The Bard of Avon

[WiseWizard]

So here it is. A thread dedicated entirely to the works of William Shakespeare. I allow anything to be discussed here, as long as it has something to do with Shakespeare (ie. not just his plays but also theories on who he was, recent adaptations you've seen, how much he's better than Poe ;) , and etc.) I'm probably making a mistake in leaving it so open, but so be it. Let the glorification of the Bard begin! :D *trumpets sound, fanfare begins*

[azalea]

I once heard a theory that Shakespeare wrote part of the Bible.

[Galenavar]

I once heard a theory that Shakespeare wrote part of the Bible.

Really? I hadn't heard that. That is really cool. I once went to Stratford-upon-Avon. It is a really nice place. I love Shakespeare, but unfortunately, I don't get too many chances to read his works. :(
Ah, well. I'm taking a course this upcoming school year on British Literature, so I'm sure I'll be reading a lot more of him. :)

[azalea]

The theory has to do with in Psalms, I think, there is a psalm where the ?nth word form the beginning is shake, and the exact same number of words when counting from the end is "speare", spelled that way I believe, and the number is some number relevant to Shakespeare himself, such as birthdate or something. It was said that it would have been in his nature to hide such a "clue" in his work. But of course it all seems pretty far fetched.
I'd love to visit Stratford-upon-Avon sometime, whenever I get back to GB.

[sun-star]

My school has a trip to Stratford-upon-Avon in a year or so... I'm counting down the days already. :D

Does anyone have any theories on who 'really' wrote the works of Shakespeare? I have no idea, but I would like to think it was Shakespeare as we've come to know about him.

[WiseWizard]

Shakespeare writing part of the Bible? Well, farfetched as it is, I'm willing to believe Shakespeare heard God calling and decided to do some religious work!
I once entered a "Shakespeare Competition" where 20 students from 20 different schools performed a sonnet and a one minute monologue. If you won, the prize was $400 and a trip to England for summer acting classes :eek: . Unfortunately, my rival school ended up winning, and I walked home with a nice certificate and a pissed off attitude :( .....but that's another story.
The thing that kills me is that I didn't get to go to England (where I most definately would've gone to Stratford). Our school never provides any opportunity for students to go anywhere outside of the U.S., meaning I'm stuck until the Shakespeare Competition comes around once again. :mad:

[WiseWizard]

Well, there are many theories out there of who actually wrote the plays, for Shakespeare never used the same signature twice. I don't quite know who people suspect now, for all of the theories I've heard have been shot down. You could probably look on the internet for the newest theories.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Has anyone seen the play "The Beard of Avon?"
I haven't, but I think it was about theories on Shakespeare and who wrote those plays, etc.

Also, has anyone read the Sandman series by Neil Gaiman? In the tenth and final book, there is a theory of sorts...:D And Will Shakespeare makes an appearance in another of the Sandman books; it's about A Midsummer Night's Dream. :)

[azalea]

I have a book of A Midsummer Night's Dream -- it is a picture book and the story has been put into prose. It's basically for children to introduce them to Shakespeare, but the pictures are the reason I bought the book. They are wonderful.

[Khamûl]

There's an article in this month's Biography magazine that speculates on who really wrote Shakespeare. There are theories ranging from some Earl of Oxford to Marlowe. I can't put my finger on my mom's copy of it right now, but when I find it, I'll give you a basic summary of the article.

[WiseWizard]

Originally posted by azalea
I have a book of A Midsummer Night's Dream -- it is a picture book and the story has been put into prose. It's basically for children to introduce them to Shakespeare, but the pictures are the reason I bought the book. They are wonderful.
Would it happen to be part of a series called "Tales From Shakespeare" by Charles Lamb?

[azalea]

No, it's retold by Bruce Coville, pictures by Dennis Nolan. The publisher is Dial Books.

[WiseWizard]

Darn. I have a book called "Tales From Shakespeare" by Charles Lamb. It takes some of the more famous plays and does shame to them by making them so simple that any idiot could understand it. However, they do have some cool pictures. :)
I just remembered seeing a copy of Macbeth which disturbed me. It had the normal lines on one page, and then a "translation" of sorts on the page next to it! Oh great! Give people a chance to completely overlook the Bard's works and just "get the gist" of it! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Now that I have expressed my opinion....what do you all think of this......"translation" thing?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

'Translations?' Arr! Similiar opinion...what's the point of reading it if you don't read the actual play? I had a copy of Macbeth (chosen by the school, not me!) with that...or something like that, it had notes that on one page that translated some of the more archaic, less known words. Still annoying! Argh. That was the 'New Folger Library' if you know that one.

[azalea]

I would like for people to just read them as they are, but you must admit a lot of the language is too archaic for the average modern reader, so I don't object to
1.) using footnotes to give the definition of archaic terms, thus enabling the reader to grasp what is being said (otherwise they cannot understand the story, so how could they enjoy it?)
2.)putting the plays into prose form as a retelling of the classic stories. Shakespeare's works are such a part of the history western culture that I don't think doing a retelling does it an injustice, as long as it is done well, as in the case of my book, being done to intro very young readers to the story of A Midsummer Night's Dream.
But just having a translation like that dumbs it down, and doing a poor retelling does injustice to the story.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

I often find if there's an archaic word, I can figure it out from the context, or at least still understand the idea of the sentence. The notes in that copy of Macbeth I have seem really dumbed-down to me. Most of what they 'translate' are pretty easy to figure out.

[WiseWizard]

I believe that the only words translated should be the ones that:
a) People these days simply wouldn't understand (even in context) or
b) Words which had a different meaning in Shakespeare's time than they do today. For example, "an" meant "if" in his time.
Other than that, let the reader figure it out.

[Carafin]

I think I may disagree about some of what you say about *translations* for my (gr 9) english I read Julius Ceaser and I would have become extremly frustrated if I hadn't had so many helps and footnotes. Likewise I wouldn't read any Shakespeare if it hadn't been introduced to me in *very* simple form (Tales from Shakespeare by Charles and Mary Lamb) and even now it is still handy to be able to read a summary of the play. Yes everyone should read original stuff but introduce it to them slowly(baby steps)

*please no one hit me*

[WiseWizard]

Don't worry Carafin, no one's going to hit you. *trying to control rage* On this thread we respect all opinions, *fighting losing battle with self* even those that might be *eye begins twitching* contrary to what most people think.......*punches self to regain control* Okay, I'm better now.
BUT A SUMMARY?!?!? *punches self again* Really, i'm okay now. I'm fine. I can deal with that.
Well, now that the opposing side of the issue has finally appeared, who wants to respond? I need to control the voices right now. *wanders off, mumbling incoherently*

On another note, THIS IS MY 100th POST!!!!!!!! *trumpets sound, cheers are heard from audience, then everyone runs away in fear as he begins foaming at mouth*:D :D :D

[Willow Oran]

To tell the truth I can't stand reading shakespearian plays. I've tried and it just doesn't work for me. I find that I get a far better understanding and apreciation of the story from performing the plays rather than reading them. Something about having to memorize the lines and then having your director pound the meanings into your brain by walking you through the translation process makes it a far more entertaining story than reading off the page does. Of course, the last time I tried reading through a full version of a shakesperian play was when I was reading Macbeth while listening to the soundtrack of My Fair Lady which probably isn't the best thing to listen to when you're trying to read a tragedy written in archaic english.

[Menelvagor]

I took a tour of a recreation Black Friar's Theatre in Virginia, and they used what they called paraphrasing, lyrically rewriting the words so that their accessable to the general public but still verbose and true to what Sharkespeare wanted it to sound like.

[Carafin]

my apologies WW (perhaps some anger management courses:) )
I think I may have spoken to hastily and not clearly enough after I posted that I went and got out my copies of Shakespears plays and read some and I still found the footnotes helpful(though some were unnecessary)but I take back what I said about summaries, it is compromising his work:o. However there should always be illustrated versions and suchlike for young children.

Willow you should try just reading it out loud in your room.I find it helps (just make sure there is no-one around :) )

btw congrats on your 100th post :) me too!!

[Starr Polish]

I love Shakespeare, but I have absolutely nothing against footnotes. Most of the reading is extremely archaic, and the intelligence of American adolescents is on a steady decline.

Romeo and Juliet is a ninth grade level play, and still only about 1/3 of my class understood what was going on, even with footnotes. I mean, come on, half of my class didn't even know that wherefore meant "why", and not "where are".

[Tanoliel]

Starr, many of the ninth grade students are just plain STUPID when it comes to literature. Which I bemoan greatly, of course...and then I want to go hit them over the head!
*breathe*
This is NOT the Venting Thread. Control yourself, Tano. :)

Willow--Macbeth and My Fair Lady? I suppose that could me Lady M...:) eating Fritos....*grin*

As for the translating thing--well-done retellings for childrens books is fine by me, as most young children don't have the patience to sit through "real" Bill (Shakespeare). However, simply reading "translations" to understand the play...well...at the moment I can't think of an instance where I can accept the validity of that.
Because you want to know what happens? Read the play!
Because you want to say you read it? Read the play!
Because you want to appear cultured and "Shakespearian"? Read the PLAY! (and so on...)
Footnotes are a nice thing. However, if you're performing a play, you don't need footnotes if you have a dramaturg. *beams proudly* (I am currently fulfilling the role of dramaturg for a youth production of Twelfth Night...WiseWizard is the assistant director). You can ask them about any words you don't understand, though I would agree with EG that lots of them you can understand in context. However, if you're performing, there is no excuse for not knowing exactly what your lines mean. Dramaturg. Director. Refrence section in the local library. And if it's ambiguous, get as close as you can, try and figure it out, and then make it up. :)

Okay. I'm done rambling on that subject for now...;)

-tano

[WiseWizard]

Go Tano.
The thing which really got me angry about R&J in ninth grade was that our class had to listen to it on tape. Same with Macbeth in 10th! What's the point unless there's someone in the class who can't read? Then again, there are those people who read Shakespeare like it wasn't even English they were reading. They look at 'whence' and 'whetstone' and 'wherefore' (hm....those all start with 'whe'....) and nearly have a heart attack.
So, I'd say that footnotes are a good thing even if they're mostly being wasted by people who will never want to hear the name of Shakespeare again.

