Just so nobody misses a passing reference in the comments, I wanted to make this item a post of its own.  Nigel Beale is hosting a “Hamlet roundtable” on Thursday of this week featuring four “prominent lit bloggers”.  I’m not really sure what prominent means in this case, but they are: http://wutheringexpectations.blogspot.com/   (Amateur Reader) http://fernham.blogspot.com   (Anne Fernald) http://www.sarahweinman.com/confessions/ (Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind) http://www.edrants.com/ (Edward Champion’s Filthy Habits)   They do each appear to reference Shakespeare frequently, although I’m sure how often they are writing specifically *about* Shakespeare.  I think I may have linked the Idiosyncratic Mind one once or twice. Anyway, sounds like it could be worth a watch.  They do appear to be a fairly deep lot (at least, relative to this blog), so your mileage may vary.

http://rfgainey.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/error-of-omission/ I find it hard to debate her logic.

http://www.undeadflick.com/ You know that vampire/zombie/horror movies are all the rage when somebody crosses one with Shakespeare.  Normally I would have put this in the same category as that “A.D.D Hamlet” thing we saw a few weeks ago, but this one appears to actually have some real (well, B list) actors attached including Ralph Macchio, Jeremy Sisto and Jake Hoffman (son of Dustin).  Sean Lennon is scoring it.

http://www.medownloaded.com/Promotions/telegraph/ Blah blah, details, who cares, giving away free MP3 copy of “The Shakespeare Collection”.  Includes 5 sonnets, selections from Dream, and two “great historical recordings” – Hamlet and Henry V – one of which is apparently Olivier, but I haven’t listened to them yet so I dunno which is which. You have to register and provide a UK postcode, but that’s easily hacked.  If anybody comes looking for an Alan Farrar who lives at the House of Commons, tell them you haven’t seen me!     (Just kidding, I’m actually Alan Blixt. :))

http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=e1bd6ffa-c648-4d40-8efd-40dd1b31b444 To make any contribution worth caring about, a philosopher’s study of Shakespeare should do three things. First and most centrally, it should really do philosophy, and not just allude to familiar philosophical ideas and positions. It should pursue tough questions and come up with something interesting and subtle–rather than just connecting Shakespeare to this or that idea from Philosophy 101. A philosopher reading Shakespeare should wonder, and ponder, in a genuinely philosophical way. Second, it should illuminate the world of the plays, attending closely enough to language and to texture that the interpretation changes the way we see the work, rather than just uses the work as grist for some argumentative mill. And finally, such a study should offer some account of why philosophical thinking needs to turn to Shakespeare’s plays, or to works like them. Why must the philosopher care about these plays? Do they supply to thought something that a straightforward piece of philosophical prose cannot supply, and if so, what? I don’t understand a word of it, but I’ve never let that stop me before.  There’s plenty of folks in the audience who are far more well-read than I.