http://www.shmoop.com/events/literature/william-shakespeare/the-tempest.html Something about the URL caught my eye.  This is just one of many “no fear” type of sites that summarize the plays, but I particularly liked their style.  It’s very introductory, but that’s my thing – I’d much rather introduce kids to a light and fluffy version of the story to hook them, and then show them the real thing later.  It’s tough to strike a balance between “trust me, this is fun, look at all the jokes and comedy” and “No, seriously, you are reading what many people consider to be the greatest literature ever written, genuflect whenever you turn the page.”  But I thought from a quick skim that this site did a fair job at it. Note what I said, though – kids.  Younguns.  What I hate and have always hated is when older kids (nay, adults) use sites like this as their one and only exposure to Shakespeare, figuring that if they just get the plot and characters then it’ll be enough to pass the test or hold a conversation at a party.  That’s the logic I use with my children.  My 4yr old knows plot and character, don’t be getting all proud of yourself. What if you’re an adult with no exposure to Shakespeare?  That troubles me, but I realize it’s a legit question.  Any adult that comes up to me and says, “I’ve never read Shakespeare before, where should I start?” automatically wins points for *wanting* to learn, when they don’t have to.  Those are not the folks who are going to say “Ok, cool, I read the Cliff Notes now I’m all set.”  I’m perfectly happy to direct those folks to a summary/paraphrasing of the work, with the strong suggestion that they see the show and read the original as well.

Last night my 2yr old son and I were playing a game I think I’ll call “Human iPod.”  That is when, to get him to go to sleep, he says the name of a song, you sing it, and then this repeats until he says, “That’s it.”  You are then free to leave the room. He repeats a regular sequence – Baa Baa Black Sheep, ABC, Doe-A-Deer, “Here’s the Story” (yes, the Brady Bunch theme song), Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, and Frosty the Snowman.  At any given time he may start singing along, and often in the car you can hear him do some of the shorter ones start to finish all by himself. Last night he stuck a new one in there on me:  Shall I Compare Thee.  I said, “Really?”"  He said, “Yeah.”  So I proudly sang Sonnet 18 to my 2yr old son. I hope he asks for it every night.  If I catch him singing it to himself on car rides I am taking that show on the road. 🙂

http://ca.askmen.com/entertainment/special_feature_200/226_special_feature.html Here’s an odd place for a Shakespeare article, a magazine called Ask Men (the kind of barely safe-for-work site that if I’m caught looking at it I will have to plead I only read it for the Shakespeare).  The title is 5 Things You Didn’t Know About Shakespeare. Let’s look: 1) The sonnets were written for men.  Specifically it goes on to cite sonnet 18 as an example, and says that 126 of the 154 are definitely between dudes. 2) Danielle Steel has been translated more than Shakespeare.  This point is just plain stupid, as it goes on to explain that Danielle Steel has *written* more than Shakespeare, so the math works out.  He’s been translated into 80 languages, she only 28.  3) Shakespeare invented "torture".  No he didn’t, he just “invented” the word of course. 4) Shakespeare’s grave is cursed.   Again, no, and badly written.  Yes, there’s the epitaph that reads “cursed be he who moves my bones”, but no one has moved them, so that’s a poor interpretation of “his grave is cursed.” 5) Shakespeare was rich.  Yes, he had a stake in the company, blah blah blah, owned property in London and Stratford.  But was he ever “rich”, in the way we think of it today?  I’ve always understood that not to be the case.  As a matter of fact I thought he was on the cheap side, spending much of his later years in small claims court collecting debts.   Points to the commenters, for the most part, for pointing out the mistakes in the article.

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/21414 Mental Floss has a list of “bedroom quirks” of literary greats.  Nothing fancy about our boy Will, just the old “William the Conqueror” story – but the other ones are amusing enough to forward along.

http://blog.shakespearegeek.com/2007/01/valentine-day-is-coming.html Almost two years ago I made this post on some Cupid references in Shakespeare’s sonnets. Since then my readership has grown, and I know I’ve got some regular readers who are well versed in the sonnets. So I thought I’d ask the question again that is detailed in the above link: Sonnets 153 and 154 appear to me to be nearly identical, except for the ending: Cupid falls asleep, the nymphs come and steal his little bow and arrow and shove it in the water to cool it off.  Only instead of cooling it off, it produces a hot spring that men come to soak in.  153’s ending makes clear sense – Cupid see’s my mistress’ eyes and that is enough to light his torch again, and the cure for the poet’s ills is not the hot bath, but his mistress’ eyes as well.  But what’s 154 mean?  He went to the bath to try to stop thinking about his mistress, and it didn’t work for him? Somebody got the story on this one?  Surely there’s something to it.