Sarah Smith's Blog, page 2
October 23, 2011
Why Shakespeare Is Shakespeare: Simon Schama
Simon Schama is a more interesting case. He is really a major writer--certainly one I admire greatly and always try to take seriously. And Schama says Shakespeare is Shakespeare too. To doubt it is "snobbery" and "a fatal lack of imagination on the subject of the imagination."
No question Shakespeare the poet had imagination; Shakespeare himself wrote some of the best descriptions of that visitor Muse. "Such seething brains, / Such shaping fantasies, that apprehend / More than cool reason ever comprehends...." Equally there's no question--or there shouldn't be--that imagination doesn't need an academic education. Think of Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman. Think of Machado de Assis, the national novelist of Brazil, son of an illiterate slave. Creative imagination needs academic education like a bird needs roller skates.
But creative imagination all by itself--?
This idea is not only true in its broad outlines, but has a pedigree as far back at least as the eighteenth century and Garrick. "'Twas Nature taught him first to write." Shakespeare didn't need travel; his imagination allowed him to comprehend more than other men. Or, as Schama says, "He didn’t need to go to Italy because Rome had come to him at school and came again in the travels of his roaming mind. His capacity for imaginative extension was socially limitless too: reaching into the speech of tavern tarts as well as archbishops and kings."
That's another assertion, and not so defensible.
Time to introduce my friends.
Start with me: I have had the immense privilege of having students and readers come up to me and tell me that the books have changed their lives. I have that academic education. (B.A. and Ph.D. at Harvard; study at University of London and in Paris. Fulbright, Mellon, other fellowships. Studied Shakespeare with Harry Levin, Northrop Frye, William Alfred, and Robert Lowell. For a number of years I taught English at Tufts. As Kevin Kline says just after sniffing his armpits, "Don't ever call me stupid.")
I've been telling stories since I was four, writing since I was eleven. I have a few books out and some stories. (They've been published in fourteen languages, made bestseller lists, made Best of the Year lists including the New York Times, twice, and the London Times. I've won the Agatha and the Massachusetts Book Award. Don't ever, etc.) From time to time I teach writing, and I'm in two fairly high-powered writing groups.
What this buys me is a lot of creative friends: writers, poets, actors, musicians. Among them they have done a lot more than I have, and done it more intelligently and faster.
So next time, I'll talk about their imaginations, which they less grandiosely call "the writing process."
No question Shakespeare the poet had imagination; Shakespeare himself wrote some of the best descriptions of that visitor Muse. "Such seething brains, / Such shaping fantasies, that apprehend / More than cool reason ever comprehends...." Equally there's no question--or there shouldn't be--that imagination doesn't need an academic education. Think of Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman. Think of Machado de Assis, the national novelist of Brazil, son of an illiterate slave. Creative imagination needs academic education like a bird needs roller skates.
But creative imagination all by itself--?
This idea is not only true in its broad outlines, but has a pedigree as far back at least as the eighteenth century and Garrick. "'Twas Nature taught him first to write." Shakespeare didn't need travel; his imagination allowed him to comprehend more than other men. Or, as Schama says, "He didn’t need to go to Italy because Rome had come to him at school and came again in the travels of his roaming mind. His capacity for imaginative extension was socially limitless too: reaching into the speech of tavern tarts as well as archbishops and kings."
That's another assertion, and not so defensible.
Time to introduce my friends.
Start with me: I have had the immense privilege of having students and readers come up to me and tell me that the books have changed their lives. I have that academic education. (B.A. and Ph.D. at Harvard; study at University of London and in Paris. Fulbright, Mellon, other fellowships. Studied Shakespeare with Harry Levin, Northrop Frye, William Alfred, and Robert Lowell. For a number of years I taught English at Tufts. As Kevin Kline says just after sniffing his armpits, "Don't ever call me stupid.")
I've been telling stories since I was four, writing since I was eleven. I have a few books out and some stories. (They've been published in fourteen languages, made bestseller lists, made Best of the Year lists including the New York Times, twice, and the London Times. I've won the Agatha and the Massachusetts Book Award. Don't ever, etc.) From time to time I teach writing, and I'm in two fairly high-powered writing groups.
What this buys me is a lot of creative friends: writers, poets, actors, musicians. Among them they have done a lot more than I have, and done it more intelligently and faster.
So next time, I'll talk about their imaginations, which they less grandiosely call "the writing process."
October 21, 2011
Why Shakespeare Is Shakespeare: James Shapiro
Roland Emmerich's ANONYMOUS opens Oct. 28. It's a great entertainment (I'll post a review soon). It's had some very good early reviews, and some really vitriolic ones.
Some of the vitriol comes from the basic premise of ANONYMOUS, a premise we've heard before: Shakespeare didn't write the works. In some sense, of course, this is nonsense: Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's works, the way George Eliot wrote George Eliot's works and Currer and Ellis Bell wrote their works. Pseudonyms are useful; Mary Anne Evans kept the George Eliot name all her life, though Charlotte and Emily Bronte discarded theirs. The question is, was Shakespeare another useful pseudonym? Was William Shakespeare the actor a front for, or a collaborator with, someone else?
The very thought is enough to infuriate some people. "Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's works," they say crushingly. "It's obvious. And if he didn't, who cares? We have the plays."
To quote Errol Morris, "Nothing is so obvious that it's obvious." But it's fascinating to see why people think so--both the good reasons and the bad.
Let's look at a couple of these critics, and why they think Shakespeare is Shakespeare.
James Shapiro first. He's a New York academic, specializing in Shakespeare. He's written a creative imagining of Shakespeare's life in 1599, focusing on the Essex rebellion and the question of who would succeed Elizabeth, and, more recently, a book called Contested Will. 1599 is his year, and ANONYMOUS is using the same year and the same material.
So you'd imagine that James Shapiro would be the perfect person to say how completely fictional ANONYMOUS is. (And it is fictional--flagrantly, intelligently, entertainingly fictional.) Shapiro should be the perfect person to tell us the facts instead.
Not so much.
In a New York Times op-ed piece, Shapiro says "…Court records and much else… confirm that Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him." Let's look at these court records. Google "Shakespeare court records", click on one of the sites that list documentary records, and find "court" on the page.
"William Wayte "swore before the Judge of Queen's Bench that he stood in danger of death, or bodily hurt," from "William Shakspere" and three others." ""Willelmus Shackspere" brought suit against John Clayton for a £7 debt." (This may not be our William Shakespeare, the actor.)"Shakspere sued the apothecary Philip Rogers for 35s.10d plus 10s damages, seeking to recover the unpaid balance on a sale of twenty bushels of malt and a small loan.'"These prove that Shakespeare wrote the plays? Really?
This is not to say Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare.
It's a tactic Shapiro has used before. In a debate with Roland Emmerich, Shapiro sneered at his opponents for not knowing that Shakespeare had left his books in his will to his son-in-law John Hall. "On the second page," Shapiro specified. Let's look at the will; the text is on the Net in several places. Find one and search the will for "book." Nothing. Search for "paper." Nada. Search for "John Hall" and this is what you find, the only mention of anything given to John Hall anywhere in the will:
"All the rest of my goodes Chattels, Leases, plate, jewles and Household stuffe whatsoever after my dettes and Legasies paied and my funerall expences discharged, I gyve devise and bequeath to my Sonne in Lawe John Hall gent and my daughter Susanna his wief..." <www.bardweb.net/will.html>
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion," Daniel Patrick Moynahan said, "but they are not entitled to their own facts."
Why should it be so important that we have "court records" proving Shakespeare wrote the plays and "books" mentioned in the will? Why does Shapiro need these imaginary facts to exist?
Some of the vitriol comes from the basic premise of ANONYMOUS, a premise we've heard before: Shakespeare didn't write the works. In some sense, of course, this is nonsense: Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's works, the way George Eliot wrote George Eliot's works and Currer and Ellis Bell wrote their works. Pseudonyms are useful; Mary Anne Evans kept the George Eliot name all her life, though Charlotte and Emily Bronte discarded theirs. The question is, was Shakespeare another useful pseudonym? Was William Shakespeare the actor a front for, or a collaborator with, someone else?
The very thought is enough to infuriate some people. "Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's works," they say crushingly. "It's obvious. And if he didn't, who cares? We have the plays."
To quote Errol Morris, "Nothing is so obvious that it's obvious." But it's fascinating to see why people think so--both the good reasons and the bad.
Let's look at a couple of these critics, and why they think Shakespeare is Shakespeare.
James Shapiro first. He's a New York academic, specializing in Shakespeare. He's written a creative imagining of Shakespeare's life in 1599, focusing on the Essex rebellion and the question of who would succeed Elizabeth, and, more recently, a book called Contested Will. 1599 is his year, and ANONYMOUS is using the same year and the same material.
So you'd imagine that James Shapiro would be the perfect person to say how completely fictional ANONYMOUS is. (And it is fictional--flagrantly, intelligently, entertainingly fictional.) Shapiro should be the perfect person to tell us the facts instead.
Not so much.
In a New York Times op-ed piece, Shapiro says "…Court records and much else… confirm that Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him." Let's look at these court records. Google "Shakespeare court records", click on one of the sites that list documentary records, and find "court" on the page.
"William Wayte "swore before the Judge of Queen's Bench that he stood in danger of death, or bodily hurt," from "William Shakspere" and three others." ""Willelmus Shackspere" brought suit against John Clayton for a £7 debt." (This may not be our William Shakespeare, the actor.)"Shakspere sued the apothecary Philip Rogers for 35s.10d plus 10s damages, seeking to recover the unpaid balance on a sale of twenty bushels of malt and a small loan.'"These prove that Shakespeare wrote the plays? Really?
This is not to say Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare.
It's a tactic Shapiro has used before. In a debate with Roland Emmerich, Shapiro sneered at his opponents for not knowing that Shakespeare had left his books in his will to his son-in-law John Hall. "On the second page," Shapiro specified. Let's look at the will; the text is on the Net in several places. Find one and search the will for "book." Nothing. Search for "paper." Nada. Search for "John Hall" and this is what you find, the only mention of anything given to John Hall anywhere in the will:
"All the rest of my goodes Chattels, Leases, plate, jewles and Household stuffe whatsoever after my dettes and Legasies paied and my funerall expences discharged, I gyve devise and bequeath to my Sonne in Lawe John Hall gent and my daughter Susanna his wief..." <www.bardweb.net/will.html>
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion," Daniel Patrick Moynahan said, "but they are not entitled to their own facts."
Why should it be so important that we have "court records" proving Shakespeare wrote the plays and "books" mentioned in the will? Why does Shapiro need these imaginary facts to exist?
September 28, 2011
Shakespeare monkeys hit all my geek buttons
Shakespeare, programming, data analysis, and MONKEYS.
Yes, monkeys can type all of Shakespeare's works. But, as Jesse Anderson says, in what order?
http://www.jesse-anderson.com/2011/09...
Yes, monkeys can type all of Shakespeare's works. But, as Jesse Anderson says, in what order?
http://www.jesse-anderson.com/2011/09...
May 26, 2011
Boston Authors' Club
Look at the Web sites of all the great people who belong. And they made The Other Side of Dark a Julia Ward Howe Prize finalist! Ceremony this afternoon at the Boston Public Library. I'm going to be a complete fangirl.
http://www.bostonauthorsclub.org/programs.html
http://www.bostonauthorsclub.org/programs.html
April 5, 2011
Your favorite online collaboration site?
At my company, Pearson, we have a social media collaboration site, and someone recently asked what our favorite online collaboration sites are. I liked my answer enough to post it here. What are yours?
I'm liking Global Voices. To quote from their site, they are "a community of more than 300 bloggers and translators around the world who work together to bring you reports from blogs and citizen media everywhere, with emphasis on voices that are not ordinarily heard in international mainstream media.....Our international team of volunteer authors and part-time editors are active participants in the blogospheres they write about on Global Voices.....
Global Voices is translated into more than 30 languages by volunteer translators, who have formed the Lingua
project. ...We also have an outreach project called Rising Voices to help marginalized communities use citizen media to be heard, with an emphasis on the developing world."
http://www.globalvoices.org
And, on a lighter note, the Harry Potter Alliance, working online to turn the energy of Harry Potter fans into fundraising for a multitude of good causes.
"Just as Dumbledore's Army wakes the world up to Voldemort's return, works for equal rights of house elves and werewolves, and empowers its members, we:Work with partner NGOs in alerting the world to the dangers of global warming, poverty, and genocide. Work with our partners for equal rights regardless of race, gender, and sexuality. Encourage our members to hone the magic of their creativity in endeavoring to make the world a better place. Join our army to make the world a safer, more magical place, and let your voice be heard!" They're currently raising money and getting books donated for, among other causes, building a library in Brooklyn.
http://thehpalliance.org/
I'm liking Global Voices. To quote from their site, they are "a community of more than 300 bloggers and translators around the world who work together to bring you reports from blogs and citizen media everywhere, with emphasis on voices that are not ordinarily heard in international mainstream media.....Our international team of volunteer authors and part-time editors are active participants in the blogospheres they write about on Global Voices.....Global Voices is translated into more than 30 languages by volunteer translators, who have formed the Lingua
project. ...We also have an outreach project called Rising Voices to help marginalized communities use citizen media to be heard, with an emphasis on the developing world."
http://www.globalvoices.org
And, on a lighter note, the Harry Potter Alliance, working online to turn the energy of Harry Potter fans into fundraising for a multitude of good causes.
"Just as Dumbledore's Army wakes the world up to Voldemort's return, works for equal rights of house elves and werewolves, and empowers its members, we:Work with partner NGOs in alerting the world to the dangers of global warming, poverty, and genocide. Work with our partners for equal rights regardless of race, gender, and sexuality. Encourage our members to hone the magic of their creativity in endeavoring to make the world a better place. Join our army to make the world a safer, more magical place, and let your voice be heard!" They're currently raising money and getting books donated for, among other causes, building a library in Brooklyn.
http://thehpalliance.org/
March 26, 2011
A BUTTERFLY IN FLAME by Nicholas Kilmer
Fred Taylor is a glorified gopher working for a secretive art collector, and where there are people willing to spend serious money for art, there's serious murder for Fred to solve. This time Fred is working semi-undercover for Stillton Academy, a quiet little art college in a too-quiet little North Shore town, trying to investigate the disappearance of a teacher and student. I thought I knew what Kilmer was doing on page 5--and then he turned it inside out, and inside out again, and then into origami, and... The plot is unbreakable, and Stillton Academy is peopled with a grand variety of eccentrics, from Fred's downstairs neighbor the sculptor to the famous alumnus and the egotistic and talentless emeritus professor. (The scene with the real estate agent made me laugh out loud--in the subway.) A delight to read, with a perfectly right surprise ending and, as usual, a coup for Clay's collection.Kilmer is a coup all in himself. He works the semi-cozy field--amateur detective, art background--but he writes like the cynical love child of Dashiell Hammett and Edgar Box. Annie Dillard says that if you're going to be a writer you have to love sentences. Nicholas Kilmer loves sentences. His are utterly distinctive: laconic hardboiled style and whiplash dialogue. If you're a writer or aspiring writer, you want to read this man for his style alone.
