http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123998633934729551.html Bunch of people sending me this WSJ article.  It’s funny, I actually saw it last night around 11pm – on the new WSJ application for my iPhone.  But I was in no position to blog about it at the time. Anyway, the article is about Justice John Paul Stevens, 34 years on the Supreme Court and an admitted Oxfordian.  While it is interesting to see actual justices arguing the point – after all, they’re supposed to be some of the best at the art of the debate – I still disagree with some of the foundational points:

"Where are the books? You can’t be a scholar of that depth and not have any books in your home," Justice Stevens says. "He never had any correspondence with his contemporaries, he never was shown to be present at any major event — the coronation of James or any of that stuff. I think the evidence that he was not the author is beyond a reasonable doubt."

He was never shown to be present is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he must not have been there?  Really?  The fact that correspondence is lost means it never existed?  Because if that’s true then there’s no such thing as the Ur-Hamlet. I also hate the argument that people who “like to think that a commoner can be such a brilliant writer,” which seems to imply that the authorship people think this can *not* be the case. Then they just turn stupid, in my opinion.  Justice Stevens, upon realizing that the nearby Folger owns a  Bible that once belonged to De Vere (Oxford), makes this wild case that “since the ‘bed trick’, (where the man thinks the woman is someone else) came from the old testament, then Oxford would have underlined those passages in his Bible.”  Ummm…. what?  Given that they found no such underlining, should we therefore argue this as evidence that the author was NOT Oxford? I think all this article ends up showing us is that our justices, while likely very smart men who can form a persuasive argument, are admittedly not as well schooled in their literature.  Stevens himself refers to his wife as “a much better expert in literature than I”, and she thinks he’s wrong. The article fails to mention that Oxford died before several plays, including The Tempest and Macbeth, were written.

http://subterraneanpress.com/index.php/magazine/spring2007/audio-rude-mechanicals-by-kage-baker/ Someone mentioned this book in the comments, and I apologize for losing the original reference.  This short book (about 10 chapters, under 3 hours audio) by Kage Baker is apparently part of a series, and deals with the (mis-)adventures of a couple of time travelling cyborgs. Why do we care?  Well, because in this installment they’re both stationed in 1934 at the Hollywood Bowl, working on and around Max Reinhardt’s production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream.  Mickey Rooney turns up briefly, and I realize that we’re ultimately talking about a sort of alternate history version of the movie. The adventure itself is a bit slapstick, putting the prim-and-proper cyborg (who cares only about not getting his company car dirty) together with the Sam Spade wannabe with a closet full of trenchcoats who can never seem to stay out of trouble, and sticking them both into a big mess as they try to recover a diamond that keeps falling into the wrong hands over (and over and over) again. This all plays out amid rehearsals for Dream, and we get a fair share of hearing the lines delivered (albeit in a somewhat nasally narration that I didn’t love).  The most interesting portrayal in the story is that of the director, who has such a perfect vision for his faerie wood that he sends workmen to go out and dig up more trees from the surrounding area and bring them to the set.  While complaining that he wished he’d gotten WC Fields and Charlie Chaplin for crucial roles, he still manages in mime to demonstrate some key scenes, such as Bottom’s great awakening.  It is telling that I would rather hear a description of a director who loves his craft miming what he wants (since he speaks only German and his actors do not), than to hear the actual lines delivered by someone who has no idea what he is saying. It’s a cute story, it entertained me.  Now that I know it’s a series I will actually go check it out, although I highly doubt that she’s in the habit of doing Shakespeare crossovers.  But you never know.

http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/displaypr.php?ID=179 Ooooo, this looks interesting.  A 4DVD set of “actor’s workshops” including Judi Dench, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Ben Kingsley…

Anyone who has ever appreciated Shakespeare will find startling new insights in these nine intensive acting workshops. In an intimate, informal setting, the Royal Shakespeare Company’s John Barton shares ideas with 21 world-renowned performers. Together they explore hidden direction in the verse, character motivations, and fresh approaches to classic speeches.

It’s stuff like this, and the recent Age of Kings collection, that make me wish I did this stuff for a living.  I have no way near the money or the time to buy these collections every time I see them.  Ah well, maybe somebody else out there wants to jump on something like this and tell us how it is.  Comes out in June 2009.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2009/apr/15/shakespeare-hip-hip-rap/print Found this article cruising Twitter today.  The theme is pretty generic – teaching Shakespeare by putting a “hip hop”, aka “rap” spin on it.  I like this article, though, because it points out that rap doesn’t have to be all “tits and arse and jewellery,” and that real artists can get real poetry and social commentary out of the medium.

Some of the kids tell me that they hate how Shakespeare is taught at school – how boring the approach is. But will this send them scuttling back to Othello with a fresh eye? Akala says the aim isn’t that limited: "It’s about showing them what’s attainable. And if Shakespeare is presented as the most unattainable, highbrow entity, but then it’s made relevant to them, what else might be? It’s part of a wider effort to open kids up to what they wouldn’t traditionally be interested in."

Emphasis mine, because I think that sums it up.  They also mention in the article how the kids aren’t in it for the Shakespeare, but for the rapping (which pains me, trust me), so they’re the exact audience you want to go after with this kind of approach.  If they’d come in already interested in Shakespeare, well then that’s good, but the guy’d be up there preaching to the converted.

We often talk about getting younger kids interested in Shakespeare, as I’m sure my regular readers are well aware.  So I find this an interesting development.  I’m probably about 20 or 30 years out of the demographic for the music of Taylor Swift, but I was aware she has some sort of a song that mentions Romeo and Juliet.   Last night I actually heard it, and it’s not bad. If this gets kids interested in the story who otherwise might have been a bit too young for it, hey, all the better!  I don’t know if I’ve got these right; I’m sure somebody will correct me.  Here is Love Story by Taylor Swift:

We were both young when I first saw you
I close my eyes and the flashback starts
I’m standing there
On a balcony in summer air
See the lights, see the party, the ballgowns
See you make your way through the crowd
And say hello
Little did I know
That you were Romeo
You were throwing pebbles
And my daddy said, “Stay away from Juliet,”
And I was crying on the staircase
Begging you, “Please don’t go,”
And I said
Romeo, take me
Somewhere we can be alone
I’ll be waiting
All there’s left to do is run
You’ll be the prince
And I’ll be the princess
It’s a love story
Baby, just say yes
So I sneak out to the garden to see you
We keep quiet ’cause we’re dead if they knew
So close your eyes
Escape this town for a little while
‘Cause you were Romeo
I was a scarlet letter
And my daddy said, “Stay away from Juliet,”
But you were everything to me
I was begging you, “Please don’t go,”
And I said
Romeo, take me
Somewhere we can be alone
I’ll be waiting
All there’s left to do is run
You’ll be the prince
And I’ll be the princess
It’s a love story
Baby, just say yes
Romeo, save me
They’re trying to tell me how to feel
This love is difficult, but it’s real
Don’t be afraid
We’ll make it out of this mess
It’s a love story
Baby, just say yes
I got tired of waiting
Wondering if you were ever coming around
My faith in you is fading
When I met you on the outskirts of town
And I said
Romeo, save me
I’ve been feeling so alone
I keep waiting for you
But you never come
Is this in my head?
I don’t know what to think
He knelt to the ground and pulled out a ring
And said
Marry me, Juliet
You’ll never have to be alone
I love you and that’s all I really know
I talked to your dad
You’ll pick out a white dress
It’s a love story
Baby, just say yes
We were both young when I first saw you  

[Love it?  The MP3 is available here.]

It seems a fairly juvenile interpretation, two kids who immediately leap into “we can’t be together therefore we’re just like Romeo and Juliet”  territory.  The ending is just a wee bit different than how old Will had it in mind.  I do like the opening, though, as it makes the listener think of the Capulet party where the two meet.  Of course, Daddy didn’t say “Stay away from Juliet” at that point but details, details.

I think it’s funny that she throws in a “Scarlet Letter” reference while she’s at it.  It’s like she wrote the entire song while daydreaming in English class. (It also makes me wonder if the kids listening fully understand what being a scarlet letter implies?) For some reason, this makes me think of Starcrossed by Lenny and the Squigtones.