I thought I knew what I was getting into with Shakespeare On Toast by Ben Crystal.  The introductory chapters left me thinking that I’d like to hang out with Ben, he seems like my kind of guy.  His book, he writes, was targeted at the audience between the “for dummies” crowd that loses the poetry, and the academic crowd that studies this stuff for a living.  All, he adds, while trying to keep the level of appreciation and ownership of the text very high.  Starting off with a comparison of Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Gielgud, he certainly captured my attention quickly. He then goes on to mention Authorship, dismissing it in much the same way I do – let’s talk about the works, not the man.  Though he did not miss the opportunity to make his feelings about the subject of Authorship known, such as the emphasized “some of the contenders were dead several years while Shakespeare was still writing!” he sneaks in, while saying he’s not going to talk about it. 🙂 But then he starts talking about soap operas (British ones, at that!) which lost me a bit.  I appreciate the “Shakespeare got to get paid” analogy, but I don’t think I agree quite so strongly that what Shakespeare was doing 400 years ago was the equivalent of what soap opera writers do now, especially when one turns out 5 episodes a week and one turned out, what, 2 or 3 plays a year?  It’s hard to compare. There’s a lengthy discussion of the Globe itself, the audience, the costumes…even the lighting.  It was here, near the beginning, that I began to understand Mr. Crystal as an actor.  (I’ve always contended that my “hook” for being a Shakespeare geek is that I  have no other claim to the work, not being an actor/director/writer).  I find it hard to make this leap.  People who have never acted Shakespeare will never understand what it means to act Shakespeare, anymore than people who don’t play jazz will know what it means to play jazz (the author makes the Shakespeare/Miles Davis connection frequently).  We the audience are the ones that listen to the music, or see/hear the play.  I prefer the focus on that.  Tell me what the lighting means for me as audience, not you as actor. Then it gets pretty deep, even for me.  There’s a lesson in vocabulary, which is fine, explaining that Shakespeare didn’t really use *that* many words that are no longer used, it’s the ones that he used differently than we do that are the most confusing.  But then we get a grammar lesson in when to use “thou” instead of “you”, and I’m flashing back to conjugating the verb “to be” in Latin (“eram eras erat, eramus eratis erant….”).  The point?  Once you realize that sometimes the address is casual and sometimes it is formal, you will spot when each is used, and you will better understand the context of the conversation.  Makes sense.  A little scary if you think about it – people are worried that they’re not going to understand all the words, and we’re splitting hairs about when to use thee versus thy? And then we get to the point that I expect will perk up the ears of several regular readers (I’m looking at you, Carl).  Half way through the book, Crystal brings up iambic pentameter.  Not in a general “I have to tell you what this is” way like most introductory books do.  In this book, iambic pentameter is everything.  The rest of the book (we’re half way done at this point) is all about the details of the meter.  We even dive right into “trochees” and other variations of the meter, and suddenly I feel like I’m having a conversation about the sonnets again.  When did Shakespeare use true iambic pentameter, and when did he mix it up?  More importantly, *why*? But this book isn’t about the sonnets. They’re barely mentioned.  Crystal is talking about the plays, and it’s his contention that right down to the syllable level, Shakespeare was providing detailed direction to his actors. If Macbeth delivers 10 syllables and then 6, what happens with the next 4?  Does Lady Macbeth come in immediately, as if she’s interrupting him?  Or is there a pause before she starts in again?  What sort of beat did Macbeth end on, and what does that mean? It’s in this discussion where the book clearly differentiates itself from any other “intro Shakespeare” I’ve ever seen. I can’t disagree with Crystal’s argument – you really can dig down into this level and consider every last syllable of what a character speaks as a form of insight into the character.  I just think the audience for that level of understanding is very different from what I thought he was going for.  This book isn’t a trip through the works, this book is the key to unlocking the works, and it’ll be up to you to take what you learn here and go reread your favorite work keeping all these new tricks in mind. To that end, the book includes a lengthy discussion of a particular scene from Macbeth, broken out according to all the rules the author has laid out (including graphs depicting changing syllable counts!).  Honestly at this point I think that Crystal gets so overexcited and caught up in this “unlocking the secrets” stuff that he sometimes trips over his own argument.  For instance he lays out his example scene, and then says “I don’t like that layout, let’s change it….even though, I have to admit, that’s how the Folio laid it out.”  Wait, what now?  You’ve spend the whole book telling us that Shakespeare left us all the clues for exactly what he wanted, but you’re just going to go ahead and reformat the play the way you think it should be?  Hmmm… People speak of the bottomlessness of Shakespeare, or cracking it open to release the infinite energies, and books like Shakespeare On Toast serve to give you..well, a taste … of what we mean by that.  Go see a show. Did you like it?  How about that lead actor, what did you think of him?  What was your favorite scene?  How about the way he delivered that famous line?  Did you particularly like the emotion he used to stress the third word?  How about how he chose to emphasize the first syllable instead of the last? There are some folks that will read that and say, “Umm…yeah, sounds real fun.  You’re crazy.”  And then there are those like we Shakespeare geeks who grok everything I just said, and crave more.  I can’t say that this book will convert any Shakespeare haters – if anything it’ll probably confirm their fears.  No, this is a book for Shakespeare geeks, and those who want to be Shakespeare geeks.  I quite liked it – in fact, I finished it about two days into my vacation and didn’t think to bring another book :).  I have complete faith that the next time I see Macbeth or Lear I will be looking for the little details that Crystal describes.

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090819/OPINION/908190332/-1/NEWSMAP Dug primarily because I just got back from the Cape last week (where I did not find any Shakespeare, apparently I’d just missed a Romeo and Juliet…), but also for the funny “modern translations” of Shakespeare which I can only hope are intended as a satirical stab at the “Shakespeare for Dummies” movement:

Shakespeare: "My salad days, when I was green in judgement." Ordinary schmo: "I had lotsa fun when I was a kid, even though I was sorta dumb." Shakespearean villain facing a tragic end: "Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It’s a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Modern sourpuss: "Life sucks." Shakespeare: "Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look." Modern private eye: "That guy looks like a sleaze bag."

http://shakespeare.about.com/b/2009/08/19/exhumation-stopped.htm If you missed the original story, let me recap:  there’s this gentleman named Fulke Greville who some believe has an Authorship claim, to Anthony and Cleopatra if not other plays.  It’s been discovered through some sort of x-ray process that there are a bunch of boxes in his tomb (which he designed himself, by the way) and now people are all a-tizzy about the possibility that an actual manuscript might be in there.  So, natch, they want to dig him up. Not so fast! The Diocesan Advisory Committee says there’s not enough evidence to merit desecration of the tomb. I’m sure that’s not the end of it.   I have to admit to being a little intrigued.  Say we did find a manuscript in there, which question exactly would it answer?  It would be our first original manuscript of Shakespeare’s… but wouldn’t it also simultaneously prove that Shakespeare wasn’t the author?

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/32064 Mental Floss gives us 10 people who were less than impressed with Mr. Shakespeare, including some of the more well known ones like Voltaire, who called the works “an enormous dunghill”, and Darwin’s “so intolerably dull that is nauseated me” comment, which I refuted a few months ago. But then it completely skips what I thought was one of the most well known, namely when T.S. Eliot refers to Hamlet as “certainly an artistic failure.”

Long time reader Angela Sauer sent me this piece she wrote in college, a letter from Lady Macbeth to her very busy husband.  Funny stuff!  Count the references :).  I particularly liked the “stop by the butcher’s (if he’s not dead)” line.

LADY MACBETH’S LETTER TO MACBETH By Angela Sauer 10/01/05 My husband? Don’t forget we’re hosting that family dinner of mine tonight. I know you’ve had some problems with my weird sisters in the past, but hopefully they won’t cause too many problems in the future. Consider it not so deeply! Just sit down in the nearest vacant seat and try to act naturally. Be welcome in your eye, your hand, your tongue. Try not to make any dirty jokes. Would it hurt you to be stoic a skotch? Don’t talk about your snake too much (although I do appreciate that you’re not afraid to be the same in act and valor as though art in desire. To bed, to bed! *wink, wink*). I’m sure we’ll be fine. After all, it’s only dinner… what’s the worst that could happen? And do NOT start in about me being drunk the last time we had company. I only participated in 3 rounds of wine and wassail. I know you think I was being a little flirty with my crazy brother-in-law Paul, but I swear I wasn’t smashed along with the rest of my family (certainly not as inebriated as cousin Hope!). It’s just… what hath made them drunk hath made me bold! (Speaking of Hope, remember that hideous pale green tunic she was wearing? I wonder… Do you think she was drunk when she dressed herself?) I’m trying to get dinner ready before our guests get here and I need a few things. It would be kind of you to stop at the butcher’s (or is he dead?) on your trip home for some haggis and maybe a nice turkey (you’ll have to carve it, of course, as I’m terrible with that sort of thing… I swear, it’s as if my knife sees not the wound it makes!). Hit the bakery to get some fresh round rolls (I know how you’ve been craving the golden rounds, my love) and vanilla cream tarts for Paul (he’s on this crazy diet where he can only eat blanched foods. I don’t know about you, but I shame to have a tart so white!). Lastly, we’re out of beverages. Stop at the market to take home some milk, as that would be the nearest way (and I could use the whey). If you’d rather get juice or pop, then you can just take my milk for Paul. Speaking of family, have you seen our children? I can’t seem to find them anywhere… Those kids are so frustrating that I swear I’m about ready to dash their brains out! I think I heard one of them cry ‘murder’ in his sleep last night (maybe we should take that painting of the devil out of his room…), but it might have just been one of those disturbing dreams I’ve been having lately. I have been meaning to tell you about them, but it seems like you’re never in bed when I wake up. This insomnia of yours is unnatural. We had that strong sedative in the house, but I seem to have dispensed all of it the last time we had company spend the night. I think I’m going to take you to this great English doctor I know. He seems to want to talk about sleep a great deal. Maybe he can help you out. I just noticed how dirty my hands are from this afternoon. I should really stop playing rugby and pick up some quieter sport like cricket, but I like how violent and manly it makes me feel. The downside, of course, is that it seems like I’ve managed to get blood on ALL my clothes! I’ll have to do a lot of laundry later, and pray that I can get those damned spots out! (Maybe Hope can help me) I know that everything will go off without a hitch tonight. Don’t worry about anything. You just show up, and leave all the rest to me.
"’Cause I’m your lady
And you are my man
Whenever you reach for me
I’ll do all that I can" I’d better go. I think someone’s knocking at the south entry. (We should really discuss doing away with the doorman. He’s always drunk, he never lets anyone in, and he keeps talking as though the devil is around. What, in OUR HOUSE?)
Your dearest chuck,
Lady
P.S. That Celine Dion reference reminds me… I seem to have misplaced my nice new ‘Heart of the Ocean’-sized diamond, and I really wanted to wear it to show off to the family. You’ll have to ask Duncan for another to replace it. Oh… damn… Well, maybe he gave some extras to Banquo and you can… Wait… damn. Hmm… Oh! The Thane of Fife has a wife! I suppose I can talk to Lady Macduff about borrowing… No… DAMN! Ah well… What’s done is done. Or rather, what’s done cannot be undone. HARK – More knocking. We will discuss it further… tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow.