I, Iago skillfully retells Shakespeare’s Othello as
the Tragedy of Iago, following the famous villain through the course of
his career and explaining just how he came to be the mastermind
orchestrating the downfall of a proud general and all those connected to
him. In doing so, Galland fills in some of the gaps of Shakespeare’s
narrative, showing us how Iago came to be who he is and chronicling the
circumstances that change him from a loyal friend and subordinate to a
scheming, vindictive meddler.
The book divides into “Before” and “After,” meaning before and after the point where the play Othello
begins, and each half is quite interesting in its own way. In “Before,”
we get the development of Iago as a person. Galland’s research serves
her well here — early modern Venice springs to life in vivid detail,
particularly with regards to its military and political matters. We meet
Iago as a young man, and he explains that he has always been known as
“honest Iago” — not a compliment in Venice, where the ability to
quibble, to flatter, and to evade has far more value than blunt truth.
Iago lacks subtlety, always speaking his mind, and taking decisive
action rather than weighing the consequences beforehand. He is boyhood
friends with Roderigo, though he disdain’s the other boy’s weakness and
lack of gumption; they grow apart as they grow older, with Roderigo
following his family’s mercantile endeavors. Though Iago has scholarly
leanings, his family’s prerogative forces him into the military, where
he excels, first in the artillery, then in the army. Along the way, he
woos and wins Emilia, the only woman he’s ever met with whom he can
tolerate much conversation, and their marriage is a blissfully happy
one. When Iago meets Othello, there is instant camaraderie; they meet at
a masked ball during Carnival, and the circumstances echo their
characters. Neither man can hide what he is, though Othello more
obviously, thanks to his skin tone. Iago, on the other hand, suffers
that inability in his character. Throughout the book, we see him
incapable of wearing a mask, both literally and figuratively — in every
Carnival scene, he ends up discarding his vizor, and his ungoverned
tongue and open expression display his blunt opinions at every turn. The
two men sense a commonality between them, a lack of patience with the
artifice and genteel dishonesty of Venice. Iago comes to think so highly
of Othello that there’s nothing he wouldn’t do for him, including
helping to conceal his epileptic fits from the Venetian Senate. He
follows Othello to war, to disastrous ruin on Rhodes, and to the
altogether different battleground of patrician dinner tables and courtly
galas. There, in the household of Brabantio, Othello meets his undoing:
a girl named Desdemona, enraptured with the idea of him. Iago counsels
him against the courtship, explaining that no Venetian patrician would
ever let his daughter marry outside of that narrow caste; Othello
pretends to give up the infatuation, but in fact corresponds with
Desdemona in secret and eventually planning an elopement — and since
Othello has little more talent for deceit than Iago, Iago has little
trouble uncovering the scheme.
In the “After” section, we watch this character, whom Galland has
rendered quite likeable, fall. Othello betrays Iago’s trust, giving a
coveted lieutenancy to the less-qualified Michele Cassio as a reward for
assisting in his covert courtship of Desdemona. Emilia is, to Iago’s
eyes, inexplicably supportive of the deceitful romance, and therefore
complicit. Feeling wounded and discarded by those he most loved and
trusted, Iago’s bitter hurt prompts his plans for revenge.
I call this book the Tragedy of Iago because it tracks his rise and
at least partially self-constructed fall in a way that renders him both
likeable and pitiable. Galland makes a wise choice, spending the first
half of the book on events we never see in the play, because it gives
the character a more solid background, particularly in regard to his
relationship with Othello. In Shakespeare’s play, the audience hears of
their association and implied friendship, but we never truly get to see
it; we know from the start that Iago is working to ill ends, because he
tells the audience so in barest terms. In I, Iago, the
friendship is palpable, heart-warming — and so Othello’s betrayal of
Iago has a real emotional effect. When Othello begins to shut Iago out
in favor of Cassio, the reader is privilege to Iago’s pain and
bewilderment. We also get new motivation for Iago’s actions — jealousy
and revenge play their parts, and no mistake, and Iago freely admits
that he wants to hurt his friend for hurting him, to disgrace the
usurper Cassio, and to remove Desdemona from the picture (though he does
not intend to do so through her death). That isn’t the total of what’s
going on in Iago’s head, however; when he sees how easily Othello can be
roused to dangerous passions, he starts to harbour deep concerns about
the general’s ability to serve in the position of honour and
responsibility with which the Venetian Senate has placed him. He
worries, too, about Othello’s judgment; a man who will pass over more
qualified men in order to hand positions to panderers, after all,
demonstrates an ethical lapse. Iago never claims to be operating only
for the common good, in removing a potentially dangerous commander from
his post — but since that lines up neatly with his desire for revenge,
why not work for both?
The dual nature of the tragedy is most obvious in the moment when
things spin past Iago’s ability to control them. His words have an
effect far greater than he expected, as Othello proves so easily
inflamed where his wife is concerned. The subtler tragedy is that
turning Iago from honesty to deceit. He has to learn that trait, a
talent foreign to him from birth, and it’s terrible to see him do so —
to see a good man corrupted by an unfair world. Iago becomes almost
drunk on it, overindulging, swept up by his newfound power, pushing
limits to see how far he can take his lies before they become too
improbable — and astonished when that barrier never seems to impede him.
He learns deceit from those who deceived him, and since we have the
juxtaposition of his stalwart honesty in the “Before” section, the
transformation is all the more calamitous.
The book is best when it’s not trying to out-clever itself. The
moments where I grimaced were when Galland was cramming in bits from
other Shakespeare plays that didn’t quite belong — having Iago banter
with whores and his military comrades by using lines from Measure for Measure and As You Like It, much of his courtship with Emilia coming straight out of Much Ado about Nothing–
because they were jarring, discordant. The tenor was so different from
the story she’d been telling that it seemed an odd digression.
Initially, this made me nervous for the second half of the book, which
covers the plot of Othello, but Galland actually handled the
dialogue there quite smoothly. We hit the major points and get the
biggest quotes without much interference, but most of the conversations
are taken out of verse and into more natural prose in a way that doesn’t
seem forced or awkward. The story does rather hurtle itself through the
climax and denouement, however, and while that is perhaps appropriate,
given how circumstances spiral out of Iago’s control, I could have done
with a little more fulfillment, since we had so much build-up to the
crucial moments.
This book leaves me wanting the story from yet more angles —
Emilia’s, for instance. We only ever see her through Iago’s eyes, and
though it’s clear she’s an intelligent and independent woman, she
remains only an object throughout this novel. Because everything is
first-person narrative, we lose her in the moments when Iago’s not there
— which are some of her finest moments in the play. We never really get
to know what she’s thinking, and as Iago begins on his plot of
vengeance, he distances himself from her, both because he wants to
protect her and because he no longer quite trusts her — which has the
effect of removing her from the reader as well as from himself. This
book is definitely the story of men; Emilia and Desdemona are
intriguing, but peripheral, and since Iago never understands either of
them, the reader doesn’t get that opportunity, either.
Overall, I, Iago is an entertaining and thoughtful adaptation of Shakespeare’s Othello.
The prose is well-constructed, the historical research thorough, and
the characters well-drawn. Galland explores the story from an intriguing
angle and creates a more three-dimensional world, situating Venice and
its characters in the larger world. Whereas Shakespeare narrows in,
focusing his scope tighter and tighter until it fits in a single
bedroom, Galland allows us to see how this tragedy ripples outward. I
think most Shakespeare enthusiasts will find a lot to like about this
book, and if there are also some points to criticize — well, most of us
enjoy that, too.
18 May 2012
17 May 2012
Julius Caesar: Adventures in Dramaturgy, Pt 1
In my capacity as Academic Resources Manager, I deal with a lot of text. I prepare sides and scripts for workshops and lectures, and I insert the text for relevant scenes into our Study Guides. This process always involves some editorial judgment calls -- looking back to the Folio, determining how much of the scene to include, deciding whether to trim some bits out of the middle to narrow an activity's focus, etc. It's been a long time since I cut a full script, however. The last time was in 2006, when I directed Romeo and Juliet in undergrad -- and I knew far less about textual studies then than I do now. I'm going to be serving as the dramaturg for the 2013 Actors' Renaissance Season Julius Caesar, and as part of that process, I've also taken on the responsibility of cutting the script.
The thing about Julius Caesar is that you don't have to cut a lot. The play runs 2438 lines in the Folio, the only early modern version that we have (I got off easy, not having to compare to any quarto editions). We aim for about 2300 lines for a show, with the goal of a two-hour production. I knew going in that I was probably going to want to trim slightly more than that, however, for a few reasons. One is that this is going to be the first show in the Ren Season, so it certainly can't hurt to trim down what the actors have to tackle in those first three days. Another is just to tell a tighter story; there are lots of moments in Julius Caesar that, while certainly not unplayable (particularly with such talented actors as the ASC is fortunate to have), aren't always as gripping as they might be. Shakespeare spends a lot of time showing off his Plutarch, but some of those references may seem obscure or downright bizarre to a modern audience. My inner Latin geek appreciates them; my practical side can trim them without suffering too great an attack of conscience. Finally, knowing that this is going to be the most-played school matinee of the artistic year, I knew I wanted to streamline the text for maximum appeal, to key in on the relationships that define the play, the overlap and tension of those political friendships.
The trouble, though, is that there's just so much good stuff in this play. Take Cassius, for example, who talks more than anyone except Brutus (possibly only because he dies before Brutus). At first glance, you would think that the play could do with a lot less of him and not suffer terribly. So much of what he says, however, is such delicious language. He's a spitfire, choleric and quick-tempered, but no less eloquent for that temper; rather, it seems to fuel and fire him, leading him to cram his speeches with vivid detail, incisive observations, and inventive structure. Cassius is also useful as a contrast to Brutus, not just as a matter of character, but rhetorically as well. Cassius has a complex elegance in his speech which Brutus utterly lacks; in order to get through to Brutus, Cassius has to try different tactics, and it's always the least sophisticated one that elicits a response. Cassius is, in many ways, far, far cleverer than Brutus; it shows in his political canniness (as in his desire to do away with Antony as well as Caesar, recognizing an inevitable threat, and in his awareness of military realities in Acts 4 and 5), and it also shows in his use of words. Shakespeare's language clearly juxtaposes Cassius's political astuteness and practicality with Brutus's blunt honor and intractable morals. This dynamic is not only interesting but critical to the operation of those relationship dynamics that so interest me -- and yet, I know, those long speeches are where attentions will be most likely to wander. So I had a challenge: to balance the need to cut something with the desire to preserve all the character information that the language provides.
Then there are the minor characters. Could I cut that line from Decius Brutus or Metellus Cimber? Well, sure. The play would lose nothing imperative. But then that pretty well excises his reason for being in the scene; I don't want to make a character extraneous, and I don't want to rob an actor with a smaller track in this play of a potentially juicy moment (and since Brutus, Cassius, and Antony thoroughly dominate the line count, there are a lot of smaller tracks). So, how to balance this? How to keep the sensation of a bustling Rome, crammed with ambitious men and craven followers, while still making cuts that will help the production to present a clear and focused story? Or how about a character like Portia? Certainly, I could trim some of her speeches down -- but she really only gets the one scene to connect with the audience. I couldn't bring myself to butcher those moments, but to justify keeping all of that intact, I had to find something else to sacrifice elsewhere.
I ended up taking a very surgical approach to the text, trimming from within speeches rather than hacking out large sections in their entirety. A line here, a line there -- it adds up, and eventually, I had cut over two hundred lines, but never more than a few at a time. Occasionally it hurt my rhetorical soul a bit, to excise some repetitions or additions -- but that was the choice I had to make. If the rhetorical form was crucial to the moment, to the character's persuasive approach, I kept it, but if it seemed extraneous, if the character had already made his rhetorical point, I could consider it for the chopping block. Consider the following:
The largest change I made was for purely practical reasons: our Ren Season has twelve actors in it, and the opening of 3.1 calls for fourteen characters to be on-stage simultaneously. Thirteen enter together, as per the Folio stage direction:
--then, only ten lines in, Publius speaks, though he has no written entrance. So, I struck Lepidus for that scene (he never speaks and no one refers to him) and I combined the characters of Publius and Popilius into one figure. That necessity led to a little creative cutting and line reassignment, but it seems to work. Our actors will still have a challenge to untangle, though, as that still leaves twelve characters entering simultaneously at the top of 3.1, plus someone to conduct the Flourish -- and two of them will have to change from having been Portia and Lucius in 2.4.
Before I sent the cut script off to Artistic Director Jim Warren and Associate Artistic Director Jay McClure, I gathered a few of my friends to do a read-around of the text. With only five people in the room, I anticipated we'd be doing a lot of talking to ourselves, but that actually wasn't the case as frequently as I'd expected. Because Brutus, Cassius, and Antony control so many scenes, most characters end up reacting to one of them rather than to each other. Just doing that read-around taught me a lot about how the various scenes function. Hearing the cut text aloud was helpful; I actually ended up highlighting more lines that I think I could cut, if we needed an even shorter script -- if someone wanted to do a 90-minute version, for example, I think I would have no trouble at all getting it there. I gave Cassius a few lines back after this read-around, I snipped a few lines elsewhere to compensate, and I now have some good ideas about what else we could trade off if someone wants other lines back in. I feel quite positive about it, on the whole; I don't think I slaughtered any sacred cows, and the surgical approach means that, hopefully, most audience members won't notice the omissions at all.
