A Work in Progress

Not Sure What I Think of These...

I came across this series of books at my work.  I'm not really sure what I think about them.  Generally I am quite laid back in terms of reading, but these sort of bother me. 

"To help students experience the joys and benefits of reading, Townsend Press presents the Townsend Library--a collection of high-interest classics. Each Townsend Library book has been carefully edited to maintain the original story while updating language and style for today's readers.  The books also feature an afterword with information about the author and a commentary to deepen readers' enjoyment."

You can read about their editing process here.  I am all for trying to make literature appealing and accessible to students.  I am not entirely sure who their target audience is, but I would say middle and high school students.  However, when you start manipulating the vocabularly and simplifying the writing style of the author, it seems to me it is no longer the same story--certainly not what the author intended.  When I read Bram Stoker's Dracula (one of the books they use as their example), I read it in great part to get a feeling for the time and place as well as for the entertainment of the story.  About Dracula they say:

"This story was written for people who were familiar with 19th century European geography, and the original contains countless pages of detail about cities, towns, rivers, ports, and travel routes that would make many 21st century readers’ eyes glaze over. Such detail, not at all integral to the story, has been reduced.

Another example: Stoker was very excited about the new technologies of his day—such as shorthand writing and Thomas Edison’s 'dictaphone' machine, which recorded the human voice on wax cylinders—and in the original Dracula, he goes on for many pages about these “modern” inventions. We minimized the number of details about these outdated inventions in order to get on with the story.

We also replaced words that might be unfamiliar or confusing to today’s readers: for instance, the old French word 'diligence' is changed to 'stagecoach'; the phrase 'toilet glass' is changed to 'shaving mirror'."

Although the detail may not be integral to the action, it is quite typical to Victorian literature and for myself, that is precisely why I like Victorian literature.

I have also come across these sorts of books when looking for Shakespeare's plays.  No Fear Shakespeare puts out the plays using modern language side by side with Shakespeare's original language.  For example, as Shakespeare wrote it:

"Hamlet: To be, or not to be?  That is the question-
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And, by opposing, end them?"

And the No Fear text:

"The Question is: is it better to be alive or dead?  Is it nobler to put up with all the nasty things that luck throws your way, or to fight against all those troubles by simply putting an end to them once and for all?"

I realize Shakespeare is very hard going and perhaps using modern language will help a student trying to make sense of what he or she has read.  At least in the case of the plays by Shakespeare, the modern language and Shakespeare's language are side by side on opposite pages.  Although I also find Shakespeare a challenge, I have opted to not buy these books. 

But then I wonder, maybe books like these are not such a big deal?  If a student is able to read and enjoy Dracula  or Shakespeare in this format, perhaps it is better than not reading them at all?  I am sure there have been children's versions of classics for ages and ages to introduce them to the story, which were essentially retellings.  Of course those are for children rather than young adults.  I think I would always rather read a book that is as close to what the author intended rather than something that has been altered and edited by someone else.  Certainly I would rather see students reading the original as well.  It sort of feels like the text is being dumbed down, and I hate that idea.  What do you think?

A Last Ditch Effort...

I've decided to make a last ditch effort to complete Carl's challenge.  Can I do it?  I admit I can be a lazy reader sometimes--easily distracted and ready to move on to the next shiny new book or reading challenge.  I had all but given up on this when Carl left a comment on a recent post urging me on just the tiniest little bit.  That coupled with my desire to actually finish something I start out to do (remembering all those many lists I've made all year...) has made me want to see this one through.  Or try to anyway.

I had planned all along to read Angela Carter's Saints and Strangers (for my folk tale choice).  It is a slim little book of only 125 pages/8 short stories.  Actually I am not sure they can be called short stories really.  The blurb says "drawing on American history, literary legend, and folk tale, Angela Carter transports us to that shadowy country between fact and myth."  I started reading last night and hope to finish later today (I am almost halfway through already).  All I can say so far, Angela Carter's writing is quirky--or at least the stories she tells are.  As much as I wanted to read this (and do want to read this), I think what put me off was the overwhelming sense that these were going to be dark sorts of stories.  Not tragic, but dense and heavy--just look at the cover art.  I'm not sure how to characterize her writing style yet.  But I'll let you know how it goes.  Carter seems to have a fairly substantial body of work (she died very young in 1992), and I think she is an important contemporary author, so I do hope to read more later.

