|
So Solnes and I were talking today and we decided that Shakespear would be a gamer if he were alive. I mean consider what he wrote about; magic, monsters, heroes, villians, adventure, betrayal, revenge, etc. Shakespear would have been the ultimate gamer if he were alive today. In fact, odds are that he would be writing for Paizo.
Oh, so you're moving it over here, eh? Well, probably deserves it's own thread. Love that Shakespear. In his absence, his work gives great game inspiration.
This really does deserve it's own thread. It might even deserve a full fledge converting of one of Shakespear's play to use as an adventure or campaign starter.
Check out the back issues of Dungeon; there's at the very least a version of King Lear using giants.
There'd be no ents/treants if it had not been for the Scottish play.
Good memory, Eyebite. I'd forgotten about those!
There'd be no ents/treants if it had not been for the Scottish play.
Yep. When Tolkien first read Macbe... the Scottish Play... he was majorly let down that Birnam Wood didn't actually come to attack Dunsinane, so he decided to re-write the scene at some point. Thus, the ent's march on Isengard was born. I'm less certain about the connection, but there is an awful lot of similarity between the prophecy about Macduff's birth and Eowyn's cryptically-prophecied battle with the Witch King of Angmar, too.
I just got done with a course on late Shakespearian tragedies (King Lear, Hamlet, Othello, and Macbeth ), and I'm just itching to put some Elizabethan/Jacobian goodness in my games now!
All the world's a gaming table, and we are only player characters.
Right now I'm leaning toward The Tempest.
|
Got it.
There is something rotten in the state of Denmark
The PC's (The Prince, Laertes, Ophelia, Horatio, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) must defeat the 'usurper' and new King of Denmark, Claudius and retake the throne. Court Intrigue, Romance, Sneaking around, Poisoning, Bardoltry, Gravedigging and swordfights..
It's got it all really.
There'd be no ents/treants if it had not been for the Scottish play.Yep. When Tolkien first read Macbe... the Scottish Play... he was majorly let down that Birnam Wood didn't actually come to attack Dunsinane, so he decided to re-write the scene at some point. Thus, the ent's march on Isengard was born. I'm less certain about the connection, but there is an awful lot of similarity between the prophecy about Macduff's birth and Eowyn's cryptically-prophecied battle with the Witch King of Angmar, too.
I just got done with a course on late Shakespearian tragedies (King Lear, Hamlet, Othello, and M------- ), and I'm just itching to put some Elizabethan/Jacobian goodness in my games now!
All the world's a gaming table, and we are only player characters.
I'm glad to hear you say that. That was my reaction too, but I never saw anyone else make that connection.
Right now I'm leaning toward The Tempest.
Prospero would make an interesting, meddlesome NPC wizard who task-masters the party (a la Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser) with all kinds of annoying and troublesome quests.
Yep. When Tolkien first read Macbe... the Scottish Play... he was majorly let down that Birnam Wood didn't actually come to attack Dunsinane, so he decided to re-write the scene at some point. Thus, the ent's march on Isengard was born. I'm less certain about the connection, but there is an awful lot of similarity between the prophecy about Macduff's birth and Eowyn's cryptically-prophecied battle with the Witch King of Angmar, too.
Yes, excellent. I am a Shakespeare junkie and I love Tolkien. I love it.
[lit lesson]
I don't think there's any question about those connections either, they certainly came up in my lit classes and I'm sure they come up in everyone else's one way or another.
Also take A Midsummer Night's Dream and tell me that its fantasy elements aren't common in later literature. Enter a parallel world to work out the main conflict anyone? So many threads going back to the bard.
Now the interesting thing is that most of these elements, that Shakespeare used, were actually conventions of the time. Shakespeare drew heavily on the plays, folklore and history of his time. The guy obviously read ravenously. For one example, the man of woman born appears in literary sources that were extant at the time, although i don't have the details handy here. I'm not sure about the forest...
As a sidenote: these particular devices that you mentioned are sometimes called quibbles and are especially common in wish fulfillment (or unfulfillment as it more often happens) and in prophesying.
But more importantly, the wide variety of literary devices we get from the bard, coming from all over the place, were woven together so artfully, and the art has been so accessible to so many people for so long that it is, I think, one of the greatest injections into human imagining of all time. If it hadn't been for him, a lot of this material, devices, plot elements, and so on, would not have entered the mainstream culture and literature.[/lit lesson]
Quibbles: VERY important for running Legacy of Fire, says I.
|
|
It's Shakespeare. ;)
Now I've got to think of which Shakespearian play is best for gaming in!