[osszie]

I was disapointed:confused:

the middle english was ok......but what disapointed me was that I knew most of the stories already:(

Shakespear, great as he was, has influeced so much work that upon reading him I had come upon the tales so many times in the past:confused: albeit unwittingly

[WiseWizard]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on. Are you saying that you were disappointed with the Bard? You're free to have your own opinions, but watch that fellow mooters suddenly turn on you.
Sure there are a few of Shakespeare's plays that have been told over and over in different ways, but that doesn't mean that everything he did was copied.
So exactly what plays did you read and/or see that bring you to this false conclusion?

[osszie]

hmm.......was I disapointed with shakespears work?

Of course not........there is very little written at that time to compare his work against.

I mostly read the plays from which he drew inspiration from myth and legend.......Midsummer Nights dream.......The Tempest. And of course the obligitory Hamlet, R&J, Macbeth etc.

My point was that although great works these are.........the tales are soo accessable that reading the original work is a bit of a let down as I knew each twist and turn before I read the actual words:mad:

hmm maybe I will return to read Shakespears other works

Any suggestions to some of the less copied works?

[Tanoliel]

Osszie: There are very few original plots around anymore. The point is either fantastic twists and turns in the plot, or stupendous prose and verse. I'd say Shakespeare, though slightly deficient on the former, had the latter down to an art. Most of the joy of reading Shakespeare for me is not the "story," as I know most of it already. It is to read and hear the words that he wrote, which are to me far more important than the plot they describe.
Try reading Titus Andronicus...it's almost a farce, and a lot of people die! :) Or, if you want comedy...hmmm...I'll get back to you on that one.
-tano

[osszie]

Yes.........I think u have a very good point there Tanoliel.

Maybe I would perfer to see Shakespeare performed rather than read the actual plays.

I think hearing the lines as they should be spoken, as a opposed to my own readings, might raise my appreciation slightly;)

[Tanoliel]

Thank you. It's true, seeing the plays is often better than reading them.
-tano

[WiseWizard]

And acting in them is even better then seeing them. :D

[Willow Oran]

And acting in them is even better then seeing them.

I'll drink to that! If not for acting I'd probably still be deprived of the wonder that is true Shakespearian writing.

[Hrothgar]

I love Shakespeare, the English equivalent of Homer. (I am English so please excuse the grandstanding).

My favourite plays would have to be Macbeth and Henry V, and maybe Richard III. The king's soliliquay in Henry V is just so stirring and the scene in which Henry goes about the camp in disguise took me straight back to the Iliad.

You're right of course about people struggling with the English, I was amazed that my fellow Classics students had trouble with the KJ bible! This is Uni for the love of Jove!

Oh for a Muse of Fire......

adieu

[Tanoliel]

Aha! Another devotee to the wonderful works of the Bard!
(I am SUCH a Shakespeare nerd....) :D
I love Macbeth....My Lady Mac scene was one of the funnest I've ever done. Yes, I'm aware that "funnest" is not a word. I don't care. It should be. :)
I prefer comedies in general, myself, though...

[WiseWizard]

In about a week I'll be in a class where we get to choose any part from any of Shakespeare's plays and we get to act it out (as long as other people agree to fill up the other parts in a scene). I've already picked out Henry V (agreed on the speech, Hrothgar), Richard III, Puck, possibly Ariel (which was originally meant by Shakespeare to be a male part, despite popular belief) or maybe I'll revive good ol Prospero. The list goes on.
And Tano, you Lady M scene was also one of the funnest ;) scenes to watch in that play. Though, I think were enjoying that slap a little too much.....:) And the Fritos capped it off.

[Tanoliel]

Ha! Can't wait for that class.
Another example of my nerdness (although not as much, since many people know Hamlet):
Today in photography, when our teacher was showing how to roll negatives onto the developing spool, she said, "see? There is a rhythm to this madness." And I instantly say: "Method."
I don't think she heard me though...:)
My friend (another S. nerd) and I constantly quote Twelfth Night when she has to go somewhere...the "farewell, dear heart" bit between Toby and Feste.
Nerds....:rolleyes: :D
btw, WW, I was thinking Beatrice and Benedict, as another possiblity. :)
-tano

[WiseWizard]

I annoy my friends by quoting entire plays (or at least, as much as i can before they gag me).
And please tell me you don't use squeaky voices when you're singing that. I am scarred for life (actually only my eardrums are scarred) thanks to Frances and her soprano voice.
Beatrice and Benedict, eh? Possibly.....
I also just thought up Titus Andronicus. And Hamlet.
(I'm not addicted to playing insane people....really!)
OR EVEN IAGO!!!
How can anyone say no to the embodyments of pure evil?

[crickhollow]

Originally posted by Tanoliel
Aha! Another devotee to the wonderful works of the Bard!
(I am SUCH a Shakespeare nerd....) :D
I love Macbeth....My Lady Mac scene was one of the funnest I've ever done. Yes, I'm aware that "funnest" is not a word. I don't care. It should be. :)
I prefer comedies in general, myself, though... i am no actor, and I know it. But if I could play one role in my lifetime, it would be Lady Macbeth...

We just finished King Lear in my Major authors class, and next week we move on to Twelfth Night

[Dunadan]

Hello

I see that some folks think you have to see the play performed to really appreciate it, and I thought I'd ask what others think of that.

Having been forced to plough through the plays at school, I would never choose to read Shakespeare for recreation. However, when you see a really good performance, the meaning and context of the plays are raised to a whole new level.

For this reason, I think summaries are good. It releases you from following the plot (if you haven't studied the play) and opens up your mind to the Bard's real genius. Subtle meanings and asides; massive themes drawn like a renaissance fresco in a single sentence; his words are like pebbles tossed into a pool, sending ripples through your mind. Seeing the same play is never the same experience twice.

Also, there's an indispensible element of audience participation in a lot of the plays, such as A Midsummer Night's Dream. They were intended to play to the hoi polloi standing in the pit in front of the stage, as much as to the great and the good in the galleries.

cheers

d.

[sun-star]

I think you do have to see the play to appreciate it as it was meant to be watched (especially at the Globe Theatre :)), but you understand it in a different way if you have time to read and think about it. Shakespeare puts so much into a short line - sometimes you just have to stop, admire and consider what he's saying. Perhaps the first experience of a play should be as a piece of drama in a theatre, and then it can be read more closely. Of course, reading it, you can lose sight of the dramatic aspect and the plot to concentrate on language and ideas. They're all important, when they're combined.

[Dunadan]

Did you get to the Midsummer Night's production this year at the Globe?? How was it? I missed out.. damn

[Bard]

Did I saw my name pass by?:cool:

[SIZE=1]Good thing you can only post 1 message every 90 secconds!

[sun-star]

I didn't see Midsummer Night's Dream, but I saw The Tempest there a few years ago. It was such a different experience to being in a normal theatre.

[Tanoliel]

Ooh, so lucky. I went to England but just missed seeing Tempest by about two weeks. So sad it was...
I agree that delving deeper into the text gives you an even richer experience. Often watching a play I can see the interplay between two characters well, but it's only when I go back and read the script that I can really see the brilliantly crafted lines fully. So awesome.
-tano

[WiseWizard]

I just found out that our school is going to be doing the scottish play for the spring play! And there's about a 90-100% chance I'll be cast in it, and about a 70-80% chance of getting cast as the scottish king!
I find that whether I be reading, seeing, or acting Shakespeare, I am always enlivened and enriched by the masterful use of language and plot (or absurd lack of it) and feelings which the characters portray through speaking.

[Humming bird]

Alright, I love Shakespeare. I like most of his works. I am only disappointed that the students I have are to young to comprehend him.

[WiseWizard]

I think that even the youngest can still appreciate Shakespeare. I started reading his plays when I was 7 years old. I didn't really understand it, but I still loved reading it.

[Huan]

I didn't know there was a Bard thread on this board?!! Rock n' roll! I don't know what to say at the moment, but I couldn't resist the opportunity to post on a Shakespeare thread. Now that I'm done with my coursework in grad school, I have made a vow to get back to Shakespeare. For those posts on the question of who wrote the plays, that would be a man named William Shakespeare, who came to London from Stratford-upon-Avon. I just saw a show on public television about the theory that Christopher Marlowe wrote the plays. And there's that whole Earl of Oxford thing. Or Elizabeth I! I feel that the plays reveal such a man, a real man, the actual man from Stratford. Plenty of evidence to throw at the Marlovians, Oxfordians, and Baconians. In As You Like It, for example, the setting, the Forest of Arden, is named for Shakespeare's mother, Mary Arden. Plenty more where that came from. Hamlet is a Shakespeare-wrote-this unto itself. Check out Stephen Dedalus' theory of Hamlet in Joyce's Ulysses.

[Elfhelm]

Hey wow, someone who can cite Joyce on a Shakespeare thread! And named after the mighty hound himself. How cool!

I do think it's true though that some of the later romances were abandoned work of other playwrights that he completed for the other theatre after his own burned down. But that all just guessing.

[Huan]

Only on the internet can one who cites Joyce and names himself for a dog in The Silmarillion be called "cool."

Elfhelm, re. the "later Romances," are you referring to The Winter's Tale, The Tempest, etc.? Do you have anything to back that up? I would probably disagree if The Tempest falls into your group, because I find that one to be very personal to the Bard himself, and not the completion of abandoned burned-Globe backstock. But of course, I'm just guessing too!

[Tanoliel]

I agree that the Tempest was very much a Shakespeare play (as opposed to something he completed for someone else).
I also saw bits and pieces of that Marlowe thing...I don't think that Kit actually WROTE the plays, but there may be some truth in their collaboration. I don't think Shakespeare wrote the plays in total isolation; very few writers can, and in the environment he was in, that would be nearly impossible, not to mention impractical.
(Oh no...I'm starting again...)

The problem with Much Ado is that EVERYONE (female) wants to be Beatrice...and most males want to be Benedict. I've changed my mind. I'm going for Don John the Bastard. :D YEAH!

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

YAY, Tano! I think Don John is the best part, myself. :D

Except, of course, for the nightwatchmen ;) (ok, so i'm only saying that because i was one when we did Much Ado a few years. . .:))

[Huan]

Well, assuming the conspiracy theorists are incorrect, Marlowe couldn't have collaborated with Shakespeare on any play later than Romeo and Juliet, since he was dead.

[Tanoliel]

Except for the fact that Marlowe worked for the Queen's Secret Service, so there is a large chance that his death was faked. Supposedly he was stabbed in a duel in a bar and died that way...but the reports don't really corrolate. Apparently Marlowe was sitting at the bar and then suddenly there was a fight, with no reason--he drew someone else's dagger and stabbed him, and then got killed by that man's friend. (Think I got that right. Something close to that.) But the man who killed him was a servant of the man who was Marlowe's patron...and nothing happened to him, no discipline, no consequences, which is sort of suspicious.
Hells....I am SUCH a NERD. :D
Although I don't think that Marlowe collaborated on all of the plays....and I also don't think he would have collaborated after his death, or "death" as the case may be. I hear he escaped from England...:) (I am such a nerd....I love it.)

[Huan]

I just don't think Shakespeare's plays reflect Marlowe's voice at all. They betray an influence from Marlowe, but that doesn't mean he had any hand in writing them. When I was in a rock band, I stole liberally from The Beatles and Jane's Addiction, but that doesn't mean Ringo Starr or Stephen Perkins actually showed up at our rehearsals to give me pointers in my drumming. The dates and the material written by whichever dates just don't add up. Marlowe was the star of his time, at which point from Shakespeare we have several comedies, which he could do quite well right off the bat, while Marlowe demonstrates little talent as much of a comedian, and the Henry VI plays, which are FAR inferior to anything Marlowe ever accomplished. Beyond 1593, Shakespeare's plays demonstrate a feeling for true humanity that Marlowe never achieved. Sure, Marlowe wrote some great lines, but his characters were never as REAL as Shakespeare's. I prefer the theory that Marlowe's death left a vacuum for Shakespeare to enter and utterly surpass what had gone before. I think it comparable to Buddy Holly's death: it made space for John Lennon. This is a callous way to look at history perhaps, but perhaps I am callous.

[Tanoliel]

No, no, makes sense.
I got a book for my last birthday that it seems as if you would like very much: Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human by Harold Bloom. It talks about that same thing: how Will's characters are the first so human characters in plays. V. good.

[Huan]

I like The Invention of the Human for the most part, but I disagree with Bloom that no literary figures are truly human before Shakespeare's. At the very least, Homer's characters are as vividly human. Chaucer's too.

[Elfhelm]

No I don't place The Tempest in that. Parts of a Winter's Tale and Cymbeline seem like ... either the Bard was experimenting with spoken lines or they were written by someone else and he wrote the parts that sound like him. err... it would probably take a lot of effort to detail that supposition.

I think the Marlowe theory is that "shake spear" was his pen name when he was selling his plays to other companies, and after trouble with the law, possibly threatened to be exposed as a homosexual, he faked his death, moved to Italy and lived by selling plays by mail. I find it far-fetched. They try to support it with a lot of "lost in Italy" references.

I don't know how they can respond to Joyce's much more plausible explanation. If Marlowe was pretending to be a guy named Shakespeare, then how come a plague in London took the lives of some children named Shakespeare and then this Italian Marlowe suddenly stopped writing histories and started writing tragedies?

