Imprimis: Links and Tidbits, 7 January 2011

Quite a few links for you this week, since we took a break from posting them over the holidays.

  • Just in time for the new semester, a list of Top Ten Tips for Studying Shakespeare. Sarah says: A good collection of recommendations.
  • A blog entry proposes approaching Shakespeare in the classroom more like a rehearsal. Cass says: A lot of the techniques here are similar to the ideas we build into our study guides. The more alive and active the text feels, the more the students get the idea that they’re working on something real, the easier it is to comprehend.
  • Can you judge a production company by their Romeo and Juliet? This blogger thinks so.
  • This workshop announcement from the University of Sheffield brings up a great point about the intersection of the literary and theatrical worlds. Cass says: The announcement also points out why we have the Romantics to blame for the idea of Shakespeare-as-literature-only (and I always like it when I have more reasons to blame the Romantics for things).
  • Addressing Shakespeare’s relevance, a professor at West Virginia University has written a paper linking Shakespeare to law school.
  • “Bringing the Bard behind Bars in South Africa”: With one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, South Africa has begun exploring new ways to rehabilitate offenders — and, as it happens, turning them into actors might be just the thing.
  • An opinion piece in The Washington Examiner critiques the NEA’s Poetry Out Loud competition. Cass says: We support Poetry Out Loud at the OCS — we even host one of the competitions — because we firmly believe in the value of reading verse out loud, but this article still makes some interesting points, particualarly regarding the competition’s selection bias towards modern poets over the more metrically regular verse of previous centuries. It’s not often these days that someone takes up in favor of stricter verse against free verse, so I’m pleased to see that.
  • An article in favor of technology as the future of education. Cass says: The author favors giving classrooms over to computers as entirely as possible, with teachers merely “facilitators” rather than actual instructors. I can’t help but feel that he’s missing something. I’m all for more focused use of technology in classrooms, but a computer can’t inspire, it can’t make something great for you — and a computer, no matter how well you program it, will never be 100% prepared for all of the questions and surprises that can arise from students. That human element is always going to be necessary.
  • Along those lines, here are a couple of articles debating one school district’s decision to bring iPads into the classroom. Interestingly, both articles use Shakespeare as an example. Cass says: I feel a little torn about this. I think the best argument in favour of the iPad (or other similar devices) is the textbook thing — great to cut down on paper, great to get rid of the weight in backpacks — and electronic devices offer so many more opportunities. You wouldn’t have to conform just to the standard textbooks used by the state. Teachers could choose for themselves what texts they wanted students to have access to. And it would also allow easier access to some of the great educational web resources that are out there. On the other hand, though, I feel more and more like more money should be put into the actual teaching at schools. Money to train teachers, to teach teachers, to give them the tools, rather than just using technology as a crutch. And, hey, maybe even money to pay teachers what they deserve someday. I also find it interesting how often Shakespeare is the catch-all for “education.”
  • And speaking of Shakespeare-as-litmus test, he’s also been brought into the recent controversy over a decision to publish a sanitized Huck Finn. Apart from the more generic Bowdlerization accusation, some commentators have opined that changing words for understanding is one thing; changing them for political-correctness is quite another. Even author Neil Gaiman got into it on Twitter, saying, “It’s public domain, so you can make Huck a Klingon if you want, but it’s not Mark Twain’s book.” Cass says: This is an interesting controversy for me, because it asks that question we frequently have to ask when cutting plays for performance: When have you changed so much that it’s no longer the author’s original work? Only the most stalwart of purists would say that you can’t change a single word (a tough argument to make, particularly in cases where we have quarto editions different from the First Folio). But when have you gone too far? If you cut 20 words? 20% An entire character? An entire scene? All the naughty words? Is it still Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice if you tone down the anti-Semetic language? Is it still Shakespeare’s Othello if you sanitize the references to Moors?
  • On the more light-hearted side of things, a man is re-enacting Will Kempe’s famous Nine Days Wonder, planning to morris dance from London to Norwich, to raise money for a community vegetable garden. Cass says: To my English friends, please, I beg you, if anyone sees this, post the video.
  • Hot on the heels of Miramax announcing Shakespeare in Love 2, we’re now hearing about the possibility of Shakespeare in Love: The Play.
  • Finally, it’s worth mentioning that the OCS has a considerable staff contingent attending the Shakespeare Theatre Association conference in Colorado. If you (like me) aren’t there but wish you were, follow the hashtag #STAA11 on Twitter. Our own Amy Wratchford and Sarah Enloe, as well as Richmond Shakespeare’s Grant Mudge, have been diligently Tweeting.

Enjoy your weekends!