Instead of: “There is more than one way to skin a cat.”
Say: “There is more than one way to build a house.”
Instead of: “Kill two birds with one stone.”
Say: “Bathe two birds in one birdbath.”
Instead of: “How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.”
Say: “How do you plant a forest? One seed at a time.”
Let’s work to remove the casual violence from our everyday speech, friends.
i found the vegan
Idioms stick around because they’re precise. I would be surprised if the process of building a house was super variable; birds bathe themselves in bird baths, and what’s more even if you were bathing them yourself it would take the same amount of effort as doing it in two baths…the idea of doing one simple thing that solves two problems simultaneously isn’t preserved; i’d be surprised if there weren’t more efficient ways to plant a forest than one seed at a time (particularly nowadays) but even if there weren’t you’re not preserving the joke of the original…
Coriolanus by William Shakespeare as performed by Suzanne
Oh no now I want this production of Coriolanus.
(Source: jayetylers, via fuckyeahgreatplays)
Anonymous asked: We are working on an assignment in my Shakespeare class based off of the movie "Anonymous" (it's an excellent movie first of all.) I just want to know your personal opinion - 1.) do you believe that Shakespeare himself wrote all of his plays, despite only a grammar school education and having never left England? and 2.) Do you believe that his sonnets are autobiographical? Thanks and have a lovely day!
I won’t address other parts of this, but I did actually want to reblog this because upon re-reading I saw that you mentioned that shakespeare “might have had help.”
Collaboration between playwrights was super super common in the Elizabethan London ~theater scene~~~~ and not something that would even be done under the table or anything. Someone might’ve helped Shakespeare with a rhyme or a speech or a plot device, yeah, but he would have been doing the same for every other playwright he wrote around. I cannot emphasize enough how much this would not have been a secret — OR if it WAS, not because Shakespeare was attempting to hide Weaknesses In His Abilities. I can see it happening for money reasons, or to dick someone else over, but not like, “oh no I must hide my bad grades from my parents” sort of thing.
And we at least know that Shakespeare did work on some plays in collaboration w/ John Fletcher, if nothing else (Two Gentlemen of Verona, Cardenio, Henry VIII.)
I also can’t emphasize enough how much there really was a COMMUNITY of playwrights. Like, Shakespeare’s first folio is prefaced with Jonson’s poem commemorating him. If you look in p much any book published in England during that time period, you’re going to see communities of authors writing each other poems in praise of one book or the next, or writing what essentially amounts to the front cover blurbs of today.
Ben Jonson’s Works is also a good example of the interplay b/t different authors at that time. It was published in 1616, and was sort of the first Collected Works of a playwright in the English language, and was meticulously poured over by Jonson himself. There’s like, eleven or twelve pages of commendations re: jonson written by poets & playwrights. And the text of each play comes w/ a list of the actors who performed in the original run. And of course, like in lots of other early printed works, there’s dedications prior to like, everything, from the author to sponsors or patrons etc.
Jonson’s Works is, incidentally, also where we get some of the most unimpeachable Fun Facts w/r/t Shakespeare’s acting career:
That’s for Every Man in His Humor.
And that’s for Sejanus His Fall.
It’s thru personal writings of Jonson & others that we get a lot of our knowledge of Shakespeare beyond just birth and marriage records. (For instance, the posthumously published On Shakespeare where Jonson says “I remember the players have often mentioned it as an honor to Shakespeare, that in his writing, whatsoever he penned, he never blotted out a line. My answer hath been, “Would he had blotted a thousand,”) And stuff like the pamphlet Groats-Worth of Wit that gives us a sense of both the camaraderie and the rivalry amongst Shakespeare’s friends and contemporaries.
Shakespeare didn’t exist in a vacuum. How could he?
For me, the most ludicrous thing about Anonymous is that it seeks to replace the idea that Shakespeare wrote his plays with a *much more preposterous story.* If Shakespeare didn’t write A Midsummer Night’s Dream because he wasn’t educated enough, how did the Earl of Oxford write it *as a child?*
Shakespeare didn’t travel much - that’s why he gets so much *wrong* and makes so much up.
The authorship controversy is classist and shoddy and Birther-level conspiracy theory. The AV Club’s review is my favorite one:
Ah yes, I knew that I would get this question at some point.
I have actually never seen this movie, and I believe critics were very skeptical of it.
1) However, to answer your question, I do believe that Shakespeare wrote his plays, I also believe that is very possible for him to have had help. His fellow company members may have contributed to his writing, I have no proof of this, but hey, neither do the experts in the field.
2) I believe his sonnets are somewhat autobiographical. Any person who writes poetry will probably be writing 1) a personal experience or 2) the human experience. Its quite possible that he may have written about both.
Realize that these are my personal opinions, reblog with comments and I may reblog your opinions.