[Tanoliel]

Originally posted by Huan
I like The Invention of the Human for the most part, but I disagree with Bloom that no literary figures are truly human before Shakespeare's. At the very least, Homer's characters are as vividly human. Chaucer's too.
I don't think he was the first, either....I haven't read Chaucer (bad me bad me bad me), nor Homer for a very long time, but there are human characters before Shakespeare. He was the best of his time, though.

[Elfhelm]

I guess Bloom never read Euripides. What utter tosh. :)

[Huan]

What's this about Euripides?
Continuing the unnecessary debunking of the Marlovian argument, the references to Italy are supposed to serve as "evidence" that the author of the plays spent time there, whether he was the "exiled" Marlowe or the Earl of Oxford. But if you read them (which the Marlovians and Oxfordians should consider doing), the plays display very little specific knowledge of Italian settings such as Verona or Venice. They're really just "play settings." Shakespeare placed his stories in Italy for the following reasons: 1: because the original source material took place there, as in Romeo and Juliet and Othello, 2: because Italy is removed from England, and therefore transports the audience further from the Globe, as would the evocation of Middle Earth, a Galaxy Far, Far Away, or Once Upon a Time, and 3: because the English inherited their dramatic conventions from the Italians, and so an Italian setting was already entirely conventional. But read Romeo and Juliet and point out one example that indicates that the plays' author had direct experience with Verona. And another puzzle for me about the Marlovian argument: why did whathisname and his disciples think they'd find the original drafts of the plays in Marlowe's grave? I mean, WHY? What evidence suggests that any such thing is to be found in the grave? Not a rhetorical question: I'm really curious.

[Fat middle]

I gree with what has been said about Bloom and his Invention.... Shakespeare is my fave author (apart of JRRT, of course;) ), but i cannot understand how can one write a whole thick book too say only that he loves Falstaff and that he loves Hamlet more and that they're more real than any other character in Shakespeare and in all literature and more real than Shakespeare himself, and even more real than you and me... too much.

[Elfhelm]

Just that Euripides has awesome characters, and the point was something about their humanity? They are not one dimensional at all. Hecuba, for instance. It just grips you inside when she makes her famous speech. And the Trojan Women, killing their own babies so they won't become slaves to the Greeks. It's just some very rich material and some very human characters. So if someone has the shallowness to say there weren't great characters before Shakespeare, well he needs to go back to school, I say. Never did like Bloom or any of the New Critics.

[Tanoliel]

Erp. Gosh. Just thought it was interesting...:)

What's this about people trying to find scripts in graves? WHY would anybody bury a perfectly good script? Geez. It's against tenet not to use rescources in theatre. :rolleyes:
There isn't any reason to suppose the author had direct experience with Italy...it's perfectly possible to write about places without actually being there, especially if it's in a play, and not a novel with tons of detailed descriptions. Hey, take Cymbeline...Shakespeare sure wasn't there. Or then. :D

[WiseWizard]

Sorry to interrupt on this great discussion, but I have some news. I've just been cast as Macbeth in our school play! And what's really cool is that we're setting it in the near future in an "unspecified urban society" with the style of "heightened realism". the only part I'm unhappy about is that we might not get to use swords. I believe it's already been stated that the final fight is going to be fought with crowbars....but oh well.
Now please continue!

[Elfhelm]

A post-apochalyptic Macbeth? I can see that. Of course, you might want to replace the witches with Pre-cogs a la Minority Report. No, really, I wish people would set in Scotland for once.

[Tanoliel]

Seattle Shakespeare Company set it in Scotland, I believe. Bloody frightening, and also frighteningly bloody. There was a huge tub of fake blood backstage, and the costumes were all furry skirts. Okay, kilts...only not quite. Bizarre. But actually very good....
Congrats, WW!
tano

[Huan]

Fat Middle, yeah, that was something else that got tiresome about Bloom's book: he keeps harping in that same key, Falstaff is incredible, and Hamlet is an "artist of himself." How many times does he say THAT?
Elfhelm, as a student of Greek, I hate to admit it, but I have to take your word on Euripides. I have read him, but it's been a loooong time. Personally, though, I'm more a Sophocles fan, mainly because I look to Greek tragedy less for great drama and characterization than for the spiritual, ritualistic quality of it. Sophocles' philosophy is just incredible; he's kind of my personal Yoda. But back to the Bard, your comment on wishing they would set Macbeth in Scotland for once put me in mind of the Reduced Shakespeare Company: anyone heard of them? They're an American troupe playing in London; they give you the Complete Works in a two-hour show. It's hilarious. Anyhow, they comment on that current trend of re-setting all the plays in their handling of the Balcony Scene from R&J. They say something like, you can play it on the moon, or with Juliet sitting in a tree, or hanging from a fishing line, but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES use an actual balcony.