Warning: History Nerd Content Ahead
In the 16th and 17th century when Shakespeare was writing, there was no standardized spelling for the English language. In fact Will himself spelled his last name at least three different ways during his lifetime. Only in the 18th century did standardized spelling become established. Therefore, at least in the academic community, there are several accepted spellings of Shakespeare's name. Of course the way I spelled it in the thread title is not one of them, but it was late at night when I posted, so I should get a pass.
Oh jeez, how did I overlook that line in Uzzy's post?! I subtract geek pts from myself.
I purposefully spelled his name Shakespear, just b/c I like it that way. David, don't every surviving example of Will's signature have a different spelling?
This really does deserve it's own thread. It might even deserve a full fledge converting of one of Shakespear's play to use as an adventure or campaign starter.
I once wrote a pirate adventure based on King Lear.
Wiggum/Polonius: "Daddy's got a... big boy job for you, Laertes. Do you know what 'avenging' is?"
Ralph/Laertes: "I'm good at revenging!"
It's Shakespeare. ;)
Now I've got to think of which Shakespearian play is best for gaming in!
Warning: History Nerd Content Ahead
In the 16th and 17th century when Shakespeare was writing, there was no standardized spelling for the English language. In fact Will himself spelled his last name at least three different ways during his lifetime. Only in the 18th century did standardized spelling become established. Therefore, at least in the academic community, there are several accepted spellings of Shakespeare's name. Of course the way I spelled it in the thread title is not one of them, but it was late at night when I posted, so I should get a pass.
Quite correct. Although individual writers did by and large spell words the same way from one time to another, especially their own names. Furthermore, among the literati it was becoming fashionable to introduce some standardization - because they could read and it made sense to do so.
The inability of Shakespeare to spell his own name is prominent among a bunch of other "facts" about his life that are quite problematic for those who argue that the man from Avon really did write all those plays.
stuff about Shakespeare
I'm with Mark Twain on this one, David.
I would also suggest you read a biography of Edward de Vere. It's quite enjoyable.
Oh no. A wall-eyed Oxonian.
Not at all.
Notice I just suggested he read the biography...
Whew.
;)
I do understand that if you've been brought up to believe that an unlettered villager wrote the greatest works of the English language that there is no medicine for your foolish superstition. So I'll be civil and won't kick you around for your ignorance.
Ugh.
Perhaps an analysis of the literary and historical methodologies used to declare the illiterate to be the author would help you overcome your superstitions.
Just a suggestion.
While I find your neo-spelling standards a tad stifling, Uzzy, I embrace your anti-anti-Stratfordian ideology. Amazing what a classical education could do for young men back in the day, even if it stopped at age 14.
I guess being right-thinking about Good King Richard has the paradoxical side-effect of being right-thinking about the Bard. :D
|
In my own case, considering that we have pretty much no leads on who to actually attribute the works that are up in the air to, I will happily continue believing that Shakespeare wrote the works we attribute to him. If someone ever actually can give me a name, a person to attach the works to, then I'll reconsider then.
For 150 years, no one had a reason to wonder...
Although the the quote wasn't about gaming, I always like this little Shakspeare quip:
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts ...
The PC's (The Prince, Laertes, Ophelia, Horatio, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) must defeat the 'usurper' and new King of Denmark, Claudius and retake the throne.
But how to make Laertes and Hamlet off each other?
Oh! I know what happened! Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's players bad-mouthed Hamlet's player, who was a friend of the DM. So he booted them and came up with a vindictive off-screen death scene explanation for them leaving the campaign! Maybe Ophelia's player was the girlfriend of one of them, so she quit in a huffy a few sessions later by offing herself. Then, with the campaign falling apart around them, Hamlet and Laertes just decided to duel to the death and start a new campaign, maybe the Scottish AP!
Does anyone else think of Horatio as a cleric?
Now the interesting thing is that most of these elements, that Shakespeare used, were actually conventions of the time. Shakespeare drew heavily on the plays, folklore and history of his time. The guy obviously read ravenously.
Absolutely. Whether or not he ventured as far as Italy and other countries for some of his obvious reading education (as attested in his numerous allusions, if nothing else) is somewhat debatable, since he did have a friend who was a bookseller. I've heard some critiques of Will on the basis of him not writing the plays, but it was the Renaissance, baby! It's not about complete originality, it's about taking classical tropes, which are inherently better than new creations because they're classical, and doing something with them! As part of the northern Renaissance, it wasn't quite as limited to Greek and Roman work (Hamlet traces back to an actual story from Denmark, and King Lear was a folk tale known as least since Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote it down in his Historium, just as a few examples), but there is absolutely a heavy influence there.
Really, he is just like a DM. He read a ton of stuff from all over the place, looked around at modern culture, took life experiences, and borrowed from all of them to roll together a narrative story which people played out. Awesome.
In the 16th and 17th century when Shakespeare was writing, there was no standardized spelling for the English language. In fact Will himself spelled his last name at least three different ways during his lifetime. Only in the 18th century did standardized spelling become established.
Yes, although, as Kruelaid points out, there was a great deal of standardization already at work when compared to earlier periods. Compare the original Middle English texts of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight to Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, and the difference is amazing. Sir Gawain can hardly be read in its original format without some substantive training in Middle English, while Chaucer is more or less intelligible to a modern reader fluent in English. Middle English was broken into an array of dialects, while in Shakespeare's time, there was basically one English language again which lacked the level of standardization we have today.
The inability of Shakespeare to spell his own name is prominent among a bunch of other "facts" about his life that are quite problematic for those who argue that the man from Avon really did write all those plays.
It doesn't bother me all that much. Shakespear liked to play with conventions and the people reading/viewing his work. If you haven't already, check out Coleridge's theory on "the motive hunting of motiveless malignity" for Iago. Also, his sonnets are pretty clear evidence that he liked messing with the rules, and with people. I take his alternately-spelled surname as another case of this.
Uzzy, I embrace your anti-anti-Stratfordian ideology.
As do I.
Guys, be careful. This thread might just give me an English-gasim. It doesn't help that I get a certain narcissitic glee out of talking about Shakespeare because he and I share the same first name. :)
|
|
As an aside, what copy of the Complete Works does everyone have? (If they have one!) I've got a really beautiful copy, the Royal Shakespeare Company one. Pretty huge doorstop, but well worth the extra cash.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
It's Shakespeare. ;)
First thing I picked up on... I was interested that it took a while for anyone to pick up on it. :)
Now I've got to think of which Shakespearian play is best for gaming in!
Right now I'm leaning toward The Tempest.
I am almost positive that I have seen a reinterpretation of The Tempest as a D&D Adventure in one of the earlier Dungeon Magazines. Not sure which one 'cause they're all in storage. :(
The Tempest is one of my favourites (although it has been close to 15 years since I've read it).
As an aside, what copy of the Complete Works does everyone have?
Mine is just a cheap copy unfortunately (and it's in the garage atm with the rest of my books, so I can't even go and check).
|
|
Oh jeez, how did I overlook that line in Uzzy's post?! I subtract geek pts from myself.
I purposefully spelled his name Shakespear, just b/c I like it that way. David, don't every surviving example of Will's signature have a different spelling?
That is true. In fact He was baptised William Shakspere, so I would propose that this is the most legitimate way of spelling his name. Other times he would place a hyphen between Shake and spear.
As far as the Strafordian/anti-Stratfordian debate, I have always found it funny that the only documents that tend to be called it to question are Will's plays. Very few people have questioned if he was the author of the sonnets or the poetry that have Will's name on them. More to the point to say he was illiterate simply because he did not have a university education is to impune some of the greatest authors of history.
As an aside, what copy of the Complete Works does everyone have? (If they have one!) I've got a really beautiful copy, the Royal Shakespeare Company one. Pretty huge doorstop, but well worth the extra cash.
I have The Oxford Shakespeare Complete Works on the shelf I got at a local used bookstore. I have to admit I have a fondness for the paperback one-shots you got in high school. The complete works is an intimidating tome!
I do understand that if you've been brought up to believe that an unlettered villager wrote the greatest works of the English language that there is no medicine for your foolish superstition. So I'll be civil and won't kick you around for your ignorance.
Are you kidding? Do you have any idea how intensive education was in those days? Do you have any idea how much classical literature a 14 year old schoolboy (age at which Shakespeare stopped formal education) in those days had? And had committed to memory?
Anyone interested in this thread who hasn't seen it, check this out
http://www.pbs.org/shakespeare/theshow/
Highest possible recommendation: Michael Wood really does a bang-up job, and his enthusiasm for Shakespeare's life and work are quite infectious.
Are you kidding? Do you have any idea how intensive education was in those days? Do you have any idea how much classical literature a 14 year old schoolboy (age at which Shakespeare stopped formal education) in those days had? And had committed to memory?
Indeed. The Protestant Reformation created a need for the common people to be able to read so that they could read the Bible. Therefore, even people of Shakespear's non-aristocratic class went to grammar school, pouring over classical works such as Homer and Ovid. When Shakespear went to London, he was resented by the body of university-educated playwrights because Shakespear himself lacked that education, but he was well educated in his native English.
I do understand that if you've been brought up to believe that an unlettered villager wrote the greatest works of the English language that there is no medicine for your foolish superstition. So I'll be civil and won't kick you around for your ignorance.Are you kidding? Do you have any idea how intensive education was in those days? Do you have any idea how much classical literature a 14 year old schoolboy (age at which Shakespeare stopped formal education) in those days had? And had committed to memory?
No I'm not kidding.
From your response I don't think you realize what's going on in Shakespeare studies these days, and you certainly have no idea what kind of education a schoolboy in a small village received much less an appreciation for the rarity of books (books that Shakespeare HAD to have read). So I'll go easy, and keep it short.
I will reply by way of a little mental model for you: Imagine that owning a book was rare. More rare than owning a horse, or a sword, or even a comfy hovel. Schools were not equipped with vast libraries of world literature so that some kid in a village could commit to memory. In such a world how could a commoner of meager means raised by illiterate parents absorb the sum total of world literature?
Imagine that owning a book was rare. More rare than owning a horse, or a sword, or even a comfy hovel. Schools were not equipped with vast libraries of world literature so that some kid in a village could commit to memory. In such a world how could a commoner of meager means raised by illiterate parents absorb the sum total of world literature?
Well, on the one hand, Shakespear didn't have to absorb the sum total of world literature. He had a wide understanding of classical and European literature, such as French, Italian, and of course, English. Owning a book was not that uncommon, nor was owning a "comfy hovel." Schools may not have been equipped with vast libraries of world literature, but they had a healthy sampling of vernacular classical works in order to teach literacy so that good little Protestant Englishmen could read the Bible. Further, Shakespear was the acquaintance of a bookseller when he moved to London (forgive me not having the name off the top of my head), which gave him access to an even wider range of reading materials than the common person.
Shakespear's family wasn't a collection of dirt farmers; his father was a middle-class, middle-income townsperson in Stratford who ascended as high as bailiff (I believe) in his life. Shakespear himself was a rather wealthy person by the end of his life, having bought a noble title and a new home in the center of Stratford. I have no trouble believing he had access to all the reading materials he would have needed to write the plays he wrote.
Unless, and this is a serious query, I'm being dense and misinterpreting the point of your posts?
PS Grammar school included Latin, so selections of classical works would have been learned in Latin.
As far as the Strafordian/anti-Stratfordian debate, I have always found it funny that the only documents that tend to be called it to question are Will's plays. Very few people have questioned if he was the author of the sonnets or the poetry that have Will's name on them. More to the point to say he was illiterate simply because he did not have a university education is to impune some of the greatest authors of history.
Come on David. I am not impuning anyone: he couldn't write his own name properly. His parents were illiterate. His daughter Judith was illiterate, and that (so you claim) from a man whose work contained totally radical ideas about the status and potential of women?
And in fact ALL of the documents are in question.
The onus is on Stratfordians to find proof that Will authored these works and that proof has not been furnished. Proof must conform to accepted historical methodologies, and as far as I can find: all of the anecdotes linking Will to the writing are not up to historical snuff.
I'm not going to sit here and argue with everyone over this. Why? Because in my experience people hold their beliefs about Will with almost the same conviction as people indoctrinated into a religion. You guys can refer me to websites and books all you want, but they're probably already on my shelf and I've webbed Will to death, and I'm just not taking any more heresay on the connection between Will and the works. I want some historical proof and I want some good historical-biogrpahical literary analysis that can back it up.
What is out there now (that still has some integrity in the Shakespeare debate community) is so full of "might", "could have", "perhaps", and "probably", that I just don't buy it.
I taught Shakespeare for 6 years and I was never able to do any academically responsible historical biographical analysis of the works, and Shakespeare is the ONLY English writer for whom I couldn't.
As far as I'm concerned, nobody can be sure who wrote this stuff.
Interestingly, there are two people that could have in my view, and one in particular whose biography would lead me to believe that he is the author, and he was forbidden by virtue of his social status from publishing anything.
Finally, I've got the writers I love most on my side. Almost every one of them has dismissed Will from Avon as the true author in their personal letters or literary analysis. You guys are wasting my (ED: your?) breath, I'm a lost cause.
|
I will reply by way of a little mental model for you: Imagine that owning a book was rare. More rare than owning a horse, or a sword, or even a comfy hovel. Schools were not equipped with vast libraries of world literature so that some kid in a village could commit to memory. In such a world how could a commoner of meager means raised by illiterate parents absorb the sum total of world literature?
Playwrights had patrons, and patrons had books. But playwrights/actors also had hearsay and first person accounts. They had ears to listen to people talking to each other on the streets. The place where Shakespeare (the Shakespeare who was an actor, manager and business owner) lived in London meant he had access to people from all over Europe, not just native Londoners. You wouldn't have to leave London to hear Italian or French; some people are naturally gifted at picking up new language. Whoever wrote the Shakespeare plays did not NEED to "absorb the sum total of world literature." Shake-anonymous just had to have a great ear. Which he did, whoever he was.
Zeugma, you have an overly optimistic estimation of the learning of Will's fellow actors. Perhaps, and I'm just theorizing here, this is because today actors enjoy higher social status than chimney sweeps.