So, we'll see how it turns out. Once Jim, Jay, and at least one actor have looked at it, I'll get the final comments back, and then I'll start preparing the cue scripts. That process will be a whole other adventure with this play, and one which presents some fascinating possibilities (for which I feel I should probably apologize to our eventual Antony in advance). But that, Dear Readers, will be another blog post.
The thing about Julius Caesar is that you don't have to cut a lot. The play runs 2438 lines in the Folio, the only early modern version that we have (I got off easy, not having to compare to any quarto editions). We aim for about 2300 lines for a show, with the goal of a two-hour production. I knew going in that I was probably going to want to trim slightly more than that, however, for a few reasons. One is that this is going to be the first show in the Ren Season, so it certainly can't hurt to trim down what the actors have to tackle in those first three days. Another is just to tell a tighter story; there are lots of moments in Julius Caesar that, while certainly not unplayable (particularly with such talented actors as the ASC is fortunate to have), aren't always as gripping as they might be. Shakespeare spends a lot of time showing off his Plutarch, but some of those references may seem obscure or downright bizarre to a modern audience. My inner Latin geek appreciates them; my practical side can trim them without suffering too great an attack of conscience. Finally, knowing that this is going to be the most-played school matinee of the artistic year, I knew I wanted to streamline the text for maximum appeal, to key in on the relationships that define the play, the overlap and tension of those political friendships.
The trouble, though, is that there's just so much good stuff in this play. Take Cassius, for example, who talks more than anyone except Brutus (possibly only because he dies before Brutus). At first glance, you would think that the play could do with a lot less of him and not suffer terribly. So much of what he says, however, is such delicious language. He's a spitfire, choleric and quick-tempered, but no less eloquent for that temper; rather, it seems to fuel and fire him, leading him to cram his speeches with vivid detail, incisive observations, and inventive structure. Cassius is also useful as a contrast to Brutus, not just as a matter of character, but rhetorically as well. Cassius has a complex elegance in his speech which Brutus utterly lacks; in order to get through to Brutus, Cassius has to try different tactics, and it's always the least sophisticated one that elicits a response. Cassius is, in many ways, far, far cleverer than Brutus; it shows in his political canniness (as in his desire to do away with Antony as well as Caesar, recognizing an inevitable threat, and in his awareness of military realities in Acts 4 and 5), and it also shows in his use of words. Shakespeare's language clearly juxtaposes Cassius's political astuteness and practicality with Brutus's blunt honor and intractable morals. This dynamic is not only interesting but critical to the operation of those relationship dynamics that so interest me -- and yet, I know, those long speeches are where attentions will be most likely to wander. So I had a challenge: to balance the need to cut something with the desire to preserve all the character information that the language provides.
Then there are the minor characters. Could I cut that line from Decius Brutus or Metellus Cimber? Well, sure. The play would lose nothing imperative. But then that pretty well excises his reason for being in the scene; I don't want to make a character extraneous, and I don't want to rob an actor with a smaller track in this play of a potentially juicy moment (and since Brutus, Cassius, and Antony thoroughly dominate the line count, there are a lot of smaller tracks). So, how to balance this? How to keep the sensation of a bustling Rome, crammed with ambitious men and craven followers, while still making cuts that will help the production to present a clear and focused story? Or how about a character like Portia? Certainly, I could trim some of her speeches down -- but she really only gets the one scene to connect with the audience. I couldn't bring myself to butcher those moments, but to justify keeping all of that intact, I had to find something else to sacrifice elsewhere.
I ended up taking a very surgical approach to the text, trimming from within speeches rather than hacking out large sections in their entirety. A line here, a line there -- it adds up, and eventually, I had cut over two hundred lines, but never more than a few at a time. Occasionally it hurt my rhetorical soul a bit, to excise some repetitions or additions -- but that was the choice I had to make. If the rhetorical form was crucial to the moment, to the character's persuasive approach, I kept it, but if it seemed extraneous, if the character had already made his rhetorical point, I could consider it for the chopping block. Consider the following:
That anaphora (repeated beginnings) in the middle is an interesting structure, and there's no denying that it adds something to this speech. But, this is something Cassius does almost every time he has a speech of more than ten lines, so it's not as though it is an unusual device or one which makes a unique point; we'll hear the same device elsewhere, and the audience will still know that Cassius is given to repetition and to over-emphasizing his point. Those lines also have some nice evocative language -- but, we've had plenty of descriptions of the strange portents in this scene already, and we'll have more in 2.1 and 2.2. By cutting this, we're not losing anything we don't get elsewhere. On the other hand, in the following:
CASSIUSYou are dull, Casca,And those sparks of life that should be in a RomanYou do want, or else you use not.You look pale, and gaze, and put on fear,And cast yourself in wonder,
To see the strange impatience of the heavens:
But if you would consider the true cause
Why all these fires, why all these gliding ghosts,Why all these things change from their ordinance,
Why birds and beasts from quality and kind,
Why old men fool and children calculate,
Their natures and pre-formed faculties,
To monstrous quality; why, you shall find
That heaven hath infus'd them with these spirits,
To make them instruments of fear, and warning
Unto some monstrous state.
I had initially marked that final line for cutting, but I ended up putting it back in. In some ways, it's redundant. The audience hears the predator-prey analogy and understands it; why do we need a second iteration? Because, I think, there's a critical symbolic difference between a wolf and a lion. The second analogy, then, is almost corrective -- Cassius grudgingly granting Caesar the association with a nobler animal, but only by comparison to the other craven Romans. The first analogy could then read more like, "I know he would not be a predatory, but that he sees the Romans are but prey," whereas the second reads more, "He were no great and powerful man, were not Romans weak and yielding." The connotation is different, and so I retained what originally seemed a redundancy. We also hear about a lion stalking the streets and a lioness whelping in the streets, and so I think it's important to retain that association of the lion with Caesar.
CASSIUSAnd why should Caesar be a tyrant then?
Poor man, I know he would not be a wolf,
But that he sees the Romans are but sheep:
He were no lion, were not Romans hinds.
The largest change I made was for purely practical reasons: our Ren Season has twelve actors in it, and the opening of 3.1 calls for fourteen characters to be on-stage simultaneously. Thirteen enter together, as per the Folio stage direction:
--then, only ten lines in, Publius speaks, though he has no written entrance. So, I struck Lepidus for that scene (he never speaks and no one refers to him) and I combined the characters of Publius and Popilius into one figure. That necessity led to a little creative cutting and line reassignment, but it seems to work. Our actors will still have a challenge to untangle, though, as that still leaves twelve characters entering simultaneously at the top of 3.1, plus someone to conduct the Flourish -- and two of them will have to change from having been Portia and Lucius in 2.4.
Before I sent the cut script off to Artistic Director Jim Warren and Associate Artistic Director Jay McClure, I gathered a few of my friends to do a read-around of the text. With only five people in the room, I anticipated we'd be doing a lot of talking to ourselves, but that actually wasn't the case as frequently as I'd expected. Because Brutus, Cassius, and Antony control so many scenes, most characters end up reacting to one of them rather than to each other. Just doing that read-around taught me a lot about how the various scenes function. Hearing the cut text aloud was helpful; I actually ended up highlighting more lines that I think I could cut, if we needed an even shorter script -- if someone wanted to do a 90-minute version, for example, I think I would have no trouble at all getting it there. I gave Cassius a few lines back after this read-around, I snipped a few lines elsewhere to compensate, and I now have some good ideas about what else we could trade off if someone wants other lines back in. I feel quite positive about it, on the whole; I don't think I slaughtered any sacred cows, and the surgical approach means that, hopefully, most audience members won't notice the omissions at all.
So, we'll see how it turns out. Once Jim, Jay, and at least one actor have looked at it, I'll get the final comments back, and then I'll start preparing the cue scripts. That process will be a whole other adventure with this play, and one which presents some fascinating possibilities (for which I feel I should probably apologize to our eventual Antony in advance). But that, Dear Readers, will be another blog post.
01 May 2012
A Belated Happy Birthday to Shakespeare
With apologies for the delay, here is my contribution to the Happy Birthday Shakespeare project. Last year, I gave you all the full story of my experience with Shakespeare; this year, it's about growth. In the twelve months since the big guy's last birthday, we've had another season of summer camps, we hosted the 6th Blackfriars Conference, and we held our first week-long Leadership Seminar. Personally, I completed another round of Study Guides, I presented at the Blackfriars Conference, and I participated in my first panel at the Shakespeare Association of American conference. It's been a big year.
In some ways, it's actually a little appropriate that I'm finally getting around to wishing Shakespeare a happy birthday today, as today is also the birthday of Sarah Enloe, the ASC Director of Education -- the phenomenal woman who holds this department together. She's a veteran of the UT-Austin theatre studies program and the Mary Baldwin College MLitt/MFA program, she taught theatre arts at the high school level in Texas for five years, and in 2003, she won recognition as teacher of the year and an NEH fellowship to study with Shakespeare & Co. At the ASC, Sarah directs programming in the areas of College Prep, Research and Scholarship (including facilitating the ASC’s partnership with Mary Baldwin College’s Masters in Shakespeare and Performance Program), Personal Renaissance, and Educator Resources -- a near-superhuman effort, really, doing the work of several people in one body (and, to the best of my knowledge, without opening any holes in the space-time continuum in order to fit more hours into her day). She's the one who picked me out for this fantastic job that I hold, and she's been an incredible mentor over the past two years.
This spirals around to one of the things I find so great about Shakespeare: the amazing ability his works have to inspire people. Something about these plays lights a fire in so many people, and so many of those people then feel the compulsion -- the imperative need -- to share that joy with others. Once you strip away the fear, once you get past that initial pushback, it can really be quite easy, if you use the tools that Shakespeare gives you -- as we observed during the Leadership Seminar. Shakespeare's plays are just that -- they're for playing. Pull them apart to find the clues, dig through the obfuscation of the intervening centuries to recover layers of meaning, -- approaching his texts as plays, as living and breathing things, is both so instructive and so enjoyable. In the past year, I've seen the lights go on in so many heads, from nine year old students to urban professionals to septuagenarian retirees. It never fails to reinvigorate me. Our company is filled with people who feel that same fire. It has to be; you can't do this kind of work, with this kind of intensity and this kind of infectious energy, if you don't absolutely love it.
So today, I'd like to thank Shakespeare and Sarah both for their incredible ability to inspire me and others. Happy birthday to you both!
In some ways, it's actually a little appropriate that I'm finally getting around to wishing Shakespeare a happy birthday today, as today is also the birthday of Sarah Enloe, the ASC Director of Education -- the phenomenal woman who holds this department together. She's a veteran of the UT-Austin theatre studies program and the Mary Baldwin College MLitt/MFA program, she taught theatre arts at the high school level in Texas for five years, and in 2003, she won recognition as teacher of the year and an NEH fellowship to study with Shakespeare & Co. At the ASC, Sarah directs programming in the areas of College Prep, Research and Scholarship (including facilitating the ASC’s partnership with Mary Baldwin College’s Masters in Shakespeare and Performance Program), Personal Renaissance, and Educator Resources -- a near-superhuman effort, really, doing the work of several people in one body (and, to the best of my knowledge, without opening any holes in the space-time continuum in order to fit more hours into her day). She's the one who picked me out for this fantastic job that I hold, and she's been an incredible mentor over the past two years.
This spirals around to one of the things I find so great about Shakespeare: the amazing ability his works have to inspire people. Something about these plays lights a fire in so many people, and so many of those people then feel the compulsion -- the imperative need -- to share that joy with others. Once you strip away the fear, once you get past that initial pushback, it can really be quite easy, if you use the tools that Shakespeare gives you -- as we observed during the Leadership Seminar. Shakespeare's plays are just that -- they're for playing. Pull them apart to find the clues, dig through the obfuscation of the intervening centuries to recover layers of meaning, -- approaching his texts as plays, as living and breathing things, is both so instructive and so enjoyable. In the past year, I've seen the lights go on in so many heads, from nine year old students to urban professionals to septuagenarian retirees. It never fails to reinvigorate me. Our company is filled with people who feel that same fire. It has to be; you can't do this kind of work, with this kind of intensity and this kind of infectious energy, if you don't absolutely love it.
So today, I'd like to thank Shakespeare and Sarah both for their incredible ability to inspire me and others. Happy birthday to you both!
30 April 2012
Wandering through Wordles, Part the Second
When I began building last year's set of Study Guides, I devoted a post to the Wordles which we include as part of the Basics unit. ASC Education uses Wordles as a device to introduce students to the idea that Shakespeare's language is their language, that the vocabulary is familiar, not alien. Handing students who are new to Shakespeare a block of uninterrupted text can be intimidating, and the so-called "line of terror" at the bottom of many editions only augments the students' assumptions that they won't understand without explanation. Breaking the words down through a Wordle, however, demonstrates the accessibility of the language. In most instances, the only completely unfamiliar words will be proper nouns -- place names and character names. When students find a challenging word that is not a proper noun, we tell teachers to move back to the text itself; usually, the word's meaning is apparent in context. This method is an easy introduction to Shakespeare's language and can help remove some of the fear that many students experience when first engaging with the text.
Last year, I discovered that Wordles of the first 100 lines can also illuminate something about the plays themselves, as well as what Shakespeare seems to be calling attention to in the first five minutes of a show. As I begin working on the 2012-2013 set -- Twelfth Night, Romeo and Juliet, The Merchant of Venice, and The Two Gentlemen of Verona -- I've started constructing a new series of Wordles. So, as a bit of a teaser for these upcoming Study Guides, I thought I would share the discoveries I've made in these new examples.
To begin, here's Twelfth Night:
The first 100 lines of Twelfth Night stretch over almost two full scenes: Orsino lamenting to his court about Olivia's persistent rejection, and Viola the Illyrian shore, mourning her supposedly drowned brother. The biggest words here are "love" and "brother", and those clues wrap up the relationship dynamics of the play pretty succinctly. Both have a focus in both of the opening scenes; Olivia has recently lost her brother, and uses that as the basis for rejecting Orsino's suit, and Viola thinks her brother Sebastian has drowned. The other words that stand out to me are "may" and "perchance." There's an emphasis on the subjunctive mood, which, in a strange way, sort of highlights the impermeability and the uncertainty that dominates this play. The subjunctive mood is one of desire and doubt, wishes and maybes. Everything is "perchance;" everything exists on unstable ground when we start, and the lines of certainty only become more blurred as the play goes on.
Next up, Romeo and Juliet:
I think, from this Wordle, you get a sense of the challenging atmosphere in the first 100 lines of this play. We see a lot of address happening -- "sir," "thou," "thee" -- so we know, right off, that characters are speaking to each other and that they are, judging by the pronouns, being informal. We also see a lot of active verbs, such as "bite," "draw," "stand," and "strike," as well as other words indicative of a fight -- "sword," "quarrel," "hate." The first 100 lines of Romeo and Juliet set a mood of combat and aggression, and that much is evident in the vocabulary Shakespeare uses. We also get the names of the factions involved, the Capulets and Montagues.
Next, The Merchant of Venice, and I'll confess, this one cracked me up:
Why did this crack me up? Well, as I'd been looking over these first 100 lines, I turned to Sarah and said, "It feels like all anyone does in the first scene of this play is walk up to Antonio and say, 'Hey, man, you look terrible, what's wrong?' Seriously, it just keeps happening." And then I did this Wordle, and lo and behold, our largest words? "Sad" and "Antonio." The Wordle verifies my perception of what's going on in this opening scene. Apart from that, we see a lot of other words related to emotions -- "laugh," "merry," "love," "like," "wearies," "melancholy," -- as well as some words introducing the mercantile aspect of the play: "worth," "ventures," "merchandise," "fortune." It's interesting to me that Shakespeare foregrounds both of those spheres in these first five minutes, demonstrating the complicated links between love and fortune (and between personal merit and financial worth) right from the start.
Finally, the Wordle for the first 100 lines of The Two Gentlemen of Verona, which is interesting in a rather different way from the others:
At first glance, this one is rather weird, and might have you thinking that Two Gents is some kind of pastoral comedy. Why on earth would "sheep" and "shepherd" appear so large? I love this example, because the Wordle actually points at the rhetoric. Those words appear in repetition in the following exchange:
Proteus and Speed engage in stichomythia, the rapid exchange of lines (as do Sampson and Gregory in the beginning of Romeo and Juliet), and they layer this with punning and repetitions, including antimetabole, the repetition of words in inverted (A-B-B-A) order. The prominence of those terms in the Wordle, then, doesn't introduce us to a large overarching concept of the play, but it does hint at what the tenor of the play will be. This sort of bantering humor continues throughout the text, between many different characters.
The biggest word in this example, though, is "love" -- right from the beginning, that's what Valentine and Proteus are talking about, and that's what they'll keep talking about throughout the entire play. The tensions between romantic love, friendly love, and self-love are what drive this play, and Shakespeare opens by having his two male protagonists discuss when love is real and when it isn't, during which they repeat the word "love" seventeen times.
Since ASC Education began using Wordles as a tool in our Study Guides, we've had great responses to them. These are a great way for a teacher to begin the class discussion of the play on an accessible level, easing students away from their fear and into a discussion of the text. For more information, check out our Study Guides, available as PDF downloads or print-on-demand hard copies through lulu.com.
Last year, I discovered that Wordles of the first 100 lines can also illuminate something about the plays themselves, as well as what Shakespeare seems to be calling attention to in the first five minutes of a show. As I begin working on the 2012-2013 set -- Twelfth Night, Romeo and Juliet, The Merchant of Venice, and The Two Gentlemen of Verona -- I've started constructing a new series of Wordles. So, as a bit of a teaser for these upcoming Study Guides, I thought I would share the discoveries I've made in these new examples.
To begin, here's Twelfth Night:
The first 100 lines of Twelfth Night stretch over almost two full scenes: Orsino lamenting to his court about Olivia's persistent rejection, and Viola the Illyrian shore, mourning her supposedly drowned brother. The biggest words here are "love" and "brother", and those clues wrap up the relationship dynamics of the play pretty succinctly. Both have a focus in both of the opening scenes; Olivia has recently lost her brother, and uses that as the basis for rejecting Orsino's suit, and Viola thinks her brother Sebastian has drowned. The other words that stand out to me are "may" and "perchance." There's an emphasis on the subjunctive mood, which, in a strange way, sort of highlights the impermeability and the uncertainty that dominates this play. The subjunctive mood is one of desire and doubt, wishes and maybes. Everything is "perchance;" everything exists on unstable ground when we start, and the lines of certainty only become more blurred as the play goes on.
Next up, Romeo and Juliet:
I think, from this Wordle, you get a sense of the challenging atmosphere in the first 100 lines of this play. We see a lot of address happening -- "sir," "thou," "thee" -- so we know, right off, that characters are speaking to each other and that they are, judging by the pronouns, being informal. We also see a lot of active verbs, such as "bite," "draw," "stand," and "strike," as well as other words indicative of a fight -- "sword," "quarrel," "hate." The first 100 lines of Romeo and Juliet set a mood of combat and aggression, and that much is evident in the vocabulary Shakespeare uses. We also get the names of the factions involved, the Capulets and Montagues.
Next, The Merchant of Venice, and I'll confess, this one cracked me up:
Why did this crack me up? Well, as I'd been looking over these first 100 lines, I turned to Sarah and said, "It feels like all anyone does in the first scene of this play is walk up to Antonio and say, 'Hey, man, you look terrible, what's wrong?' Seriously, it just keeps happening." And then I did this Wordle, and lo and behold, our largest words? "Sad" and "Antonio." The Wordle verifies my perception of what's going on in this opening scene. Apart from that, we see a lot of other words related to emotions -- "laugh," "merry," "love," "like," "wearies," "melancholy," -- as well as some words introducing the mercantile aspect of the play: "worth," "ventures," "merchandise," "fortune." It's interesting to me that Shakespeare foregrounds both of those spheres in these first five minutes, demonstrating the complicated links between love and fortune (and between personal merit and financial worth) right from the start.
Finally, the Wordle for the first 100 lines of The Two Gentlemen of Verona, which is interesting in a rather different way from the others:
At first glance, this one is rather weird, and might have you thinking that Two Gents is some kind of pastoral comedy. Why on earth would "sheep" and "shepherd" appear so large? I love this example, because the Wordle actually points at the rhetoric. Those words appear in repetition in the following exchange:
SPEED
Sir Proteus, save you! Saw you my master?
PROTEUS
But now he parted hence, to embark for Milan.
SPEED
Twenty to one then he is shipp'd already,
And I have play'd the sheep in losing him.
PROTEUS
Indeed, a sheep doth very often stray,
An if the shepherd be a while away.
SPEED
You conclude that my master is a shepherd, then,
and I a sheep?
PROTEUS
I do.
SPEED
Why then, my horns are his horns, whether I wake or sleep.
PROTEUS
A silly answer and fitting well a sheep.
SPEED
This proves me still a sheep.
PROTEUS
True; and thy master a shepherd.
SPEED
Nay, that I can deny by a circumstance.
PROTEUS
It shall go hard but I'll prove it by another.
SPEED
The shepherd seeks the sheep, and not the sheep the
shepherd; but I seek my master, and my master seeks
not me: therefore I am no sheep.
PROTEUS
The sheep for fodder follow the shepherd; the
shepherd for food follows not the sheep: thou for
wages followest thy master; thy master for wages
follows not thee: therefore thou art a sheep.
SPEED
Such another proof will make me cry 'baa.'
Proteus and Speed engage in stichomythia, the rapid exchange of lines (as do Sampson and Gregory in the beginning of Romeo and Juliet), and they layer this with punning and repetitions, including antimetabole, the repetition of words in inverted (A-B-B-A) order. The prominence of those terms in the Wordle, then, doesn't introduce us to a large overarching concept of the play, but it does hint at what the tenor of the play will be. This sort of bantering humor continues throughout the text, between many different characters.
The biggest word in this example, though, is "love" -- right from the beginning, that's what Valentine and Proteus are talking about, and that's what they'll keep talking about throughout the entire play. The tensions between romantic love, friendly love, and self-love are what drive this play, and Shakespeare opens by having his two male protagonists discuss when love is real and when it isn't, during which they repeat the word "love" seventeen times.
Since ASC Education began using Wordles as a tool in our Study Guides, we've had great responses to them. These are a great way for a teacher to begin the class discussion of the play on an accessible level, easing students away from their fear and into a discussion of the text. For more information, check out our Study Guides, available as PDF downloads or print-on-demand hard copies through lulu.com.
24 April 2012
Leadership Seminar: International Paper
Last week, ASC Education embarked on a bit of an experiment
by holding our first-ever week-long Leadership Seminar. We've been holding
shorter seminars, anywhere from a quarter-day to two full days,
since 2003, but this was our first go at expanding that model. A group of
professionals from International Paper joined us Monday evening through Friday
afternoon for a week examining persuasive techniques in Shakespeare's plays,
practicing communication and presentation skills, and exploring problem-solving
techniques in teams.
The group consisted of individuals from many facets of the
company – sales, IT, marketing, transit, legal, food services – and was truly
international, with members from China, Venezuela, India, and Poland. Most of
this group had little to no experience with Shakespeare, and for those
international participants, it was literally a foreign language to them. So we
had quite a challenge ahead of us, to get this group not only to see what
Shakespeare could teach them about leadership, but to get them to have a good
time doing it.
It totally worked, and in large part precisely because of
Shakespeare's stagecraft. All we had to do was show them the tools; once they
got those down, they could see all the directions that he writes into his plays
– everything from prop needs to movement to emotions to status markers. With
that empowerment behind them, they easily grew out of their fear and into not
just appreciation of but enthusiasm for Shakespeare's plays.
![]() |
| Leadership Seminar participants from International Paper, back three rows, with ASC coaches and staff, front row. Photo by Ralph Alan Cohen |
We structured our week as follows: Each morning, we examined
"Shakespeare's Models of Leadership," examples of effective or
ineffective leaders in Shakespeare. This included everyone from the obvious
examples and heavy hitters – Henry V, Richard III, Antony – to less-overt or
less-well-known examples of leadership and communication: Claudius, Feste, Jack
Cade, Beatrice. The IP group got to watch our talented actors present scenes
and monologues, and then Ralph talked through them, drawing attention to
particular points of persuasion, audience appeal, personal presentation, and
other aspects of communication. These examples gave us a ground level to start
from and a common experience to point back at as examples throughout our other
activities.
Early in the week, the group also heard from a few real-life,
modern-day experts in communication and leadership, including Ronald
Heifetz, the co-founder of and senior lecturer at the Center for Public Leadership
at Harvard University and author or co-author of several important books on
leadership, including Leadership without
Easy Answers, Leadership on the Line, and The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing
your Organization and the World. In his lecture, Heifetz talked about a
leader needing to be able to "look down from the balcony" – referring
to the ability to step back and look at the big picture. That language stuck
with the group throughout the week. Again and again, they considered the
benefits of standing apart from a situation, taking up residence on that imaginary
balcony and exploring the advantages the new viewpoint provided them. Several
of the participants mentioned Heifetz's lecture as a critical
component to the week, providing them with inspiration and with some concrete
ideas to return to as they worked through their own leadership styles.
In the rest of the day, we explored language analysis and
presentation in two ways. The first was by having the participants construct,
practice, review, and alter "challenge statements" – brief
descriptions of some challenge they are facing in their professional or
personal lives. Confused? Here's one that one of our actor-coaches, Gregory Jon
Phelps, wrote during our planning sessions, which we gave to the IP group as an
example:
"When presented with the task of writing this Challenge
Statement, it seemed at first to be an easy assignment; its purpose clear,
structure simple, and design helpful toward fully understanding the
participants’ experience. However, the actual creation and construction of this
statement, given all the possible subjects from which to choose, has, indeed,
proven to be a challenge. The solution is simple: set aside the time it will
take to write the statement, be alert and focused, and a subject will come to
mind. It still seems easier said than done, though, since it is the actual deed
itself, not the theoretical planning, that must be completed. Once the time has
been blocked off, all other distractions have been dealt with properly, and an
environment conducive to writing has been established, I’m confident that I
will be inspired with a subject, that it will be effortless to write the
statement, and that it will prove to be no challenge at all, but, in fact,
quite fun."
The goal is to be simple, succinct, and persuasive – to be
concise, but to make a strong point. We gave our participants a lot of
different things to consider. Who might their intended audience be? How can
they appeal to that audience? Are numerical details important? Or a personal
anecdote? Do they want to present a problem and then suggest a solution? Or
just focus on the problem itself? There are a lot of options; the goal is for
the participants to find the approach that will work best for them, to find the
way to tell the story they most want to tell. Working through these, we asked
the participants to consider both their physical and vocal presentation, using
lessons learned from the coaches as well as from Doreen Bechtol's morning
warm-up sessions, as well as the structure of their thoughts, their word
choice, patterns of speech, and specificity of language.
The second exploration challenged the participants to put
together scenes out of cue scripts. In many ways, this involved leadership in
practice more strongly than anything else they did during the week. Due to the
nature of cue scripts, each member of the team only had part of the information
necessary to build the scene, so they had to figure out how to communicate
their needs to each other. The exercise also stresses the importance of
listening, since one character might have embedded stage directions not in
their own lines, but in what someone else says.
Both of these challenges made some of our participants
pretty nervous on the first day. I could see the standard markers of hesitation
and fear. We strove to combat those reactions by creating safe spaces for
experimentation, and part of that meant starting in smaller, non-threatening
groups. We started the week in small groups of three or four participants,
attached to one coach (myself or one of the six actors working with us through
the week: Miriam Donald Burrows, John Harrell, Daniel Kennedy, Gregory Jon
Phelps, René Thornton Jr., and Jeremy West). Those small groups worked through
both the challenge statements and the cue scripts on Tuesday. Then, on Wednesday,
we teamed up into groups of five and six, with two coaches: slightly wider
range of feedback for challenge statement, slightly larger and more complex
scenes to work through. Thursday, we glommed further into groups of ten and
twelve, with three or four coaches, and on Friday morning, the entire group
presented their final challenge statements and final scenes. This structure
allowed the experience to build from simple to complex, as well as fostering
the participants' increased confidence each step of the way.
![]() |
| IP participants rehearse a scene from Julius Caesar, with acting coach Daniel Kennedy visible, lower right. Photo by Cass Morris |
It was amazing to watch. On Tuesday, my group members needed
a lot of help from me. The coaches weren't meant to direct, but I found that I
did need to ask a lot of leading questions about both the challenge statements
and the scenes. Is there another way you can try that? Was that a conscious
choice, or an accident? Is there a place you can choose to move? What in the
text tells you that? Who are you saying that to? So, too, my group had a lot of
questions for me – about the language, about pronunciation, about character
relationships. I gave them only the bare necessities, nudging them to look in
the text for clues.
And they got there. By Friday morning, with four coaches in
the room, they barely needed us at all. Many times, I would notice myself or
one of the other three coaches in the room start to open our mouths to suggest
something or to ask a question – only to shut them again because the group had
already gotten there, had already found the clue in the text. The language was
no longer a barrier. They were hunting out clues, listening for embedded stage
directions, considering the stage picture and the requirements of the scene,
making decisions about who could and should stand where, and when they should
move. I could hardly keep from bouncing with glee, it was such a thrill to
watch them, knowing how far they had come in just a couple of days. What's more
– they were laughing their way
through it, enjoying even the errors, making big and bold choices and
delighting in the process. I love things like this, because it verifies what we
claim about Shakespeare – that he wrote those clues into the text, that he
wrote for actors, with the ideas of
staging in mind.
Over the course of the week, we coaches became pretty
attached to our groups. Having the privilege of seeing a group through from Day
1 to Day 5 was incredible, and when one of "mine" nailed something in
a presentation, I felt a burst of pride (and sometimes couldn't stop from doing
a joyous fist-pump in the air). As we merged with other groups, it was also
great to see how their members had evolved, what challenges they had faced that
were similar to or different from ours, and how they integrated those ideas
when working together.
The final challenge statements were a world apart from where
the participants had started at the beginning of the week. Instead of mumbling
voices, shuffling feat, hunched shoulders, and aimless sentences, we had bold
tones, clear enunciation, excellent posture, straight backs, and focused
statements. From hesitancy and obfuscation, we got confidence and clarity. (And,
as a bonus, I think we all learned something about both the mechanics and the
business of producing paper). The best part, though, was that I could sense the
confidence our participants had gained over the week. At the beginning of the
week, it had been a bit like drawing teeth to get anyone to volunteer to speak.
By Friday morning, they were queuing up, eagerly anticipating their turns to
take the stage.
One of the most touching moments was when one of the Chinese
participants gave her final speech. She hadn't been in any of my working
groups, so I hadn't had the opportunity to see her through that process of
evolution. Instead, I got to see a night-and-day difference. The first day, she
had been shy, uncomfortable with presenting in a foreign language, apologizing
for herself (even though, as we pointed out, absolutely no one was judging her,
since she certainly knows more English than any of us know Mandarin). On the
last day, she delivered her challenge statement in Chinese, rather than in
English. Having no Chinese myself, I didn't understand a word, but I could still
see a world of difference in her presentation. She was confident, she stood
tall and straight, and even though I didn't know what her words meant, I could
tell which ones were important. She was choosing places to pause, choosing
where to get louder or softer, and using her body to tell the same story of
emphasis as her words. It was remarkable, and I know I wasn't the only one
getting a little choked up, seeing how far she – and all the others in the
group – had come.
Following those scenes, we had one last conversation with
the whole group, and here, the participants confirmed a lot of what I'd been
seeing in practice. Getting to hear, in their own words, what this week had
meant for them and what they had learned was incredibly valuable, and also
quite touching. Several of them found the cue script exercises to be valuable,
particularly for what it taught about giving and receiving focus, about when
it's a leader's job to speak, and when it's a leader's job to listen. Others
had awakened to the value of trying out a speech different ways, with different
inflections or different word choices, of playing around with the language, and
of giving themselves permission to try something that might not work in order
to find the thing that would. Still others appreciated the opportunity to be
vulnerable and to go through the process of self-auditing and reflection. They
talked about the value of asking questions, of showcasing different aspects of
communication, of learning about different kinds of leaders, and of finding
inspiration in unexpected places.
One of the greatest joys in my job is getting to see people
awaken to both the great value and the great joy of Shakespeare, and last week
demonstrated both of those as thoroughly as I could imagine. Expanding the
Leadership program to a full week gave me and the other coaches the opportunity
to see the transformative nature of
this kind of work. Best of all, throughout the entire week, I never heard a
single person say, "No, I can't do this" or "No, I won't do this." Skeptical as they
were at the outset, they were still willing to try – and once they took that
first step, the infinite variety lay ahead, just waiting for them. I can't wait
to do it again.
