I’ve done this feature before, but this is the first of what I hope will be a series of weekly opportunities to check in on what searches people do to find themselves at Shakespeare Teacher, and to respond in the name of fun and public service. All of the following searches brought people to this site in the past week.

Only one reigning Queen Elizabeth of England has ever died, so I’ll assume you are asking about Elizabeth I. When she died in 1603, the crown was inherited by King James VI of Scotland, who then became King James I of England as well. This united the two kingdoms, and today we even refer to the nation as the United Kingdom.

Iago is a fictional character in Shakespeare’s Othello. There was also a 7th century Welsh King by that name.

I’m not sure what you’re looking for, but I’m not surprised it brought you here. May I interest you in an anagram?

And you thought the midterm was tough.

Yes.

How come you always get to be Genghis?

Ah, you must be thinking of Anne of Cleves, though that may be a bit harsh. Henry had arranged to marry her sight unseen so that he could form a political alliance with her family. But before he agreed to marry her, he sent Hans Holbein the Younger, the greatest portrait artist of his day, to go and paint her. When he returned, as the story goes, Henry liked what he saw and agreed to the marriage. Unfortunately, Henry didn’t realize he was looking at a picture painted by the greatest portrait artist of his day. When he saw the real deal, he was less pleased. The marriage was short, and (fortunately for Anne) ended in divorce.

I leave the task of responding to the remaining search terms to my readers:

I’m always curious to see what search terms bring people to this site. Here is a list of some of the search terms that brought people here today:

shakespeare and technology
tudor riddles
riddle for a waste paper basket
plays genres
josh lymon secret service codename
descendants of king george vi
shakespeare reading group
what did the tudors find and bring back to England
descriptive word that starts with the letter y
knowledge in othello
is smarter a word
who is the more complex villain in king lear
new book on shakespeare, author on the daily show
mary queen of scots descendants in Virginia
macbeth simplified language
codependent relationship between macbeth and lady macbeth
who influenced sir francis bacon
venn diagram puzzles
descendents of the tudors to present day
fox 40 morning news riddle
what did tudors do in there free space
teaching shakespeare to four year olds
henry viii riddles
riddles in shakespeare
lateral thinking games
queen elizabeth “i am henry …”
multiple choice test for king henry the 8th
in merchant of venice two fathers in post strike rules on their daughters
giant shakespeare crossword puzzle
boleyn living relatives
literacy in shakespeare’s time
a list of twenty things that shakespeare wrote
top 10 reasons to vote
where can i find information on the descendants of bloody mary
what is the coincidence that happened between shakespeare and cervantes

This is a partial list. I deleted several of the search terms, mostly looking for modern-day descendants of the Tudors.

I can tackle a few of these, and I’ll leave the rest to my readers. To the best of my knowledge, Josh Lyman’s Secret Service codename was never revealed on The West Wing. Yes, “smarter” is a word. And Bloody Mary did not have any children, and thus, no descendants.

I have taught Shakespeare to a wide variety of age groups, but never to four-year-olds. I defer to the Shakespeare Geek who is building an early appreciation for the playwright with his own daughters.

As for the Elizabeth quote “I am Henry”, I’m at a loss, though you may be thinking of the Queen’s reaction to a production of Richard II, which is about the deposing of a monarch. She was aware that the Earl of Essex commissioned the production in order to foment rebellion. Elizabeth I is said to have remarked “I am Richard II, know ye not that?”

Does anyone know which Shakespeare author was on The Daily Show? And would anyone like to address the questions about Merchant and King Lear?

I am excited to announce a new (though temporary) weekly feature to the blog, inspired by the book Eunoia by Christian Bök. The book has five chapters, each using only one of the five vowels (A, E, I, O, U), and excluding the other four. I thought it might make a fun constrained writing activity for the blog.

The Challenge: I will write plot summaries for five of Shakespeare’s plays, each using a different target vowel, and excluding the other four. I will choose one play from each of the five genres. I will post one summary each Sunday for five weeks.

Five weeks. Five vowels. Five genres. Five plays.

I haven’t read Eunoia, so I don’t know how Bök deals with the letters W and Y, but I have laid down my own ground rules. Y is okay if it’s used as a consonant (as in “Yet”) or in conjunction with the target vowel (as in “boy”), but not when used by itself (as in “my”) or when it forms its own syllable (as in “every”). There will be no restrictions on the use of the letter W.

Obviously, I will need to change most of the character names to make this work. But rather than arbitrarily choosing new names, I think it would be more faithful to the constraint to choose descriptive nicknames.

For my first attempt, I have chosen to summarize a History play, King Henry IV, Part One, using “A” as the only vowel.

Enjoy!

Brash Lad’s clansman March has a fall at war. Stalwart Braggart attacks and nabs March, and wants cash. Brash Lad wants March back. Grand Man (Hal’s dad) can’t pay Stalwart Braggart that cash. Brash Lad rants mad. Grand Man can’t pay a call at Abraham’s Land, as was always a plan. Grand Man stays wan. An adamant Brash Lad walks, and clasps Stalwart Braggart’s hands.

Hal, Jack Falstaff, and a madcap charlatan band hang at a bar. Falstaff has a scam plan. Hal’s plan sandbags Falstaff. Falstaff, back at that bar, brags and brags. Hal calls Falstaff’s brag and can flash all Falstaff’s cash. Falstaff warns Hal that smart scams can’t trap Stalwart Braggart and Mad Marksman, and that Hal’s dad, Grand Man, wants a harsh chat. Falstaff playacts Grand Man and lambasts Hal. Hal playacts Grand Man and Falstaff playacts Hal. Falstaff (as Hal) says that Hal can’t cast fat Jack Falstaff away. Hal (as Grand Man) says that Hal can, and that’s a fact, Jack!

Brash Lad, Stalwart Braggart, and March all play ball, and plan an attack at Grand Man. March’s lass sang. Grand Man lambasts Hal, as Falstaff had. Hal asks vaward, and Grand Man grants that. Falstaff drafts scalawags that Hal can’t stand and flagrant dastards that pay Falstaff hard cash and walk. Mad Marksman clasps Brash Lad’s hands. Hal packs arms. Falstaff packs sack.

War starts! Mad Marksman attacks Grand Man. Hal casts Mad Marksman away. Hal and Brash Lad clash, and Hal slays Brash Lad. Mad Marksman attacks Jack Falstaff. Falstaff falls flat and playacts a carcass. Hal calls Brash Lad a gallant, and calls Falstaff fat. As Hal walks away, Falstaff plays at sarcasm and says that a gallant’s as apt as a warrant and a hangman. Falstaff nabs Brash Lad’s carcass and says that Brash Lad had drawn a last fall at Falstaff’s hand.

Hal’s man nabs Mad Marksman. Hal plays lax gallant and casts Mad Marksman away. Hal and Grand Man plan an attack at Stalwart Braggart and March. Call that play “Part B”…

Via Electoral-Vote.com (which I’m still reading for some reason), we find another really cool map. This is an animated GIF showing the electoral results by county for every presidential election from 1960 - 2004. It’s called Purple America, and it was created by from Robert Vanderbei from Princeton University.

You can watch counties change from blue to red and back again. You can see where Ross Perot and George Wallace had the most support. Or you can squint your eyes and watch the entire country change its shade like a mood ring. Enjoy!

The First Folio (1623) delineates Shakespeare’s plays into three genres: Comedy, Tragedy, and History. More recent scholars added the category of Romance to describe some of his later plays, and there is also a fifth, more nebulous, category that goes by several different names, which describes plays like Troilus and Cressida that seem to defy genre.

How meaningful are these genres? Certainly, a play like King Lear has a very different tenor than, say, A Midsummer Night’s Dream. It’s not just a question of mood, but even the rules are different. These are plays in different genres. But does this distinction hold up across the canon? Or does each play speak for itself? This is the Question of the Week.

How much stock should we put in Shakespearean genres?

And if you say that these genres are correct, I have a few follow-up questions. Perhaps you’d like to tackle one of these as well:

• Why is Macbeth a Tragedy while Richard III is a History?
• Why is As You Like It a Comedy, while The Winter’s Tale is a Romance?
• Why is Much Ado About Nothing a Comedy, while Romeo and Juliet is a Tragedy? (Is it just the ending? Is that enough to consider it a different genre?)

From Richard III:

Enrich the time to come with smooth-fac’d peace,
With smiling plenty, and fair prosperous days!

Shift around the letters, and it becomes:

Oh, a mosaic of midnight paeans to this worthy president-elect cried mirthful pomp.

“Yes, we can!”

As I write this, Ohio is being called for Barack Obama, which pretty much locks in his victory tonight.

And this is a historical moment for so many reasons. It’s not just that we are going to have an African-American president, which in itself is a monumental marker of progress. It’s also about voter turnout and enthusiasm. And even the most cynical among us are daring to hope for change in this country.

For me, what makes this election remarkable is that the undecided voter wasn’t much of a factor. In the past few campaigns, the two candidates were so close that both had to court undecided voters. This leads to pandering, wedge issues, and attack ad wars.

This election was different. Between Obama’s inspirational message, McCain’s coming unglued in the final weeks, the economy in crisis, and the overwhelming Bush fatigue felt by so many of us, it was a perfect storm for the Democratic candidate. As a result, Obama had such a commanding lead that he was able to take the high road and speak directly to the issues.

