In doing research for my paper I came across this passage and thought it might be interesting to the rest of you as well:
"It has often been maintained, both in England and America, that in order to render faithfully Shakespeare's creations one must be of English stock, on th plea that the poet was himself an Englishman, and therefore could only bring forth personages endowed with English characteristics, which cannot be successfully grasped by any foreigners. This argument seems both narrow and disparaging to the genius of Shakespeare.
Many authors, either historians or poets, have perfectly understood, either by study and observation, or by intuition, sometimes better called 'inspiration,' the peculiarities of other nationalities or races. Why refuse this knowledge or intuition to Shakespeare?
We foreigners, born outside of the magic pale of the Anglo-Saxon race, place Shakespeare upon a much higher pedestal. We claim that, before being English, he was human, and that his creations are not bound either by local or ethnological limits, but belong to humanity in general."
-Helena Modjeska: Memories and Impressions, 1910

Shakespeare in a Context

Gender and Such

Hello everyone!

In researching my final project, I've come across some very interesting scientific research that I find so tantalizing that I thought I'd share it with you all.

What I found was a rather scientific book from 1998 rotting on the third floor of the Bobst Library. I say "rotting" with detest, as I am a closeted bibliophile and this book had only ever been checked out once; meaning that it has hardly been touched and that just boils my blood. Especially when the content of this book is so oddly fascinating. Essentially, this group of scientists suggest (based on research, blah, blah, blah; I skipped that part because I couldn't pronounce half the words in my head let alone with my tongue) that our perceptions of our gender--and of gender in general--are mostly derived from the hormones we are exposed to as fetuses... and those perceptions are then enforced, or in some cases contradicted, by society for the rest of our existence.

For me, this is a wild and radical notion--I had no idea this theory existed or could be backed up with cold hard meticulous modern science. I wonder why this wasn't publicized, on the news, something! It's gotten me to thinking that maybe the reason I'm very forward and blunt where most women would be "feminine" is because my mother did an intense amount of home improvement projects while pregnant, releasing more testosterone into the womb. Or, perhaps the reason my fiancee is so cuddly and girlish lies in fact that his mother practiced religious meditation while she was pregnant with him. Maybe these values of physical activity or religiosity were enhanced in us by the families we grew up in and that's why we view gender and gender roles the way we do--as something that's there, but fluid and indeterminate, something we can flip and flop as the situation moves us. I just think it's terribly interesting.

Thoughts?

Belated Responses: the rare, the valuable, and the unused

I apologize for these belated remarks in response to Christie's, and partially the Morgan, but I have been unable to log into my account for the last couple weeks! So now that I am able to log in again, I am delighted to share with you all the following thoughts:

Setting aside my delight at sustaining such a close proximity to the very important collection of documents and books that we were privileged to see a couple of Fridays ago, as well as my delight at seeing such an incredible cultural New York landmark for the first time, I left Christie’s feeling a mixed sense of pleasure at the treatment and honor given to these objects. In my mind, it is indisputable that they are important and need preserving. But what our heated discussion left me questioning was “why?” Not “why” as in “why is it important,” but “why” as in for what purpose, or to what ends, do we preserve things of such importance?

            Certainly I think I’m on the side of our argument that believes in the worth of an object not only for its artistic and intellectual merit but also for its historical, cultural, social-status significance. If I had enough disposable income, I can very much see myself paying millions of dollars for a particular edition of a book, a rare signature, or a particularly important series of handwritten documents from a favorite author, completely regardless of context (especially something like that incredible journal entry that we discovered in the Morgan Library & Museum, written by Tennessee Williams regarding his mishaps with a whore). However, what I cannot wrap my head around is what to do with said supposed object once it is in my possession!

In the actual library part of the Morgan, I was looking at the displayed Gutenberg Bible when an old man came up beside me and started ranting on the paper making process in an effort to convey the importance of proper paper preservation. His charming temper seemed to be absolutely flaring the more he spoke, as we stood there admiring such valuable literature, at the prospect that the Morgan would allow so much light on the pages. He practically started cursing as his adorable English accent berated their leaving it open for public observation for such a grotesque length of time. And impressionable as I am when faced with such a passionate and endearing foreign accent, I agreed with him. How could anyone not do anything and everything in their power to ensure as long a survival as possible for great and valuable works?

But last week, I realized that, in fact, my lines are much more fuzzy than that. There was immeasurable ecstasy in the moment my finger got to touch Charles Dickens’ signature…pristine ink, golden edged paper, crackling pages, old smell… a beyond thrilling sensation. Was it for its sake, or was it because touching this book with his signature was rare and normally would have been forbidden? I think both on some level. This really put into perspective for me the question between institutions owning these pieces and private collectors owning these pieces. As our venerable professor pointed out at some point, when a public institution possesses these artifacts, they are then available for us to see. But this unfortunately sacrifices the proximity you get to the artifacts. So, either a lot of people get to be far away from it but see it, or a few people get to be really close to it and do more than see it if they so choose. Now if I haven’t already admitted this to the world, I share Professor Smith-Howard’s secret desire to be a librarian (either in this life or the next) but for the first time in my life, I found myself rebelling inside and wanting to scream, “seeing it, knowing it exists- that is not enough!”  My fingers ached for more fodder for my adrenaline. Everything I saw- especially the playbill for The Christmas Carol which somewhere expressed “overwhelming public desire for Shakespeare” that was occurring during that time period- which so excited me that it is probably safer that I did not touch it. My whole life I have had a love affair with rare manuscripts as they stare up at me from behind their pristine glass cages, now suddenly I felt as though I could not settle for less than touching and experiencing all of these things viscerally.

And what’s more, suddenly I had found something better than either a library or a museum: Christie’s is free and it lets me play! Don’t misunderstand me, I worked once in the preservation department of a music library, so I completely understand the importance and meticulous process involved in preservation, care and repairs of valuable manuscripts and the like. On a very basic level, protection from snotty teenagers who would happily scribe profanity on the sanctified pages; and on a deeper, less-though-of level, even us idolizers/well-meaners could transfer dangerous oils or germs from our hands etc, on the delicate sheets of paper. I get it. However, is it worth not getting to hold, handle or utilize the piece the way you may want to, EVER? To tell you the truth, I was a little miffed at the Morgan Library librarian for not letting us touch the first folio we saw- I mean, she wasn’t even wearing gloves or doing anything too special to handle it.

