http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8270688.stm This article on the value (or lack thereof) of “frivolous” research starts out with the example of whether monkeys can write Shakespeare.  The answer is no, they just basically poop on typewriter, though they did tend toward a fondness for the letter S.  This cost a month of research to find out. The thing that bugs me most about this is that it is the definition of frivolous.  Which researcher misunderstands the concept of infinite? It is NOT an experiment in the intelligence of monkeys.  It is a statement of statistical probability at infinite scales.  The question was never *can* they, it was always *would* they.  Because theoretically the answer is yes.  Quick reasoning : Have you typed the complete works of Shakespeare yet?  No?  Then keep typing.  Repeat until you do. The problem is that, realistically, you end up with a more meaningful answer like “It would take greater than the age of the universe to even get through one play.”  So while it might be a true statement, it is a uselessly true one. On a different note, I’ve lost track the different ways I hear the theorem quoted.  One monkey, infinite typewriters.  A thousand monkeys, a million monkeys.  “Now that we have the Internet we know this to not be true.”  haha.  Insert “twitter” for “internet” and haha again. My favorite?

If you locked William Shakespeare in a room with a typewriter for a long enough period of time, eventually he would type the complete works of The Monkees.

Update :  Speaking of monkeys, Savage Chickens chimes in today with a particularly relevant comic 🙂

Has everybody caught the new Burger King commercial, the one with Tony Stewart in a lie detector? The story is that Burger King’s new pitch man will be connected, live, to a lie detector and asked how much he loves the new Whopper.  Interesting? I’m pointing it out here because one of the questions the examiner asks is, “Do you love the Whopper more than the works of William Shakespeare?”  He, of course, says yes. He is not a Shakespeare geek. (*) I’m looking for a video, or the transcript, but can’t find either yet.  So if anybody knows the exact Shakespeare quote, let me know.

I’m taking this one straight out of Emsworth’s blog because he basically called me out by name:

If the Shakespeare Geek were inviting his readers to rank their favorite practical joke scenes in Shakespeare, our favorite would be the trick Falstaff’s fellow villains played him on the highway near Gadshill. (Our second favorite is the hilarious scene in All’s Well in which the blindfolded Paroles all too readily betrays his comrades.)

Ok, people, whatcha got?  Do we count Puck’s translation of Bottom as a practical joke?  Does setting up Beatrice and Benedick count as a joke?  Should we make a list of what all the practical joke scenes *are*, before we discuss which is best?

David Bates of “Reading Everest” introduced himself and his blog to me this weekend, and I find his current post about Macbeth pretty cool.  Quoting Harold Bloom he refers to Macbeth as the killing machine – but then goes on to point out that Macbeth is only responsible for 3 deaths, and those offstage.  Hamlet, meanwhile, Shakespeare’s most intelligent character and certainly the darling of Bloom’s work, is directly responsible for the deaths of Claudius, Polonius (even if he didn’t know it was Polonius, he still wanted him dead), and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.  He’s debatably got a hand in Ophelia’s insanity and eventual suicide.  As David asks, what would he have done to Gertrude if the ghost hadn’t stepped in?  (Actually he asks whether Hamlet would have done Gertrude in before Polonius, but I don’t think that was ever a possibility.  After, though, when he’d gotten himself worked up….) Macbeth *is* a killing machine.  He’s introduced that way.  Everybody loves the “unseamed him from knav to chaps” line, describing Macbeth’s prowess on the battlefield.  I think that his physical size and power has a great deal to do with the point of the story.  It’s not about who’s the biggest and strongest.  Macbeth the monster is manipulated by his wife.  She then goes down to her own internal demons, not to some assassin’s blade.  Does Macbeth remain a killing machine at the end?  Is Macduff fighting the same guy he would have in the opening scene?  Or is the monster a broken shell of himself at the end? UPDATE : Link to the original post, which I shamefully forgot when I originally posted this.  My sincere apologies to David.

http://shakespeare5000.blogspot.com/2009/09/shakespeare-plays-prominent-and-obscure_04.html Lifted from a comment on my Top Ten Shakespeare Plays story, Michael5000 did a far deeper look at the plays based on things like how well people can recall the name of the play, how well the books sell, and so on. I’m not going to steal his thunder, but I am going to zero in on a couple of fascinating things: * One of his lists echoes our own list almost identically, except for one glaring difference – Henry VI shows up on theirs.  Nobody in all of my voting has even mentioned Henry VI. * His most obscure, Two Noble Kinsmen, is hardly a surprise – until recently it wasn’t even considered part of the complete works!  I only learned about it in 2005, personally.  Never read it. * Measure for Measure shows up on his obscure list.  I’ve had several people put it on their top ten best list.  That sounds like a “hidden gem” of Shakespeare’s if I’ve ever heard one! * In the final analysis, Lear ranks surprisingly low.  That’s a good indicator of what he’s measuring (not that that’s a bad thing).  People are way, way more familiar with Romeo and Juliet.  People will go through their whole lives without knowing anything about Lear. Anyway, it’s a great bunch of data that folks can have a field day with.  Which play is the most quotable, and is that a good indicator of the play’s popularity?  What about how often the Oregon Shakespeare Festival has chosen to perform certain plays over others? Go check it out.