“Everything viewers need to know about Anonymous—and about the whole stupid world of anti-Stratfordians, the conspiracy theorists who believe William Shakespeare was not the author of the plays and poems that bear his name—can be gleaned by the pronunciation of a single word in the film’s first scene. Derek Jacobi frames the film as a narrator speaking before a live audience and questioning whether the son of a glovemaker could truly have written Shakespeare’s work, sneering his way through “glovemaker” as if the word were synonymous with garbage. Anti-Stratfordianism is based on the highly questionable, and prejudiced, notion that a man of Shakespeare’s genius couldn’t possibly have come from common stock. “
so we’re reading Macbeth in English and I’ve never read it and now I’m like obsessed with it lololol its the first Shakespeare play I actually like now its 3 am and I’m just fucking sitting here looking for good fanart of it
Oh man. Welcome to the party. Which other ones have you read?
wsherlocksh asked: So what do you think about using Shakespeare quotes wayyy out of context- like "this above all, to thine own self be true"? Because I know that this quote and many others aren't really meant to be taken seriously within the play, but does that diminish their value otherwise, because their profundity is not what Shakespeare intended? I know that literature isn't restricted to the author's wish, but I was just wondering what your opinion is as someone who studied and understands this better than I
On the one hand yes, it’s frustrating especially when people get it a little wrong and I have to restrain my irate inner Shakesprof—
But that’s just tiresome. Not only because it’s a) a losing battle, and b) a deployment of cultural capital and privilege, but also because it’s unrealistic, and perhaps not altogether true to how popular culture, and Shakespeare, work. It’s the first thing I ask my students: what are we doing when we do Shakespeare? Only the texts? Only the plays in performance? Do the films count? Do the retellings count? One scholar calls it “Shakespeares After Shakespeare”: given that the plays themselves were never meant to be read, but enacted, and not designed to be literary monuments but theatrical experiments, always subject to revision, new uses of Shakespeare can’t be dismissed out of hand. Like it or not, these lines that circulate far out of context no longer have a meaningful relation to Shakespeare (we call them “post-hermeneutic”). But that doesn’t mean they’re not meaningful. It’s just that their meaning has grown not from their attachment to Shakespeare’s context and intention, but from their circulation in culture, from all the uses people have made of them outside of Shakespeare.
But yeah, as a Shakespeare geek it bugs me all to fuck and back when people spout one of these butchered lines without knowing what it means. It ESPECIALLY fucking bugs me when they do so in order to demonstrate how smart and classy and educated they are. But I try to rein in the bugfuck and use it as a
teaching sharing opportunity. “Oh man, have you ever read that play? It’s amazing—here, let me email you a copy. You want my notes?”
YAY! Thank you! Let’s not be dicks about stuff like this, let’s be chill and educate people. Ultimately we derive our own meaning from Shakespeare’s words both in the plays we read and in their wider cultural context.
So, my friend is stage managing Macbeth and made this status today…
I’m quite pleased with this.
Rapping this out loud in my empty classroom like swag.
WALK INTO THE CLUB LIKE WADDUP I AM A BIG SCOT
I’M SO PUMPED ABOUT SOME VISION THAT THE WITCHES GOT
I WILL BE THANE, SO SAYS THE PROPHECY
THAT PEOPLE LIKE “DAMN, MACBETH DESERVES GLORY”
Hoooooooooooly of holies.
Why representation of POC is important, a three generation trillogy
A young black girl decided to not bleach her skin after seeing the success of Lupita Nyong’o.
Lupita Nyong’o was inspired to be an actress after seeing Oprah Winfrey and Whoopi Goldberg in The Color Purple.
Whoopi Goldberg realized she could BE an actress after seeing Nichelle Nichols in Star Trek
When we took Shakespeare’s “Measure for Measure” into a maximum security woman’s prison on the West Side…there’s a scene there where a young woman is told by a very powerful official that “If you sleep with me, I will pardon your brother. And if you don’t sleep with me, I’ll execute him.” And he leaves the stage. And this character, Isabel, turned out to the audience and said: “To whom should I complain?” And a woman in the audience shouted: “The Police!” And then she looked right at that woman and said: “If I did relate this, who would believe me?” And the woman answered back, “No one, girl.” And it was astonishing because not only was it an amazing sense of connection between the audience and the actress, but you also realized that this was a kind of an historical lesson in theater reception. That’s what must have happened at The Globe. These soliloquies were not simply monologues that people spoke, they were call and response to the audience. And you realized that vibrancy, that that sense of connectedness is not only what makes theater great in prisons, it’s what makes theater great, period.
— Oskar Eustis on ArtBeat Nation (he told the same story on Charlie Rose)
(Source: neverwasastoryofmorewhoa, via attilathehutt)