Shakespeare makes life better.
Regardless of your position on the Authorship question, sometimes it’s fun to learn new things. I had no idea that there were at least 10 candidates for authorship. Oxford’s on there, of course. Bacon and Marlowe, Mary Sidney and Emilia Bassano. But I heard some new names as well – Roger Manners? Who’s that?
It’d be funny to research 9 of these 10 to the point where you could defend them in a debate, and then just attack the bejesus out of the Oxfordians from all directions until they cry.
Apparently my 9yr old had some sort of free time at art class the other day and was flipping through a stencil book. She found (and recognized!) stencils for a scroll: (click for the larger image)
So she remembered the names of 8 Shakespeare plays off the top of her head? Not too bad, Geeklet. Of course, she then informed me that she “didn’t do every single one, like Henry the First, Henry the Second…” Bonus points for working in “Globe Theatre” as well!
She also found a curtained theatre stage (which, truthfully, I’m not sure I would have recognized if I’d seen it in a book). This is what she provided: (again, click for larger)
That is Hamlet, performing the famous “To be or not to be” soliloquoy….while holding Yorick’s skull. Apparently as part of the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet.
I love it.
When I first saw this link go by I immediately thought “Allen Ginsberg on Shakespeare? So, what, like F___ Shakespeare?” 🙂
I am glad I clicked. I don’t really know what this blog is or where the content came from, but it appears to be a transcription of Ginsberg giving some sort of lesson on The Tempest, and in particular the underlying Buddhist ideas. I’m trying to process it now.
One thought he leads with, which I think is a stretch but maybe I’m wrong – he starts with the idea that Caliban is in fact Prospero’s kid? Is that reflected in the text? He then uses the treachery of Caliban to show a karmic circle for Prospero. But I’m not sure how much he’s reading in to that.
So. Every article I read about having a successful web presence of any meaningful size always starts with, “Have a newsletter. Collect email addresses.”
I’ve never done that. It is a glaring omission in my strategy. There’s many reasons for that, but most end up in that vicious cycle of “Unless I specifically plan to sell you something, I can’t incur the cost of paying for such a service.”
Well, today after stumbling across a free (we’ll see about that) option, I figure let’s try an experiment. If you’re interested in what a Shakespeare Geek newsletter might be all about, please come over to the blog and sign up. I don’t really know what the newsletter will involve, I’ll be honest. It’ll depend on how many people sign up.
Over at the top of the left-hand column you should see a new “Follow Shakespeare Geek by Email” widget, where you can enter your email address (and then confirm by clicking on a welcome email). If for some reason that widget is not working or you don’t see it, please click here to go directly to the subscribe page. Thanks!
I’m relying on you folks to let me know the demand for this feature. If I see a bunch of people sign up right off the bat, I’ll know it’s something you’ve been wanting. If I have to beg and kick and scream, well, everything will balance out – I won’t go killing myself to deliver content via that channel. It’s up to you.
Still torn on whether to sit through Anonymous or ignore it? I think I’ve found the middle ground – check out People Being Stupid About Shakespeare…or Someone Else, the most in depth review/rebuttal of the movie I’ve yet seen. The author goes through the major points of the movie (the movie, not the Oxfordian theory in general), and then questions some of the more glaringly creative omissions and additions:
…Dekker, Jonson, and a guy with a gut representing, as the IMDB informs
me, Thomas Nashe. And Christopher Marlowe. In 1598. Marlowe makes fun of
Dekker for the failure of Shoemaker’s Holiday and claims
preeminence among historical playwrights. Which is funny, since Marlowe
hadn’t written a history play in five years at that point, largely
because he was murdered in 1593. And Dekker’s play wasn’t written until
1599 (a fact recorded in that famous and fraudulent monument to
government conspiracy otherwise known as Henslowe’s Diary). But
Marlowe’s ghost probably knows that and is just messing with Dekker’s
head. Nashe also kind of hangs around for the rest of the film, even
after his death in 1601…
I know it’s a movie, and I know that the director certainly took many liberties. I think the important question will be what Oxfordians do with the story. It’s not like we lovers of Shakespeare saw Shakespeare in Love and ran off to tell all of our friends, “Yes! It was *just* like that! Go see this movie and you’ll know everything about Shakespeare’s life!”
So the million dollar question is whether the Oxfordians will do that. Or will they take each piece that *does* support their case and say, “Yes, that bit is true,” while simultaneously disowning the flat out provably incorrect bits with “Of course he changed some stuff, it’s just a movie.”
(* I also notice that my pal Bardfilm was the first to comment on this post, so he clearly beat me to the punch on this one. )