And, my, doesn't he know art. He's also a painter, a teacher, an art dealer; reading a Fred Taylor novel teaches you about art as reading a Lovejoy novel teaches you about antiques. There are seven Fred Taylor novels so far, and the best news is that the eighth, A PARADISE FOR FOOLS, comes out in September 2011.
March 2, 2011
Voices 3: RIP Peter Gomes
For forty years, Peter Gomes was the pastor of Memorial Church at Harvard, and one of its leading African-American voices. He was a man unto himself: a conservative wearer of good suits and bow ties, a New Englander through and through, the son of a cranberry-bog worker two generations removed from slavery, a Harvard professor, a Republican (until he broke party to vote for Deval Patrick), a gay man, and a deeply believing member of the Christian community. "I am not a minority of any sort. I am a son of God." For forty years that lovely, rounded bass voice tucked it gently to the Harvard community and the wider world.
I loved not only the man, but that particular voice. Everyone else did too, and I thought Law and his father would. I used Peter Gomes's verbal rhythms and his distinctive accent while I was thinking of what their voices would sound like.
Read Candace Chellew-Hodge's appreciation of him, then listen to a sermon by the man himself at the bottom of the page. It's a good long sermon. As he said, quoting from William Sloane Coffin, "Sermonettes make Christianettes."
http://tinyurl.com/49uvlf6
I loved not only the man, but that particular voice. Everyone else did too, and I thought Law and his father would. I used Peter Gomes's verbal rhythms and his distinctive accent while I was thinking of what their voices would sound like. Read Candace Chellew-Hodge's appreciation of him, then listen to a sermon by the man himself at the bottom of the page. It's a good long sermon. As he said, quoting from William Sloane Coffin, "Sermonettes make Christianettes."
http://tinyurl.com/49uvlf6
February 18, 2011
THE OTHER SIDE OF DARK has been nominated for an Agatha!
The Agathas, the "people's choice" awards, in mystery fiction, named after Agatha Christie, recognize the best traditional mysteries published in the last year--and, gosh, The Other Side of Dark has been nominated!
Thanks to all the members of Malice Domestic who nominated The Other Side of Dark!
It's a wonderful list of nominees and I'm looking forward to meeting them all at Malice this year. See you there!
Congratulations to all the nominees!
http://www.malicedomestic.org/agathaawards.html
Thanks to all the members of Malice Domestic who nominated The Other Side of Dark!
It's a wonderful list of nominees and I'm looking forward to meeting them all at Malice this year. See you there!
Congratulations to all the nominees!
http://www.malicedomestic.org/agathaawards.html
February 2, 2011
Hunting for information for the Titanic book, I've just d...
Hunting for information for the Titanic book, I've just discovered the wonderful blog Harlem + Bespoke, a historical/cultural blog for Harlem and the Morningside Heights area. Good stuff!
http://harlembespoke.blogspot.com/
http://harlembespoke.blogspot.com/
December 31, 2010
Review: THE WIZARD HEIR
The Wizard Heir by Cinda Williams ChimaMy rating: 5 of 5 stars
Think a darker, more mature Harry Potter, with a hero, Seph, who's not quite sure whether he's Harry or Draco Malfoy. He's a spoiled rich orphan who's managed to get himself expelled from every school he's ever been in. (We're talking major property damage here.) In desperation his guardian sends him to a new school, the Havens...which is SO not Hogwarts. But is the headmaster a good guy, or an evil wizard? And is the army he's raising meant to save the world, or destroy it?
Cinda Chima's world is well worked out, with a multiplicity of magic talents who have to work together to defeat enemies. Initially I found Seph an unattractive hero--he starts out a complete spoiled brat--but once he realizes the stakes and gets some friends, you can't stop reading.
And Chima completely surprised me with the identity of the Dragon.
This is the second book in a trilogy; the first is THE WARRIOR HEIR, the third, THE DRAGON HEIR.
View all my reviews
