SuchShakespeareStuff is now Shakespeare Geek. I was checking out the links over there when I came across a post by someone named Cesario listing her ten unpopular opinions about Shakespeare. I don’t agree with everything she says, but I applaud people who are willing to post unpopular opinions, and I’d like to add my twopence to the conversation.

1. This stuff about Shakespeare being [someone else] is arrant nonsense.

Strongly agree. There’s no good evidence that this is true, and most of the arguments you hear are either elitist or overly-ambitious.

2. Twelfth Night is at its root a deeply creepy and disturbing play

Mildly agree. The play does have a dark side, to be sure. The Andrew subplot is creepy, the Malvolio subplot is disturbing, and did I hear Orsino correctly in the last scene? He’s actually going to kill Cesario to spite Olivia?

3. Shylock is not the hero of Merchant of Venice. He is the villain.

Strongly agree. If you’ve read the play, it’s hard to make the case otherwise.

4. The Macbeths have the best marriage in all Shakespeare.

Mildly disagree. I’ve heard Harold Bloom express this opinion, and I get the equal partnership aspect, but I find their relationship too dysfunctional and codependent to pay them this compliment. The title “Best Marriage in Shakespeare” is a dubious honor, but I think I’d have to go with Brutus and Portia. They seem like they have a really strong relationship. The fact that it can be torn apart by the assassination is a testament to the earth-shattering significance of that event. We won’t count the marriages at the end of the comedies, because who knows how they’ll fare?

5. Lear’s Fool is a subjective reality experienced only by Lear himself.

Mildly disagree, though I like your spirit. Both Goneril and Kent talk directly to the Fool, and others talk about him (such as the Gentleman that Kent meets in the storm). I do think there’s an alter ego reading possible here, but perhaps this is more of a symbolic idea than something that’s literally demonstrable in the play.

6. Hamlet: not really a play.

Strongly disagree. Hamlet is a play. It has searingly powerful dramatic dialogue, a story arc, and character development. There are some stage plays that I would say are not really plays, but Hamlet is a play through and through.

7. I Henry VI is a better play than Richard III.

Strongly disagree, though I think I Henry VI is highly underrated. I also think that Richard III is a much better play after you’ve read the three Henry VI plays. The characters in Richard III have a lot of history, and understanding that history helps explain a lot of their interactions.

8. Claudio and Hero = so doomed.

Strongly disagree. This is the stereotypical couple of Shakespeare’s day. These are the people who wed unthinkingly and play their roles, living happily ever after because they never consider that they may not. They are used by Shakespeare to contrast the much more interesting Beatrice and Benedick who question everything about love.

9. I think Shakespeare was probably Catholic.

No opinion, though there is some reason to believe he may have been. I’m hesitant to make any generalizations about Shakespeare based on his writings, because he was so good at speaking from so many different points of view that it’s impossible to know what’s really Shakespeare himself. Shakespeare may very well have been a soldier, a king, a murderer, a nobleman, a shrew, a fairy, a Moor, an ancient Egyptian queen, or a boatswain. He’s much too clever for me to guess.

10. Titus Andronicus is a farce and would be best played as a Monty Python skit.

Mildly agree. I don’t think the farce is intentional, but playing it as a Monty Python skit would be an improvement.

I link, therefore I am.

Descartes notwithstanding, proof of existence in the blogosphere is not provided by who you link to, but who links to you. I now have my first incoming link, which according to Technorati boosts my rating from the 2.4 million range into the 1.6 million range. So Shakespeare Teacher is now one of the top 2 million blogs in the world. I will be signing autographs in the lobby after the post.

So, who linked to me? It was Stick Figure Hamlet Guy. I linked to him, and he linked back to me. And now I jumped up 800,000 places in Technorati. I’m starting to understand how this works.

I don’t know why the link from Such Shakespeare Stuff didn’t register on Technorati. Why, with two links, who knows? I might have cracked the top million! Well, I can still dream. And thanks for the link, Stick Figure Hamlet Guy!

Your move, Latte Foam Artist Guy.

It’s exactly what it sounds like, and can be found at — where else — stickfigurehamlet.com. It looks like they’re just finishing up Act Two, with the rest to come.

Is it just me, or do Rosencrantz and Guildenstern look a lot like Ernie and Bert from Sesame Street?

Glenn Greenwald, an amazing blogger everyone should read, has a post today about Iran, and whether or not the President has the right to invade without authorization from Congress. In the post, he describes an epilogue he had written in his book:

The Epilogue emphasizes that the radical theories of presidential power adopted by the administration (and applied to general lawbreaking, warrantless eavesdropping, torture, indefinite detentions of U.S. citizens) applied clearly and fully to Iran, i.e., that those theories — which were and still are the formally adopted positions of the Executive Branch — absolutely mean that the President has the power to commence a war with Iran, and that not only would he not need Congressional approval to do so, but Congress would lack the power to stop him even if it tried

And therein lies the point. I honestly don’t think we’re about to go to war with Iran. The military is stretched out too thin as it is. And so I wouldn’t read too much into Tony Snow and Condoleeza Rice refusing to answer whether the president needs the authority of Congress to invade Iran. It doesn’t in any way mean we’re about to do it. I wouldn’t expect either of them to say that their boss needs the authority of Congress to do anything. He doesn’t like it when people say that.

For the record, I think Iran is a looming danger, just like Iraq wasn’t, and a confrontation seems inevitable, whether military or otherwise. But what strikes me the most about the video linked above is that Tony Snow and Chris Matthews agreed that Iran’s population was largely young and pro-American. It almost makes one feel there might be some cause for long-term optimism after all. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’re going to be able to wait that long.

Well, this is exciting for me. It’s my first link from someone I don’t know personally. It’s from Such Shakespeare Stuff, a blog dedicated entirely to Shakespeare:

Link for ShakespeareTeacher.com because I like the domain and hope to hear good things from him. It doesn’t appear to be a blog devoted to Shakespeare, though, so it should be interesting to see how much relevant content we get.

This blog isn’t exclusively about Shakespeare, no. Instead, it is approached with the philosophy that a love of Shakespeare is only the beginning of a life of examination and discovery. This is a blog that documents that journey, and tries to have some fun along the way. The title, I think, has more to do with the author than with the intended audience at the moment.

Having said that, I would have expected to be blogging more on Shakespeare than I have been so far. I only just started this blog, and I seem to be writing more about Genghis Khan, the new Congress, and about blogging itself than I am about Shakespeare. Still, you can expect to see a lot more relevant content here in the coming months than there is now. Also, this domain may eventually house more than just the blog, but perhaps I’ve said too much already.

So, thanks to SSS for the link. And for those of you who came to this site by other means and were looking for a Shakespeare-only site, you can quell your disappointment by visiting Such Shakespeare Stuff, where you will find plenty of Shakespeare-related content and commentary. I expect to become a regular visitor myself.

I came across this via a post by my cousin, TheMediaDude. It’s an animated map of who has controlled the Middle East for the past 5000 years, and it is quite simply the reason why computers were invented:

There are some other animated maps at Maps of War including one showing the History of Religion.

What’s there is great, but there’s not much of it, so if you’re like me, you’ll start to get a thirst for more historical maps. You can quench that thirst at the University of Texas Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection.