Will then, Shakespeare now.

On Ex Libris, I discovered an article written by Leland Ryken (English professor at Wheaton) about Shakespeare and the Geneva Bible.

I shall have to spend a bit of time reading Ryken’s essay more deeply.  A chunk on the bus, a chunk after work, a chunk with my cup of tea, and so on.  I can certainly appreciate these sorts of essays for whatever fruit they may potentially bear when the time comes to not only interpret Shakespeare’s writing in the rehearsal room, but understand the components of the man himself.

However, some thoughts did immediately surface.

Shakespeare’s Use Of The Bible

“There are passages in which reference to the Bible is not strictly required to construe what Shakespeare has written, but where we are invited to see an allusion or echo.”  (Ryken)

When we analyze Shakespeare now—we sometimes forget that we’re reading from our vantage point, atop the mountains of scholarship amassed in the 393 years since Shakespeare’s death.  When Shakespeare was alive, times were different, religion was different, popular culture was different,  household names were different.

In Shakespeare’s day, if someone wanted to make an illustrative comment about suffering, nothingness, or poverty, they may likely conjure up images of Job.   That would have been a story with which many people were familiar.  (Shakespeare makes this allusion himself, in fact, when he has Falstaff saying, “I am as poor as Job, but not so patient.” in Henry IV 2)  Today, if we wanted to make a similar comment, we might conjure up the image of King Lear.

Today, we quote Shakespeare frequently.  Shakespeare quoted (or wrote phrases that resembled) passages of the Bible.

It’s absolutely foolish to deny the fact that Biblical themes and characters are very frequently included as part of what makes Shakespeare’s writing work.  But also included are many mythical references (Roman, Greek, and other).  The Player’s speech about Priam in Hamlet, is just one huge example.

Shakespeare’s Religion

As for arguments about whether Shakespeare was Catholic or Protestant and how important that is to his success as a playwright.  It’s clear that Shakespeare had (though not forever) received some support from a Catholic patron (Lord Strange/fifth earl of Derby).  For a time, that meant some financial stabilization.  I have also read some scholarly ruminations that Shakespeare may have had some minimal connections (friends-of friends-of friends-of friends) to people connected to the Gunpowder plot.  However, I can’t see that as anything too profound.  Lots of people have friends, including our friends.

At the end of the day, Shakespeare was a working, writing adult in a time of enormous change for England. The death of Elizabeth, James’ ascension to the throne, the very slow and gradual change from a Oral/poetic tradition to a printed, literary culture.  Everything was being shuffled around.  This shuffling—and its components—certainly influenced Shakespeare’s body-of-work as much as anything else.

Shakespeare was a writer.  He worked with a company of players.  It was imperative for their survival that he—and the players—work frequently, quickly, and successfully in order to bring an audience, keep them happy, and keep them coming back.  I can’t help but believe then that Necessity, coupled with a keen sense for what would/wouldn’t work for his audience, were likely the Mother and Father of Shakespeare’s invention.

©  Jeffrey Puukka, 2009

A book is a book, yes?

I have—just this evening—been informed that The Bible is being taught in a Texas High School, as an elective.

I needed to take a wee bit of a breath when I read that.  It wasn’t hallelujah, nor was it disgust; just consideration.

It instantly conjured up the dramatic scenes in Inherit The Wind: protests over what can and cannot be read and discussed in a schoolhouse’s quest to promote knowledge.  Then my imagination worked its way ‘round to Fahrenheit 451.  Although I doubt that anyone in the Lone-star state will be tossing that particular title onto the bonfire in protest.

I daresay that’s a rather controversial decision.

If school boards allow teachers to include The Iliad in their curriculum, (another book steeped in spiritual ties) there’s no literary reason the same courtesy can’t be extended to The Bible.

Great writing is great writing, and regardless of one’s private religious constitution, it cannot (in my opinion) be accurately claimed that The Bible does not contain a few passages of good word craft.  Moreover, it’s a thriller.  There’s enough violence and mysticism in the ‘book of God’ to rival the complete works of Shakespeare.

So now I sit here in the quiet of my writing corner of the room, and reflect that even at the core of my heathen-pagan-scum spirituality, it does not too greatly shock me that The Bible is being read in a High School in Texas.  I’m here in the Pacific Northwest where much of the sky is cloudy, and much of the society is liberal.  But then I wonder: if someone in Seattle starts teaching The Koran in an elective High School literature class, will a Texas teacher be as open minded?

©  Jeffrey Puukka, 2009

The second coming of the Britney catastrophe

I was quite infuriated earlier this afternoon to learn that reruns of House and Lie To Me were being replaced with “The Teen Choice Awards”.

Nonetheless, I made my way through the day.  Because my Beloved One’s ex-hub declared he needed to drop the other two munchkins off at our house for a bloody week, I went to the store and brought back four armloads of groceries (with two hands) on the bus.  I made breakfast for dinner.  We’d had our iced cream, and so far, kept the 11 year old (going on tabloid teen queen) Caitlyn from realizing that these wretched “Teen Choice” awards were taking over the television.

The ruse didn’t last long.  The television somehow made its way to the Teen Choice channel just as Caitlyn’s idol, Miley Cyrus, was making her way on stage.

Then, I saw it:  the reprise of the Britney catastrophe.  You might remember, once upon a time, young miss Spears was actually marketing herself as a wholesome teenage girl with talent.  Then, the downward spiral.  Pornographic clips appeared on the Internet, the babies came, the court case about the babies, the shaved head, the power of attorney fiasco taking center stage on the fishwrap stands.

It’s happening again, this time with ‘wholesome’ Disney endorsed Saturday Morning Hannah Montana teenstress, Miley Cyrus.

She appeared in short shorts, a shirt revealing (instead of covering) a bra, and a fedora.  At one point, a prop. pole was actually brought out on stage for her to swing from and dance around.

I remember recently hearing on a radio interview that her Father, Billy Ray Cyrus, had taken offense to a comment made by a comedian, which said “Make your sex tape, grow up!”

If I were a Father, I’d have taken offense too.  However, there’s no denying, if the polesports continue, she’s well on her way.

I’ve always had a grudge against the media for streaming images which are encouraging thirteen year old girls, children to dress and compete with thirty year old women.  And based on this evenings “teen choice” presentation, I can’t say I’m inspired to lighten up about it anytime soon…

© Jeffrey Puukka, 2009