From an exceptionally young age, I was allowed by my mother to use her valuable, fragile, antique tea cups whenever we were having tea (which was frequently). She raised me to believe that it was not worth having something in the cupboard just to gather dust; it is better for something to get broken having made wonderful memories with you, than never having been utilized at all. She never feared the teacups being broken; that kind of faith in my ability to handle them, as well as that kind of anti-materialism made a lasting impression on me. So now I am forced to wonder the same things about these million dollar books: if we’re not preserving and selling them to use them, what are we doing with them? Is it enough to simply look at them; is it worth the sacrifice of not ever actually experiencing them in the way they were made to be experienced?

"Macbeth" On Broadway

Hi everybody!

Re. Samantha's in-class announcement about how to see "Macbeth" for free by ushering, I thought I'd post some contact information for the theatre. Would anyone be interested in attending together and then discussing the show over dinner or something?

The Lyceum Theatre on Broadway
149 W 45th St
New York, NY 10036
(212) 239-6200

The Christies Conflict

Last week's inappropriately heated discussion in the middle of the Christies viewing room left me with lingering thoughts about the ethics involved while dealing with such obscenely priced collectibles, specifically the Folio that sold for 6.5 million dollars in October 2001.
At first, I was really shocked and even upset at hearing this news. 6.5 million dollars for a book? Yes, it is an original and yes it essentially serves as a piece of art and not as much as a piece of literature-- so you aren't just paying an absurdly large amount of money for words that you could buy for $12.50, you are buying something special, something irreplaceable, and something that is obviously not priceless. This is what I expressed last week and Bertrum and I essentially teamed up to go up against the Shakespeare disciples who seemed to empathize with the tremendous purchase.
Over the week, I brought the subject up to several of my friends, one time with a friend of mine and his father, whose girlfriend actually just got a masters from Christies in England and is now working in the building we just visited. It was during this conversation that I realized I was being judgmental in a situations where is was not really my place. Some people in this world have unnaturally large amounts of money in their bank accounts. Some people give a lot of it to people who have far less than them, while the majority buy sports cars and other luxuries because...they can.
Everyday I am disgusted at the socioeconomic situation in this country, more specifically this city, that allows for people who have 6.5 million dollars to spend on an original Shakespeare to live literally right next to, but completely alienated from a family that cannot pay their rent in one of the cheapest neighborhoods in this city. I could never imagine spending 6.5 million dollars on a single item, and I hope that this sentiment remains if I ever become extremely successful. However, I could obviously never tell other people how to spend money that they or their family did earn at some point in time and I cannot quite empathize with the desire to obtain one of Shakespeare's First Folio.

I can, however, begin to empathize with this: http://most-expensive.net/guitar-in-world

How much do you think that will be worth in 150 years?

On Christie's

I couldn't post my reaction to Christie's until now because I actually went to the Interiors Auction yesterday and bid on a few things. It was an experience. I'm now registered as a buyer at Christie's. I'm not sure what that makes me, but I suppose it's something.

My original intent was to go and bid on a pair of armchairs that were appraised at $200 a pop--which is cheaper than a similar, brand-spankin-new chair from Target, mind you. I was a little shell shocked when the bidding started at $800. I was shaking my head in disbelief when the chairs sold for $4,800. Over $6,000, with Christie's commission included. (lot 640) Now, THAT was silly. Five minutes previous, I'd seen a pair of table lamps go for a measly fifty bucks. What the hell, Christie's, what the hell?

If I had known that the object of my furniture fetish was going to go for so much, I might have actually challenged this old gentleman for a lovely butcher block worktable from the eighteenth century that would have looked great in my kitchen. Instead, I let him have it for $200 (lot 586). Such is life. Next time, next time....

But some good came out of my auctioneering extravaganza--I made friends with one of the receptionists! She informed me in whispers that there is a poorly attended, "rummage sale-esque" Interiors Auction (aka house cleaning) every August that features no reserves and over half the items go for fifty bucks or less. If any of you are in the market for some funky antiques or vintage furnishings, this is the mothership. It doesn't cost any money to register (you just need a photo ID and a check book) and sitting in the auction is also free. Any reason to use their restrooms again, right? :)

On Verdi's Otello at the Met

Renee Fleming.

Enough said.

But if I have to say more, I was utterly fascinated by the interpretation of Shakespeare's Othello into opera. The 4 act structure is particularly striking because it seems somehow, uneven, or without a central point. Though each plot point of the story is pretty decently hit, the pacing feels drastically different. I suppose this is because the plot points become simply an impetus to get to the arias and quartets. I think, to some extent, this idea can be found in the original play as well. Soliloquies and intimately passionate scenes often stand out more prominently in Shakespeare than the overall story in which they are involved. In opera, their vocal equivalents seem to even more fully comprise the piece. Particularly in Otello, the arais seem to expound upon a theme, idea, or characterization, rather than story or plot. For example, a little recitative between Cassio and Iago (plot) launches us into Iago's "Credo in un Dio crudel," (I believe in a cruel god) a moment which seems to wholly absorb the act which encases it.

The opera comes off as pointedly dependent upon its source play. It's as if we the audience know the characters and events so fully, that the opera seeks to take advantage of our knowledge, taking us through songs to real illumination of moments where Shakespeare is more subtle. Two such moments stand out in bold relief. One in Iago's "Credo in un Dio crudel" (stated above) in which the blatant demonic nature of Iago is revealed to the audience early on and to a drastic extent. Shakespeare's Iago of "I hate the Moore"-a motiveless villain aligned with hell, and yet ever subtle in his nature, as if constantly eluding our comprehension- is literally given voice with the rich, deep, soaring melody in which he announces proudly "I am evil because I am a man; and I feel the primeval slime in me... Death is Nothingness. Heaven is an old wives tale!" The second moment comes at the close of the opera, in Desdemona's "Willow Song" and "Ave Maria." Here, the heroine seems fully aware of her death at a time when Shakespeare's heroine seems unprepared. Othello's line "have you pray'd tonight, Desdemon?... I would not kill thy soul," is given a resounding answer in the opera. Her prayer comes after a bitterly sad, and surprisingly quaint song of self awareness, aligning herself with a poor maiden forsaken by her lover. These songs involve mournful repetitions and brief dying bursts into the soprano's lightest range. Their poignancy, in part, derives from what we as an audience know of Desdemona's fate. She is given the last word that we wish she had in Shakespeare's play, where her passing seems so abrupt- "put out the light." 

In both cases, the opera seems to grant us a kind of wish fulfillment while relying on the audience's knowledge of the text to support a dramatic moment. I was therefore surprised to read in my production notes that Italian audiences only became familiar with Shakespeare in the 19th century. (Verdi's Macbeth of 1847, it tells me, "predated the play's first Italian performance.") Reading on, I find that Verdi himself, however, was very familiar with Shakespeare, claiming "'I have had his works in my hands since my earliest youth. I have read and re-read him constantly.'" It seems, then, that it is perhaps the composer's wish fulfillment which finds realization in the opera- a wish for Iago to be a true demon unleashed from hell, and Desdemona an angel, allowed to say her final prayer and let the audience morn with her before she is gone. I count myself lucky that Verdi gave these wishes to us in more universal language than Shakespeare's English.

Also, Renee Fleming. I mean. really.

On Bryson

I love Bill Bryson but didn't know he had come out with a biography of Shakespeare. How deliciously fitting to walk into the uptown Shakespeare Book Sellers and see Bryson's book, Shakespeare: The World as Stage, on display, ready for impromptu purchasing.

This came at the end of the day of the Christie's visit, and appropriately the first page mentions an auction held by the "London firm of Christie and Manson" which put up for sale the effects of the second Duke of Buckingham and Chandos from his house in Stowe. It was "among the furnishings of the house," Bryson explains, that the "Chandos Portrait," believed to be possibly of Shakespeare, was found in 1848. It is one of the few possible (varied and unsatisfying) likenesses of Shakespeare that we have. And on that note begins my new favorite biography of the man. Bryson manages to create a biography that contextualizes the author, and includes notes about when discoveries about him have been made and by whom. I was struck by the plethora of simple facts that I had never come across. For example, a lot of attention and praise is given to Shakespeare as a prolific writer, a fact I took for granted, but Bryson points out that compared with other writers of his day, he was decidedly not.

Bryson manages to include details about Elizabethan society, even performance techniques and traditions, including the fact that sheep's or pig's organs "and a little sleight of hand made possible the lifting of hearts from bodies in murder scenes" (so it wasn't just stylized red cloth or corn syrup!) and the fact that admission money was "dropped into a box, which was taken to a special room for safe keeping- the box office." (word origin always fascinates...me, anyway.) But these details pepper the book, providing a constant stream of information both about and around Shakespeare, rather than comprising a separate chapter on, say, "stage conventions in Shakespeare's England." Bryson also spends a good deal of time on the First Folio (including a trip to the Folger in D.C) and details the process of its creation whereby one scholar "determined that no two volumes...[are] the same." 

The biography finishes with a vehement argument against anti-Stratfordians in which Byson states that "one must really salute the ingenuity of the anti-Stratfordian enthusiasts who, if they are right, have managed to uncover the greatest literary fraud in history without the benefit of anything that could reasonably be called evidence, four hundred years after it was perpetuated." (I feel compelled to say that nothing but my own, personal agreement with that statement made me repeat it here. Also, Bryson takes the anti-Stratfordian argument apart, by both presenting and refuting each of its proponents very deftly- but you should read the book if you want to see how he does so.) I particularly enjoyed the fact that of the anti-Stratfordians in the early twentieth century, some surnames included: Looney, Sillimen and Battey.

Other than the opinion that Shakespeare was Shakespeare, (an opinion you'd have to be of to pen a biography- lets hope) Bryson is refreshingly un-opinionated (or at least, without some hidden intention) when it comes to Shakespeare himself. He is not creating a character (Greenblatt, Burgess) or imposing a value system (Bloom, Auden) but rather presenting how much we do and do not know about Shakespeare, the time in which he lived and the times which have embraced him since.

Next, I'm moving onto his A Short History of Nearly Everything.

On Christie's

The first thought that struck me upon entering Christie's "Kenyon Starling Library of Charles Dickens collection" was that despite the collection's obviously precise and detailed presentation (from wall plaques to well placed lighting and a beautifully produced auction book) the collection itself was markedly...dull. As much as I love old books and letters (and I truly, truly do), I can't help but feel that these objects do not immediately scream "status" in the way that a Picasso or Tiffany lamp does. Seeing these bland brown and navy books lying in their taupe enclosures, I could only think of the ultimate presentation they would be given in their new homes. Would they be locked away in a climate-controlled safe? Or put in an equally bland and pointedly (even starkly) lit enclosure in some museum or stately home? The whole air surrounding Christie's is one that both caters to and represents "elitism." The effects could be directly felt in the Contemporary gallery where the somewhat pretentious pieces begged to be given equally pretentious homes. One is constantly aware that the people looking at these works (with an aim to buy) are doing so with an idea not just of love of something beautiful or historic, but of investment and display of wealth. A first edition of A Christmas Carol doesn't scream "wealth" across a room- if indeed it is visible at all. And displaying such "wealth" must be a difficult prospect.

I discussed my experience with a friend of mine who works in a gallery in the city and she seemed to prefer the idea of buying art over books- art is something readily legible and easy to appreciate. But her reaction to Christie's was not one that I expected. The idea of art being sold somewhere other than a gallery utterly disgusted her. She said it is very unwise to sell contemporary art through an auction house because often the auction houses don't take into account the status of the market. They don't take control over the number of pieces put up for sale- a fact that can directly affect the price they fetch. A gallery may hold onto work, displaying one or two items for sale at a time, calculating (or controlling?)when the market is ripe for display and sale. They can (try to) control or create the demand for the artist. Additionally, a gallery may court several museums or collections- pitting them agaisnt one another to create competition and guarantee that the work ends up where it will be displayed, maintained and available to the public. I hadn't thought while wondering through the Contemporary Art at Christie's that those artists may actually look "desperate" (her words) and that appearing at an auction house rather than a gallery may be somehow irresponsible, both in terms of the money the artist can make, and the collection their work becomes part of. The idea of commerce that imprisons everything at Christie's was furthter heightened by the remarks of my gallery-biased friend. It seems there is nothing that can't be given a price tag, but more than that, those price tags are being constantly manipulated, and people devote their lives to the best way to manipulate them.

In a nice little "full circle" moment, I visited the Anthropologie store at Rockefeller Center after leaving Christie's and found a brilliant piece of book-art. An enormous frame enclosed a giant cameo-esque portrait of a lady that seemed to be set on a patchwork background. Upon closer inspection, the patchwork revealed itself as book bindings flattened out and overlapping, and the portrait was comprised of lines of text instead of sketch marks or paint strokes. Though expensive (by retail standards) this piece of art seemed to appeal to the bibliophile in a much more pure and simple way then the first edition Dickens at Chrisite's. It was conventionally pretty and uncomplicated in its message. Its eventual owner won't buy it because of the artist's "name" ( I don't think the store even displayed it) or even the texts it incorperates. His or her primary intentions won't be preservation for posterity or display of wealth. Its owner will be a book lover, with a secure income and an aim to beautify his or her home in a manner befitting his or her taste. It's just odd to realize that the pieces on auction at Christie's may not eventually wind up in the hands of someone who loves them in the same way. 