[Tanoliel]

AH!
I saw Reduced Shakes when I was in London two years ago and it was the funniest thing ever! It was glorious! Loved it muchlies. It's great getting all the jokes...can't remember all of them at this point, but that was one of the funniest theatre evenings I've had.
tano

[Fat middle]

Huan: i also put Sophocles above Euripides. i can read Antigona again and again and i marvell each time i read Ajax (though it's been a time since i last read). but for "spiritual, ritualistic quality" i think none is above Esquilus (don´t know how do you spell it) although his characters development and dialogue are still archaic.

About Macbeth: in Spain there has been a recent performance that only was interested in cruelty and sex. i haven't seen it but i think that Macbeth is hard enough as not to be necssary to show an excessive dossis of sex and blood. if you do that, you're risking to transform Macbeth $ wife into too strange persons, making them too monstruous. what i like from this play is it that make me think that i could be like the Macbeth couple if certain circumstances (the witches) would mess in my way.

[Huan]

Fat Middle, you mean Aeschylus, who is also quite cool; Prometheus Bound I especially like because my favorite Olympian, Hermes, plays a big role. I disagree though. Sophocles is still my Yoda.
Apropos of nothing, one thing I love about Macbeth is that I think it is way ahead of its time in dramatic timing and story structure, by which I mean it's my opinion that Shakespeare was kind of writing a movie screenplay before there was such a thing. In this play he really trimmed all the "fat" and made a perfectly streamlined little number that moves from beginning to end without pausing for breath, just like a modern movie. You could make a movie of Macbeth for today's mass audience and barely cut a word of it. I feel that with this play Shakespeare kind of saw where the cultural attention span was headed.

[Khamûl]

We have just gotten done reading Macbeth in Lit class. It was cool. I got to read the part of Banquo. I was also Mercutio in 9th grade. It seems I always end up getting killed.

[Elfhelm]

Well, we may not all agree on which Greek playwright rocks our boat the best, but can we agree that some literary figures before Shakespeare were "truly human"?

[Huan]

Absolutely! Odysseus is one of the most "truly human" characters in history. Everyone in Homer, actually, including the gods. All the truly great literature has humanity, which I would have thought could go without saying. I actually think Bloom kind of just needed a thesis to hang his critiques of the plays on.

[Fat middle]

yep, i agree too. Don Quijote & Sancho Panza are no doubt "truly human". they were contemporaries to Shakespeare's works but weren't influenced by them.

[Huan]

ooo, good one! I have zeroed in on British and ancient Greek lit so much that I am way deficient in the literature of other countries.

[sun-star]

Because tomorrow's unofficially "Shakespeare Day" I thought I'd bring this back.

Do you have a favourite sonnet? There are so many great ones that it feels like sacrilege to pick just one, but I just learnt this:

Let those who are in favour with their stars,
Of public honour and proud titles boast,
Whilst I whom fortune of such triumph bars
Unlooked for joy in that I honour most;
Great princes' favourites their fair leaves spread,
But as the marigold at the sun's eye,
And in themselves their pride lies buried,
For at a frown they in their glory die.
The painful warrior famoused for fight,
After a thousand victories once foiled,
Is from the book of honour razed quite,
And all the rest forgot for which he toiled:
Then happy I that love and am beloved
Where I may not remove nor be removed.

[Tanoliel]

Tomorrow's Bill Day? Oh...I'd forgotten! Yay!

I like a bunch of sonnets...this is one of my faves:

When, in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes,
I all alone beweep my outcast state
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries
And look upon myself and curse my fate,
Wishing me like to one more rich in hope,
Featur'd like him, like him with friends possess'd,
Desiring this man's art and that man's scope,
With what I most enjoy contented least;
Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising,
Haply I think on thee, and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day arising
From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven's gate;
For thy sweet love remember'd such wealth brings
That then I scorn to change my state with kings.

I also like "My mistress eyes are nothing like the sun" and "those lips that love's own hand did make" (that one's funny...)

Yay....I shall go read Bill now. :)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by sun-star
Because tomorrow's unofficially "Shakespeare Day" I thought I'd bring this back.


It is? Neato!

Do you all think what "Shakespeare" wrote was really by Shakespeare? I have no idea what to think.

Long live...Mercutio!

[Count Comfect]

Oooh, completely missed Bill Day? NOOO!

My favorite sonnet has to be
My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun.
Cherries are far more red than her lips' red.
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun.
If hair be wires, black wires grow from her head.
I have seen roses damask'd, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath which from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak: yet well I know,
That music hath a far more pleasing sound.
I grant I never saw a goddess go:
My mistress, when she walks, walks on the ground.
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as fair
As any she belied by false compare.

And Shakespeare is in my opinion the greatest playwright ever for reading or performing. And I've done a lot of both :)
On the other hand, his sonnets, as a whole, are neither too prolific (154 sonnets contain fewer lines than a play!) nor too good, frankly, with a few exceptions.
On the other hand (there is no other hand!), he didn't invent "truly human" characterization as some critics would have it. Bardolotry in its higher forms is disturbing.