McCain also tried to campaign cleanly. I never had a problem with the Joe the Plumber strategy. It never bothered me that he wasn’t a licensed plumber, wasn’t about to buy a business, would not have seen a tax hike under Obama, and wasn’t named Joe. McCain was making a point about standing up for small businesses, and Joe the Plumber was convenient shorthand. That seems fair enough.

However, the constant attempts to paint Obama as not a real American were painful to watch. Sarah Palin campaigning across the country would suggest that Obama liked to pal around with terrorists. And then there were the attack ads that used code words to appeal to the worst qualities of the electorate. I don’t think this was in the spirit of what McCain was trying to accomplish with his candidacy. But in the end, the law requires the candidate to explicitly state “I approve this message.” Ironically, it’s John McCain whom we have to thank for that law.

All of that is behind us now. We may go to sleep tonight secure in the belief that we will wake up to morning in America. And President Obama will ride a massive wave of momentum into office, only to find a friendly Congress waiting for him. His first hundred days have the promise to be extraordinary. But we must not let our enthusiasm be replaced with complacency. Change is difficult under the best of circumstances, and there will be pressure to compromise. This is still our country. This is still our government. We must be as vigilant with President Obama as we were with President Bush.

But that comes later. Tonight, we celebrate.

I’m the Shakespeare Teacher, and I approve this message.

I know, voting can be a hassle. And it really won’t make much of a difference anyway, right?

But here are ten reasons you may want to consider showing up and making your voice heard on Election Day.

10. Because It’s a Ritual

You may not be personally deciding who the next president is going to be, but taking part in the process is a ritual that has more than symbolic value. When you personally go to the polls and perform the physical act of voting, you are establishing yourself as a member of a democratic society who has an investment in the outcome. Complaining is passive; voting is active.

9. To Create a Personal Narrative

Your voting patterns over the years can form a personal history. Were you a Reagan Democrat? Did you support Perot in 1992? I still remember that, two months after I turned eighteen, I participated in my first election. I strutted into the voting booth, and proudly cast my ballot for Michael Dukakis. That’s not a good example, but I think we understand each other.

8. Because You Never Know

In 2000, the final count in the Florida election put Bush ahead by just 537 votes. This decided the election. Your state’s presidential pick may be a foregone conclusion, but there are plenty of down-ticket races where you just might make a difference. The League of Women Voters has more examples of close races.

7. Because They Don’t Want You To Vote

In this case, “They” describes the people who have the polar opposite views as you do. They disagree with you on every major issue. They would take the country - in your opinion - in the absolute wrong direction. And they hate you. They don’t want you to vote. They have invested considerable time and resources into discouraging you to vote. Drive them mad.

6. To Represent

In the post-election analysis, pundits who suddenly have a lot of time on their hands will be breaking down the data from the election to see which demographic groups had the greatest impact. The interests of those groups will be of great interest to politicians moving forward. Just ask a soccer mom. By turning out and representing your demographic, you increase the visibility of your group and its needs.

5. For a Sense of Community

They say that all politics is local, and that always makes me think of Election Day. My polling place is an elementary school gymnasium. When I arrive, there is a bake sale in progress to raise money for the school. Elderly volunteers kindly direct me to my district’s section of the gym. And when it’s my turn, I vote. I may be alone in the booth, but we’re all in this together. I always purchase a snack on my way out - it’s for a good cause.

4. To Qualify for Jury Duty

Okay, now that’s just crazy. Isn’t that a reason not to vote? No, jury duty is every bit as much of a civic duty as voting. Sure, it can be a drag. So is paying taxes, but we do it because of what we get in return. If my house is on fire, someone will come and put it out. That’s awesome! Think of jury duty as a government tax on your time. What do you get in return? You get to live in a country where, if you get arrested, you get to be judged by a jury of your peers, not the guy who arrested you. That’s awesome!

3. To Be a Part of History

One way or another, we’re going to make history tomorrow, whether we elect a black president or a female vice president. You don’t want to be able to tell your grandchildren that you voted in that election? You don’t want to be a part of that moment in time? When the results are announced, and the numbers are tallied, you don’t want to be counted among them? I think you do.

2. Because People Have Fought and Even Died For It

That one pretty much speaks for itself. People fighting for the right to vote didn’t consider it trivial. Blacks got the right to vote in 1870. Women got the right to vote in 1920. In 1971, during the Vietnam War, the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. The reasoning was that a citizen who is old enough to be drafted to fight for the country is old enough to vote for the people who make the decisions about war. Voting is important.