Then again, the facts that books aren't "pretty" may mean that they are more assured of ending up with someone who truly appreciates them for what they are historically and what they hold in their pages than how they display "wealth." 

Oliver Twist = $229,000

April 2 (Bloomberg) -- A first edition of ``Oliver Twist,'' Charles Dickens's tale of a scrappy young orphan making his way among a band of thieves in 19th-century London, sold for $229,000 at Christie's International in New York today, a record for the British novelist.

First Edition Oliver Twist = $229,000
Oliver Twist on Amazon.com = $4.99

You can buy over 45,000 copies from Amazon.com for the price of one!

Christie's Education

Mamma Says Do Your Research

Christies - rare books and roaring debates

I've had a few days to marinate on our Christies visit. I was so excited to go mostly because I have seen Christies portrayed in so many movies. It's always viewed as this mythic place - filled with artifacts and treasures. It is that, of course, but it's also a place to separate 'the men from the boys'.

The people who go to Christies are people of status - as we've discussed. That lead to my asking the question "do you need an invitation to come to an auction?" and when the answer was that Christies' auctions were all open to the public, I was quite shocked. It seemed so counter intuitive to me. Isn't Christies where the intelligent and rich and esteemed people come to flex their muscles and satisfy their appetites for their preferred curiosities? Why would some 'normal' person come inside?

This point of view, I suppose, fuels the legend that is Christies. It feels so unattainable. But, it looked no different from any of the prestigious libraries and places we've visited thus far. And those places don't feel unattainable at all - they are places of education and as such give off an open feeling. Maybe that's what separates Christies - it's not an educational atmosphere as much as a financial one. A rich one.

All in all - I loved going to Christies because it gave me a chance to see a landmark in New York that I've long wanted to see. The rare book collection was great to see - that inscribed printing of A Christmas Carol was spectacular. But I really took in what everyone was saying about Christies in terms of the sheer amount of dollars that pass through it and the unethical aspects of it. I really had never thought about that previously. I just thought the whole thing was pretty kick ass. I now see all sides of the argument - and it's complicated. Really complicated.

Nerd Alert

Without betraying too much of my nerdiness, I thought I might point out a fun little detail from the John Adams miniseries now showing on HBO. From the book American Shakespearean Criticism, reprinted in our reader:

"A number of the leaders of the Revolution owned copies of Shakespeare. ... At least three signers of the Declaration of Independence, John Adams, Francis Hopkinson, and John Penn, owned copies." (Westfall 38)

A quick google search turned up John Adams' personal library catalogued online at johnadamslibrary.org, which is actually a pretty neat site. Sure enough, Adams owned two separate printings of Shakespeare's complete works, one from 1748 and the other printed in 1761, which contains "the author's life; a glossary; and copious indexes."

All of which leads one to believe that the people who worked on this HBO production, especially the set designers, did their homework (via David McCullough) when they chose to hang the framed Droeshout engraving of the bard from the frontispiece of the First Folio on a wall in the Adams home in Boston. 

It's hard to spot; I had to rewind to make sure I wasn't seeing things. But he was there! Hanging on the wall before someone slammed the door, walked out, or something similar. Now whether Adams actually owned a copy of the engraving is more of a stretch, but I was pleased by the inclusion of such a tiny detail, anyway.

The image in question:

 

This is Rafe Esquith

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TF3fn_Bm3I

Get this . . . in my research I found his email . . . I emailed him . . . and he called me back! I am going to have a phone interview with him next week!

I'm so moved by this guy, I think I might do my project on him instead.

Several Items

I thought I'd upload this article I read for an anthropology class last semester. It addresses the myth of the "universality" of Shakespeare, something that I certainly encountered in high school but was surprised to learn in some of our readings that said notion of thought has since been challenged and rather died out. Anyway, although the article itself is a bit dated (I think the author penned this in the 50's?) it is very interesting. As an English anthropologist studying the lives of the Bushmen of Africa, she attempts to explain the story of Hamlet to several elders and receives some very unexpected reactions. I've uploaded the article in .pdf format to Mediafire, if anyone's so inclined: http://www.mediafire.com/?wz1jf9bhdzj. Hopefully that works for you all.

Also, I thought I'd throw my two cents in regarding the little defamation scandal we experienced earlier in the week (which was quite amusing, actually). Here is a direct quote from the Shakespeare Fellowship website:

"The goals of the Fellowship include bringing the Shakespeare authorship debate to a world-wide audience via the Internet and stimulating a wide-ranging dialogue on the relevance of Shakespeare to the 21st century."

It is interesting then that apparently in order to take part in this "stimulating" discussion with members of the Fellowship, one must be a card-carrying member of the Oxfordian theory. Hmm!

The Morgan Library & Museaum

So, who else was floored by the photo exhibit at the end of the tour?! Elliott, I know you and I were.

I loved looking at the artifacts, the quarto and the folio with the pages misprinted, but I couldn't seem to get away from the photos at the end. I know I ranted at a few of you, but I'll do it again here because I'm just that passionate. Did any of you catch the portrait of Jorge Luis Borges? For those who don't know him, he's my blind Argentinean philosopher and was President of the National Libraries of Argentina for quite some time. He began to lose his sight in his 20's while studying in Europe and by the time he cam back and became involved politically, he was pretty much blind as a bat. Once the political climate settled down, he came to the forefront as an expert on Argentinean literature and poetry. I love his work and would recommend his poetry if you've got 5 minutes and want to read something breathtaking (my favorite might be "Poem Written In A Copy of Beowulf"). He would wait for students from the university serving detentions to wander by his office and snag them, forcing them to sit for hours and copy down the poetry he had written in his head. He once had some kind of organ-located-in-the-torso surgery with no drugs or anesthetic: he spent the 2 hour procedure lecturing the surgeons on the history of Argentinean literature. I just love this man.

He was kind of an odd duck. In a lecture called "Blindness" he said that what he missed most is the color red--the passion of it, the taste of it. He says blindness is not darkness but a sort of shifting gray pantomime, shadows of what really is. You can see it in his glazed, shifting eyes and drooping left eyelid, the way he leans his head on his cane as though waiting for an unfortunate student to dictate his verse to. You can almost see the cogs ticking behind his eyes....

Also, on an altogether unrelated note, Dali looked positively mad. Anyone else wild about this exhibit and/or tempted to go back on one of their free nights?

A quick little something...

I ditched the rock/popular music focus on my study, opting instead to look at Shakespeare on film and how it's been accepted by scholars and the American public. I did look on YouTube for some good Shakespearean videos - the user ShakespeareAndMore has some excellent choices: Olivier's final scene in King Lear is vital viewing - and, speaking of Olivier, bumped into this little vestige of my previous route of study. It's Peter Sellers, from the TV special The Music of Lennon & McCartney, way back in 1965.



It may not be relevant, but it’s at least amusing.

Apology

Editor of "The Shakespeare Fellowship" website has removed item from their website and apologized for inaccuracy.

ASH

"Shakespeare Fellowship" Website Posting about American Shakespeare course

Sage Readers:

Here is the posting from "The Shakespeare Fellowship":


Added 3/8/08

NYU/NYPL Shakespeare Course Requires Adherence to Stratford Party Line

It's official. To enroll in the NYU/Gallatin Interdisciplinary Seminar: "American Shakespeare" (Spring semester, 2008) students are required to be card carrying members of the Stratford cult.

The course description lists the two "requirements" for entrance as "1. A conviction that the plays of Shakespeare were written by Shakespeare" and "2. A belief that the works of Shakespeare constitute one of the cornerstones of world literature. "

The course, sponsored by will be held in the Humanities and Social Sciences library of the New York Public Library, is decribed as an opportunity to "discover the world of William Shakespeare at The New York Public Library. Ponder the textual problems of the quartos and folios. Explore various beautiful and unusual illustrated editions of Shakespeare' s plays and poems. Experience Shakespearean research for the 21st century through the Library's databases. "

What students obviously won't be doing in this course is asking any fundamental questions about Shakespeare, early modern literary studies, or the philosophy of inquiry in the human sciences. Those questions are forbidden: "fiat tenebras."

Thanks to Martin Hyatt for this news item.

Added 3/8/08

Shakespeare Diva defamed on the Web!

Sage Readers:

I am not precisely sure what a "card carrying Shakespearean" is, but I stand accused of the high crime of 'public Shakespeare indoctrination' ...

http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/news.html

Setting the Record Straight!

Dear NYU Shakespeareans and Sage Readers:

My recent posting informing you all of a then up-coming Shakespeare research session at NYPL, has prompted a flurry of reactions from readers beyonds the confines of our humble class. My email inbox has been flooded recently by a number of inquiring missives expressing concern over the issue of "free thought" in this course, as it relates to the question of Shakespeare's identity, personage and authorship.

The source of this consternation is the following passage that was lifted from the course description for the NYPL Shakespeare research session:

"Requirements: 1. A conviction that the plays of Shakespeare were written by Shakespeare. 2. A belief that the works of Shakespeare constitute one of the cornerstones of world literature."

I hope to here address, once and for all, that:

a.) These words are NOT mine, they were in fact lifted directly from the NYPL website/course catalog.
b.) Students in the NYU American Shakespeare Seminar are not required to hold any specific views of any kind, on 'Shakespeare' or any other subject
c.) The NYPL Shakespeare Research session was an optional course event, and is not in anyway connected to the NYU "American Shakespeare" seminar.
d.) The facilitator of the NYPL Shakespeare Research session is in no way connected to the NYU "American Shakespeare" Seminar, and his statements do not express the views of The Shakespeare Diva.

The Shakespeare Diva has always been a proponent of "free thought," and being a proud product of the X-Files generation advocates and promotes active questioning and healthy debate in all circumstances!

When time permits, after the ides of March, The Shakespeare Diva will muse upon the authorship question, or rather her favorite aspect of the authorship question, i.e., her near obsessive fascination with leading anti-Stratfordian, Delia Bacon.

Bardily yours,
Alycia Smith-Howard, "The Shakespeare Diva"

Historical Society and Morgan

When Professor Smit-Howard told us that a librarian is worth his/her weight in gold, I hear her but I didn't really take it into account. After visiting the Historical Society and the Morgan and hearing our tour guides' knowledge and expertise in all of the subjets we discussed, I must say - I was floored. The Historical Society gave me such insight into the past, and what it must have been like to see early productions as well as the great fire of the theater. I have a much greater appreciation than I did before the visit.

The Morgan was so huge, that I got extremely overwhelmed by the books - art - music - and photography collections. It seemed like an endless structure. What I liked most was the combination of old and new integrated together. To have the Morgan buildings that were actually residences... and to see the studies of those brilliant collectors was so... COOL! I also loved the class atrium. It was the perfect relatable structure for a New York City audience. It gave me an understanding of the magnitude of such a place.

When I asked my question about personal collections, I was surprised at the answer I got. I went on a trip to Las Vegas with my family some years ago and Steve Martin was showing his vast collection of contemporary art in the Bellagio, I believe. He had an introdcution recorded for the viewers that basically stated how selfish he felt keeping this priceless art all to himself. I have to agree with him. I feel that private collectors are a bit selfish in their pursuits to own original works of art that should be accessible to all people. What good is a Picasso painting when only a few people get to see it every day? I suppose it is correct that those who are private collectors DO take care of their collectables, but no one could possibly have greater expertise than historians and preservation experts. It just seems wrong to me. Oh well... to each his own, I suppose.

All in all - both visits were truly fascinating.

Broadway . . . Here He Comes!

"The acclaimed production of Macbeth — which casts stage and screen star Patrick Stewart in the title role — is heading to Broadway."

Full article: http://www.playbill.com/news/article/115402.html

NY Historical Society of Worthy Individuals

From the beginning of this class, I have to say that your (Professor Howard) obsession and near- idolization of librarians has made a strange impression on me. Mainly, because I never really realized the work that went into being a librarian, beyond knowing which aisle to go to for comedy and which for non-fiction, and therefore never gave them the respect they deserved (in my mind) . From the second you said you had a degree in "Library Sciences" I realized there was something I was missing. Now, after hearing the archival work and labor that goes into the life of a librarian, specifically someone who works at an institution as concerned with preserving the present and past as much as the New York Historical Society, I feel guilty for the lack of credit I have given them. Recently, as I go through my daily life and am constantly buying and throwing things away, I keep finding myself wondering which of these everyday items would be useful to save, maybe even preserve? What things that we use and take for granted will be able to give future generations insight into the lives of people in 2008. It's a really interesting and non-American (where everything is always concerned with the next thing to come) mindset to have, and I feel as though it would drive me insane to have to seriously consider these things for a profession.