The challenge ends tomorrow, which is the summer solstice.  I plan on watching A Midsummer Night's Dream tomorrow night.  If I read along does that count?  Since Midsummer is not for a few more days yet, I hope to actually properly read the play after I have seen a film version.  It worked for me well to watch/read/watch, so I want to try that again.  I have been doing a tiny bit of preparatory reading, as I am completely unfamiliar with this story.  What I've learned so far?  Shakespeare wrote this during a very creative period when he was approaching a more mature style.  It is likely that he wrote this to be preformed at a wedding that Queen Elizabeth would have attended.  There are four separate plots within this play: 1.) the story of Theseus, the Duke of Athens, and Hippolyta, the Queen of the Amazons, 2.) Hermia and her three friends, Helena, Demetrius, and Lysander--young lovers, 3.) the magical world of the fairies ruled by Titania and Oberon, and 4.) the adventures of Quince, Bottom, and the other amateur actors.  I get the feeling the play is about love and lust.  And, well, that is as far as I have gotten.  There is no sense in rushing a Shakespeare play!  I still have my Garber essay to read and all of the other extra material in my book as well.  Really this is the impetus I needed anyway to get going on Shakespeare once again!  It seems fitting to be reading it right now, doesn't it?

Kermode's Shakespeare

I am nearly finished reading Frank Kermode's The Age of Shakespeare.  I have mixed feelings about it.  It is a fairly short book touching upon the culture and history of Elizabethan England and Shakespeare's place in it.   The first half of the book was quite good and helpful, filling in details of this particular time. 

The last half of the book, however, has been slow going for me.  For a novice of Shakespeare (which I consider myself) it is a bit over my head.  Kermode talks in some detail about the theatres relating to Shakespeare (particularly The Globe) and the plays performed there.  The problem is I am not overly familiar with these plays, not yet having read or seen them.  He talks about the characters and important aspects of the plots and how they relate to the times these plays were performed.  He does so, however, as if writing for an audience already knowledgeable about them, which obviously I am not.  It makes me realize (as if I didn't already feel this) that Shakespeare's works are quite complicated.  Just when I was starting to feel comfortable reading the plays (and knowing I wasn't going to know or understand everything right off the bat), that there are so many variables to really understand and appreciate what is going on.  Kermode himself mentions that some plays are somewhat impenetrable--written for a very specific audience.  Not only was Shakespeare writing/reacting to the political atmosphere (though I don't get the feeling that his plays were really in any way political), but also to the social atmosphere.  He was reacting towards people and events--probably like any author of any time.  Luckily some themes are timeless, which I guess is what I am hoping to get from the plays when I read them.

There's so much to know it is almost overwhelming to think about!  Don't be put off from reading this book, though.  It is very well written and Kermode really knows his stuff, but maybe more familiarity with Shakespeare's works would be helpful (not like me--one play read in high school and basically forgotten, and a second play read recently--and of course it is one that only gets mentioned and not discussed).  This is not going to put me off reading more Shakespeare.  Even though much of the discussion went by too quickly for me to grasp, I think I will remember ideas later.  I figure it all builds on each succeeding idea.  Later on I will read something and it will be familiar and make more sense since I was exposed to it now. 

I am greatly looking forward to starting a new nonfiction read, and I think it will have to be something other than Shakespeare or Elizabethan England--a little break would be good at this point (though I still plan on working on another play soon).  I am considering reading either Strapless by Deborah Davis (about John Singer Sargent's Madame X), Journal by Katherine Mansfield (I dipped into this a bit and it looks quite interesting), or Margaret Forster's biography of Daphne Du Maurier (another intriguing life).  They all sound very appealing, so I'm not sure which to choose.  I will likely read a few pages of each and see which one really grabs me.  While I have more than a few fiction reads on the go at once, I never have more than one nonfiction book started at the same time!  Why is it easier to keep track of multiple plots but not multiple nonfiction subjects?  Like I said before, though, at time my brain is a sieve--I guess I don't want too much information to spill out!

The Netflix Queue: What I've Been Watching

I've become addicted to watching movies since joining Netflix.  When I was younger I would go see new movies nearly every weekend, but I rarely get to see movies in the theater these days.  For a long time I would only occasionally rent a movie from a local  video store, but as Netflix makes renting movies so easy, I am beginning to have piles of movies sitting around that are reminiscent of my book piles (though nowhere near as excessive!).  The only bad thing about Netflix is it is hard to browse for new movies to watch.  Unless I know of a specific movie I want to see, I have a hard time deciding on which movies to add to my queue.  Every time my two movies go back, I am at a loss what to request next.  I have also been borrowing movies from my library as well as the public library (though again it is hard to browse there as well, as there are rarely popular movies on the shelf--you have to get online and add your name to the waiting list--and oftentimes the list is very long!).   Since I am in the middle of several good books, and not quite ready to post about them, I thought I would share what I've been watching instead.

I finally got around to watching the last of my Romeo and Juliet movies.  I watched the Baz Luhrmann adaptation this weekend.  I'm not quite sure what I think of it.  I really liked it, and I really didn't.  Maybe I am just Romeo and Juliet-ed out?  I didn't realize that Luhrmann also directed Strictly Ballroom, which I loved.  Is all Australian cinema really quirky?  (Of course I probably have not watched enough to make any sort of educated assumption, but all the Australian movies I can think of are, well, quirky).  I liked the modern retelling of the story, yet he seemed to stick pretty close with the original dialogue of the play.  For the most part, I liked the casting of the film.  I didn't really like the extreme gaudiness of it, and to me, it seemed overly bright and kitschy.  The story felt much darker than when I read it.  Maybe it was the use of guns rather than swords?  I was looking at reviews and for the most part it seems to have been well received.  If this modern version makes people watch a Shakespeare production, especially young people, then why not.  I think the Zeffirelli version will remain my particular favorite.  I have probably had my fill of Romeo and Juliet for the time being, however, and I am ready to move on to Twelfth Night!

I would probably have appreciated Antonia's Line more had I not fallen asleep during part of the movie.  Don't blame the movie for me falling asleep--I started watching it too late at night--I should know better than to start a movie when I am tired.  This is a Dutch film that won an Academy Award.  I need to watch it again to give it any sort of justice.  The movie begins with Antonia waking up and deciding "today is the day she is going to die" and looking back on her life.  One reviewer described it as "how one woman and the people around her find happiness while rejecting the roles that society would force on them."  What I saw I enjoyed, and I plan on getting it to watch again! 

Green Fingers with Helen Mirren and Clive Owen was a sweet, funny movie set in a minimum security or "open" prison.  Clive Owen ends up there after spending most of his adult life in prison.  Each inmate is given a job, and when Owen won't choose he ends up cleaning toilets.  When it is discovered he has a green thumb (or the British must say greenfingers) he and a group of inmates are set the task of creating a garden.  Apparently this is based on a true story, and the inmates were even so successful with their garden they won prizes for their work in a national gardening competition. 

It seems the best movies I come across are the ones that come recommended.  So, as always, any good movie recommendations? 

Shakespeare's Times

Sometimes I feel like my mind is a sieve--at least when it comes to reading nonfiction.  I read and read.  Some of the information stays inside and some just pours right back out.  The nice thing about reading about Shakespeare is getting information from a variety of sources.  Every time I read something new--a book or an article, watch a documentary, I add a little bit more to what I know and remember.  I watched another episode of Michael Wood's In Search of Shakespeare.  It seems as though so much of what is written about Shakespeare's life is conjecture.  It has been interesting reading what one scholar says, only to have it refuted by another scholar. 

Episode two of the documentary covered the "lost years" of Shakespeare's life between the ages of 18-28.  It is known that Shakespeare married Anne Hathaway and had three children.  Wood discusses the possibility that Shakespeare lived in Lancashire during those years.  Apparently someone by the name of Shakeshafte lived there at this time--could this possibly have been Shakespeare?  Although Shakespeare's father was Catholic, there appears to be conflicting thoughts on whether Shakespeare also followed his father's faith or not.  All these little variables help explain what he might have been up to (or not) before he finally came to London.

I have also been reading Frank Kermode's The Age of Shakespeare.  He tends not to conjecture quite so much.  The book has been following along loosely the same timeline and information that I am watching in the documentary.  He tends to think that these speculations tend to be a bit far fetched.  Kermode writes that it is possible that Shakespeare's first ambition was to be a "page-poet" rather than a "stage-poet" as he was writing sonnets at this time.  It could be that Shakespeare came to London not as an actor, but looking for patronage.  He might have fallen in to acting in order to pay the bills so to speak.  And then the writing of plays would follow.

I thought this was rather interesting (always interested when books and reading comes up in any text) in the Kermode:

"We must assume Shakespeare, as the son of a prominent citizen, to have attended Stratford's Guild School.  The existence of such establishment ensured that Latin did not belong solely to priest and lawyer.  Rhetoric was taught less as a vocational than as a cultural acquirement, a means to self-fulfillment.  Since all textbooks, including those we may assume the young Shakespeare to have worked through, derived from the same sources, there was a measure of genuine uniformity in humanist education."

"It was in this age that the book became a familiar object, with incalculable consequences.  Since records are fairly thorough, it is known that between 1558 and 1579, 2,760 books were published in London.  Between 1580 and 1603 the number rose to 4,370.  John Guy calculates, on the basis of an average print run of 1,250 copies, that 'this represents an average of just two books per head of a population of 1-1/4 million over a generation and a half.'  Part of the endless bustle around St. Paul's must have been caused by the bookstalls, for St. Paul's, in a sense the social center of the city, was also the center of the book trade, and it was not far from where the newly arrived aspirant would find himself.  The proportion of citizens who read may seem small, but there were enough of them to make bestsellers, one of which was Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis, an example of the fashionable Ovidian-erotic mode, which went into nine editions in the poet's lifetime.  One could go into St. Paul's and buy a sermon, or a sixpenny quarto of a play, or almost any other sort of book, from devotional tracts to romances."

Next up in my reading is the theaters at this time.  The documentary will cover more personal aspects of Shakespeare's life--his rise to fame, as well as the "disasters of life and love which marked his path to greatness."

Happy Birthday Shakespeare

I have read that Shakespeare's birthday is traditionally celebrated on April 23.  It seems only fitting then, that today's post be on Shakespeare.  I finished reading Romeo and Juliet on Friday.  Over the weekend I followed up by watching the BBC production (1978) starring John Gielgud (as the chorus) and Alan Rickman (as Tybalt)--I wasn't familiar with any of the other actors.  I have to say it makes a huge difference reading the play and then watching it.  All of a sudden so many things made sense.  There are so many asides and pauses and inflections of the voice that I completely missed when I was reading.  Needless to say, for myself anyway, it is really necessary to both read and watch to get everything out of the play that I can!  Each time I watched it, and then reading the play I understood it a little bit better.

I think I was a bit spoiled by watching the Zeffirelli version of the play first.  Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting seem to fit the roles of Romeo and Juliet so perfectly.  I had a hard time believing the actors playing the leads in the BBC version, though the BBC seemed to stay fairly true to the play.  I followed along reading as I watched.  The actor playing Romeo seemed a tad too old, though the actress playing Juliet seemed about right.  The other actors were quite good, however--especially Juliet's father.  And a young Alan Rickman, too--that was sort of weird.  Either I was more attuned to the language and was simply catching more, or they spoke slightly slower, but it all made so much more sense to me the second time around.  I still have the Baz Luhrmann version to watch (yes, I know, I am sort of getting my fill now of Romeo and Juliet, but it has been quite enjoyable).  I will probably save that one for next weekend, and then I will be ready to move on to Twelfth Night.  It's sort of nice to have something shorter to read on the side, and I think I have found the perfect type of literature to read while I read longer novels.  I haven't done well with short stories, and I am okay with essays, but I seem to stick with plays more so than the others.  That's not to say I will not be reading short stories or essays--I hope to read more of them (lately I have read nothing at all)!

Now that I have read and seen the play performed, perhaps a little criticism?  This is from Studying Shakespeare by Martin Stephen:

"Romeo and Juliet was written comparatively early in Shakespeare's career, and, great work though it is, it does show signs of immaturity and lack of control on the part of the author.  There is no sub-plot or relief from the main story-line; in itself, this is no bad thing and occurs in a number of plays, but the play is also quite long, and this coupled with frequent halts for lengthy soliloquies, can be tedious.  There is great variety in the language of the play, but also occasional clumsiness and a tendency for the characters to become long-winded.  There is perhaps rather too much word-play and punning for modern taste, and the huge number of coincidences upon which the plot rests can strain credibility.  It is probably slightly less fair to say the same of the vast changes in characterisation that Romeo and Juliet undergo as the play progresses: in this respect the play demands to be treated as a romance, rather than a direct attempt to re-create reality."

"The play's strengths are its language, and the central portrayal of the lovers, so much so that Romeo and Juliet and their love have become part of folk-lore."

The author heaped rather a lot of criticism on Shakespeare there--perhaps it is fair--as this is my first play I guess I will see as I go along in my reading!  He did later say Romeo and Juliet has a "magnificent plot", which made me feel better, as I found it thoroughly enjoyable.  Even not as his best (?), Shakespeare is pretty darn good!  So, my first play down.  I might not have understood every little detail  (definitely didn't), but all in all this was a wonderful experience.  And I can't wait to get started on Twelfth Night!

And Yet More

Since I am admitting to buying more Persephones, I might as well own up to the books I bought at the bookstore earlier this week.  When I decide I am going to do something, and I really set my mind to it, I usually can't wait to get started--I don't have a lot of patience.  Shakespeare is all over the place--free online, multiple editions in the library, but I want my own copy in this case.  I know I could probably mooch the plays I want, but I wanted to browse the possibilities at the bookstore.  I have decided that after Romeo and Juliet, I am going to attempt Twelfth Night next.  I have heard good things about Folger Shakespeare Library editions (just found their website...must check out their online store), so I am giving them a try next.  It is still a mass market size paperback, reasonable size print, and the glosses are on the verso.  Now you know what would make it perfect (well possibly), would to have the unknown word highlighted some way on the opposite page.  Then again maybe that would be distracting.  Of course there are the usual prefatory remarks, and an essay and bibliography in the back.  There are textual notes, which are a bit beyond me.  The back says there are scene by scene summaries, but maybe I am missing those?

As I was at Barnes and Noble, and they have a new series of Shakespeare plays, I thought they might be worth a try as well.  I opted for Othello (thinking about my recent read).  These are trade size paperbacks (inexpensively priced).  Once again the glosses are on the verso.  The print is a nice size and a nice readable typeface, with lots of space at the edges for notes.  There are the usual essays and even some line drawings of how Othello was originally staged.  I do like the layout of these Barnes and Noble editions--they are nice and clear and readable.  Have you noticed these Spark Notes No Fear Shakespeare editions?  I'm not sure what I think of them--they have the play using Shakespeare's original language on one side, and the play in modern language on the opposite page.  They could be very helpful, but I wonder if students just opt to read the modern version?  I also found Shakespeare Alive! by Joseph Papp, who is a theater producer.  I'm not sure that this is terribly scholarly, but it looks like a fun read. 

My intention for going to the bookstore was to only buy a copy of Twelfth Night, but I couldn't leave without looking around a little at other books.  I spent most of my time in the mystery section and came away with Morag Joss's Half Broken Things--a psychological suspense thriller.  Why do I find those sorts of books so appealing?  I started reading Puccini's Ghosts by Joss a while back, but it had to go back to the library unfinished (not that it wasn't good--it's just that my track record with library books is not always so great--those due dates tend to put a damper on things when you are a slow reader).  It is due out in paper this summer, so perhaps Half Broken Things will keep me occupied until then.  I also received a used copy of Margaret Forster's biography of Daphne Du Maurier in the mail as well.  Did  you know that this year is Du Maurier's centenary?  I plan on reading more of her fiction this year as well as the Forster biography.  Every time I stop by the bookstore I tend to pick up Sally Beauman's Rebecca's Tale, a sort of sequel if I am to understand correctly, to Du Maurier's Rebecca.  I usually don't like to read sequels or prequels to famous books that I have read and loved that are written by another author entirely.  I have been tempted many times, but never buy the Beauman in the end.  Of course if I hear it is wonderful from someone out there, I might reconsider!

Just a couple more things.  Lately I have not gone near the magazines as I already have too many at home I am behind in reading, but I did take a look this time around.  This month's issue of Harper's has an essay on Shakespeare--"How Shakespeare Conquered the World", which I couldn't pass up.  There is also an article by Cynthia Ozick on the novel, which looks interesting.  Iliana occasionally mentions mystery magazines in her posts. I always mean to look for them at the bookstore, but then never do.  I did make a point this time around.  While I didn't find Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine, I did find Mystery Scene.  I have never purchased a magazine that includes only mystery novels, so I hope to find lots of great new books.  These should keep me busy for a while.

To Work, Romeo and Juliet, Act I

Over the weekend I finished reading Neil Gaiman's Stardust, and I was planning on posting about it today...However, I have also been reading Romeo and Juliet as well, and since that is fresh in my mind at the moment I am going to bombard you with yet a bit more on my encounters with Shakespeare.  I promise to talk about the other books I am reading this week, too (I have gotten back into a reading rhythm with a few other books, which I am very happy about).

Before I jump in I have to say thanks to all who have left comments on my Shakespeare posts.  I think it says something that these posts attract so many comments--even now--400 years after Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet, people are still reading, studying and enjoying the play--and talking about it.  I have found all the suggestions very helpful and have been picking and choosing methods and working out what is best for me.  This will probably change as I go, but at least I feel like I have sound advice on how to approach my reading--so, many thanks! 

Watching the play first and now reading it has worked out well for me.  I am able to visualize in my mind where the characters are and what they are doing when I read.  So fixed in  my mind now are Olivia Hussey as Juliet and Leonard Whiting as Romeo, it is hard to remember that when this was first staged, Juliet would have been played by a boy!  I have decided to just read and try not to be distracted too much by the language.  There is so much that is unfamiliar to me that I was stopping constantly and looking for the definition, only to have lost my place and have to reread sections I already read.  I thought I would never make any progress.  Now I am reading and marking the passages that are particularly confusing, and I plan on going back to these marked passages later and looking up meanings.  Even not stopping constantly, my reading is fairly slow.  The edition I am reading from is a little Bantam classic, which is fine, but I do think I will look for an edition that has the definitions on the facing page in the future.  Perhaps that will help my reading flow, too? 

As there are five acts, I plan on reading an act a day--finishing up just in time for the weekend, so I can watch the play again.  I realize that I am moving at a snail's pace, but I sort of like my daily Shakespeare visits to be honest.  I have to admit I broke down and bought a student guide and am reading the summaries after each scene and find the guide very useful.  I read the Garber essay on Romeo and Juliet, so I am aware of some of the major themes (light/dark, old/young, violence/romance), but the guide does help reinforce these points.  The summaries also clarify the action.  It's interesting to see what I am getting and what is going right over my head. 

Can I share a passage that I found particularly pleasing?  This is Mercutio talking in Act 1 Scene 4.  Romeo, Mercutio, and Benvolio are outside the Capulet's house getting ready to go into a masked ball that is being held (mostly for Juliet's sake, if I am to understand correctly, as her parents want her to marry Paris, and here she will meet him).  Mercutio is not a romantic like Romeo.  He doesn't believe that dreams foretell future events (unlike Romeo).  As with love, Mercutio is skeptical of dreams as well.  It is sort of long, but well worth the read:

"O, then I see Queen Mab hath been with you.
    She is the fairies' midwife, and she comes
    In shape no bigger than an agate stone
    On the forefinger of an alderman,
    Drawn with a team of little atomies
    Athwart men's noses as they lie asleep;
    Her wagon spokes made of long spinners' legs,
    The cover, of the wings of grasshoppers;
    Her traces, of the smallest spider's web;
    Her collars, of the moonshine's wat'ry beams;
    Her whip, of cricket's bone; the lash, of film;
    Her wagoner, a small grey-coated gnat,
    Not half so big as a round little worm
    Prick'd from the lazy finger of a maid;
    Her chariot is an empty hazelnut,
    Made by the joiner squirrel or old grub,
    Time out o' mind the fairies' coachmakers.
    And in this state she 'gallops night by night
    Through lovers' brains, and then they dream of love;
    O'er courtiers' knees, that dream on cursies straight;
    O'er lawyers' fingers, who straight dream on fees;
    O'er ladies' lips, who straight on kisses dream,
    Which oft the angry Mab with blisters plagues,
    Because their breaths with sweetmeats tainted are.
    Sometime she gallops o'er a courtier's nose,
    And then dreams he of smelling out a suit;
    And sometime comes she with a tithe-pig's tail
    Tickling a parson's nose as 'a lies asleep,
    Then dreams he of another benefice.
    Sometimes she driveth o'er a soldier's neck,
    And then dreams he of cutting foreign throats,
    Of breaches, ambuscadoes, Spanish blades,
    Of healths five fadom deep; and then anon
    Drums in his ear, at which he starts and wakes,
    And being thus frighted, swears a prayer or two
    And sleeps again. This is that very Mab
    That plats the manes of horses in the night
    And bakes the elflocks in foul sluttish, hairs,
    Which once untangled much misfortune bodes
    This is the hag, when maids lie on their backs,
    That presses them and learns them first to bear,
    Making them women of good carriage.
    This is she-"

I thought this passage was particularly apt as I am also reading books for Carl's Once Upon a Time challenge (hence the Gaiman).  Queen Mab is a fairy, so she fits right in with the theme.  Although I am planning on reading A Midsummer Night's Dream for Carl's challenge later on, I think I'd like to give Twelfth Night a try in the interim.

"Twins Viola and Sebastian are shipwrecked. Believing her brother drowned, and determined to survive alone, Viola disguises herself as a boy. As 'Cesario' she enters the service of Orsino and is sent by him to woo Olivia." But Olivia isn't interested and 'Cesario' is swept into a merry-go-round world of unrequited love, mistaken identities, high comedy, low tricks and desperate passion."

Does that not sound like fun?  Why did I wait so long to start reading Shakespeare?  As someone said in a comment--"Shakespeare rocks!".

Project Shakespeare Continues

I decided it was time to jump in.  Friday night I watched Franco Zeffirelli's version of Romeo and Juliet.  I feel like I cheated a bit as this wasn't an actual theatrical version, but a film version (there is probably a word for the difference, but I am not sure what it is--or maybe it is all the same whether it is presented in a theater or made especially to be seen in the cinema?), and I noticed that there were chunks of dialogue cut out.  I have just started reading the play this weekend as well, but I did follow along in the book loosely while watching the film.  By the way, I did greatly enjoy the film even if some it went over my head.  I didn't catch everything they said, but I still understood essentially what was happening. 

I am trying to find my footing with Shakespeare.  I have gotten very good, though slightly conflicting advice, on how to approach him.  Do I read first and then watch/listen?  Or the reverse?  Both ways have been suggested.  I have a feeling that it is going to come down to what works best for me, as both ideas sound as they would work well.  For Romeo and Juliet I decided to watch first and then read.  I have found a book called Studying Shakespeare (a York Handbook) by Martin Stephen at my library.  We seem to have an endless amount of books about Shakespeare, plays by Shakespeare, guides on how to study Shakespeare, criticisms of the works of Shakespeare...you get the idea.  I have gone up and wandered around once or twice and I am sure I will do so again.  I mostly just flip through and read sections that are helpful with what I am thinking about at the moment. This is what Stephen's has to say about how to approach a Shakespeare play:

"It is a bewildering experience to be faced for the first time with a Shakespeare play--especially if it is to be studied for an examination (NOT in my case).  It is frequently no less appalling the second or even third time round (should I be worried, but that makes me feel better slightly?).  There is the text itself--often difficult, obscure, and so laden with notes as to render it barely decipherable.  Then there is the realisation that even a small bookshop will have a shelf full of texts of the play, anywhere between one and five different  relatively short 'notes' on the play, longer critical introductions to the play, and a host of other impressive critical works on Shakespeare in general." 

"The first thing to try to do is to arrange to see the play.  If you cannot see a professional production (I wish!), see an amateur one (I still wish!); if an amateur one is not available, try to hire a video production (do you think he means rent the video?!).  In any event, try to see the play before you read it.  (Check!)."