1. Because Democracy is about You

The idea behind our democracy is rule by the people. There is no special class of citizens who make the decisions for the rest of us. It’s up to each of us to take part in our democracy. That’s the only way it works. It’s this incredible experiment where a people stood up and said they didn’t need a king and that they could govern themselves. When we become apathetic about that enormous responsibility, we allow the country to be taken over by interests other than our own. Voting is not only our right as citizens; it is a solemn duty.

The system is far from perfect, and you may not fully buy into all of the reasons I’ve presented. Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the others. So vote for whatever reason you want. Vote to get the little sticker that says “I Voted”. Indeed, it is a powerful statement.

I just got back from seeing Oliver Stone’s W and, since I’m writing again, I wanted to share my thoughts about it with you. But since it’s Saturday, I thought I’d do it as an anagram.

I chose a speech where Shakespeare apologizes for the inadequacies of the stage to depict the lives of kings. Perhaps it will mitigate the anagrammed review to follow.

From Henry V:

O! for a Muse of fire, that would ascend
The brightest heaven of invention;
A kingdom for a stage, princes to act
And monarchs to behold the swelling scene.
Then should the war-like Harry, like himself,
Assume the port of Mars; and at his heels,
Leash’d in like hounds, should famine, sword, and fire
Crouch for employment. But pardon, gentles all,
The flat unraised spirits that hath dar’d
On this unworthy scaffold to bring forth
So great an object: can this cockpit hold
The vasty fields of France? or may we cram
Within this wooden O the very casques
That did affright the air at Agincourt?
O, pardon! since a crooked figure may
Attest in little place a million;
And let us, ciphers to this great accompt,
On your imaginary forces work.
Suppose within the girdle of these walls
Are now confin’d two mighty monarchies,
Whose high upreared and abutting fronts
The perilous narrow ocean parts asunder:
Piece out our imperfections with your thoughts:
Into a thousand parts divide one man,
And make imaginary puissance;
Think when we talk of horses that you see them
Printing their proud hoofs i’ the receiving earth;
For ’tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings,
Carry them here and there, jumping o’er times,
Turning the accomplishment of many years
Into an hour-glass: for the which supply,
Admit me Chorus to this history;
Who prologue-like your humble patience pray,
Gently to hear, kindly to judge, our play.

Shift around the letters, and it becomes:

After seeing Oliver Stone’s W, I don’t know what I’m supposed to make of it.

A humdrum bio-pic? How do you paint an intimate portrait of a person who isn’t reflective?

A thorough historical piece? No. They skip the key moments of his presidency and hop through the punchlines and nicknames (Guru, Genius, etc.). And his happy-hour past? Chugs, not drugs.

A dark comedy? Man, it’s too soon for humor. The joke’s on us.

A peek at the decision to take out Iraq? Hardly. Those scenes were as fluffy as my popcorn. I was hungry for more.

A high political drama? Primary Colors offers insight into Clinton. This limited film provides only a caricature of W.

Furthermore, I thought Newton and even Brolin got lost in the karaoke impressions they used. On the other hand, Scott Glenn as grumpy thug Rumsfeld and Jeffrey Wright as thoughtful gent Powell were not credible in their characters.

Mr. Dreyfuss as warmonger Cheney and Ms. Banks as earthier Laura threaded that tough needle handily; they brought forth people in accordance with their characters.

The standout of the group was patriarchal James Cromwell as Bush Sr., his dad. The tricky father/son relationship (fights, in lieu of hugs) is the human heart of the film. But nothing is ever resolved.

The film W tried to eke out too many things without doing any of them particularly well. It had many inaccurate facts, had no clear direction, and lasted too long. In short, it was W.

I did this one already, but I wanted to respond to a search that brought a reader here yesterday:

“how did queen elizabeth feel about shakespeare play king henry the 8th”

It’s a good question, since Henry was Queen Elizabeth’s father, and it would be interesting to get her reaction to the play that bears his name. But Elizabeth died in 1603, and it is believed that the play was first performed in 1613, so we can only speculate as to how she might have felt about it.

The play retains the pro-Tudor slant on history that characterized Shakespeare’s earlier history plays, and whitewashes some of the uglier aspects of Henry’s story. As for Elizabeth, her birth is depicted at the very end of the play, and the happy father swells with pride at the event.

From Henry VIII:

O lord archbishop!
Thou hast made me now a man: never, before
This happy child, did I get any thing.
This oracle of comfort has so pleas’d me,
That when I am in heaven, I shall desire
To see what this child does, and praise my Maker.

But if you shift around the letters, you probably get much closer to what he actually would have said:

O lord archbishop!

Fact: I wanted to have a son.

So I, cross Henry the Eighth, must kill this wife, Madam Anne Boleyn, with promptest speed.

So I shall, in a flash, remove and discard her doomed head apace!

I am Henry the Eighth, I am!