The thing that really stood out to me about our visit to the NY Historical Society was the obsession with the wealthy citizens over the normal ones. It seemed as though it was far more important for historians of the time to record and report on the elite of society rather than the impoverished or even middle class. The two most obnoxious books that I can recall were the "Who's Who in America," essentially a list of people of some sort of stature in society in the early to mid-1900s, and the class favorite list of Wealth in New York, which actually listed off the net-worths of the richest people of the time. I was disgusted and fascinated by these collections in the best possible way.

OH MY GOD! KEVIN SPACEY!!!!!

First off, I would like to apologize for my lack of posting on this fabulous little online get together. It was due to technical difficulties and I’m excited to finally be participating. Let me begin with my reaction to ‘Looking For Richard’. My first reaction was surprise at the fact that I had never even heard of a movie with such a star-packed cast. The purpose, made abundantly clear from the start of the movie, is for this gang of Shakespeare bullies to get everyone to really see what the big deal is about this guy Shakespeare. Yes—everybody knows the “To be or not to be’s” or the fact that 10 Things I Hate About You was modeled after Taming of a Shrew, but this is not enough for Pacino and his boys (and girl). They need to bring Shakespeare to the streets and get people excited about William Shakespeare for the right reasons and not just because it’s hip or considered to be something that should be common knowledge.

 

            Though people have tried in the past to make Shakespeare more accessible to the general public (i.e. through movies like 10 Things I Hate about You and the 90s remake of Romeo and Juliet), the unique aspect of Pacino’s mission seemed to lie in the fact that he was primarily concerned with the words of Wiliam Shakespeare and not his main idea. He wants people to see the beauty in these words that he, his actor friends, English teachers around the world, and general Shakespeare enthusiasts everywhere see; the elegance and magnificence of language that often gets thrown to the curb by our blog-obsessed generation. This was intriguing to me as I was really curious to see how he would approach it. Yes—the language and emotion in his words are extremely powerful, but I believe it’s more of something that one must develop their own interest in and pursue, more so than something that can be shoved in someone’s face. So intrigued I was and on I watched, and honestly, I was kind of disappointed.

 

            Yes- bringing Shakespeare to the people! What could be better? Taking it down from his pedestal of eloquence and intimidation and served in a harmless McDonalds bag that people have been eating from since their childhood, right? Not quite. On this point, I agree and disagree with Sara’s feelings toward the movie. While watching it, all I was thinking about was how much I like Kevin Spacey, and I was really enjoying it. I think he’s fantastic and seeing him in the cast really did draw me in. Until I realized what was going on. Yes, the only way in which he really makes the play accessible to American audiences is by casting famous American actors. Now, realizing what was happening, I felt betrayed by the movie. I do disagree with Sara, however, when she says that he is underestimating Americans and not giving us enough credit. I will admit that when I signed up for this class I thought it was a class studying Shakespeare and his works and as the class has progressed I have felt more and more like I know nothing about Shakespeare and everyone else came in with an extensive knowledge of his life and works. I feel unprepared to say the least. So, obviously, it is possible that he was not giving us enough credit as Americans, but from my perspective it seems as though we really do have a very superficial understanding of Shakespeare’s works. I have studied a few of his plays and put on an 8^th grade production of Romeo and Juliet, but I would definitely classify myself as having a “pop” impression of Shakespeare. Therefore, I think, for myself, I would classify Pacino’s mission as failed. I appreciate his effort, but all he really did was show us his passion for Bill and essentially say, “Get it now?” And no, Mr. Pacino, I’m afraid I don’t.

Much Ado About Nothing - Gene Frankel Theatre, March 2008

Dear Shakespeare Scholars:

Just spotted a notice for this production of Much Ado at the Gene Frankel Theatre. I'd like for us to see this.
I think it will offer us a nice counterbalance to our visit to BAM for Macbeth. I think it will also give us an example for our further exploration of Sarah and Bahar's excellent points about 'mediation' and adaptation.

Best,
ASH

http://www.wideeyedproductions.com/muchado.html

Rafe Esquith Changes Lives With Shakespeare

My quick response to Looking for Richard turns into a full-blown essay.

Like Shakespeare himself, I learned of the video Looking for Richard before I saw it - much in the same way so many of us know of Shakespeare before I read or watched anything of his. we are told that the work is good until we want to like it, decide to see it for ourselves, and find whether or not we are satisfied. The difference is that at this point, Shakespeare has at least lived up to my expectations.

I thought the acting was top-notch and would have loved to have seen a full-length adaptation of Richard III. In fact, a proper adaptation of the play alone would have sufficed to accomplish Pacino's mission of accessibility - to make it accessible through the acting and directing, and otherwise let the play speak for itself. Of course, the insight of the British and some American actors was extremely good; they know their stuff well. I think this Richard III travelogue would have been outstanding if our tour guide had been Gielgud or Branagh or Redgrave (their being British would have downplayed the "American" aspect of the study, but would have enhanced the "Shakespeare" aspect).

Unfortunately, with all due respect to Al Pacino - I still consider him a skilled actor - he leads us with a ninth- or tenth-grade understanding of Shakespeare. It would be wronge to accuse Pacino of talking down to his viewers; this can't be helped if he himself needs to be talked down to. My qualms that Pacino does not do Shakespeare full justice are certainly not helped in the scene where, in trying to make the play accessible, he decides to change the line in the opening soliloquy from "G of Edward's heirs" to "C of Edward's heirs." This is no mere superficial bastardization; Shakespeare chose the letter G for a reason - a reason that comes about explicitly and almost immediately afterwards with Clarence's "Because my name is George....[King Edward] from the cross-row plucks the letter G,/And says a wizard told him that by G/His issue disinherited should be;/And for my name of George begins with G,/It follows in his thought that I am he." Even changing the aforementioned line to "George of Edward's heirs" would have clarified the line in and of itself, while still maintaining the connection to Clarence's spiel.

This film is, of course, not entirely without merit. While I find myself somewhat aligning with Sara on my verdict on this, I agree with Bahar's comparison to the film to the NEA video. Looking for Richard is an introduction to Shakespeare, rather than an intense study of Shakespeare. Many audiences - i.e. the high school students and "common folk" Pacino addresses throughout the film - demand a simple spoonfeeding like this, rather than, for instance, a nutcracker and snow crab legs. I would probably be praising Looking for Richard had I been viewing it in the eighth or ninth grade, when to hear something like an explanation of iambic pentameter would have been useful to me. In this context, it is a much better idea to introduce Shakespeare through something like Richard III, rather than a "greatest hit" like Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet.