[Tanoliel]

I like some of his sonnets lots and some others okay but I don't think he was the most brilliant sonnetist ever. County, you're inching up there. Geez. :rolleyes: Or at least the most prolific...

Mercutio--
I am a hopeless romantic, so I persist in believing that Shakespeare actually wrote Shakespeare. My friend just got converted to an Oxfordian (Edward de Vere, that is--CC, that would be Claire)...but I will not be. :)
I think he wrote things in collaboration, though...I wouldn't be suprised by that at all. Especially some of his earlier works--with Marlowe, or de Vere or somebody. Not Bacon. I don't like Bacon. :) But I do think it was one person, more or less, throughout (and not a bunch of people using his name as some people would have it)--if you read through all the plays one can see a growth and change as a writer that I think shows one personality through the whole thing.

There....I've rambled enough. Shakespeare for Shakespeare! *waves a flag*

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Tanoliel
Mercutio--
I am a hopeless romantic, so I persist in believing that Shakespeare actually wrote Shakespeare. My friend just got converted to an Oxfordian (Edward de Vere, that is--CC, that would be Claire)...but I will not be. :)
I think he wrote things in collaboration, though...I wouldn't be suprised by that at all. Especially some of his earlier works--with Marlowe, or de Vere or somebody. Not Bacon. I don't like Bacon. :) But I do think it was one person, more or less, throughout (and not a bunch of people using his name as some people would have it)--if you read through all the plays one can see a growth and change as a writer that I think shows one personality through the whole thing.

Interesting...I want to believe it was really him, but I'd have to study his writings a lot more to really decide my opinion.

[Count Comfect]

Don't roll your eyes at me Tano! I have a right to write sonnets if I want!
Claire is an Oxfordian? *prepares mob with pitchforks and torches* Must deal with this.
I have read pretty much all of Shakespeare's plays in whole or in part, plus studied things like line distributions in the plays and read many of his contemporaries. And one man wrote them, who isn't any of the contemporaries. There are distinct trends in the arc of the plays, and the style is consistent (and VASTLY different from said contemporaries). Plus, all of the alternate theories have vast holes (which I won't point out here unless asked specifically case by case).
Oh, and there are documents that work to show that Shakespeare himself actually existed and did what he is supposed to. And there is no reason to believe otherwise.

Ah, good to get that out of my system for a bit.

Shakespeare for the Shakespearians!

[Tanoliel]

Let's start a club, Comfect. For Shakespeare. :p

And for all you unbelievers out there...:) My mum reminded me of something I had forgotten, which was this: An article from Science News (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20031220/bob8.asp) about mathematical and statistical ways of determining authorship.

Just another vote for my side over here...:)

And Comfect, don't pitchfork Claire...It could be worse. She could be a Militant Baconian. :)

[Count Comfect]

Militant Baconians are staked. Oxfordians are pitchforked and burnt. There's a difference!
And that article is interesting, but I'd have to see the actual stylometric evidence before using it as evidence for any point of view whatsoever.

[Count Comfect]

Well, looks like I committed threadicide for the moment. Thought I'd point out that on my English Literature test on Thursday they had us interpret Sonnet XC! Whee!

[Tanoliel]

hey. i wrote some elizabethan sonnets. *pokes cc* i'm catching up....:) (Actually i'm nowhere close, but poking you is fun. i wrote them for a play.)

[Mercutio]

I saw "As You Like It" last night at the Delaware Shakepeare Festival (this is only their second year). It was a marvelous performance and only $7. And that's also one of my favorite Shakespeare plays (I think).

Someone(s) has mentioned Tales from Shakespeare by Charles and Mary Lamb. We have this book (as well as the complete works of Shakespeare). Its extremely helpful in instances such as: I'm going to see a play. I wonder what the plot is? I'd like to read a nice short summary of it before I get there. Hmm...this looks good. Etc. It by no means replaces the real stuff. Especially since each "tale" is only 10-15 pages long.

[sun-star]

I saw "As You Like It" in Stratford last year and I agree, it's one of my favourite Shakespeare plays too. I'm hoping to go and see "Much Ado About Nothing", another of the better comedies IMO, in the grounds of Canterbury Cathedral soon - if I can convince anyone to go with me...

I read Tales from Shakespeare when I was too young for the real plays, but I can't say they were exactly gripping. Without Shakespeare's language almost all the enjoyment is gone for me - I'm not one for plot, really. I do have a vivid memory of the one about The Winter's Tale though, so that must have been pretty good :)

[Fat middle]

All the world is a stage and all the men a women merely players...

I love As you Like it :) but I have never had a chance to see a performance :(

[Mercutio]

I love that soliloquy (have actually seen it performed previously):

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

[Willow Oran]

JUst did a performance of 'As You Like It.' Fun, Kayla makes a good sheep, and playing Oliver is fun.