For many of us this may be just one of those things that’s so obvious because we’re living it, but the neuroscientists are at it again and tell us that reading Shakespeare gives your brain a special little buzz that might actually make you smarter.
I say again because we were on the scene back in 2006 when the first major entry in this genre, Shakespeare Thinking, was released. Of course back then I was just getting started and didn’t get too much discussion going, so maybe we can change that now.
The general idea makes sense. Language has pattern, and structure. Your brain gets into a sort of auto-pilot, knowing without knowing what is coming next. So when sideways everything Shakespeare twists, up your neurons sit and notice take. Do it badly, of course, as I’ve done quickly here :), and like Master Yoda do you sound.
I’ll admit I don’t fully grok what the new research is all about – it all looks about the same to me as it did 5 years ago. But everybody’s talking about it this week (probably not a coincidence that it’s Shakespeare’s birthday week and we all need content), so I’m open to opening up the discussion again.

So, it’s my birthday (let’s hope that, unlike our patron saint, it doesn’t eventually bookend my celebrated life :)). Loyal readers may know that my kids like for me to have a “Shakespeare birthday”, and the meaning of that has changed over the years. My 3yr old used to use the word to mean “thing Daddy likes” so she would inform me that for my Shakespeare birthday she would get me a Shakespeare flower. Love it.

This year the two girls made me Shakespeare cards. Check it out! I love them.

(Click for larger images)

The first one is a computer that says “Shakespeare geek” on it. Or possibly an iPod. She likes to draw computers. Even my 4yr old (soon to be 5!) will draw them on paper at school, then cut them out and walk around like he’s got work to do on the laptop.

The second one, if you can’t quite make it out, is “Shaksbear”. That’s not intended to be a bear, that’s just the way she spelled it when left on her own. He’s even got the lack of hair on top, and the curly bits down at his shoulders. Not bad! I have no idea what model she used, but I’m putting this one up against the Cobbe Portrait and taking it on the road.

My wife told me to make sure I keep these. I informed her that they were heading straight for the web site to be immortalized :).

So there’s a new singing competition show on tv called The Voice. Did you watch? The concept is interesting to me for a very specific reason – the judges listen to the singers with their backs turned, and only after agreeing to have them “on their team” (whatever that means) does the judge’s chair swing around so they can match a face to the voice.
It’s an amusing gimmick for the most part, until the shows says “Now you play along at home” and proceeds to do the next singer without ever actually showing her face to us. So all we get to hear is her voice, and only when a judge picks her do we get to see her face.
I loved that. I think they should do that with all of them. You just don’t have the opportunity in real life to divorce your senses like that. You can tell yourself all day long that looks don’t matter, but you can’t ever prove that until you take looks away.
So, then, what’s this got to do with Shakespeare? We’ve talked before about Shakespeare as audio book, or as radio drama. The idea that people used to go “hear” a play, rather than see it. How it’s all about the verse, and the delivery. So, is it? Ask yourself, honestly, when a character walks on stage in your favorite play and the first thing that you get to do is see him (or her) rather than hear her (or him), do you immediately match the visual to the character and think “Nope, he doesn’t look like an Iago to me.”
I’d like to think that I don’t (though, I won’t contradict myself from above – I’ll admit that I’d never know for sure without an experiment). Iago walks on stage and I just think, “Ok, that’s my Iago. Let’s see what he brings to the text.”
I wonder what sort of experiment we could do to test the idea. A singer might get 3 minutes of song for you to get a sampling of her voice, but an actor can’t very well perform an entire scene without you seeing him. Or can he? How about a mask? Even with a mask, though, you still get a great deal of info about physical characteristics (depending, I suppose, on the extent of the costume).
Here’s a question for the directors in the audience, while we’re on the subject – would you ever audition people like this? Blind, so that your entire perception of them is on the quality of their delivery? If not, why not?

So, apparently there is an event happening this week that has the entire world buzzing – other than my birthday. 🙂 I speak of course about the Royal Wedding, which has had my wife glued to the television every time they mention the latest detail about whether the oddsmakers have William actually crying during references to his mother, or just getting a bit misty.
Anyway, it seems like we could find a Shakespeare spin on the subject. Correct me if I’m wrong in this, but Shakespeare never actually put a wedding on stage, right? That’s what my research told me when I was working on my book. It being a sacrament and all, it would have been pretty blasphemous for him to portray the actual ceremony on stage and look as if he was making light of a solemn event.
He did, however, talk *about* weddings. Many times. Much Ado About Nothing has that great “Ok, now let’s all go get married once the play is over” scene. Taming of the Shrew has its “Did you hear how Petruchio wrecked the wedding?!” third-person account. There’s Romeo and Juliet‘s quickie. And of course, A Midsummer Night’s Dream has the greatest wedding reception ever.
I have a couple of things I’d like to accomplish in this post. First, can we come up with the definitive list of when Shakespeare did the “talk around the wedding” thing, as described above? I’m looking specifically for opportunities where it’s implied that a wedding takes place, either offstage or immediately after the play. It’s the ones that happen during the play that are the most interesting, as they really call attention to the whole question of why Shakespeare never showed weddings. How should we count The Tempest?
Second, how would you add some Shakespeare to William and Kate’s wedding? I’ve been keeping an eye out, and so far I’ve seen no Shakespeare references at all in any of the public material (i.e. the invitations, speeches and so on). There may yet be some, who knows. But if you were one of the wedding planners, how might you sneak some Shakespeare into the mix?
( Seriously, I’m hoping that somebody associated with this media event manages to make a Shakespeare reference, because the minute that happens a few million people are going to start googling for Shakespeare wedding quotes and yours truly is sitting on the front page for several variations of that search :). Fingers crossed! )