Apropos to this class: the film even serves a great purpose to the whole intellectual, college-educated, Shakespeare-scholar crowd many of us fall into. It is more of a record of the first, rather than the second, word in the phrase American Shakespeare. Whether Pacino ever knew it or not, his film serves as a document on how, in America, Shakespeare is deified, with little or no understanding of his works, to those who do not understand him, or could care less about him. It is a sketch on the almost inevitable and sometimes necessary condescension and hackneyed explanation involved with the teaching of Shakespeare. I couldn't help thinking of an old piece from The Onion that illustrates excactly this point, albeit in a far more intentional, exaggerated manner:

"Shakespeare Was, Like, The Ultimate Rapper." - from The Onion, August 24, 2005.


Trieste 1910
Brooklyn 2008

Give us some slack!

Sara, you said: "As far as making it more accessible to American audiences, I think he is insulting American culture by claiming we can't access it without his help."

You also have to realize that not everyone is as educated and well-versed in Shakespeare as you guys. I would like to consider myself an educated individual, but I have very little understanding or appreciation of Shakespeare. I have no where NEAR the understanding or appreciation that you guys have. That's why I'm taking this course.

Someone like me, who is obsessed with mainstream actors, can easier connect with a movie like this.

There is an audience for every kind of "mediator". Professor - would you consider this movie successful?

(P.S. No hard feelings Sara - just playing devil's advocate)

What about the video we viewed in class?

My question to Samantha's blog is . . .

Then how do you feel about the video we viewed from the NEA ???

I'm surprised to hear positive feedback from Looking for Richard. I was rolling my eyes throughout most of the movie. Towards the beginning, Pacino says that his mission is to "translate our passion and what we've learned to portray how we think and feel today." Why is this unique to Pacino? Don't we still perform Shakespeare today because the plays are passionate and relevant to what we think and feel today? Granted, there are antiquated, dispassionate productions done with overt pretense, but who is Pacino to 'save' us from these productions? After he makes this claim about making it "relevant today," there seems very little in the rest of the movie to accomplish this goal. His production is no more modern and interesting than the many BBC produced classical Shakespearean productions. As far as making it more accessible to American audiences, I think he is insulting American culture by claiming we can't access it without his help. It's even more insulting that, as far as I could tell, the only thing he did to make it more accessible to the American public was cast American actors-himself [of course], Kevin Spacy, Winona Ryder- bankable stars that make a film accessible to the public, not necessarily Shakespeare. Many of these performances (especially Ryder's) had be convinced that his counterargument was correct: American actors can't handle Shakespeare.

The most illuminating parts of the film, I felt, were the interviews with the English actors who are Shakespeare veterans. Vanessa Redgrave in particular supplied a lot of insight. But Pacino is placing these actors on a pedastal. I would have been interested to hear Pacino interview American actors who frequent Shakespeare and how they managed to bridge the gap between the American culture and this allegedly British tradition. Instead, Pacino spent most of his time interviewing people on the street who have nothing illuminating to say; most of them just seem excited to be talking to Al Pacino.

By the end of the film, I had written in my notes "WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS MOVIE?" It was poorly planned with no conclusion. Pacino did not make Richard III accessible, but he hurt his cause by speaking for American actors and producing this mess of a film. The film seemed nothing but self-indulgence from an actor who can afford to be self-indulgent. The documentary side of the film's disarray suggested to me that halfway through filming, Pacino realized he had no relevant footage and just threw together the nonsensical, pretentious arguments he did have in a pathetic attempt at a narrative. At one point, Pacino is trying to explain one of Shakespeare's lines and then dismisses it by saying "it's very confusing. I don't even know why I'm bothering." Neither do I.

The finding of articles... a TOUGH prospect

I never thought using a database would end up being so difficult! When we went over it in class, I was so excited to actually show off my SKILLZ in finding the best articles. Well... when we were asked to find a review for Pacino's "Looking for Richard," I had to think long and hard about what to pick... and then I found it!! Anyone who wishes to see it, go to town.

Art & Performance Notes
Shakespeare to the People
Looking for Richard
Al Pacino
Review author[s]: Emily C. Bartels
Performing Arts Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1. (Jan., 1997), pp. 58-60.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0735-8393%28199701%2919%3A1%3C58%3ASTTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L
NOTE: This article contains high-quality images.

THEN - the hard part happened. I had to get the article about new methods of teaching Shakespeare in America. I hope I'm not the only one who found this difficult... I tried almost every search keyword I could think of, and still most of the articles were useless to me. Then I found "Determined to prove a villain": Criticism, Pedagogy, and Richard the III by Martine van Elk. The idea is to overlap textual classroom analysis with performance. This isn't a new idea, of course, but the approach has an edge to it. Also, if you'd like to read it,


Title:
"Determined to prove a villain": Criticism, Pedagogy, and "Richard III"
Personal Author:
Van Elk, Martine
Journal Name:
College Literature
Source:
College Literature v. 34 no. 4 (Fall 2007) p. 1-21
Publication Year:
2007
Abstract:
This essay offers suggestions for teaching William Shakespeare's Richard III, using a pedagogy that combines a historically aware, text-based exploration of the play's treatment of subjectivity with a performance-oriented approach. Concentrating especially on the play's famous opening speech, I explain how students might be encouraged to engage productively with the text's intermingling of competing, overlapping, and mutually enhancing models of identity. The play's representations of identity derive from the early modem period's secular humanism and metaphysical views of selfhood, but also present us with less clear-cut reflections on psychology and theatricality. The essay ends with an analysis of three modem film versions of the speech, showing how these can be used to help students learn to recognize the ways in which our own perspectives on identity are themselves the product of a long, complex, and often contradictory historical development. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
Subject(s):
Identity (Psychology) in literature; Villains in literature; Speeches, addresses, etc. in literature; English literature/Early modern (1500-1700)/Study and teaching; Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616/Works/Richard III
Peer Reviewed Journal:
Physical Description:
Bibliography
ISSN:
0093-3139
Language of Document:
English
Works:
Richard III [Drama]: Shakespeare, William
Document Type:
Feature Article
Update Code:
20071106
Database:
Humanities; Education
Accession Number:
200728803831005
Persistent URL:
Click to copy the HTML full text article linkClick to copy the PDF full text article link

I think the difficulty of this assignment was what I found most fascinating about it. There were so many options and so many errors I could make. I found myself wandering around the databases. I wasn't able to focus my energy and go overwhelemd. It seemed like such a juvenile problem, and I really felt very stupid. I've learned, though, that the database can't do everything for me. I have to help it along a bit. It will just give me everything I ask for, and that's why I have to be careful about the questions I ask.