02 April 2012
Shakespearean March Madness 2012: And Our Champion Is...
After a month of competitions, with 31 combatants felled across 5 rounds of voting, we can now crown the winner of the 2012 Shakespearean March Madness bracket, and her name is....

Beatrice!
Against all odds, Beatrice of Much Ado about Nothing takes the title, narrowly besting Lady Macbeth in the final round, 28-25. What a Cinderella story! I was fully expecting Lady Macbeth's ruthless nature to put a decisive end to Beatrice's aspirations, but no -- you, the voters, placed your confidence in Beatrice's wit, and perhaps saw a strength in her heart fit to defeat the fiendish Scottish queen.
Our bracket ended thus:

Beatrice's win also means that, for the second year, a female character from one of the plays currently on-stage at the Blackfriars Playhouse wins the title. Does this visibility provide an essential winning boost? Perhaps we'll find out if the pattern holds in 2013. I hear thigh-stabbing, fire-swallowing Portia, daughter of Cato and wife of Brutus, might throw her palla and stola into the ring...
Thanks to everyone who participated this year! I had a great time running the bracket, and I hope you all enjoyed following the battles. Did anyone have Beatrice pegged for the win? Who was your biggest upset?

Beatrice!
Against all odds, Beatrice of Much Ado about Nothing takes the title, narrowly besting Lady Macbeth in the final round, 28-25. What a Cinderella story! I was fully expecting Lady Macbeth's ruthless nature to put a decisive end to Beatrice's aspirations, but no -- you, the voters, placed your confidence in Beatrice's wit, and perhaps saw a strength in her heart fit to defeat the fiendish Scottish queen.
Our bracket ended thus:

Beatrice's win also means that, for the second year, a female character from one of the plays currently on-stage at the Blackfriars Playhouse wins the title. Does this visibility provide an essential winning boost? Perhaps we'll find out if the pattern holds in 2013. I hear thigh-stabbing, fire-swallowing Portia, daughter of Cato and wife of Brutus, might throw her palla and stola into the ring...
Thanks to everyone who participated this year! I had a great time running the bracket, and I hope you all enjoyed following the battles. Did anyone have Beatrice pegged for the win? Who was your biggest upset?
30 March 2012
Shakespearean March Madness 2012: The Finals!
Our Final Four matches have yielded our finalists, and I confess, I'm surprised by them both -- but pleasantly surprised! Ladies and gentlemen, we have two ladies contending for the title of Shakespeare's Ultimate Fighting Champion. Beatrice easily put down Macbeth (45-22), with a strong show of support on her side. His partner-in-crime fared better, however; Lady Macbeth took down Iago, 19-9.
So. Our bracket stands thus:

And our final match: Beatrice vs Lady Macbeth:
Who should win the title? The wit possessed of a fury, or the fiendish queen of Scotland? A woman who would eat a man's heart in the marketplace, or one who drugs guards and smears them with a king's blood? You tell us -- Show your support for your favorite of these incredible ladies, argue your case, and rally your supporters.
This poll will remain open through the weekend, and we'll crown our winner on Monday. Let the game begin!
So. Our bracket stands thus:

And our final match: Beatrice vs Lady Macbeth:
Who should win the title? The wit possessed of a fury, or the fiendish queen of Scotland? A woman who would eat a man's heart in the marketplace, or one who drugs guards and smears them with a king's blood? You tell us -- Show your support for your favorite of these incredible ladies, argue your case, and rally your supporters.
This poll will remain open through the weekend, and we'll crown our winner on Monday. Let the game begin!
28 March 2012
Shakespearean March Madness 2012: Final Four, Part 2
With yesterday's match off and rolling, here is the second Final Four combat: Iago vs. Lady Macbeth, a true battle of will, guile, deceit, and pure malice. Which of these two formidable contenders should move on to the finals? You decide -- Tell us who you think has the upper hand and what in the text leads you to believe that.
Final Four, Match 2: Iago vs Lady Macbeth
Don't forget to vote in yesterday's match -- and on Friday, we'll reveal the two finalists!
Final Four, Match 2: Iago vs Lady Macbeth
Don't forget to vote in yesterday's match -- and on Friday, we'll reveal the two finalists!
27 March 2012
Shakespearean March Madness 2012: The Final Four
We're coming down to it, and our Elite 8 matches saw some surprising upsets! In an unexpected turn of events, witty Beatrice overcomes last year's second-place winner Henry V, 26-17. In the closest match of the round, Macbeth is the one who finally knocks The Bear out of contention (22-21). Well-fought, bear; if you have to go out, it may as well be to one who smacks of every sin that has a name. Iago ends the winning streak of everyone's favorite shrew, Katharina, using his cunning and deceit to overpower her feminine ferocity (23-11). And finally, Tybalt and his Spanish blade can't defeat the guile and ruthlessness of Lady Macbeth, who puts him down 27-7.
The bracket stands thus:

So that gives us our Final Four: On opposite sides of the bracket, Shakespeare's most gleefully malicious couple, scheming and stabbing their way to the top; perhaps the wittiest of all the comic heroines, whose cheerful nature masks a ferocious heart and righteous fury; and the devious villain whose jealous machinations create a whirlwind of destruction. Match 1 begins today; Match 2 tomorrow. Who deserves a spot in the Finals? Let us know what you think!
Final Four, Match 1: Beatrice vs Macbeth
The bracket stands thus:

So that gives us our Final Four: On opposite sides of the bracket, Shakespeare's most gleefully malicious couple, scheming and stabbing their way to the top; perhaps the wittiest of all the comic heroines, whose cheerful nature masks a ferocious heart and righteous fury; and the devious villain whose jealous machinations create a whirlwind of destruction. Match 1 begins today; Match 2 tomorrow. Who deserves a spot in the Finals? Let us know what you think!
Final Four, Match 1: Beatrice vs Macbeth
22 March 2012
Shakespearean March Madness 2012: Elite 8, Pt 2
With yesterday's matches off to a rollicking start, it's time to welcome the rest of the competitors in the Elite 8 to the field. Today: Iago vs Katharina and Lady Macbeth vs Tybalt. The conniving killer or the cursed shrew? The ambitious wife or the hotheaded cousin? Who has what it takes to advance?
Elite 8, Match 3:
Elite 8, Match 4:
Which of these fearsome competitors should move on to the Final Four? You decide! Get your votes in by early next week, and rally supporters to help your favorites to victory. And don't forget to vote in Part 1 of the Elite 8 as well.
Elite 8, Match 3:
Elite 8, Match 4:
Which of these fearsome competitors should move on to the Final Four? You decide! Get your votes in by early next week, and rally supporters to help your favorites to victory. And don't forget to vote in Part 1 of the Elite 8 as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







