.

So….HELP!? I know I’ve got folks in the audience that have done this (or similar), and I’m looking for tips.  I know that I can easily (easily!) speak for an hour on my favorite subject, to any age group.  What I want to do, though, is to get some structure onto it so that it’s a repeatable experience. I want to go in knowing what I hope to talk about, and why, and they see how it goes.

Here’s what I figure so far, from my own experience with my kids, and going into their classrooms:

1) At least some time on biographic stuff.  Who was Shakespeare, when did he live, and so on. They need context, and I think the whole “400 years ago” thing is important for setting the stage.

2) If there’s a play to focus on, it’ll be Midsummer.  While I have my own fondness for The Tempest, I’ve been convinced that Midsummer remains the best introduction to kids who have likely never experienced this stuff before.

3) I very desperately want an excuse to get them out of their seats and reciting/acting some stuff.  They won’t get it (nor will they sit still!) listening to me talk for an hour, no matter how fascinating I am. 😉

I would love to walk in with scripts all prepared (rewritten and toned down to their level, of course), push back the desks, assign roles and start walking through the play.  I’d love that like you wouldn’t believe.  Like, I’ve dreamed about doing that since I first had kids. But if this is a one shot deal and I’ve got an hour, I don’t think we’ll get very far.  We’d be lucky to get through one walk through.

Option 2 is for me to play narrator and describe 3/4 of the play, stopping periodically to have a couple of the kids act out a particular scene.  This right now for me is the most likely, if I can find the balance of which scenes to act out.

Another option is to do more of a “medley” of Shakespeare’s greatest hits, and let the kids take turns reciting from a whole variety of scenes – the balcony scene, the Yorick scene, and so on.  I fear that might be too confusing because they wouldn’t get to settle in on the plot and character of a single story.

What have you got for me?

(It’s worth mentioning that later in the year I may be called upon to do this same thing with my 4th grader’s class, in which case I would have a bit more options due to their more advanced reading/listening/comprehension skills).

P.S. – 2nd grader in this case means 7 years old, roughly.  4th grader is 9 years old.  I often forget that my audience extends outside the US, and I was asked to clarify over the weekend.

Hey Baby, Want To Bump Euphemisms?

After her boyfriend used the expression “bumping uglies,” a Twitter follower asked me if our dear Bard had any better euphemisms for…well, bumping uglies.  I put the word out an suggestions started rolling in. I thought it might be fun to collect them here for future reference. Feel free to add ones that we missed!

And hey, let’s try to keep it PG-13, I’ve got kids reading.

  • “Making the beast with two backs.”  Technically a Bible one, I believe, but Iago borrows it.
  • “Tupping,” as in, “that old black ram is tupping your white ewe.”  Iago again.  It sounds more pleasant if you just say “tupping.” 😉
  • “Country matters,” Hamlet’s famous line. Personally I always assumed that this referred to … ummm …an entirely different act.
  • “Groping for trout in a peculiar river.”  I honestly had to look this one up.
  • “Dallying puppets,” anyone?
  • “Raise a spirit in his mistress’ circle.”  Once that one was pointed out to me I realize that it’s just filthy.
  • “It’ll cost you a groaning.”

What else you got? Anybody got one that actually sounds nice, and not like it comes with a nudge nudge and a wink wink and a “Know what I mean?”

Best of 6 Word Shakespeare

Everybody knows the legend of Hemingway’s famous “6 word story” in which he wrote, “For sale: baby shoes. Never worn.” Right?

Well today on Twitter, #6wordstories was a Top Trend.  And, doing what we’ve become known for doing, we went ahead and made that #6wordShakespeare.  As of right now it’s still going on (check the link!) but I wanted to jump in and grab some of the best of so they’re not lost.  Enjoy!

The Very Best of 6 Word Shakespeare

“Really Cornwall? His eyes? That’s gross.”

“Woman, get over here.  See?  Tamed.”

“Marry me.”  “No!”  “Have to.”  “Damnit.”

“Invited to Andronicus’ dinner party. Pass.”

“Witches told me to do it.”

“Met girl at party. Everybody dies.”

“Banished the wrong daughter. Big mistake.”

“Don’t trust Iago. Don’t. Trust. Iago.”

“Four youths, one donkey, fairies. Party!”

“Dad murdered, Mom remarried. Life stinks.”

“Words, words, words. And more words.”

“Haven’t slept. Did forest just move??”

“Love you.”  “Me too.”  Both dead.

“What’s in a name? Gang violence.”

“No more kings named Henry, please!”

“Invest heavily in marine insurance, dummy.”

“Set Kate straight, now she’s great!”

“Can’t get this damned spot out.”

“Tongueless daughter. Angry general. Family dinner.”

“Padre? This potion’s a bit strong.”

Add more in the comments!  I can’t keep up!!!

Murder Most Foul : Hamlet Through The Ages

Tell me, what would you do with a book that attempts to capture the history of Hamlet? I’m talking all of it, from the original Amleth story all the way through to screen captures of Ethan Hawke moping about when Kyle MacLachlan watches in the background.

So it is with David Bevinton’s Murder Most Foul: Hamlet Through the Ages
(Oxford University Press), which surprisingly still weighs in at just under 200 pages.  What do you say to that, Harold Bloom? 🙂

The author is not just tackling how the character of Hamlet has been portrayed over the years, either. He’s truly gone for a complete history of the play in every sense. There’s a diagram of the Swan Theatre, which has no trap door in the stage, and discussion about what this would have meant for a performance of Hamlet, which requires one.  How would Polonius have hidden behind the arras? Would he fall through it and back onto the stage, or would Hamlet have to pull back the curtain to see him? What does Hamlet do with the body when he drags it offstage? That’s all just in one early chapter. There’s depth like that on every page.

These issues may seem trivial, particularly to the theatre-folk in the crowd who have to deal with such details every performance. But this is not a lesson plan in how *you* might stage Hamlet, this is a history of how Hamlet *was* staged. That is what makes it fascinating. There are times you want the plays to be timeless, and there are times when you want to feel connected to their origins.

Jump forward to modern days and Bevington has something to say about all the most popular modern video interpretations. There’s a surprisingly lengthy and positive description of Mel Gibson’s version (which, according to Bevington, was always intended as an “action movie” Hamlet), and then a story about the disastrous timing of Kevin Kline’s production coming out the same year and basically getting lost on PBS, despite its emphasis on “superb performances” and “insightful interpretation”. Branagh’s, Tenant’s and event Ethan Hawke’s interpretation also get a fairly detailed examination.

I have to admit, books like this are intimidating to me. They are so densely packed with stuff that I just plain didn’t know that I can’t get through 3 pages without saying, “I could make a post out of that!”  Typically several times.  I know my style, and this is not the kind of book I sit and read and absorb end to end.  I can’t do it.  Instead I’ll grab it and flip to a random chapter, knowing that wherever I land I’ll learn something new and want to talk about it.

This is a great addition to my reference library, and I thank Oxford University Press for sending me a copy.