Yes, Bahar is correct the reviews from Fedderson, Richardson and Bartels do point out that when I walked out from Bobst after viewing "Looking for Richard," I did feel that Pacino was a successful mediator between the text and the audience.  Pacino makes Shakespeare ours, it is American, it is something that we can gasp onto, hold onto.  Richard III is something that we can now see as being related to American actors, and the American streets, the American language and maybe even American history.  But when the issue of whether Pacino is a great mediator or not is put aside, I have to admit that I still have that weird feeling in the pit of my stomach after this weeks reading just as I did after the reviews and after the screening.  Because "In this cautionary tale about coming to America, Pacino not only hijacks the bard, but then he also audaciously offers him for sale back to his original owners," and I do not know that I am okay with that (Fedderson 2).

If '... the holy grail was lost and found and renewed, recovered in effect, by the modern hero, Al Pacino," is that okay?  Is that the right thing?  Was Shakespeare REALLY lost ... was it our place as an American to find him and be the modern day hero in relation to it?  "Pacino, the dramatized director-as-character within the film's fictional space, offers himself as the new keeper of the text, the man who can make Shakespeare accessible once again to Everyman" (Fedderson 3).  I guess I am just left asking why?  Why did he need to do that?  Why do we as Americans, to listen to the documentary, feel that we understand more, possess more and can then say that "Pacino sets aside a weighty old, leather-bound edition of the Complete Works for a more malleable and contemporary Folger Library paperback version," and say with certainty that's a good thing?

"Pacino himself argues that Richard is just like the American-style gangsters with whom he made his reputation" (Fedderson 5).  Why do Americans feel that we need to make it ours?  Why not just be satisfied we can connect to it, like Folger Library, like the kids who in connecting to it, make or have a better life?  Why is it ours to save, to change, to want to rewrite language to or to make universal?  Be creative, do what you want with it, be artistic, but ... is "looking for Richard" just artistic or is it something else?  Why do I feel like I need to preach to the choir about asking America's relationship to Shakespeare?  Why could I sit there and watch the movie and be entertained and smile and then read Fedderson, Richardson and Bartels' review and become so hot headed and frustrated?  Has this become our relationship to Shakespeare, we NEED to connect to it, feel that it is ours, sell it back to the people who kind of gave it to us in the first place?  Or maybe this was just, is just, my relationship with Shakespeare ... maybe this is what my relationship to Shakespeare has become, just a bunch of questions for the moment.

Sorry if I am rambling or ranting,

Samantha

I Am The Virgin Shakespearian

I

NYPL Shakespeare Research Session: From Stratford-upon-Avon to NYPL

The following is a notice for an upcoming Shakespeare Research Session given by The New York Public Library.
Here are the details -- taken directly from the NYPL website: www.nypl.org

"Shakespeare: From Stratford-upon-Avon to the New York Public Library"

02/21/08 THU 2:15 PM 3:15 PM Classroom B
Humanities and Social Sciences Library
5th Avenue and 42nd Street
New York, NY 10018-2788

Description: Discover the world of William Shakespeare at The New York Public Library. Ponder the textual problems of the quartos and folios. Explore various beautiful and unusual illustrated editions of Shakespeare’s plays and poems. Experience Shakespearean research for the 21st century through the Library’s databases. Requirements: 1. A conviction that the plays of Shakespeare were written by Shakespeare. 2. A belief that the works of Shakespeare constitute one of the cornerstones of world literature.

Prerequisites: Participation in all classes assumes a basic level of computer skill and experience.

Subject Area: General Humanities Research Skills

Registration Information:

Classes are held in The Celeste Bartos Education Center, located in the new South Court building. Enter South Court from Astor Hall on the first floor of the Humanities and Social Sciences Library.

All classes are free. Classes are limited in size.

No reservations are necessary. Seats are available on a first-come, first-served basis. Classrooms will be opened 15 minutes prior to class starting.

Participation in all classes assumes a basic level of computer skill and experience. For help in learning how to use computers, visit our Branch Libraries.

It may be odd- but it is also common

In response to "an odd finding": I can't really speak for other countries, but I know that here in America you can find no end of both script and story interpretations of Shakespeare's works like this one you've displayed. Such an enormous precedent, I think, argues both for and against the need for this particular edition. My reaction to it, however, is much more mixed than yours is. I have to say that I personally have a wealth of "children's interpretations" of most of Shakespeare's plays- and they are quite exquisite. Skillfully broken down into the most basic plot and supplemented with funny or stunning illustrations, some of these shortened versions of his works really impress me. It seems to me that it is unfair to be overly critical of any attempts to make Shakespeare more accessible to the general American public. I am an obsessive text nerd- someone who lives by the first folio, and  worships the words (probably to a fault), so I completely understand the desire to approach Shakespeare with a belief in the sacred, untouchable nature of his writing. However, as a Shakespeare supporter, how can I not believe in something that can assist people's understanding of his plays? Were it not for these "Shakespeare for Dummies" versions, I may never have known Shakespeare at all because it was reading these versions as a child that gave me the basis for the love and knowledge of the "original" versions that I possess today. And what's more, the ongoing debate of authorship along with his universalized adoration these days, argues to me that we have every right to reduce, rewrite and recreate Shakespeare's plays according to our over-changing modern world. If books like these are the best or only- or even just one- way to reach a larger audience, then I have to consider supporting it! The trouble comes in when you create something like this as a supplement or introduction, but it becomes used as a substitute (i.e. CliffsNotes and SparkNotes, which are so often used to get out of school reading assignments). But I truly believe that the risk of that is worth the pay-off of getting even one more person to overcome intimidation or boredom and begin to love and know Shakespeare the way all of us do.

An odd finding...

So, this doesn't really have to do with anything said in class thus far, but it certainly has to do with the interpretation of Shakespeare. A good friend of mine gave me a book last night that he said reminded him of me. The book was a collection of very short, narrative summaries/outlines of most of Shakespeare's dramatic works. None of them are more than 5/6 pages long.

I didn't really know what to make of this...I was obviously grateful that a friend went out of his way for me, but at the same time I found it a bit insulting that this author (Marchette Chute- I looked it up, an American author) thought that it was A) appropriate B) necessary and C) possible to sum up the craft of what has come to be the institution of Shakespeare in these little cliffnote style featurettes....it was just very bizarre. And I thought I would share in case anybody has any comments or insights.

Emily

Welcome, 2008 American Shakespeare Scholars!

Welcome, 2008 American Shakespeare Scholars!

Please use this site as a forum for continued discussion and reflection.
In addition to your class reflection papers, please also post here your thoughts, comments and observations of other instances and occurrences of "Shakespeare in America".

Best regards,
A.S.H. - The Shakespeare Diva