"The next stage is to read it."

So now the next problem has presented itself.  He suggests not reading any sort of criticism before reading the play, though he does give a thumbs up for reading a summary if you are totally confused (I will keep this in mind).  His reasoning, which actually I think is rather sound, is that it is better to form your own opinions of the play first and then read criticism later.  He also suggests that after reading a play, you read something else that is related to it next.  For example if you read King Lear, you next read another tragedy.  First things first, however.  Must get through Romeo and Juliet.  I am finding things slow going.  Do I just read and ignore footnotes, and try and get what meaning out of it I can?  Do I read slowly with the help of footnotes and hope it actually makes much more sense than it appears to?  Actually, though, I have been using the footnotes and on occasion, I was able to discern the meaning all on my own (not every time though--as a matter of fact--more often than not I didn't know).  I hate to think it is going to take me two weeks to read a play that when performed lasts less than three hours. 

The public library has this audio dramatization (though I just noticed it is abridged).  Perhaps I should read the book slowly, then listen later?  Perhaps I am making this harder than it should be?  In any case, I will be reading the play, and then watching it again.  I have two more versions of it checked out from the library--this BBC version with Sir John Gielgud, and Baz Luhrmann's version with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes.  If nothing else this should give me a good taste of this particular play.  And yes, I do intend to continue on.  I already have A Midsummer Night's Dream all lined up.  Now where was I...scene... 

Nathan Fox: Dangerous Times

Shakespeare seems to be turning up rather a lot in my life lately.  Of course I am seeking him out, but also by chance he has made an appearance.  I don't generally read many young adult books, but this year I have been reading more than normal.  Author L. Brittney kindly passed along a copy of her YA novel, Nathan Fox: Dangerous Times recently for possible review.   It was a thoroughly enjoyable adventure tale, which I think would appeal to young readers--perhaps middle school age.

It's 1587 and Mary Queen of Scots is beheaded.  Queen Elizabeth must defend her throne from all sides.  Thirteen-year old Nathan Fox is a child actor with a theater company also employing fellow actor Will Shakespeare.  When Nathan is approached by Spymaster General, Francis Walsingham, to join England's network of spies, he jumps at the chance.  He will work with John Pearce a seasoned and highly trained spy, but first he must master the art of self defense.  He learns how to fight using swords and daggers, even how to fire pistols.  One of his worst trials is learning how to escape the dreaded oubliette.  He must also learn how to cipher and how to size up his enemy--to know when to run and when to fight.

Pearce and Fox are then sent on a mission to Venice where they will encounter the famous General Othello, his lady Desdemona and the villainous Iago.  Nathan's adventure is only dampened when his older sister is added to the mission at the last minute.  Nathan is thrown into a situation full of dangerous intrigue and drama.  The story is essentially a retelling of Shakespeare's Othello.  Nathan will leave England a boy, and though he may not return quite a man yet, he will definitely be older and wiser.  When he returns he will recount his adventures to Will, and the rest is history so to speak.

As you know I am on a mission myself these days to read more Shakespeare, and I had only the vaguest knowledge of the play, Othello (yes, I do plan on reading this one eventually).  For me this was a fun read as some of the story was new and some was not.  I think young readers will enjoy the adventurous aspects of the novel and will be exposed to Shakespeare, his times, and his work without necessarily knowing it, which is always a good thing in my book.  Prior knowledge of the life and work of Shakespeare is not really needed, though I did notice that there are lots of little references to characters in Shakespeare's works peppered throughout the story.  Brittney's writing is very good and her descriptions of the time and place give a definite sense of what 16th century England and Venice must have been like.  I suspect we can look forward to more installments of Nathan's and John Pearce's adventures.

Nathan Fox: Dangerous Times is available in paper in the UK, where it was shortlisted for the 2007 Waterstone's Children's Book Prize.  The second Nathan Fox book is currently being edited by UK publishers.  Nathan Fox: Dangerous Times will be published here in the US early next year by Feiwel & Friends.  The UK edition of the book is also available from Amazon in Canada.  You can check out the author's website here.